OAKLAND POLICE DEPARTMENT

Management Level Liaison/Task 22 Audit Report

Project No.: E2013OPDT22MLL
Christopher Figueroa, DPA, CGAP, CFE, CFS, CLEA, CRMA
STAFF AUDITOR: Randy Khatami, CFE, CFS, CLEA, CRMA

Table of Contents
Audit Report
Purpose
Background
Prior Audits
Reference Material
Audit Period and Population
Audit Steps
Audit Steps
Methodology
Summary of Findings
Objective 1 - Task 22.1 OPD maintains a functioning MLL
Objective 2 - Task 22.2 The OPD tracks and reports all relevant cases
that are lost, dropped or dismissed
Objective 3 - Task 22.3 The MLL shall attend meetings with
the DAO and PDO, as they deem appropriate
Objective 4 - Task 22.4 The MLL shall meet with and cooperate
with the Independent Monitoring Team (IMT)
Recommendations/Action Taken
Appendices
Appendix 1: Task 22 Audit Analysis
Appendix 2: Dispensary Action Reported Documents
Appendix 3: IAD Officer Complaint Notification Report
Appendix 4: MLL Monthly Report 5 Year Retention Assessment

1
1
1
1
2
2
3
3
5
6
6
10
11
11

Management Level Liaison/Task 22 Audit Report

Project No.: E2013OPDT22MLL
Conducted by
ELITE PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT CONSULTANTS, LLC
FOR

OAKLAND POLICE DEPARTMENT

Date: December 27, 2013
PURPOSE
This audit was conducted in order to assess compliance of the Oakland Police Department (OPD)
adherence to established policies and procedures, and Task 22 (Management Level Liaison) of
the Negotiated Settlement Agreement between Delphine Allen, et al. (plaintiff) and the City of
Oakland, et al. (defendant) (NSA).
BACKGROUND

On January 22, 2003, the OPD was placed under a NSA, which was updated on
February 4, 2004. The NSAs Task 22 requires that OPD:
Within 60 days from the effective date of this Agreement, OPD shall establish a
Management-Level Liaison (MLL) to the courts, the District Attorneys Office, and the
Public Defenders Office (Objective 1). This unit or person shall ensure that cases which
are lost or dropped due to bad reports, defective search warrants, granted Motion to
Suppress, contradictory evidence or testimony, or any other indication of performance
problems or misconduct, are tracked (Objective 2). The OPD MLL shall be required to
meet and cooperate with the Monitor (Objective 3). The DAs and PDs Offices may
attend meetings, as they deem appropriate (Objective 4).
The OPD established policies and procedures to implement the requirements of Task 22 under
Department General Order (DGO) A-18, indexed as: Management-Level Liaison MLL Monthly
Reports, dated December 16, 2003.
PRIOR AUDITS
This was the first audit conducted by Elite Performance Assessment Consultants, LLC (EPAC),
a contracted external consulting firm. The OPD has conducted several reviews and assessments
to determine compliance with Task 22 (see Reference Material).
REFERENCE MATERIAL
The reference material utilized during this audit includes:

Negotiated Settlement Agreement (NSA) between Delphine Allen, et al. (plaintiff) and
the City of Oakland, et al. (defendant), updated: February 4, 2004

Management Level Liaison/Task 22 Audit Report, E2013OPDT22MLL

Date: December 27, 2013
Page 2 of 12

Departmental General Order A-18: Management Level Liaison, December 16, 2003
Departmental General Order M-3: Complaints Against Departmental Personnel or
Procedures (Rev. 25 Jun 13), August 22, 2003
OPD/DA Liaison Commander Task 22 (S.A. IV.E), June 2006
Task 22 OPD/DA Liaison Commander Review Protocol, May 17, 2007
OPD/DA Liaison Commander Task 22 (S.A. IV.E), June 2007
Management-Level Liaison Review, June 23, 2010
Task #22 Management Level Liaison Compliance Assessor Report for 1 Apr to 31 Dec
12, July 5, 2011
Task #22 Management Level Liaison Compliance Assessor Report for 1 Jul to 30 Sep 11,
November 15, 2011
Task #22 Management Level Liaison Compliance Assessor Report for 1 Oct to 31 Dec
11, February 10, 2012
Task #22 Management Level Liaison Compliance Assessor Report for 1 Jan to 31 Mar
12, June 13, 2012
Task #22 Management Level Liaison Compliance Assessor Report for 1 Apr to 31 Dec
12, February 1, 2013
City of Oakland. (2008). OPD Negotiated Settlement Agreement (NSA). Retrieved
November 7, 2013, from Oakland City Attorney: http://www.oaklandcityattorney.org/
notable/Riders.html

AUDIT PERIOD AND POPULATION

The audit scope was the established time frame from September 1, 2012 through
September 30, 2013. Objective 2.10, requiring OPD to retain MLL Reports for a five-year period
had an audit period time frame from September 1, 2008 through September 30, 2013. The audit
population consisted of MML reports, Alameda County Court Clerk's No-Complaint List (Strike
List), IAD/Division level investigations resulting from MLL referrals and all documents of
tracking MLL cases for the specified time periods.
TABLE 1 AUDIT PERIOD AND POPULATION
OBJECTIVES
Objectives 1 - 4
Objective 2.10

AUDIT PERIOD
September 1, 2012 through September 30, 2013
September 1, 2008 through September 30, 2013

POPULATION
13 MLL Monthly Reports
56 MLL Monthly Reports

AUDIT STEPS
The EPAC staff used U. S. Government Auditing Standards as guidance when conducting this
audit engagement.

Management Level Liaison/Task 22 Audit Report, E2013OPDT22MLL

Date: December 27, 2013
Page 3 of 12
Audit Steps:
The following audit steps were followed to complete this audit within the specified due date of
December 31, 2013. An opening conference was conducted with OPD staff to address the audit's
procedures and to answer questions. The engagement was then assigned to an EPAC staff
member who was selected as the Project Manager (PM) and contact person. A staff auditor (SA)
was also assigned to conduct second level review.
The PM requested and received all or portions of the following documents from OPD staff:

All MLL Reports from September 1, 2008 through September 30, 2013
All Alameda County Court Clerk's No-Complaint List (Strike List). from September 1,
2012 through September 30, 2013
All IAD/Division level investigations resulting from MLL referrals from September 1,
2012 through September 30, 2013.
All documentation of tracking MLL cases
All reference documents (see Reference Material)

The PM reviewed the above listed documents and then prepared the Audit Work Plan Report
documenting the engagement's process. The PM prepared the Compliance/Performance Testing
Instrument (CPTI) that was used to evaluate the OPD's compliance with Objectives #1 through
#4. The EPAC audit staff in consultation with the OPD Audit Manager determined the
compliance standards for each objective as 90%.
The EPAC audit staff conducted fieldwork by reviewing pertinent documents to determine the
audit findings. The findings were analyzed and documented in the Audit Report. The EPAC staff
contacted OPD staff for clarification of exceptions that were discovered during the audit
engagement. This allowed OPD staff to respond and clarify the findings. The EPAC staff
received OPD's responses and they were reviewed and considered. Communication with OPD
staff was either telephonic or through e-mail.
The PM prepared this audit report and it was submitted to the OPD Audit Manager for OPD staff
review and comment. An exit conference was conducted with OPD staff to discuss the audit
findings.
Methodology:
The EPAC staff followed the described methodology. A review of all MLL reports from
September 1, 2008 through September 30, 2013 and (Strike List) from July 2013 through
September 2013, one IAD/Division level investigations resulting from MLL referral from the
September 2013 MLL Monthly Report; and OPD correspondence/tracking documents for the
audit time period to determine whether and how OPD was tracking MLL cases.

Management Level Liaison/Task 22 Audit Report, E2013OPDT22MLL

Date: December 27, 2013
Page 4 of 12
All the documents were stratified by month within the established time frames. The EPAC
auditors used the CPTI consisting of 17 questions as a data collection instrument. The questions
were formatted into the following three types:

Control These questions direct the auditors actions by prompting them to the relevant
Data Capture and Key Indicator Questions,
Data Capture These questions capture associated information which will assist in
reporting on exceptions, or;
Key Indicators - These questions measured compliance with the standard for each
objective by identifying exceptions.

Two levels of review were conducted by the PM and SA using 13 CPTIs, one for each MLL
Report reviewed for compliance of Objectives 1 through 4 and all MLL reports dating from
September 1, 2008 through September 1, 2013, for compliance of Objective 2.10. After the
reviews were completed, the PM analyzed the findings. The PM confirmed and tabulated the
exceptions associated with the evaluated documents. All documents or lack thereof containing
confirmed exceptions were considered out of compliance for the corresponding objective.
Documents that were unable to meet the standard for any one objective or any combination of
objectives were considered out of compliance. The documents that were considered out of
compliance were totaled and reported on by objective. The total number of documents compliant
in any one objective was identified by a percentage relative to the respective NSA and OPD
DGO mandates. Each compliant objective received one point in the CPTI scoring, while noncompliance received no points. The results were placed in a table (see Appendix 1).

THIS SECTION INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

(Continue on next page)

Management Level Liaison/Task 22 Audit Report, E2013OPDT22MLL

Date: December 27, 2013
Page 5 of 12
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
Management Level Liaison Procedures (NSA Task 22) and (DGO A-18) In Compliance
(98%)
The mandates as set forth in NSA Task 22 and DGO A-18 were examined as identified in
Objectives #1 through #4. The compliance standard was 90%. The OPD was 98% in compliance
with NSA Task 22 and DGO A-18. The overall evaluation of each audit objective with its
corresponding NSA task and DGO paragraph is listed in table 2.
TABLE 2 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
OBJECTIVE
N O.
1.

OBJECTIVE TITLE

TASK

DGO
A-18

OBJECTIVE
%

OBJECTIVE
COMPLIANCE

OPD Maintains a Functional MLL

22.1
100% Compliant
Maintained a MLL this Month
22.1
100% Compliant
Maintained contact with Court, DAO & PDO
I.
100% Compliant
2.
Relevant Cases Are Tracked
22.2
93% Compliant
2.1.
Tracked All Relevant Cases
II. A. 1.
23% Non-Compliant
2.2.
Reported T-3 Cases to IAD
II. A. 2.
100% Compliant
2.3.
IAD Initiated Investigations on T-3 Cases
II. B.
100% Compliant
2.4.
T-3 Cases Were Appropriately Evaluated
II. B.
100% Compliant
2.5.
Any Violations of the Manual of Rules
II. B
100% Compliant
2.6.
Correct Dispositions Applied
II. B
100% Compliant
2.7.
Review of MLL Reports by Unit Cmdrs./Managers
II. C
100% Compliant
2.8.
Completion of MLL Reports
III. A.
100% Compliant
2.9.
Required Information on MLL Reports
III. A.
100% Compliant
2.10.
MLL Reports Retained for 5 Years
III. B.
100%1 Compliant
2.11.
Quarterly Interagency Meetings
II. A. 7.
100% Compliant
3.
The DAO & PDO Attend Meetings
22.3
100% Compliant
3.1.
MLL Meeting with DAO & PDO
22.3
100% Compliant
4.
MLL Meets & Cooperates With IMT
22.4
100% Compliant
4.2.
MLL Meeting with IMT Within 10 Day of Request
II. A. 4.
100% Compliant
Task 22 Overall Total Compliance
98% Compliant
Compliance standard is 90%.
Note: 1Objective 2.10 was calculated at 93% compliant, but each CPTI scored the objective with one point,
equaling to 100% (see Appendix 1).
1.1.
1.2.

Management Level Liaison/Task 22 Audit Report, E2013OPDT22MLL

Date: December 27, 2013
Page 6 of 12
Objective 1 - Task 22.1 OPD maintains a functioning MLL
Criteria
The OPD shall designate the commander of the Criminal Investigation Division (CID) as the
MLL for the Department (Objective 1.1). The MLL shall be the point of contact between the
Department, the Alameda County Courts, the District Attorney's Office (DAO) and the Public
Defender's Office (PDO) (Objective 1.2).
Objectives 1.1 (Task 22.1) and 1.2 (DGO A-18 I.)
Audit Procedure
The CID commander was the MLL for the 13 mouths that were evaluated. The MLL maintained
contact with the DAO and PDO from September 1, 2012 through September 30, 2013.
Findings
Objectives 1.1 and 1.2 were found to be 100% in compliance.
Objective 2 - Task 22.2 The OPD tracks and reports all relevant cases that are lost,
dropped or dismissed per Task 22 and DGO A-18 mandates
Criteria
The OPD shall ensure that cases, which are lost, dropped, or dismissed due to bad reports, defect
of search warrants, granted "motion to suppress," contradictory evidence or testimony, or any
other indication of performance problems or misconduct, are tracked (Objective 2.1) and
reported to the Internal Affairs Division (IAD) commander and the subject officer's unit
commander, in accordance to DGO M-3, Complaints Against Departmental Personnel or
Procedures (Objective 2.2).
Objective 2.1 (DGO A-18 II. A. 1.)
Audit Procedure
The MLL retained only 2 months of the 13 months audited (part of July, all of August and
September 2013), of the Strike List. These list were used by the MLL to track cases, which are
lost, dropped, or dismissed due to bad reports, defect of search warrants, granted "motion to
suppress," contradictory evidence or testimony, or any other indication of performance problems
or misconduct. The retention method was instituted by the present MLL in the middle of
July 2013.

Management Level Liaison/Task 22 Audit Report, E2013OPDT22MLL

Date: December 27, 2013
Page 7 of 12
The EPAC staff requested the Strike List for the remaining audit period (September 2012
through June 2013) from OPD staff. The OPD staff was not able to locate the requested strike
lists. They indicated that the previous MLLs had retired and the status or locations of those lists
were unknown.
Also a review of the Strike List obtained from OPD revealed that the following lists were
missing. July 2013 was missing lists for the following days: the 16th, 18th and 25th. Also lists
were missing from the first two weeks of July. August 2013 was missing the 9th day of the
month.
Although the OPD did not have the Strike Lists from September 2012 through June 2013, they
did have copies of e-mails from the DAO and PDO indicating that there were no OPD T-3 cases
during the specified period. These e-mails were attached to the MLL Monthly Reports and were
reviewed by the EPAC audit staff.
Findings
Objective 2.1 was found out of compliance with only 23% of the Strike Lists being retained (see
Table 3).
Table 3 Retention of Cases (Strike List)

13OPDT22MLL 000001
13OPDT22MLL 000002
13OPDT22MLL 000003

MML Monthly
Strike Lists
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013

Objective 2.1
Compliance
Compliant
Compliant
Compliant

13OPDT22MLL 000004
13OPDT22MLL 000005
13OPDT22MLL 000006
13OPDT22MLL 000007
13OPDT22MLL 000008
13OPDT22MLL 000009
13OPDT22MLL 000010
13OPDT22MLL 000011
13OPDT22MLL 000012
13OPDT22MLL 000013

June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012

Non-Compliant
Non-Compliant
Non-Compliant
Non-Compliant
Non-Compliant
Non-Compliant
Non-Compliant
Non-Compliant
Non-Compliant
Non-Compliant

CPTI #

Comments

All days reported

9th day missing
1st and 2nd week missing
16th, 18th & 25th days missing
All days missing
All days missing
All days missing
All days missing
All days missing
All days missing
All days missing
All days missing
All days missing
All days missing
Strike List Totals
Total
3 of 13
Percentage
23%

Management Level Liaison/Task 22 Audit Report, E2013OPDT22MLL

Date: December 27, 2013
Page 8 of 12
Objective 2.2 (DGO A-18 II. A. 2.)
Audit Procedure
The EPAC staff reviewed all 13 MLL Monthly Reports from September 2012 through
September 2013, and found the DAO, PDO or the Alameda County Court had reported no T-3
cases. However, in September 2013, the Captain of Inspectors for the Alameda County District
Attorney's Office reported misconduct to the MLL of a discrepancy regarding documentation in
an OPD report
. A video of a field show-up depicted that the victims
were not separated, but the report indicated they were. The MLL reported the incident to the IAD
commander and the assistant chief. In the criminal case, the robbery charge was dropped, but the
gun charge was being prosecuted. The Alameda County Court, DAO or the PDO did not report
this incident to OPD as a T-3 case in the September 2013 strike lists. The MLL did document the
incident in September 2013 Monthly Report (see Appendix 2).
Findings
Objective 2.2 was found 100% in compliance.
Objectives 2.3 through 2.6 (DGO A-18 II. B.)
Criteria
The IAD shall review and evaluate each MLL complaint received (Objective 2.3 and 2.4). If the
information contained in the MLL complaint alleges a violation of the Manual of Rules
(Objective 2.5), IAD shall document the action taken in accordance with DGO M-3
(Objective 2.6).
Audit Procedure
From September 2012 through September 2013, only one case (Case RD No. 13-040502/
IAD No. 13-1255) was reported to IAD (see Appendix 3). There were no other T-3 cases
reported to the MLL. This case is presently under investigation and has not been adjudicated.
Findings
Objectives 2.3 through 2.6 were found 100% in compliance.
Objective 2.7 (DGO A-18 II. C.)
Criteria
Commanders and/or managers shall review and evaluate the subject's MLL report received. He
or she shall take division/unit action if the noted performance problems are not a violation of the

Management Level Liaison/Task 22 Audit Report, E2013OPDT22MLL

Date: December 27, 2013
Page 9 of 12
Manual of Rules as per DGO A-18, and document the action in accordance with established
policies and procedures (Objective 2.7).
Audit Procedure
The MLL, who is also the CID commander, reviewed the complaint. The case (
/IAD No. 13-1255) was reported to IAD for adjudication and is currently under
investigation. There were no other disciplinary actions regarding T-3 cases during the audit
period.
Findings
Objective 2.7 was found 100% in compliance.
Objective 2.8 and 2.9 (DGO A-18 III. A.)
Criteria
The MLL shall complete and forward a monthly report (Objective 2.8) based on the information
received from the DAO, PDO, or the courts and submit it to the appropriate entities as described
in section II of DGO A-18 (Objective 2.9).
Audit Procedure
The MLL completed a Monthly Report for each month from September 2012 through September
2013 and they were submitted to the appropriate entities as described in section II of DGO A-18.
Findings
Objectives 2.8 and 2.9 were found 100% in compliance.
Objective 2.10 (DGO A-18 III. B.)
Criteria
The MLL shall retain the Monthly Reports for a period of at least five (five) years
(Objective 2.10).
Audit Procedure
The MLL retained the Monthly Reports for a period of five years, but the following reports were
missing: November 2011, December 2009, June 2009 and October 2008. Also, there were two
MLL Monthly Reports that were completed for a three-month period (June, July and August,
2012; and February, March and April, 2012), which were retained (see Appendix 4).

Management Level Liaison/Task 22 Audit Report, E2013OPDT22MLL

Date: December 27, 2013
Page 10 of 12
Findings
Objective 2.10 was 93% compliant, but each CPTI scored the objective with one point, equaling
to 100% compliance with this objective (see table 4).
Table 4 5 Year Retention of MLL Monthly Reports
REPORTS
Total number of required reports
Total number of missing reports
Total number of retained reports

Note:

1Objective

NUMBER
56
4
52

PERCENTAGE/COMPLIANCE

93%/Compliant1

2.10 was 93% compliant, but each CPTI scored the objective with one point, equaling to 100%.

Objective 2.11 (DGO A-18 II. A. 7.)

Criteria
The MLL shall ensure that the supervising deputy district attorney, supervising public defender
and the presiding judge at the Wiley W. Manuel/Allen E. Broussard Courthouse Superior Court
of Alameda County, and the attendees at the monthly Superior Court of Alameda County
Interagency meeting are apprised of the stipulations of DGO A-18 (Objective 2.11).
Audit Procedure
A review of all MLL Monthly Reports dating from September 2012 through
September 2013 revealed that the interagency meetings with the DAO and the PDO were
discontinued.
Findings
As a result, Objective 2.11 was found 100% in compliance.
Objective #3 - Task 22.3 The MLL shall attend meetings with the DAO and PDO, as they
deem appropriate
Objective 3.1 (Task 22.3) and (DGO A-18 II. A. 4.)
Criteria
The MLL shall meet quarterly with representatives of the DAO and the PDO to discuss and/or
clarify any information received. If the representatives of the DAO and PDO are unable or
unwilling to meet, the MLL shall prepare and forward a memo regarding the attempt to arrange a
meeting and each Offices response to the Chief of Police (Objective 3.1).

Management Level Liaison/Task 22 Audit Report, E2013OPDT22MLL

Date: December 27, 2013
Page 11 of 12
Audit Procedure
The MLL Monthly Reports for the audit time period indicated that the MLL was in constant
contact with the DAO and the PDO.
Findings
Objective 3.1 was found 100% in compliance.
Objective #4 Task 22.4 The MLL shall meet with and cooperate with the Independent
Monitoring Team (IMT)
Objective 4.1 (Task 22.4) and 4.2 (DGO A-18 II. A. 4.)
Criteria
The MLL shall meet with and cooperate with the Independent Monitoring Team (IMT)
(Objective 4.1). The MLL shall meet with the IMT within 10 working days after they have
requested to meet (Objective 4.2).
Audit Procedure
According to the deputy monitor, they have not requested contact with the MLL because the task
is inactive (see Appendix 5).
Findings
Objective 4.2 was found to be 100% in compliance. Objective 4.1 was not evaluated for
compliance because it is an inactive task.
RECOMMENDATIONS/ACTIONS TAKEN
Recommendations
None
Actions Taken
Objective 2.1
The MLL has instituted a tracking system for evaluating T-3 cases. The MLL receives daily
Strike Lists from the DAO. These lists are in an Excel spreadsheet format that are reviewed by
the MLL and then stored in a computer database. These spreadsheets can be retrieved at a later

Management Level Liaison/Task 22 Audit Report, E2013OPDT22MLL

Date: December 27, 2013
Page 12 of 12
date for assessment and review. The EPAC audit staff acknowledges that this tracking system
will comply with Objective 2.1.

APPENDIX 1
Task 22 Audit Analysis

Management Level Liaison/Task 22 Audit Analysis

Project No.: E2013OPDT22MLL

100

Objective 1.2

APPENDIX 1

Objective 1.1

Legend:

Objective 1: Task 22.1

CPTI #
13OPDT22MLL 000001
13OPDT22MLL 000002
13OPDT22MLL 000003
13OPDT22MLL 000004
13OPDT22MLL 000005
13OPDT22MLL 000006
13OPDT22MLL 000007
13OPDT22MLL 000008
13OPDT22MLL 000009
13OPDT22MLL 000010
13OPDT22MLL 000011
13OPDT22MLL 000012
13OPDT22MLL 000013
Total
Percentage

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
13
100

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
13
100

0 = Non-compliant
1 = Compliant
Blank = Not Applicable

Page 1 of 3

Management Level Liaison/Task 22 Audit Analysis

Project No.: E2013OPDT22MLL

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
13
100

Objective 2.11

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
13
100

Objective 2.10

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
13
100

Objective 2.9

Page 2 of 3

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
13
100

Objective 2.8

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
13
100

Objective 2.7

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
13
100

Objective 2.6

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
13
100

Objective 2.5

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
13
100

Objective 2.4

Objective 2.3

APPENDIX 1

Objective 2.2

Objective 2.1

Objective 2: Task 22.2

1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
93.006993 23.0769231

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
13
100

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
13
100

Management Level Liaison/Task 22 Audit Analysis

Project No.: E2013OPDT22MLL

ORM

100

Objective 4.2

Objective 4.1

APPENDIX 1

Objective 4: Task 22.4

Objective 3.1

Objrctive 3: Task 22.3

100

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
13
100

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
13
100

Page 3 of 3

APPENDIX 2
Dispensary Action Reported Documents

APPENDIX 2

APPENDIX 2

APPENDIX 2

APPENDIX 2

APPENDIX 2

Kristin

12/5/13, 4:43 PM

https://email13.secureserver.net/view_print_multi.php?uidArray=11292|INBOX&aEmlPart=0

APPENDIX 2

From: cfigueroa@elitepacllc.com [mailto:cfigueroa@elitepacllc.com]

Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2013 10:37 AM
To: Burgess, Kristin
Subject: RE: MLL reports

Hi Chris,
Capt. Williams is checking to see if the case got dropped by the DAs Oce. As soon as we get conrmaAon, Ill let you know.

Thanks,
KrisAn

On Dec 5, 2013, at 1:39 PM, "Burgess, Kristin" <KBurgess@oaklandnet.com> wrote:

Sent from my iPhone

Thx

From: Christopher Figueroa [mailto:cfigueroa@elitepacllc.com]

Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2013 1:47 PM
To: Burgess, Kristin
Subject: Re: MLL reports

According to the DAs Oce, the 211 was dropped at the PX but the gun case is going forward. The case (gun case) is sAll in the court system.

Is this what you were looking for?

To: "Christopher Figueroa" <cfigueroa@elitepacllc.com>

Date: Thu, Dec 05, 2013 1:54 pm

From: "Burgess, Kristin" <KBurgess@oaklandnet.com>

Subject: RE: MLL reports

Print | Close Window

Workspace Webmail :: Print

1 of 3

12/5/13, 4:43 PM

https://email13.secureserver.net/view_print_multi.php?uidArray=11292|INBOX&aEmlPart=0

APPENDIX 2

From: Christopher Figueroa [mailto:cfigueroa@elitepacllc.com]

Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2013 12:17 PM
To: Burgess, Kristin
Subject: Re: MLL reports

Did you get the 2011 ones too?

On Dec 4, 2013, at 12:25 PM, "Burgess, Kristin" <KBurgess@oaklandnet.com> wrote:

Sent from my iPhone

I got two emails from you.

From: Christopher Figueroa [mailto:cfigueroa@elitepacllc.com]

Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2013 1:34 PM
To: Burgess, Kristin
Subject: Re: MLL reports

I sent 2 emails yesterday one with 2008 reports and one with 2009 reports. I sent 2 today,
one with 2010 reports and one with 2011 reports. If you got all of these, then we are good!

-------- Original Message -------Subject: RE: MLL reports

From: "Burgess, Kristin" <KBurgess@oaklandnet.com>
Date: Wed, December 04, 2013 1:36 pm
To: "Christopher Figueroa" <cfigueroa@elitepacllc.com>

Chris

Regarding the IA case that was initiated by Capt Williams regarding the field show-up (Sept. 18, 2013 memo), what
happened to the criminal case?

Workspace Webmail :: Print

2 of 3

Workspace Webmail :: Print

3 of 3

Got them, thanks.

Sent from my iPhone

https://email13.secureserver.net/view_print_multi.php?uidArray=11292|INBOX&aEmlPart=0

On Dec 4, 2013, at 11:01 AM, "Burgess, Kristin" <KBurgess@oaklandnet.com>

wrote:
Chris,
Attached are the 2010 MLL reports. Looks like we have them all,
however, 3 of them are draft reports.
Kristin
<FINAL MLL Monthly Reporting Memo( JAN 2010) 1 FEB 10.doc>
<MLL Monthly Reporting Memo( FEB 2010) 11 MAR 10.doc>
<MLL Monthly Reporting Memo( Mar 2010) 8 Apr 10, nc draft.doc>
<MLL Monthly Reporting Memo, APR 2010, 5 May 10, nc draft.doc>
<MLL Monthly Reporting Memo (MAY 2010) 4 JUN 10.doc>
<MLL Monthly Reporting Memo (JUN 2010) 12 JUL 10.doc>
<MLL Monthly Reporting Memo (JUL 2010) 13 AUG 10.doc>
<MLL Monthly Reporting Memo (AUG 2010) 8 SEP 10.doc>
<MLL Monthly Reporting Memo (Sep 2010) 7 Oct 10.doc>
<MLL Monthly Reporting Memo (Oct 2010) 1 Nov 10.doc>
<MLL Monthly Reporting Memo (Nov 2010) 3 Dec 10, nc draft.doc>
<MLL Monthly Reporting Memo (Dec 2010) 4 Jan 11.doc>
Copyright 2003-2013. All rights reserved.

APPENDIX 2

12/5/13, 4:43 PM

APPENDIX 3
IAD Officer Complaint Notification Report

APPENDIX 3

APPENDIX 4
: MLL Monthly Report 5 Year Retention Assessment

OAKLAND POLICE DEPARTMENT

Audit Project No. E2013OPDT22MLL
MLL Monthly Reporting Memorandums
REQ
REPTS
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.

DATES OF REPORTS

COMMENTS

1. September 2013
2. August 2013
3. July 2013
4. June 2013
5. May 2013
6. April 2013
7. March 2013
8. February 2013
9. January 2013
10. December 2012
11. November 2012
12. October 2012
13. September 2012
14. June, July & August 2012
15. May 2012
16. February, March & April 2012
17. January 2012
18. December 2011

19.
20.

19. November 2011

20. September 2011

21.
22.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.

21. September 2011

August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010

This memo covered a three-month period.

This memo covered a three-month period.

This memo is reporting 21 working days in

November.
No December 2011 reporting.
Report missing (See December 2011)
This memo is reporting 21 working days in
October.

APPENDIX 4
Page 1 of 2

OAKLAND POLICE DEPARTMENT

Audit Project No. E2013OPDT22MLL
REQ
REPTS
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
56.

DATES OF REPORTS
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008

COMMENTS

Report missing

Report missing

Report missing

Reports
Total number of required reports
Total number of missing reports
Total number of retained reports

CPTI #
13OPDT22MLL 000001
13OPDT22MLL 000002
13OPDT22MLL 000003
13OPDT22MLL 000004
13OPDT22MLL 000005
13OPDT22MLL 000006
13OPDT22MLL 000007
13OPDT22MLL 000008
13OPDT22MLL 000009
13OPDT22MLL 000010
13OPDT22MLL 000011
13OPDT22MLL 000012
13OPDT22MLL 000013

Number
56
4
52

MML Monthly
Strike Lists
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012

Objective 2.10
Compliance
Compliant
Compliant
Compliant
Compliant
Compliant
Compliant
Compliant
Compliant
Compliant
Compliant
Compliant
Compliant
Compliant
Total

APPENDIX 4
Page 2 of 2

Percentage

93 %

Comments

Compliance Totals
13/13

Percentage
100%