Paper Example on Oakland Police Department Federal Oversight

Introduction

Most law enforcement officers in the United States go about their duties in compliance with the law and with respect for the community. However, there are incidences in which some fail to honor the law. The US Department of Justice has put in place federal laws meant to address police misconduct. These laws include both civil and criminal statuses. They cover the conduct of local, county, and state officers, including those assigned to work in jails and prisons. Federal law enforcement officers are also subject to a number of legislations. These laws are meant to protect everyone living in the United States, including non-citizens. Any person can file an official complaint with the DOJ if they feel that their rights have been violated. A good example of the enforcement of these laws is the federal oversight of the Oakland Police Department following the infamous 'Riders' case.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Events that Led to the DOJ Oversight

In 2003, the Oakland Police Department (OPD) agreed to carry out substantial reforms after going through a rather challenging period in its history. It involved a number of cultural and operational changes in compliance with 51 terms of a document known as Negotiated Settlement Agreement (NSA) ordered by a court. The federally- enforced reforms were meant to help the department adopt modern best practices in policing.

In December 2000, 119 citizens filed a lawsuit in Federal Court alleging that four police officers referred to as the 'Riders' had infringed upon their civil rights. Some of the allegations leveled against these officers included assault and battery, use of excessive force, planting evidence, forging police reports, and false arrest. The alleged incidences are said to have taken place from1996 up to 2000 and came into light when a rookie police officer took it upon himself to report them. The OPD immediately sent the four individuals on administrative leave and began a widespread internal affairs whose findings showed that there were serious violations of the department's policy. The officers were fired and eventually taken to court by the district attorney for Alameda County.

The city of Oakland made a settlement amounting to $10.9 million with the 119 individuals. Those who filed the lawsuit agreed to an amount that was less than they could have gotten on condition that the OPD implements major reforms to the way it conducts its operations and relates with people. In 2003, Oakland signed the NSA that required the department to implement significant reforms to how it operates and commit to abiding by constitutional policing. The agreement also requires that the department comply with several tasks aimed at improve various areas related to officer conduct, accountability, and discipline, together with establishing criteria for instances when officers can use their weapons. Officials from the city were expected to meet with federal judges on a regular basis to report any progress that the OPD is making in following the agreement. In case the police department fails to abide by the agreement's terms, it could end up being placed in federal receivership. A team of court-appointed law enforcement experts would take over the operational and managerial processes for the department.

Provisions of the Consent Agreement

Oakland city officials together with the court and the plaintiffs' lawyers established 51 reforms that OPD would be expected to implement within a period of five years. The tasks related to these reforms focused on setting up ground rules for officer conduct and improving how investigations to do with unethical behavior are conducted. Initially, the reforms were scheduled to be completed by 2008. The parties chose a group made up of four civil rights and law enforcement officers mandated with evaluating the department's progress in complying with the reforms, and offering the necessary training and assistance to accomplish them. This group was referred to as the NSA independent monitoring team, and was given full access to the department's documents and facilities by the city of Oakland to carry out audits and inspections. The team was supposed to present quarterly reports on the department's compliance with respect to the 51 tasks. Also, the department's office of the Inspector General was supposed to file semi-annual reports on OPD's progress. The Oakland officials and the monitoring team were expected to forward the information to the plaintiffs' lawyers and the serving US Court Northern District of California Senior Judge.

Part of the agreement was that the Oakland officials would cover all the expenses incurred by the monitoring program. The city would have to set an annual budget of $2 million for a period of five years, which was the scheduled duration of the settlement. Initially, the settlement stipulated that the OPD should have implemented all the 51 tasks by 2008. However, a report released in January 2007 by the monitoring group stated that the OPD had only complied with 12 tasks by that time. This delay was attributed to deficiencies in the way the department gathers and manages data. The same year, Oakland officials requested for the compliance deadline to be extended to January 2010. Towards the end of 2009, the monitoring group stated that the department had only managed to comply with 30 tasks. Despite the department adopting all the policies stipulated in the settlement, the monitoring group found out that cases involving police misconduct were still not being addressed accordingly. They stated that certain tasks related to police discipline and accountability remained incomplete.

In a combined annual report for 2009, the department's office of inspector general stated that the OPD did not fully comply with tasks related to investigating and reporting police misconduct, there was significant improvement in the area since the agreement was initiated. At the beginning, citizens often consulted lawyers to file complaints about physical abuse in the hands of the police. By 2009, such complaints were rarely reported. All in all, the reported progress still was not sufficient to attain the settlement goal by the time the new deadline came to an end. A judge approved another extension to the deadline for complying with the tasks, extending it to January 2012.

The settlement parties chose another team of experts to form a new monitoring group that would evaluate OPD until the new deadline. They also agreed to trim down the number of pending tasks to about 20. However, the monitoring team reported in its last quarterly report of October 2011 that the department still had not accomplished about ten of those tasks. They stated some of the issues that deterred the department from abiding by the settlement. These included cases linked to excessive use of force by officers, failure to sufficiently justify reasons for stopping and detaining vehicles, and dismissing too many citizen complaints about police misconduct. The team also pointed out that there was no consistency in assessing complaints by citizens concerning police misconduct. The OPD had adopted a certain policy as part of the agreement that allowed internal affairs investigators to dismiss such complaints if the complainants were not credible. The monitoring team discovered that, in some instances, investigators failed to apply this clause incorrectly, or did it without sufficient justification.

What the Virtual Police Department Needs to Do

To avoid a federal oversight similar to the one directed at the Oakland Police Department, the virtual police department has to be professional, accountable, transparent, and self-monitoring. It should adopt the current best practices for effective response to crime and disorder, maintaining a safe community, and protecting citizens. However, attaining such goals can be somewhat tricky. Old-fashioned practices such as putting more police officers on the streets no longer seem to work. Thanks to recent innovations, there are now effective strategies that have been tried, tested, and found to be effective if they are implement the right way. When it comes to policing, it is now clear that the police cannot achieve everything by themselves. To manage effective responses, the virtual department needs to involve partnerships with other criminal justice organizations, private agencies, and community groups.

POP (problem-oriented policing) is perceived as one of the best approaches to addressing various crime and disorder issues. The virtual department needs to adopt it to deal with problems such as gun and gang-related violence, which happens to be a serious national issue. For instance, it can apply a strategy known as focused deterrence that involves focusing on a tiny group of individuals known to be active gang members who engage in violent crime. There is some kind of consensus among policing experts that containing violent crime necessitates a coordinated and community-wide approach. The department should also reflect the community that it serves, especially with regard to gender, race, and ethnicity.

For the virtual police department to avoid going the OPD way, it must hold its officers accountable for their conduct. It should put in place policies on critical actions, conduct close supervision, review the conduct on its officers, and then impose disciplinary action where necessary. There are a number of accountability procedures and policies that the department should have in place, and it should inform the community on the on it had in place. Also, its policy on the use of force should embody modern principles. Such a policy should offer a clear and exhaustive guidance for officers attached to the department on the correct use of force in any situation.

Among the most crucial recent developments in policing is the commitment to de-escalating encounters between citizens and police officers. Historically, officers have been known to respond to real or perceived challenges to their authority by reacting aggressively, often by applying excessive force even when it is not necessary. The virtual department should put in place a de-escalation policy as well as the correct training for its officers. De-escalation is all about responding to minor challenges via verbal or non-verbal tactics, or just ignoring them.

The department needs to adopt a commitment to bias-free policing. Issues related to biased policing are prevalent in police departments across the United States. These biases are related to ethnicity, race, sexual orientation, and gender. They are encountered in all police actions, including traffic cops, stops and frisks, arrests, incidences of domestic violence, and investigations into sexual assaults. The department should put in place a formal policy on unbiased policing and make it available to citizens. It should also conduct the training needed for officers not to engage in biased policing. The virtual department would also increase its efficiency by introducing the EIS (early intervention system), which is widely regarded as a crucial accountability. It is made up of a computerized data base detailing how individual police officers carry out their duties. The EIS makes it possible for officers who exhibit conduct issues at rates higher than their colleagues to be identified. In case a certain officer is identified, the tool provides non-disciplinary interventions such as training or counseling mean to correct his or her performance issues. Early interventions systems happen to be a requirement in all the settlements that the Justice Department gets into with police departments.

One of the problems that the Oakland Police Department was facing involved handling complaints from citizens. For the virtual department to avoid such issues, it should set up an op...