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 73 Task 42.2 requires OPD to rotate trainee officers to a new Field Training Officer (FTO) at predetermined intervals and to new geographic areas of the City. It also requires that prior to rotation, trainee officers are interviewed and given an opportunity to raise any questions or concerns they may have about the quality of training received. OPD remains in compliance with these requirements. All trainees evaluated were rotated to new FTOs at the required intervals and to new geographic areas of the City. They were also interviewed prior to their rotations. OPD also remains in compliance with Task 42.3 by continuing to offer increased incentives to officers who serve as FTOs. These incentives include a paid day off every six months, an “FTO of the Year” award, and priority selection for participating in Academy instruction. These incentives are in addition to the 5% salary increase and special insignia that are provided to FTOs. Task 42.4 establishes minimum requirements for nominating and certifying FTOs. OPD has attained compliance with all of the nomination and qualification requirements except the requirement that it bar from selection for two years candidates with an excessive number of citizen complaints, sustained investigations, or excessive numbers of use of force incidents. OPD did not evaluate the actual complaints or investigative summaries or files for candidates with sustained cases. Similarly, OPD did not evaluate the actual use of force reports or any other substantive information regarding candidates’ use of force histories. Absent such an examination, it is impossible to discern whether a candidate should be disqualified for having an “excessive number” of complaints or use of force incidents. Moreover, when we cross-referenced the complaint data contained in the FTO files with a query of the complaint data maintained by IAD, we found that the FTO files often contained inaccurate and/or incomplete information regarding candidates’ complaint histories. Frequently, the FTO files failed to list candidates’ complete complaint history for the relevant time period. Because OPD is not yet analyzing complaint or use of force data to determine whether candidates have an excessive number of complaints, OPD remains out of compliance with this important provision of Task 42.4. Task 42.5 requires that removal from the FTO program be the presumptive result of a sustained allegation of excessive force; unlawful arrest; false testimony; racial, ethnic, sexual-orientation, or gender-based discrimination or slurs; or other serious examples of police misconduct. During this review period, two FTOs had Class I allegations sustained. OPD is not in compliance with this requirement because removal of the FTO was not the presumptive result in one of the two cases. The Field Training Unit did not realize that the officer had been sustained for a Class I offense (an unlawful entry of a residence) because the case did not list the offense category. As a result, no one reviewed the case or a summary of the case to discern the nature of the sustained violation. Consequently, OPD did not decertify the FTO or otherwise explain why decertification was inappropriate.