ninth-report.pdf

Independent Monitoring Team Ninth Status Report of the Independent Monitor Delphine Allen, et al., v. City of Oakland, et al. May 13, 2006, to November 30, 2006 Page 31 We were unable to determine whether OPD’s investigative steps were adequate in the remaining three cases based on available documentation. We have requested additional information and will make a compliance assessment upon reviewing it. During the upcoming reporting periods, the IMT will determine whether OPD’s actual practices fully comply with this Settlement Agreement provision. 8. Classifications of Citizen Complaints (Task 8; S.A. III.H.) a. Settlement Agreement Requirements • By June 15, 2004, OPD must, based on contemporary police standards and best practices, develop a policy establishing a classification system for citizen complaints. The Settlement Agreement calls for complaints to be divided into two categories (Class I and Class II) according to the severity of the offense. • By October 1, 2004, OPD must implement this classification system. b. Status of Compliance and Assessment The implementation deadline for this task occurred in October 2004. During the last two reporting periods, OPD completed the policies that comply with this Settlement Agreement task and trained its personnel on the policies. The polices are General Order M-3, Complaints Against Departmental Personnel or Procedures, and Training Bulletin V-T.1, Internal Investigation Procedure Manual. This task was modified by stipulation in December 2005, to permit supervisors discovering Class II violations during the normal course of supervision (i.e. not as the result of a citizen complaint) to address the misconduct through non-disciplinary corrective action, provided there is no pattern of misconduct. During this reporting period, the IMT audited OPD’s actual practice compliance with this task. Based on our review of cases from the last three months, OPD is in compliance Task 8.1 which requires OPD to classify all misconduct allegations as Class I or Class II offenses. Until very recently, OPD was not in compliance with this task. Through the publication of M-3, OPD is also in compliance with Tasks 8.2. 8.3. 8.6, and 8.7, which define Class I and Class II offenses and how they may be handled. OPD is close to compliance with the requirement that Class I allegations of misconduct be investigated by IAD unless otherwise directed by the Chief. Seventy-nine percent of the cases we reviewed were properly assigned. The Department is not yet in compliance with this task’s requirements regarding the recording of interviews. Interviews were properly recorded in 91% of the applicable cases in our review.