Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
OPD Independent Monitor, 2010 4th Quarterly Report

OPD Independent Monitor, 2010 4th Quarterly Report

Ratings: (0)|Views: 110 |Likes:
Published by ali_winston

More info:

Published by: ali_winston on Jan 28, 2011
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

01/28/2011

pdf

text

original

 
 
Fourth 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 27, 2011
Case3:00-cv-04599-TEH Document591 Filed01/27/11 Page1 of 78
 
Fourth Quarterly Report of the Independent Monitor for the Oakland Police DepartmentJanuary 27, 2011 page 1
Table of Contents
Section One
 Introduction
2
Compliance Assessment Methodology
4
 Executive Summary
5
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 15Task 6: Refusal to Accept or Refer Citizen Complaints 25Task 7: Methods for Receiving Citizen Complaints 26Task 16: Supporting IAD Process-Supervisor/Managerial Accountability 28Task 18: Approval of Field-Arrest by Supervisor 29Task 20: Span of Control for Supervisors 31Task 24: Use of Force Reporting Policy 35Task 25: Use of Force Investigations and Report Responsibility 38Task 26: Use of Force Review Board (UFRB) 42Task 30: Firearms Discharge Board of Review 44Task 33: Reporting Misconduct 46Task 34: Vehicle Stops, Field Investigation, and Detentions 48Task 35: Use of Force Reports-Witness Identification 51Task 37: Internal Investigations-Retaliation Against Witnesses 52Task 40: Personnel Assessment System (PAS)-Purpose 54Task 41: Use of Personnel Assessment System (PAS) 59Task 42: Field Training Program 67Task 43: Academy and In-Service Training 70Task 45: Consistency of Discipline Policy 72
Section Three
 
Conclusion: Critical Issues
75
Appendix
 
 Acronyms
77
Case3:00-cv-04599-TEH Document591 Filed01/27/11 Page2 of 78
 
Fourth Quarterly Report of the Independent Monitor for the Oakland Police DepartmentJanuary 27, 2011 page 2
Section One
 Introduction
This is the fourth 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 fourthquarterly site visit from November 15, through November 19, 2010, to evaluate the Department’s progress with the NSA during the three-month period of July 1, through September 30, 2010.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 compliance with all22 of the remaining active Tasks. With regard to Phase 2, or full compliance, we find that OPDis now in compliance with 12 of the remaining 22 Tasks. While this is an increase of two fromthe third reporting period, we reported in our third quarterly report that the Department hadregressed by falling from 11 to 10 compliant requirements. The status of other requirements haschanged in this reporting period, and the bases for these are described below.We acknowledge both the possibility and, perhaps, the likelihood that the Department has, infact, advanced in its road towards compliance. We credit the Department for its earnest attemptsto move the process forward. As a result of Court-ordered technical assistance, the MonitoringTeam and representatives of the Department have met and conferred on several occasions toexplore ways to enhance the Department’s policies and procedures so that they better comportwith the trends and innovations in contemporary American policing. The Department in general – and Chief Anthony Batts, in particular – have been receptive to these dialogues; and we creditthe Chief with a new rigor and infusion of commitment to organizational change. The Court-ordered weekly reports have underscored the active engagement of the Department’s senior executives, who have consistently demonstrated their professional resolve to address theimportant issues at hand.The Plaintiffs’ attorneys, John Burris and James Chanin, have been vigorous advocates for change, and have demonstrated their willingness to explore processes and dialogues to bring thiseffort to a successful plateau.
Case3:00-cv-04599-TEH Document591 Filed01/27/11 Page3 of 78

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->