Are we there yet?<\/p>\n
That\u2019s the question hanging precariously over Oakland\u2019s police department.<\/p>\n
On Tuesday, the city of Oakland might finally \u2014 after 23 years of reform, scandals, progress and backsliding \u2014 regain full control over its police department.<\/p>\n
The city will appear in federal court on September 29 to argue that it has shown it can sustain a lengthy list of reforms it agreed to<\/a> in 2003, in the aftermath of the Riders scandal<\/a>. Moreover, the Oakland Police Department and city officials say the department\u2019s culture has fundamentally changed since the early 2000s, when incidents of racial profiling and police brutality were rife.<\/p>\n However, each time OPD has gotten close to the finish line, new challenges have emerged. This time\u2019s no different.<\/p>\n Last week, the court-appointed monitor who oversees OPD\u2019s progress noted in a report that the department failed to meet a key benchmark<\/a> for its investigations of serious cases of police misconduct.<\/p>\n Responding to that finding, the two civil rights attorneys who represent the plaintiffs in OPD\u2019s federal oversight case are now asking the judge in charge not to release Oakland from the reform agreement. In a brief<\/a> to U.S. District Judge William Orrick, James Chanin and John Burris wrote that OPD continues to \u201cyo-yo\u201d in and out of compliance, a situation they find \u201cincomprehensible and bitterly disappointing.\u201d<\/p>\n Chanin and Burris are asking Orrick to take the case to a new phase by ending their participation. They want Orrick and the monitor who reports to him, Robert Warshaw, to keep watch over OPD for one more year without their involvement. If the reforms appear to be sticking, they propose, Orrick could finally close the case in 2027.<\/p>\n The city of Oakland disagrees.<\/p>\n \u201cThe City respectfully requests that the Court dismiss the case,\u201d City Attorney Ryan Richardson wrote in a brief<\/a>, also filed with Orrick yesterday.<\/p>\n Richardson called Chanin and Burris\u2019 proposal \u201cnot workable,\u201d as it would create a wholly new oversight framework.<\/p>\n The city argues that the department is ready for full local control after \u201cyears of deliberate operational and cultural reform.\u201d<\/p>\n Both sides agree that OPD has profoundly changed, but a key metric has fallen short<\/p>\n The current sticking point has to do with OPD\u2019s timeliness in conducting internal affairs investigations.<\/p>\n As part of the reform program, the city agreed that OPD would complete 85% of Class I internal affairs cases within 180 days. Class I cases are the most serious, involving the use of force resulting in great bodily injury or death, lying or criminal acts. Meeting the 180-day timeline is important because state laws require internal affairs investigators to meet several deadlines when completing a case; missing those deadlines means the department can\u2019t discipline the officers involved.<\/p>\n After years of meeting the 85% mark, OPD fell out of compliance in 2019 and remained so until 2022, when it achieved this goal again. But in late 2024, OPD again fell below the 85% threshold. After getting back above this mark again, more bad news came in May when the monitor reported that 77 of 93 cases had been completed in 180 days \u2014 an 83% score.<\/p>\n The city of Oakland argued in its briefing Tuesday that OPD missed the 85% mark by just two cases.<\/p>\n \u201cMissing the Class I timeline requirement for the first quarter of 2026 by two cases does not indicate systemic non-compliance or a lack of institutional will that requires external intervention,\u201d Richardson wrote.<\/p>\n Chanin and Burris see things differently, calling OPD\u2019s performance a \u201cstrictly mathematical\u201d matter.<\/p>\n \u201cThere is an objective target that OPD must meet and has previously met,\u201d they wrote. \u201cHitting this benchmark is entirely within the Department\u2019s control. Whether or not OPD achieves the minimum passing grade is not in any way subjective, colorable, or open to interpretation.\u201d<\/p>\n Others weigh in: Oakland Police Commission, OPOA, and community activists<\/p>\n Orrick\u2019s decision next week may also be informed by the views of several other groups who he\u2019s allowed to file briefs.<\/p>\n The Oakland Police Officers Association, which became a party to the oversight case 14 years ago, has consistently asked for an end to the negotiated settlement agreement, known as the NSA. Attorneys for the union wrote this week<\/a> that \u201cthe vast majority of the rank-and-file membership have consistently complied with all of the policies and practices that have become institutionalized in the Department.\u201d<\/p>\n