Tenth Quarterly Report
of the
Independent Monitor
for the
Oakland Police Department
Robert S. WarshawIndependent Monitor
Office of the Independent Monitor Police Performance Solutions, LLCP.O. Box 396, Dover, NH 03821-0396July 30, 2012
Case3:00-cv-04599-TEH Document706 Filed07/30/12 Page1 of 89
Tenth Quarterly Report of the Independent Monitor for the Oakland Police DepartmentJuly 30, 2012Page 1
Table of Contents
Section One
Introduction
2
Compliance Assessment Methodology
4
Executive Summary
6
Section Two
Compliance Assessments
Task 2: Timeliness Standards and Compliance with IAD Investigations
8Task 3: IAD Integrity Tests 10Task 4: Complaint Control System for IAD and Informal ComplaintResolution Process12Task 5: Complaint Procedures for IAD 16Task 6: Refusal to Accept or Refer Citizen Complaints 24Task 7: Methods for Receiving Citizen Complaints 25Task 16: Supporting IAD Process - Supervisor/Managerial Accountability 28Task 18: Approval of Field-Arrest by Supervisor 30Task 20: Span of Control for Supervisors 33Task 24: Use of Force Reporting Policy 36Task 25: Use of Force Investigations and Report Responsibility 40Task 26: Use of Force Review Board (UFRB) 45Task 30: Firearms Discharge Board of Review 48Task 33: Reporting Misconduct 50Task 34: Vehicle Stops, Field Investigation, and Detentions 53Task 35: Use of Force Reports - Witness Identification 57Task 37: Internal Investigations - Retaliation Against Witnesses 58Task 40: Personnel Assessment System (PAS) – Purpose 59Task 41: Use of Personnel Assessment System (PAS) 63Task 42: Field Training Program 70Task 43: Academy and In-Service Training 75Task 45: Consistency of Discipline Policy 78
Section Three
Conclusion: Critical Issues
81
Appendices
A: An Overview Assessment, Part I: Implications of the Independent Frazier Group Report
83
B: Cumulative Key Indicator Data
87
C: Acronyms
88
Case3:00-cv-04599-TEH Document706 Filed07/30/12 Page2 of 89
Tenth Quarterly Report of the Independent Monitor for the Oakland Police DepartmentJuly 30, 2012Page 2
Section One
Introduction
This is the tenth quarterly report of the Monitor of the Negotiated Settlement Agreement (NSA)in the case of
Delphine Allen, et al., vs. City of Oakland, et al.,
in the United States District Courtfor the Northern District of California. In January 2010, under the direction of Judge Thelton E.Henderson, the Parties agreed to my appointment as Monitor of the Oakland Police Department(OPD). In this capacity, I oversee the monitoring process that began in 2003 under the previousmonitor, and produced 14 status reports. The current Monitoring Team conducted our tenthquarterly site visit from May 14, through 18, 2012, to evaluate the Department’s progress withthe NSA during the three-month period of January 1, through March 31, 2012.In the body of this report, we again report the compliance status with the remaining active Tasksof the Agreement. By the end of the seven-year tenure of the previous monitor, the Departmentwas in full compliance with 32 of the 51 required Tasks, and in partial compliance with 16additional Tasks. As a result, the Parties agreed to reduce the number of Tasks under “active”monitoring to the current list of 22.During this reporting period, we continue to find the Department in Phase 1, or policy,compliance with all 22 of the remaining active Tasks. With regard to Phase 2, or fullcompliance, we find that OPD is in compliance with 13 of the 22 remaining Tasks; this is onemore than we found in compliance in the last three reporting periods.During this reporting period, we examined inactive Task 51, which requires that the Office of theInspector General (OIG) conduct several annual audits in various areas related to the NSA. Wereviewed the audits conducted by OIG in 2011 and thus far in 2012, and consulted with OIG personnel regarding audits that are currently in progress or planned for the remainder of 2012.Based on this information, we find the Department in compliance with this Task. However, aswe have discussed with the Department, we encourage OPD to conduct more regular mini-assessments or inspections to help determine in “real time” if the Department is in compliancewith various Tasks. We will closely monitor this effort, and continue to provide technicalassistance to the Department in this area.The site visit that led to this report occurred at a time of substantial tumult – in the midst of investigations associated with the earliest Occupy Oakland activities. Since then, the criticalresults of the external investigation have been released to the public. During the same time period, officer-involved shootings – and the Department’s response to those incidents – garneredthe attention and concern of the Monitoring Team. (See Appendix A.) The state of Oakland’sreform process – now nearly a decade old – remains very much in doubt.
Case3:00-cv-04599-TEH Document706 Filed07/30/12 Page3 of 89
Search History:
Result 00 of 00
00 results for result for
p.
Recommended
More From This User
Notes
Load more
