combined-10th-11th-report.pdf

Negotiated Settlement Agreement, Combined Tenth and Eleventh Semi-Annual Report December 2008 ¢ “By August 13, 2004, the IAD procedural manual must address: assignment and rotation of officers; training and qualifications of members and other personnel in IAD; appropriate background checks of IAD personnel; and confidentiality of IAD information.” Status: In Policy and Training Compliance Deliverables © Departmental General Order M-4, Coordination of Criminal Investigations e Internal Affairs Division Policy and Procedures Manual e Internal Affairs Division Policy and Procedure 07-06, IAD Call-Out Procedures Implementation Activities Departmental General Order M-4, Coordination of Criminal Investigations, had been revised to clarify procedures. The policy, revised and renamed M-4.1, was published on April 21, 2006. IMT Audit Summary During this reporting period, the IMT conducted an audit of actual practice compliance with this task. While the IMT did not find OPD in compliance with Task 29, they did find that OPD’s handling of criminal misconduct allegations is vastly improving and continuing to evolve. Task 29.1 requires that OPD coordinate its administrative investigation of members/employees with the Alameda County District Attorney’s Office, or relevant criminal investigators, if a criminal proceeding is potentially viable. Compliance requires that IAD coordinate with the criminal investigation, including the Alameda County District Attorney if applicable. The IMT found that such coordination has improved tremendously over what was previously observed, but the system in place is still somewhat haphazard and inconsistent. Although there have been problems in coordinating criminal administrative interviews of those member/employees who are the subjects of criminal misconduct investigations, there are no written protocols regarding this area. There also appears to be a difference in understandings of how such coordination between the Criminal Investigations Division (CID) and IAD should occur. OPD is currently in the process of ensuring future misunderstandings do not occur between the two divisions and that the investigations are conducted in an efficient manner. Task 29.2 requires that when OPD initiates an interview or interrogation of OPD personnel and it appears that the subject may be charged with a crime, or he or she asserts their Fifth Amendment rights on grounds that the answers to questions posed many incriminating, such interrogations must be preceded by a Lybarger warning. A Lybarger warning, named after the 1985 case, Lybarger v. Los Angeles 40 Cal. 3d 822, requires that the subject officer in a criminal investigation be ordered to provide an administrative statement; told that he or she may be disciplined if they refuse to do so; and be advised that the statement will not be used against them in any criminal proceeding. Of the 12 cases the IMT reviewed, seven required Lybarger warnings. For the most part, OPD provided proper warnings to personnel suspected of criminal misconduct, but in two of the seven instances in which OPD should have “Lybargered” personnel prior to the interview, it did not occur, causing OPD to be out of compliance with this task. 59