combined-10th-11th-report.pdf

Negotiated Settlement Agreement, Combined Tenth and Eleventh Semi-Annual Report December 2008 assigned either an intake number or an IAD case number, has been credited by the IMT as being a focal point of the improvements made to the IAD’s Complaint Control System. With only minor adjustments needed for the case tracking system, the Department is well on its way to compliance with Task 4. Receiving and Processing Complaints Audit In May of 2007, OIG initiated a review to determine OPD compliance with Tasks 5, 8, and 9. Task 5, Receiving and Processing Complaints, requires that OPD conduct a complete and thorough investigation to allow for a supportable and reasoned finding. Task 8, Classification of Citizen Complaints, requires that OPD classify complaints to distinguish between the most serious and less serious violations. Task 9, Contact of Citizen Complainant, requires that, after receiving a complaint, OPD investigators contact complainants as soon as possible. The OIG review of Tasks 5, 8 and 9 specifically examined Tasks 5.15, 5.16, 5.18, 5.19, 5.21; 8.1, 8.5, 8.8, 8.9; and 9.1. OIG found OPD in compliance with seven of the ten requirements assessed during review: 1. Each allegation in a complaint is resolved by making one of the following dispositions: Unfounded, Sustained, Exonerated, Not Sustained, or Filed. 2. Every member or employee who is the subject of an internal investigation is interviewed —as well as any other member or employee on the scene of an incident at which misconduct has been alleged by a complainant. Misconduct complaints are categorized according to “Class I” or “Class II” offenses; Statements and interviews in “Class I” investigations are tape-recorded. Statements and interviews from OPD personnel in “Class II” investigations are tape- recorded. 6. To determine the nature, scope and severity of the complaint, as well as to identify potential witnesses and/or evidence, citizen complainants are contacted as soon as possible by IAD or the assigned investigator. 7, When an assigned investigator encounters a “Class I” violation during a “Class II,” division-level investigation, he/she shall contact the [AD Commander. (There were no applicable cases for this requirement.) were Although the review indicated that OPD greatly improved in executing the directives in the Agreement, the Department has not yet achieved full compliance with Task 5. To be in full compliance, the Department must continue to do well in the areas mentioned above and improve in the following areas: 8. Gathering and documenting all relevant evidence, including circumstantial, direct, and physical evidence, and make credibility determinations, if feasible. 9. Resolving any inconsistent statements among witnesses, by reference to physical evidence, and/or use of follow-up interviews and or other objective indicators. 10. Providing documented analysis of evidence supporting a finding for each allegation in a complaint investigation, ensuring that the “preponderance of the evidence” standard is met. OIG’s review did not assess all requirements of Task 8; however, based on OIG’s review and the IMT’s Fall 2006 Review, all but one of the Task 8 requirements appeared to be in compliance. OIG found the Department in compliance with Tasks 8.1, 8.5 and 8.8, and found no applicable 25