http://www.scribd.com/fullscreen/78593838
misc debris from the OPD compliance with Federal order.
OPD stops, arrests, injures and kills must be entered in dbase.
Task 5.6
requires that an on-duty supervisor respond to take a complaint received from a jailinmate taken into custody by OPD, who wishes to make a complaint of Class I misconductcontemporaneous with the arrest of the inmate. To assess Task 5.6 during this reporting period,we reviewed all complaints that appeared to have originated from North County Jail, Santa RitaJail, or Juvenile Hall, and were approved between July 1, and September 30, 2011. Weidentified five such complaints using the IAD database. We reviewed each complaint for twotriggering events: an allegation of Class I misconduct; and the complaint lodged at the time of arrest.
Task 6
requires that OPD members and employees who refuse to accept a citizen complaint, failto refer a citizen to IAD (when the citizen can be reasonably understood to want to make acitizen’s complaint), discourage a person from filing a complaint, and/or knowingly providefalse, inaccurate, or incomplete information about IAD, are disciplined (compliance standard:95%)
Task 7: Methods for Receiving Citizen Complaints
Requirements:
On or before December 1, 2003, OPD shall develop a policy to strengthen procedures for receiving citizen complaints:
IAD or Communication Division personnel shall staff a recordable toll-freecomplaint phone line, 24-hours a day, and receive and process complaints inaccordance with the provisions of Departmental General Order M-3. Thecomplainant shall be advised that the call is being recorded when a complaint istaken by IAD.2.
Guidelines for filing a citizen’s complaint shall be prominently posted and informational brochures shall be made available in key Departmental and municipal locations.
OPD shall accept anonymous complaints. To the extent possible, OPD shall ask anonymous complainants for corroborating evidence. OPD shall investigateanonymous complaints to the extent reasonably possible to determine whether theallegation can be resolved.4.
OPD personnel shall have available complaint forms and informationalbrochures on the complaint process in their vehicles at all times while on duty. Members/employees shall distribute these complaint forms and informationalbrochures when a citizen wishes to make a complaint, or upon request.5.
IAD shall be located in a dedicated facility removed from the Police Administration Building.6.
Complaint forms and informational brochures shall be translated consistent withCity policy.7.
Complaint forms shall be processed in accordance with controlling state law.
10
Eighth Quarterly Report of the Independent Monitorfor the Oakland Police DepartmentJanuary 17, 2012Page 36
policing. The Department has advised of its intention to transfer additional sergeants to Patrol,and plans to reorganize the division to implement a team supervision model. We continue toencourage the Department to undertake the bold steps that may be required in order to meet thisrequirement.
Task 24: Use of Force Reporting Policy
Requirements:
The policy shall require that:
1.
Members/employees notify their supervisor as soon as practicable following anyinvestigated use of force or allegation of excessive use of force.
2.
In every investigated use of force incident, every member/employee using force,and every member/employee on the scene of the incident at the time the force wasused, shall report all uses of force on the appropriate form, unless otherwisedirected by the investigating supervisor.
3.
OPD personnel document, on the appropriate form, any use of force and/or thedrawing and intentional pointing of a firearm at another person.
4.
A supervisor respond to the scene upon notification of an investigated use of forceor an allegation of excessive use of force, unless community unrest or other conditions makes this impracticable.
5.
OPD notify:
a.
The Alameda County District Attorney’s Office immediately or as soon ascircumstances permit, following a use of lethal force resulting in death or injury likely to result in death.
b.
The City Attorney’s Office as soon as circumstances permit following theuse of lethal force resulting in death or serious injury. At the discretion of the City Attorney’s Office, a Deputy City Attorney shall respond to thescene. The Deputy City Attorney shall serve only in an advisory capacityand shall communicate only with the incident commander or his/her designee.
c.
Departmental investigators regarding officer-involved shootings, inaccordance with the provisions of Section V, paragraph H, of this Agreement.
6.
OPD enter data regarding use of force into OPD’s
…
Eighth Quarterly Report of the Independent Monitorfor the Oakland Police DepartmentJanuary 17, 2012Page 37
Comments:We found OPD in partial compliance with Task 24 during all of the previous reporting periods.During the last reporting period, OPD was in compliance with all of Task 24 except for therequirements that OPD personnel on the scene of the incident report all uses of force on theappropriate form, and document every use of force and/or the drawing and intentional pointingof a firearm.Discussion:As previously reported, OPD published Departmental General Order K-4,
Reporting and Investigating the Use of Force
(February 17, 2006), which incorporates the requirements of Task 24. OPD revised DGO K-4 on August 1, 2007. On April 15, 2009, OPD issued Special Order8977, amending DGO K-4. The revised policy also incorporates the requirements of Task 24.On November 23, 2010, OPD issued Special Order 9057, amending DGO K-4 to extend Level 1and Level 4 reporting timelines. As the Department has trained at least 95% of relevantpersonnel on these policies, we find OPD in continued Phase 1 compliance with this Task.During this reporting period, OPD recorded a total of 1,129 uses of force, 1,067 of which werecategorized as Level 4. The sample we requested for review (78 total) included: one Level 1; 13Level 2; nine Level 3; and 55 Level 4 reports completed between July 1, and September 30,2011.
14
Task 24.1
requires that members/employees notify their supervisor as soon as practicablefollowing any reportable use of force or allegation of excessive use of force (compliancestandard: 95%). To assess this subtask, we reviewed the UOF reports, crime reports (whenapplicable), and Computer Assisted Dispatch (CAD) purges for all of the force incidents in ourdataset. We found that the documentation for all of the incidents we reviewed was incompliance with this requirement.Level 4 uses of force are self-reporting, and consequently, less documentation is required thanfor Level 1, 2, and 3 incidents. DGO K-4, Section VI A.1., states that involved personnel shallnotify and brief their supervisors immediately or as soon as practicable. In all but seven of the78 incidents in our sample, a supervisor was promptly notified regarding the force incident. Theseven incidents included three Level 2, two Level 3, and two Level 4 investigations. Thesupervisors in these cases were not notified for periods ranging from 53 minutes to five-hours-and-15-minutes following the incident. OPD has an overall 91% compliance rate with thissubtask. OPD is not compliance with Task 24.1.
Task 24.2
requires that in every reportable use of force incident, every member/employee on thescene of the incident at the time the force was used, reports all uses of force on the appropriateform, unless otherwise directed by the investigating supervisor (compliance standard: 95%); and
Task 24.3
requires that OPD personnel document, on the appropriate form, every use of forceand/or the drawing and intentional pointing of a firearm at another person (compliance standard:
14
We requested 90 use of force reports, but determined that 11 of the reports covered incidents that occurred outsideof the current reporting period; in addition, one file was corrupted and could not be reviewed.
Eighth Quarterly Report of the Independent Monitorfor the Oakland Police DepartmentJanuary 17, 2012Page 40
Task 25: Use of Force Investigations and Report Responsibility
Requirements:
An on-scene supervisor is responsible for completing an investigated use of force report inaccordance with the provisions of Departmental General Order K-4, “Reporting and Investigating the Use of Force.”
1.
OPD shall develop and implement a policy for conducting and documenting useof force investigations that include, at a minimum:a.
Documentation of the incident in either an Offense or Supplemental Report from the member(s)/employee(s) using force; and/or, whennecessary, a statement taken from the member(s)/employee(s) using force;b.
Separating and separately interviewing all officers who were at the sceneat the time of the incident;c.
A Supplemental Report from other members/employees on the scene or astatement taken, if deemed necessary by the investigating supervisor;d.
Identification and interviews of non-Departmental witnesses;e.
Consideration of discrepancies in information obtained from members,employees and witnesses, and statements in the reports filed; f.
Whether arrest reports or use of force reports contain “boilerplate” or “pat language” (e.g., “fighting stance”, “minimal force necessary tocontrol the situation”);g.
Documentation of physical evidence and/or photographs and a summaryand analysis of all relevant evidence gathered during the investigation;and h.
Consideration of training/tactical issues involving the availability and practicality of other force options.i.
Supervisor’s justification as to why any element of the policy was not documented; and
2.
All supervisors shall be trained in conducting use of force investigations and suchtraining shall be part of a supervisory training course.
3.
Use of force investigations shall include a recommendation whether the use of force was objectively reasonable and within Department policy and training. Therecommendation shall be based on the totality of the circumstances and shallconsider, but is not limited to, the following factors:a.
Whether the force used was pursuant to a legitimate law-enforcement objective;b.
Whether the type and amount of force used was proportional to theresistance encountered and reasonably related to the objective themembers/employees were attempting to achieve;c.
Whether the member/employee used reasonable verbal means to attempt to resolve the situation without force, if time and circumstances permitted such attempts;d.
Whether the force used was de-escalated or stopped reasonably when
Case3:00-cv-04599-TEH Document673 Filed01/17/12 Page41 of 91
Eighth Quarterly Report of the Independent Monitorfor the Oakland Police DepartmentJanuary 17, 2012Page 41
resistance decreased or stopped;4.
use of force reports shall be reviewed by the appropriate chain-of-review asdefined by policy.The type of force used, the identity of the involved members, and the report preparer shall be the determining criteria for utilizing the appropriate chain-of-review. Reviewers may include, when appropriate, the chain-of-command of theinvolved personnel, the appropriate Area Commander on duty at the time theincident occurred, other designated Bureau of Field Operations commanders, and as necessary, the chain-of-command of the involved personnel up to the DivisionCommander or Deputy Chief/Director, and the Internal Affairs Division. Reviewers for Level 1-3 use of force investigations shall:a.
Make a recommendation as to whether the use of force was in or out of policy,b. Order additional investigation and investigative resources whennecessary, and c. Comment on any training issue(s) when appropriate.5.
Any recommendation that the use of force did not comply with Department policyshall result in the incident being referred to the Internal Affairs Division toconduct additional investigation/analysis, if necessary.6. Members/employees involved in a use of force incident resulting in serious injuryor death and/or an officer-involved shooting, shall be separated from each other as soon as practicable at the incident scene, and kept apart until they have completed their reports and been interviewed.
…
Eighth Quarterly Report of the Independent Monitorfor the Oakland Police DepartmentJanuary 17, 2012Page 54
As we have noted previously, OPD focuses on issues that do not help determine whether OPDofficers are engaging in disparate treatment of minority groups – or, for that matter, any specificsub-population. For example, we note the number of searches of persons within one sub-groupis significantly higher than others; interestingly enough, these searches appear to form the basisfor an arrest less often than searches conducted in other sub-groups. We acknowledge that thisraw data alone does not – and should not – form the basis to conclude that OPD officers areknowingly engaging in racial profiling. It does, however, clearly indicate the need for OPDcommand staff to conduct further analysis and appropriately address any appearance of disparatetreatment with explanation or intervention. During this reporting period, we again met with OPDpersonnel responsible for this analysis and discussed with them how and why the Departmentshould conduct further analysis. We look forward to learning more about the Department’s plansto move forward with such an analysis.We have a continued interest in what steps OPD
Comments are closed.