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 62 complete stop data forms unless they were making a self-initiated stop. 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 the last reporting period, the IMT audited OPD’s actual practice compliance with this task. The IMT found that, although OPD has made tremendous progress in this area, it was not in actual practice compliance with the requirement that officers complete a stop data form for at least 95% of field stops, field investigations, and detentions, as required by the Settlement Agreement. A complete summary of our audit can be found in our eighth status report. OPD, aware of problems with its SDF data entry and analysis, contracted with a third-party vendor to input SDF information into an appropriate database. We have encouraged OPD to ensure that this information is accurately and completely entered for all SDFs in a manner that permits the IMT and OPD to assess compliance with the Settlement Agreement and OPD policies. Based on our review of internal investigations this reporting period, we have continuing concerns regarding whether forms are being completed for all required stops and about the manner in which the stop data forms are being maintained. We reviewed a number of investigations regarding stops and detentions that should have had stop data forms completed but investigators rarely if ever were able to locate the forms, citing in one instance unavailability because the forms were in the possession of the vendor. In our last audit, the IMT found OPD in conditional compliance with the requirement that stop data forms be completed fully and accurately. We identified ambiguities in the SDFs that were likely the cause of substantial confusion among OPD officers about how to accurately complete them. We informed OPD of the deficiencies in the current SDF form and notified it that we will not employ these conditional criteria during our next review and instead expect that by that time OPD will have corrected the SDF and trained its officers on its proper completion. During this reporting period, OPD drafted new stop data forms. It remains to be seen whether these forms will decrease confusion because OPD has opted to create two new forms, containing somewhat different fields. The Department intends for one form to be used for those stops that result in a citation and for another form to be used for stops not involving citations. As of the date of this report, however, the new forms are not yet being used in the field. During this reporting period, OPD started rolling out field based computerized reporting. Unfortunately, it did not include the stop data forms among the computerized forms which officers can complete electronically from their vehicles. We recommend that OPD add stop data forms to the list of forms as soon as possible. As we previously reported, it is unfortunate that, despite officers’ efforts, because OPD did not collect and enter this data adequately, OPD is not only out of compliance with this task, but, more importantly, cannot effectively use the information to analyze, and perhaps improve, the efficiency and effectiveness of detentions and searches by OPD