At a court hearing tomorrow, U.S. District Judge William Orrick will hear from Oakland city leaders and civil rights attorneys about whether the Oakland Police Department is any closer to exiting federal oversight. But last week, the parties to the case gave a preview of what they\u2019ll say.<\/p>\n
Calling OPD a \u201cmodel of constitutional policing,\u201d City Attorney Ryan Richardson and Deputy City Attorney Brigid Martin wrote in a court brief<\/a> that Oakland will soon be in a position to demonstrate its police department \u201cis prepared to continue its transformation absent further court oversight.\u201d<\/p>\n The city also prominently cited recent comments from Ben Nisenbaum<\/a>, a Bay Area civil rights attorney, as evidence that OPD has made great strides. Last month, Nisenbaum, at a press conference announcing a settlement with the Antioch Police Department over a major police corruption scandal, called OPD a \u201cconstitutional policing model.\u201d Oakland\u2019s city attorneys used this quote to begin their brief arguing why oversight should be lifted.<\/p>\n That prompted Nisenbaum, who is a partner in the same law office as John Burris, one of the attorneys involved in OPD\u2019s oversight case, to tell the court that Oakland\u2019s city attorneys have \u201cmisconstrued and distorted\u201d his remarks.<\/p>\n In an affidavit, Nisenbaum said his comments at the Antioch press conference have \u201cnothing to do with whether the Oakland Police Department is in compliance with its obligations,\u201d under the reform agreement, and he accused Oakland\u2019s attorneys of cherry-picking his statement. His comments shouldn\u2019t be material to the case, he said, because he\u2019s uninvolved.<\/p>\n The two civil rights attorneys whose opinions do matter are Burris and Jim Chanin, who sued Oakland 26 years ago over the police scandal known as the \u201cRiders case<\/a>.\u201d This is what led to federal oversight. They wrote in their pre-hearing brief<\/a> that OPD is not in compliance with three key reforms. Court oversight \u201ccannot draw to a close while the Department remains out of full compliance with these tasks, which are foundational,\u201d they said.<\/p>\n Now going on 23 years, OPD\u2019s oversight process has dragged on because of the department\u2019s inability to implement all the reforms<\/a>, a finding Orrick has repeatedly affirmed. Meanwhile, new scandals have periodically toppled<\/a> police chiefs and undermined progress<\/a>.<\/p>\n What reforms is OPD trying to complete?Task 2: The timeliness of internal affairs investigations<\/p>\n Under this requirement, OPD is supposed to complete investigations of serious police misconduct within 180 days. This timeline was agreed to by OPD years ago. The goal matters because investigations that aren\u2019t completed promptly can cause OPD to exceed the one-year statute of limitations<\/a> on discipline. This means that even if department leaders conclude an officer violated a rule, they cannot hold that officer accountable.<\/p>\n Recent reports show that OPD completed only 64% of these cases within 180 days, well below the 85% they agreed to reach and the level achieved by many other police departments. But the city says that in the last quarter of 2025, it \u201clikely met\u201d the 85% goal for finishing cases in 180 day range.<\/p>\n Task 5: The quality of internal affairs investigations<\/p>\n The goal of this task is to ensure that when OPD investigates an officer for misconduct, that investigation is rigorous, thorough, and fair. Four years ago, OPD had achieved this goal. But in 2023, police misconduct cases involving a sergeant who got in a hit-and-run<\/a> in a parking garage \u2014 and later, in a separate incident, shot his gun in an elevator<\/a> inside OPD headquarters \u2014 revealed that the department hadn\u2019t handled his case properly.<\/p>\n More recently, the independent monitor who oversees OPD for the court wrote in a report that there are \u201ca number of issues, concerns, and developments which are not yet appropriate for public discussion\u201d concerning OPD\u2019s internal affairs investigations. While the monitor didn\u2019t explain what these issues are, they\u2019re likely related to the case<\/a> of a detective who was investigated for bribery and witness intimidation. That case was badly mishandled by the department<\/a>, including by high-ranking OPD officials, according to subsequent investigations.<\/p>\n The city contends that it\u2019s now in compliance with this task. City attorneys wrote in their brief that in recent reports, the monitor found no problems with internal investigations, credibility findings, or the discipline findings the department reached.<\/p>\n Task 45: Consistency of discipline<\/p>\n This task is supposed to ensure discipline is fairly and consistently meted out. The above-mentioned parking garage and elevator gunshot cases, and how they were mishandled, showed OPD wasn\u2019t meeting this goal, according to the department\u2019s independent monitor. Several<\/a> reports<\/a> showing different discipline outcomes for officers correlated with the officers\u2019 race caused more concerns. The city contends that the racial disparity studies are complicated and that it has worked over several years to understand why there are different outcomes.\u00a0<\/p>\n \u201cThe department can and is addressing disparity through Department-wide intervention aimed at systemic and implicit bias,\u201d the city attorneys wrote, and they feel OPD is in \u201csubstantial compliance\u201d with the goal.<\/p>\n Are Oakland leaders aligned?<\/p>\n Burris and Chanin have indicated that they think recent leadership changes at OPD could be a good thing. A recent meeting they had with Interim Chief James Beere, Deputy Chief Aaron Smith, and Captain Brian Hubbard boosted their confidence; they wrote, \u201cWe believe these people recognized the problem we were describing and, unlike Chief Mitchell, have the will and the potential to improve this situation.\u201d<\/p>\n