Twelfth 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 03821-0396January 30, 2013
Case3:00-cv-04599-TEH Document905 Filed01/30/13 Page1 of 85
Twelfth Quarterly Report of the Independent Monitor for the Oakland Police DepartmentJanuary 30, 2013Page 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 26Task 16: Supporting IAD Process - Supervisor/Managerial Accountability 28Task 18: Approval of Field-Arrest by Supervisor 30Task 20: Span of Control for Supervisors 32Task 24: Use of Force Reporting Policy 35Task 25: Use of Force Investigations and Report Responsibility 39Task 26: Force Review Board (FRB) 44Task 30: Executive Force Review Board (EFRB) 47Task 33: Reporting Misconduct 50Task 34: Vehicle Stops, Field Investigation, and Detentions 52Task 35: Use of Force Reports - Witness Identification 56Task 37: Internal Investigations - Retaliation Against Witnesses 58Task 40: Personnel Assessment System (PAS) – Purpose 59Task 41: Use of Personnel Assessment System (PAS) 62Task 42: Field Training Program 69Task 43: Academy and In-Service Training 75Task 45: Consistency of Discipline Policy 78
Section Three
Conclusion: Critical Issues
81
Appendices
A: Cumulative Key Indicator Data
83
B: Acronyms
84
Case3:00-cv-04599-TEH Document905 Filed01/30/13 Page2 of 85
Twelfth Quarterly Report of the Independent Monitor for the Oakland Police DepartmentJanuary 30, 2013Page 2
Section One
Introduction
This is the twelfth 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 StatesDistrict Court for 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 OaklandPolice Department (OPD). In this capacity, I oversee the monitoring process that began in 2003under the previous monitor, and produced 14 status reports. The current Monitoring Teamconducted our twelfth quarterly site visit from November 12, through 16, 2012, to evaluate theDepartment’s progress with the NSA during the three-month period of July 1, through September 30, 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 policycompliance, with all 22 of the remaining active Tasks. With regard to Phase 2, or fullcompliance, we find that OPD is “in compliance” with 11 of the 22 remaining Tasks; in “partialcompliance” with eight Tasks; and “not in compliance” with three Tasks. This reflects a changefrom in compliance to not in compliance with two Tasks (Task 16, Supporting IAD Process -Supervisor/Managerial Accountability; and Task 33, Reporting Misconduct). During the lastreporting period, we deferred assessments of two Tasks (Task 2, Timeliness Standards andCompliance with IAD Investigations; and Task 42, Field Training Program); during thisreporting period, we found Task 2 to be not in compliance, and Task 42 in compliance. Inaddition, one Task (Task 41, Use of PAS) moved from not in compliance to partial compliance.This reports marks the second consecutive quarter of overall decline in the Department’scompliance with the agreed-upon Tasks of the Negotiated Settlement Agreement. The shift fromstagnation to decline should be as unacceptable to all Parties, as it is to us. My hope would bethat marking this backwards turn would become an opportunity for the Department to more fullyassess its status regarding the NSA and to renew its original commitment, now a decade old, toeffective and constitutional policing. One thing should be clear from the long history of thisAgreement: stagnation – and, now, decline – will not diminish the Court’s expectation, or the
Case3:00-cv-04599-TEH Document905 Filed01/30/13 Page3 of 85
Search History:
Result 00 of 00
00 results for result for
p.
12th Quarterly Report for Oakland NSA
This is the 12th quarterly report published by the Independent Monitor overseeing the court reforms of the Oakland Police Department
3.0K
Reads
0
Readcasts
6.1K
Embed Views
Recommended
More From This User
Notes
Load more
