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 36 that the investigator was not reassigned. The place on the recusal form directing commanders to provide a reason why reassignment was or was not justified was left blank on every form that was completed. During the upcoming reporting periods, the IMT will determine whether OPD’s actual practices comply with this Settlement Agreement provision. 13. Documentation of Pitchess Responses (Task 13; S.A. III.L.) a. Settlement Agreement Requirements • By June 1, 2005, OPD must implement an additional check on Pitchess discovery motion responses. b. Status of Compliance and Assessment The compliance deadline for Task 13 occurred in June 2005. During the last two reporting periods, OPD published the policies which incorporate the requirements of Task 13 and trained its personnel on the policies. The policies are General Order M-3, Complaints Against Departmental Personnel or Procedures, and IAD P&P 05-03. During the last reporting period, the IMT conducted an actual practice audit of this task. The IMT found OPD in compliance with this task. The Department has implemented additional checks to facilitate complete and accurate responses to Pitchess discovery motions. The Oakland Police Department/City of Oakland receive, on average, 12 motions per month from criminal defense attorneys seeking pretrial discovery related to complaints against officers involved in their clients’ arrests. The overwhelming majority of these “Pitchess Motions” are filed by attorneys with the Alameda County Public Defender’s Office. Other motions are filed by private defense attorneys. The process requires that the City identify investigations of complaints related to the officers listed in the Pitchess Motion and file a response to the Pitchess Motion. This response lists the files that were reviewed and specifies those that will be produced to the court so that the court can review and determine whether they contain information that should be provided to the requesting attorney. As noted above, our review indicated that the City has implemented additional checks on the Pitchess process that have made it better able than in the past to identify and produce in court files responsive to Pitchess Motions. The City’s improved responsiveness appears due in part to the greater consistency provided by a dedicated Pitchess Officer and Pitchess Attorney. This improves communication and relationships with defense attorneys and judges. It appears also that better tracking of IAD cases generally has resulted in more complete and accurate responses. The Pitchess Officer reports that his ability to locate Internal Affairs files has improved and that IAD now has more reliable processes in place for tracking the current location of original IAD case