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 42 During the sixth reporting period, the IMT audited OPD’s compliance in actual practice with Task 18. Based on the documentation we were provided, OPD was not in compliance with the requirement that supervisors respond to the scene of designated arrests. We made several recommendations to help improve OPD’s compliance with Task 18, including ensuring that officers use updated consolidated arrest reports (CARS), updating the forms that it uses when arresting juveniles, and instructing officers and supervisors to always document the presence or absence of witnesses. On September 30, 2005, OIG conducted an internal audit of Task 18 that resulted in findings similar to those of the IMT. The OIG found that, although the Department still was not in compliance with Task 18, it had made significant improvements in the review and approval of field-arrests since our initial audit. During the past year, OPD has drafted new arrest reporting forms to help facilitate supervisors’ review of arrests. OPD is in the process of training officers on the new form and reports that it intends to begin using them in December 2006. During the seventh reporting period, the IMT interviewed officers on all three patrol shifts regarding their understanding of Task 18’s requirements. The IMT determined that most officers did not appear to understand OPD’s requirement to document witnesses to the arrest. The IMT urged OPD to provide refresher training in this area to better enable the Department to achieve compliance in actual practice with this Settlement Agreement task. Commendably, OPD developed a “refresher” lesson plan including instruction on the requirements of this task. OPD reports that it has provided the refresher training to over 95% of relevant personnel. During this reporting period, the IMT initiated our second audit of OPD’s actual practice compliance with this task. This audit is currently underway. We are unable to report the results of this audit in this status report due to significant delays in OPD’s production of the documentation necessary to assess compliance with this task. Notwithstanding the substantial efforts of OIG staff to compile the requested documents, OPD had an inordinately difficult time locating the basic police data requested—a sample of crime and arrest reports. This appears to be due, in part, to the continuing lack of centralized recordkeeping systems, administrative staff, and modern technology to assist OPD in collecting and managing data. In our last status report, we included as an area of concern the significant deficiencies in the Department’s collection and management of data. As we previously reported, OPD’s continuing inability to track and retrieve data efficiently severely impacts the Department’s ability to demonstrate compliance with any number of Settlement Agreement provisions in a timely or adequate fashion. Moreover, as we reported, these continuing deficiencies may impact OPD’s ability to provide the level and type of crime fighting and customer service to which it aspires. OPD has recently started including in its weekly management meetings reports on arrest approvals for selected OPD units. The IMT was encouraged to see this topic included in the meetings given the importance of ensuring that arrests made by OPD officers meet legal and policy requirements. However, based on the reports we have observed, OPD commanders may not be sufficiently addressing arrest approval lapses as they are reported. In particular, we have observed reports of arrests made that lacked the