Fiscal Year 2013-2015 Special Budget Meeting

Case3:00-cv-04599-TEH Document930 Filed05/01/13 Pagel2of59 In nine cases, investigators conducted follow-up interviews with officers or civilians to seek clarification. However, in three cases, we believe that additional interviews should have been conducted. In one, a union steward alleged that a supervisor interfered with an internal investigation. The investigator noted that the complainant, who is also an OPD employee, "...refused multiple requests to be interviewed by IAD or answer follow up questions." We noted a similar case during our last review process. IAD can - and should - compel employees to cooperate with an investigation, particularly employees who initiate the complaint process. In another case, a use of force allegation stemming from an Occupy Oakland protest, discrepancies between a sergeant's and an officer's statements regarding the actions of a complainant and the level of force used should have been explored in subsequent interviews. In the third case - a complaint of demeanor during a motor vehicle accident investigation - the complainant provided the names of two potential witnesses. These witnesses were not contacted before IAD reached a determination regarding the allegation. Consequently, we also determined that, in these latter two cases, inconsistent statements went unresolved. In three cases, credibility assessments were problematic. In one, an Occupy Oakland case that was investigated by an outside contractor, credibility assessments simply were not completed.In another investigation involving an allegation of excessive force stemming from an Occupy Oakland protest, the Chief appropriately changed a not sustained finding to sustained, based on the officer's history and the fact that he appeared to intentionally turn his PDRD off several times during the incident. While the Department ultimately came to the correct conclusion, the officer's credibility should have also been questioned based on the evidence at hand. In another case, an investigator concluded that an officer became "obviously upset and appeared to take on a defeatist attitude; he was admitting to things that did not happen." We have repeatedly cautioned IAD about including such speculative comments in investigative summaries. However, if IAD elects to include statements like this, investigators cannot later deem the officer credible without any notation of this previous conclusion. " When we inquired regarding the lack of credibility assessments in this case, tAD advised that it also noted that the assessments were missing, and provided an updated investigation. IAD sent a two-page memo containing credibility assessments to the Chief on November 8, 2012. 12