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 65 purges to accompany a sample of crime and arrest reports. As discussed above, 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. We have substantial concerns about the apparent lack of compliance with this task by OPD’s Crime Reduction Teams (CRTs) when conducting buy/bust narcotics and similar special operations. We have learned that when transport wagons are not available during these operations, the CRT units routinely arrest subjects and drive them to multiple locations without logging in or out on the radio. Not only does this practice violate the Settlement Agreement, it poses considerable officer and detainee safety issues, not to mention may raise serious legal questions regarding contraband and other recovered evidence. All of these concerns are heightened by the units’ frequent practice of engaging in this conduct while transporting multiple subjects in the same vehicle. According to OPD, it must engage in these practices due to resource constraints (the lack of transport vehicles and officers and sufficient bandwidth on OPD communication lines). OPD has asserted that the risks associated with the conduct of its CRT units are mitigated because the units’ supervisors work in close contact with the officers. This, however, does little to address the significant risks discussed above. OPD has recently informed us that its CRT units have started to comply with Task 36. During the upcoming reporting periods, the IMT will determine whether OPD’s actual practices comply with this Settlement Agreement provision. 5. Internal Investigations-Retaliation Against Witnesses (Task 37; S.A. VI.E.) a. Settlement Agreement Requirements • By August 25, 2003, OPD must establish a policy prohibiting retaliation against any member or employee of the Department who reports misconduct by any other member or employee, or serves as a witness in any proceeding against a member or employee. The Settlement Agreement requires that the policy acknowledge that retaliation may be informal and subtle. The Settlement Agreement further requires that dismissal be the presumptive disciplinary penalty for retaliation.