Case3:00-cv-04599-TEH Document857 Filed11/08/12 Page1 of 17

1 OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY CITY OF OAKLAND 2 Barbara J. Parker, SBN 69722 City Attorney 3 Randolph W. Hall, SBN 80142 Chief Assistant City Attorney 4 Rocio V. Fierro, SBN 139565 Supervising Deputy City Attorney, 5 Jamilah A. Jefferson, SBN 219027 Deputy City Attorney 6 One Frank H. Ogawa Plaza, Sixth Floor Oakland, CA 94612 7 Telephone: (510) 238-3601 Facsimile: (510) 238-6500 8 GREGORY M. FOX, State Bar #070876 9 Bertrand, Fox & Elliot The Waterfront Building 10 2749 Hyde Street San Francisco, CA 94109 11 Telephone: (415)353-0999 Facsimile: (415)353-0990 gfox@bfesf.com 12 Email: 13 Attorneys for Defendants City of Oakland, et al. 14 15 16 17 18 19 DELPHINE ALLEN, et al., 20 21 v. Plaintiffs,

HANSON BRIDGETT LLP PAUL B. MELLO, SBN 179755 WALTER R. SCHNEIDER, SBN 173113 SAMANTHA D. WOLFF, SBN 240280 PAUL B. GRUWELL, SBN 252474 425 Market Street, 26th Floor San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 777-3200 Facsimile: (415) 541-9366 pmello@hansonbridgett.com

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

Case No. C-00-4599 TEH DECLARATION OF NANCY O'MALLEY RE PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF A RECEIVER Judge: Date: Time: Ctrm.: Honorable Thelton E. Henderson December 13, 2012 10:00 a.m. 2, 17th Floor

22 CITY OF OAKLAND, et al., 23 24 25 26 I, Nancy O'Malley, declare that: 1. Defendants.

I am the District Attorney of Alameda County. I am aware of the pending

27 motion to appoint a receiver to take control of the Oakland Police Department. I make 28 this declaration neither in support of nor in opposition to the motion. Rather, as the chief
4824033.1

DECLARATION OF NANCY O'MALLEY RE PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF A RECEIVER; Case No. C-00-4599 TEH

Case3:00-cv-04599-TEH Document857 Filed11/08/12 Page2 of 17

1 law enforcement official of Alameda County, I want to make the court aware of specific 2 concerns I have about how the Independent Monitor is judging the performance of the 3 Oakland Police Department with respect to officer involved shootings and its impact on 4 both the department and public safety. I offer the following information and analysis to 5 assist the court in making its decision regarding the appointment of receiver. 6 2. I have served in the Alameda County District Attorney's Office (ACDA) for

7 more than twenty eight (28) years, as the District Attorney for the last three (3) years, as 8 the Chief Assistant District Attorney for ten (10) years prior to that, as well as both a 9 Senior Deputy District Attorney and Deputy District Attorney. The District Attorney's 10 Office consists of 156 attorneys in the Legal Division, 63 sworn peace officers in the 11 Inspector's Division, 39 victim advocates in the Victim Witness Assistance Division and 12 108 staff in the Administrative Division. 13 3. As the Attorney General is the chief law enforcement officer of the State of

14 California, I serve as the chief law enforcement officer and chief prosecutor for the 15 County of Alameda, which includes Oakland. A primary responsibility and focus I have, 16 and that of my Office, is to protect and ensure public safety. 17 4. The Alameda County District Attorney's Office covers a jurisdictional area of

18 approximately 800 square miles and boasts an extremely diverse population of more than 19 1.6 million people. The District Attorney's Office regularly interacts with the Alameda 20 County Sheriff's Department, which has sole jurisdiction in the unincorporated parts of 21 the County and county wide law enforcement jurisdiction; with fourteen (14) separate 22 municipal law enforcement agencies; with the University of California and the California 23 State University police departments; with three (3) special district police agencies; with 24 four (4) California Highway Patrol Divisions; with the Investigative Division of the 25 California Department of Justice; and various federal law enforcement agencies, 26 including but not limited to the following: FBI, DEA, ATF, FDA, and EPA. Additionally, 27 my Office has a contract with P.O.S.T. (Police Officer Standards Training) to provide
4824033.1

28

-2DECLARATION OF NANCY O'MALLEY RE PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF A RECEIVER; Case No. C-00-4599 TEH

Case3:00-cv-04599-TEH Document857 Filed11/08/12 Page3 of 17

1 extensive continuing education and training of sworn peace officers in the State of 2 California and as such, we produce three (3) legal update shows per week; several 3 members of my staff, including me, are certified P.O.S.T. Instructors; several members of 4 my staff regularly instruct California sworn peace officers and non-sworn law enforcement 5 personnel. Lastly, the Alameda County District Attorney's Office is recognized as one of 6 the national leaders of prosecutor offices and within California, my Office and several 7 staff members are instructors for the California District Attorneys Association (CDAA), 8 including at the National Homicide Symposium sponsored by the National District 9 Attorneys Association and CDAA. 10 5. The monitor's report criticizes aspects of officer involved shooting

11 investigations by the Oakland Police Department and proposes changes. Because such 12 investigations play an integral part in our own investigation, the ACDA's Office is keenly 13 interested in the monitor's attempt to influence the manner in which such investigations 14 are carried out and reviewed. 15 6. Further, the ACDA Inspectors frequently work closely with members of the

16 Oakland Police Department. For example, the ACDA Inspectors may assist Oakland 17 Police Officers in conducting criminal investigations both before and after a charging 18 decision has been made. Inspectors may call upon assistance from Oakland Police 19 Officers in making arrests or executing search warrants. Moreover, I have the 20 responsibility to apply for wiretaps on behalf of the Oakland Police Department. Such 21 wiretap investigations often focus on individuals engaged in violent criminal activity. The 22 ACDA Inspectors often work closely with Oakland Police Officers in carrying out such 23 operations. To the extent that the monitor's report impacts officer safety issues, it raises 24 concerns not only for members of the Oakland Police Department, but also for other law 25 enforcement officers, including the ACDA Inspectors, who work alongside Oakland Police 26 Officers. 27 ///
4824033.1

28

-3DECLARATION OF NANCY O'MALLEY RE PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF A RECEIVER; Case No. C-00-4599 TEH

Case3:00-cv-04599-TEH Document857 Filed11/08/12 Page4 of 17

7.

When a peace officer is involved in a shooting in Alameda County which

2 results in a fatality, my Office conducts a separate investigation of the incident. The 3 ACDA Office's Officer Involved Shooting (OIS) Team consists of experienced senior, 4 assistant and/or deputy district attorneys as well as experienced ACDA inspectors. Each 5 two person team, consisting of an attorney and inspector, are assigned to a monthly OIS 6 duty, responding 24/7, 365 days a year. The Team responds to the scene, investigates, 7 and evaluates cases where a person has died as a result of an officer involved shooting. 8 While it remains the responsibility of both the Internal Affairs Division and Criminal 9 Investigation Division of the employing law enforcement agency to conduct an 10 investigation into the use of force, the OIS Team conducts a separate, independent, yet 11 parallel investigation into the circumstances leading up to the death. 12 8. Although the OIS Team's evaluation and report is a separate and

13 independent investigation of officer involved shootings, my Office carefully reviews the 14 criminal investigation of the employing law enforcement agency. The OIS Team's 15 investigation, evaluation, and report are designed to answer the ultimate question of 16 whether criminal charges should be filed against the officer(s) involved. While the 17 criminal standard used in the OIS Team evaluation is unquestionably different than that 18 employed during the administrative review of an Internal Affairs Division, at its core, each 19 inquiry must address the issue and existence of an "imminent threat" faced by the 20 involved officer(s). 21 9. It is with this background that I provide the following response to the Special

22 Report of the Independent Monitor for the Oakland Police Department: Officer Involved 23 Shootings (October 2, 2012) submitted to the court. It is my primary intention, through 24 this response, to provide the court with relevant information that may factor into the 25 courts decisions and to assist the court in its review of the monitor's report and weight 26 given to the assertions of the monitor contained in the report. 27 ///
4824033.1

28

-4DECLARATION OF NANCY O'MALLEY RE PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF A RECEIVER; Case No. C-00-4599 TEH

Case3:00-cv-04599-TEH Document857 Filed11/08/12 Page5 of 17

1 2

THE MONITORS SPECIAL REPORT 10. The monitor was tasked to identify any systemic problems that exist in the

3 process by which the Oakland Police Department evaluates officer involved shootings 4 and to recommend solutions to those problems. I have reviewed the Special Report of 5 the Independent Monitor for the Oakland Police Department: Officer-Involved 6 Shootings, authored by Robert Warshaw. I am familiar with some of the cases used by 7 the monitor to lodge his criticism of the actions of the Oakland Police Department and 8 some of its officers. Additionally, my Office stands in the unique position of working with 9 no less than thirty (30) law enforcement agencies, as well as providing extensive training 10 to law enforcement officers across the State of California. It is with this additional 11 background that I find the monitors report troubling in several ways. 12 11. First, many of the monitor's criticisms of the Oakland Police Department's

13 investigation and review of officer involved shootings seem designed to limit 14 consideration of crucial information, particularly as it relates to an officer's determination 15 of the presence of an "imminent threat." Secondly, the procedural process of review 16 and advancement of findings suggested by the monitor is in direct contradiction to his 17 stated goal of allowing reviewing bodies the benefit of dissenting opinions.1 Finally, and 18 perhaps of greatest concern, the monitor's discussion regarding cultural issues within the 19 Oakland Police Department ignores or discounts realities surrounding officer safety and 20 the need to protect the citizens of Oakland from increasing violence by armed criminals. 21 The tone and totality of the monitor's report on officer involved shootings raises strong 22 concerns about the monitor's objectivity and ability to make unbiased criticism. 23 /// 24 25 26 27
4824033.1 1

See Special Report of the Independent Monitor for the Oakland Police Department:

Officer-Involved Shootings (October 2, 2012) at p. 15.

28

-5DECLARATION OF NANCY O'MALLEY RE PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF A RECEIVER; Case No. C-00-4599 TEH

Case3:00-cv-04599-TEH Document857 Filed11/08/12 Page6 of 17

1 2

THE MONITORS LIMITATION OF PERTINENT INFORMATION 12. Officer involved shootings are complicated incidents which require a

3 thorough consideration of the many different factors confronting an officer in the split 4 second before he or she must decide whether to use deadly force in defense of the 5 officer and/or others. These factors include the split second assessment an officer must 6 make of an imminent threat, whether or not the suspect is armed, and whether or not the 7 suspect has a violent criminal history. Rather than giving full consideration of these 8 factors, the monitor chooses to discount them, and thereby limit consideration of 9 information crucial to the analysis of any officer involved shooting. 10 13. The limitation of crucial information is most evident in the monitor's

11 treatment of the issue of "imminent threat." In the report, the monitor concludes that, in 12 some cases, "we do not believe the evidence supports the existence of an imminent 13 threat at the time the trigger is pulled." As a lead in to this conclusion, the monitor stated, 14 "We concede that these situations are fluid, stressful, and dangerous. However, the 15 justification for using deadly physical force must be based on the threat presented to the 16 officer at the precise time force is used. It is troubling that the monitor appears to feel 17 constrained to concede that scenarios presented to the police are fluid, stressful, and 18 dangerous. The report should reflect an understanding of the difficulties an officer faces 19 rather than a concession. 20 14. That the monitor seeks to limit the evaluation of the officers use of force to

21 the "precise time" force is used is legally and practically incorrect. While it is true that an 22 officer must have a reasonable belief of imminent harm at the time he or she fires a 23 weapon, the monitor seems to substitute "imminent" for "precise" which arguably 24 presents a different standard of evaluation set forth in California law. The monitors 25 suggestions that an officer has to wait until the firearm is leveled against him, practically 26 the moment when the suspect fires on him--not only defeats the notion of officer safety, 27 but literally imperils an officer's safety. That assertion is also inconsistent with California
4824033.1

28

-6DECLARATION OF NANCY O'MALLEY RE PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF A RECEIVER; Case No. C-00-4599 TEH

Case3:00-cv-04599-TEH Document857 Filed11/08/12 Page7 of 17

1 criminal law and as such, holds the Oakland Police Department to a different and 2 unreasonable standard for officer safety issues than that imposed by universally 3 accepted training. 4 15. A police officer is justified in using deadly force when the officer reasonably

5 believes such force is necessary to defend the officer or another person from imminent 6 threat of death or serious bodily injury. This determination of reasonable belief 7 requires a consideration of the totality of the circumstances. 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
4824033.1 2

16.

Californias jury instructions illustrate the factors that must be considered: Homicide is justifiable and not unlawful when committed by a person who o Reasonably believed he or someone else was in imminent danger of being killed or suffering great bodily harm; o Reasonably believed that the immediate use of deadly force was necessary to defend against the danger; AND o Used no more force than was reasonably necessary to defend against the danger.2 Homicide by a peace officer is justifiable and not unlawful when: o The officer had probable cause to believe that someone posed a threat of serious harm to himself or others; o Probable cause exists when the facts known by the officer would persuade someone of reasonable caution that someone is going to cause serious physical harm to another; o The People have the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the killing is not justified. If the People fail to meet

CALCRIM instruction 505.

28

-7DECLARATION OF NANCY O'MALLEY RE PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF A RECEIVER; Case No. C-00-4599 TEH

Case3:00-cv-04599-TEH Document857 Filed11/08/12 Page8 of 17

1 2 17.

this burden, the jury must find the officer not guilty.3 It is difficult to reconcile the reality of a fluid and dangerous scenario with

3 the monitors requirement of a "precise time" at which to measure the appropriateness of 4 an officers use of deadly force. This contradiction demonstrates the monitor's efforts to 5 find fault in situations, even where fault does not lie. By doing so, the monitor creates an 6 atmosphere of extreme conflict and confusion which has resulted in undue damage within 7 the police department and its ranks. 8 18. The monitors report also dismisses the important question of whether or

9 not a suspect is armed. The monitor states that the Oakland Police Department has a 10 bias that an officer involved shooting is justified unless proven otherwise. As an example 11 of this supposed bias, the monitor argued that the "presence" of a firearm during the 12 incident was a factor unreasonably weighted in favor of justifying a shooting. The monitor 13 stated: "If a firearm is involved in the incident, we note the OIS will almost always be 14 found to be justified, even if at the time of the actual use of force, the firearm was not 15 being used as an imminent threat. During our conversations, one OPD command officer, 16 showing great insight, wondered if it was possible for a suspect possessing a handgun to 17 surrender without being shot, given that his every action would probably be construed as 18 a furtive move."4 19 19. The monitor's conclusion is unsupportable. The quoted remark fails to

20 consider the many scenarios where Oakland police officers have recovered guns from 21 armed criminal suspects and no officer involved shooting occurred. According to media 22 and police reports, since January 2012, Oakland Police Officers have recovered more 23 24 25 26 27
4824033.1 3 4

CALCRIM instruction 507. See Special Report of the Independent Monitor for the Oakland Police Department:

Officer-Involved Shootings (October 2, 2012) at p. 16.

28

-8DECLARATION OF NANCY O'MALLEY RE PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF A RECEIVER; Case No. C-00-4599 TEH

Case3:00-cv-04599-TEH Document857 Filed11/08/12 Page9 of 17

1 than 750 illegal firearms without an OIS incident. Contrary to the opinion of the 2 unnamed command officer, it is both possible and frankly, is the case in 99% of 3 encounters, for a suspect possessing a handgun to surrender without being shot. This 4 outcome is routinely achieved when a suspect obeys an officer's commands to drop a 5 firearm, shows his empty hands, or abandons the firearm in a vehicle before fleeing. 6 When a suspect commits an assault with a firearm upon a police officer, my Office 7 charges those cases which can be proved beyond a reasonable doubt under Penal Code 8 section 245 (d)(1). 9 20. The monitor criticizes the Oakland Police for including information about the

10 criminal history of the subject in their investigation. The monitor argues that the Oakland 11 Police Department has a bias that an officer involved shooting is justified unless proven 12 otherwise. The monitor states: 13 14 15 16 17 21. "[E]very EFRB commences with a detailed history of subject's criminal record. This tends to reinforce that a bad guy' was involved and that should be taken into account in determining justification." Presumably, the monitor is suggesting that the criminal history of the

18 subject should be excluded from the materials generated by the Oakland Police 19 Department in an officer involved shooting. Officer involved shooting investigations 20 require analysis of statements made by the involved officers regarding their reasons for 21 use of deadly force. Such statements include descriptions of the actions of the subjects. 22 The criminal history of a subject is useful in evaluating whether the described actions of 23 the subject are inconsistent or consistent with the subject's actions on earlier occasions. 24 For example, an officer may describe seeing the subject holding a gun, refusing to drop 25 the gun, or even raising the gun. If the subject has a history of being armed, resisting 26 police, or engaging in violence, such history could tend to corroborate the officer's 27 statements regarding the subject's actions. The subject's criminal history is by no means
4824033.1

28

-9DECLARATION OF NANCY O'MALLEY RE PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF A RECEIVER; Case No. C-00-4599 TEH

Case3:00-cv-04599-TEH Document857 Filed11/08/12 Page10 of 17

1 the only consideration in a review of an officer involved shooting, but it may be, by all 2 means, an important one. Therefore, elimination of this material from such an 3 investigation would be inappropriate. 4 5 PROCEDURAL ROADBLOCKS TO DISSENTING OPINIONS 22. The monitors report is critical of a review process that it describes as

6 exhibiting the most deficiencies and the least inquisitiveness when it comes to officer 7 involved shootings that are not clearly justified.5 Among other things, the report is 8 critical of a procedure under which the IAD investigators conclusions are included in the 9 report and findings of the IAD Commander even if their recommendations are 10 inconsistent. The monitor asserts that the dissenting opinions are therefore given greater 11 weight and credence. What the monitor then suggests is that the dissenting opinion or 12 recommendation of the IAD investigator, if different from the IAD Commander, should be 13 changed in the report. He suggests that the same dynamic would not be allowed in a 14 criminal investigation, and it should not be tolerated in an administrative investigation.6 I 15 am astounded by this remark. The suggestion to change a report falls outside of 16 common practice and thought. In a criminal investigation, conflicting evidence, especially 17 that which would tend to exonerate a subject of the report should never be suppressed or 18 changed to accommodate anothers finding. In fact, the opposite exists: if there is any 19 exonerating, material evidence or information, it is readily disclosed by the prosecution 20 team. It is my understanding that OPD has an electronic reporting system that does not 21 allow going back in and changing a report. In any event, it is the protocol of OPD, as I 22 23 24 25 26 27
4824033.1 5

Special Report of the Independent Monitor for the Oakland Police Department: Officer-

Involved Shootings (October 2, 2012) at p. 12.

6

Special Report of the Independent Monitor for the Oakland Police Department: Officer-

Involved Shootings (October 2, 2012) at p. 14.

28

-10DECLARATION OF NANCY O'MALLEY RE PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF A RECEIVER; Case No. C-00-4599 TEH

Case3:00-cv-04599-TEH Document857 Filed11/08/12 Page11 of 17

1 am told, that in an IAD investigation, if a dissenting opinion(s) exists, not only are they 2 included, but they are considered by the Board and final decision-maker. Whether an 3 investigation be criminal or administrative, the goal is the same: the ascertainment of the 4 truth. An investigation is never simple, never easy, particularly in the context of an officer 5 involved shooting. 6 23. A shooting by an officer involves a host of considerations that rarely arise

7 elsewhere. Some of those considerations were addressed above, but other factors come 8 into play: a suspects movements, an officers reaction time, the presence or absence of 9 innocent bystanders who could be harmed by the suspect or by friendly fire from the 10 officer, the officers assessment of the suspects mental status, the interpretation of a 11 sudden movement, a bulge under the clothing, a dark object. A fair consideration of all of 12 these factors requires that the shooting be evaluated by several investigators from 13 several perspectives. It would thwart the purpose of the investigating board to allow one 14 investigator the absolute authority to ignore the findings of the others and dictate the 15 boards findings to the majority. The reports suggestion is tantamount to giving the Chief 16 Justice of the Supreme Court the authority to write the majority opinion for any decision 17 he feels strongly about even if he is outvoted by the remaining 8 justices. 18 24. The reports emphasis on result over process calls into question whether

19 this report is a fair and knowledgeable assessment or a reflection of the desire to see a 20 particular result. 21 22 DOWNPLAYING THE REALITIES OF INCREASING VIOLENCE 25. Perhaps of greatest concern in the monitor's report, is the patent failure to

23 appreciate the dangers faced by Oakland Police Officers on a daily basis. This absent 24 perspective is most exemplified in the monitor's allegation that the Oakland Police 25 Department has a culture of "[h]ypersensitivity to the dangers of police work." The 26 monitor goes on to state: 27
4824033.1

"[T]he OPD Administration and OPD policies tend to inordinately overemphasize -11DECLARATION OF NANCY O'MALLEY RE PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF A RECEIVER; Case No. C-00-4599 TEH

28

Case3:00-cv-04599-TEH Document857 Filed11/08/12 Page12 of 17

1 officer safety issues and repeatedly reinforce the dangers of police work, often several 2 times in the same policy. This can create an environment in which officers are on a 3 perpetual state of high alert, assuming that all citizen contacts have the potential to go 4 badly, and reinforce the need to be ready to defend themselves at all times against 5 aggressive action.7 6 26. These words may readily be interpreted as an insult to the law enforcement

7 community in Oakland and betray a fundamental misconception by the monitor of the 8 realities faced by Oakland Police Officers and all law enforcement personnel who put on 9 the badge to protect and serve our communities. Across America, most police officers 10 are killed in a traffic stop, serving a search warrant or responding to a domestic violence 11 incident. Officer safety is a priority for virtually every police agency in this country. It 12 should indeed be expected, if not required, that OPD Administration and policies heavily 13 "emphasize officer safety issues" and repeatedly "reinforce the dangers of police work." 14 There is an abiding risk for any police officer who patrols a street, but rising violence 15 makes Oaklands streets more dangerous than ever. With a full two months of the 16 calendar year yet remaining, there have been 103 murders in the city of Oakland in 2012, 17 a 13% increase over the previous year and nearly a 65% increase from 2010.8 So far 18 this year, there have been a reported 2,226 Aggravated Assaults in Oakland (a 7% 19 increase from this time last year) and 458 Assaults with a Firearm (a 2% increase over 20 last year and a nearly 8% increase over the same time span in 2010). 3,250 robberies 21 have been reported and in more than one-half of those crimes, a firearm was used, up by 22 23 24 25 26 27
4824033.1 7

See Special Report of the Independent Monitor for the Oakland Police Department:

Officer-Involved Shootings (October 2, 2012) at pp. 15, 16.

8

These figures are year-to-date as proffered by the City of Oakland Weekly Crime

Report (10/22/12 to 10/28/12).

28

-12DECLARATION OF NANCY O'MALLEY RE PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF A RECEIVER; Case No. C-00-4599 TEH

Case3:00-cv-04599-TEH Document857 Filed11/08/12 Page13 of 17

1 a marked 30% since last year. Yet, perhaps most pertinent to the monitor's allegation of 2 OPD's "hypersensitivity" to the dangers of police work, is the staggering increase in 3 number of Firearm Assaults on an Officer. So far this year, there has been a 200% 4 increase in such assaults against Oakland Police Officers over last year and a 100% 5 increase from 2010.9 While even these sobering numbers do not fully reflect the 6 dangers and officer safety issues faced by members of the Oakland Police Department, 7 their complete absence from the monitors' report or, at least, the absence of a 8 comprehensive appreciation for how these numbers impact officer safety in Oakland is of 9 paramount concern. 10 27. As to the monitor's claim that OPD's emphasis on officer safety can "create

11 an environment in which officers are on a perpetual state of high alert, assuming all 12 citizen contacts have the potential to go badly and reinforce a need to be ready to defend 13 themselves at all times against aggressive actions," one need only look to the tragic 14 events of March 21, 2009 to see how misplaced the monitor's criticism may be. As 15 citizens of Alameda County and the greater Bay Area, we are all too familiar with the 16 events of that day, and a complete recitation of that tragedy here is not necessary. Yet, 17 what can be instantly gleaned from that day's events, and what is indirectly ignored by 18 the monitor's statements, is that just three years ago four Oakland Police Officers were 19 shot and killed in the line of duty stemming from events that simply began with a routine 20 traffic violation and car stop. This horrific occurrence, the single deadliest attack on 21 California police officers since 1970, exemplifies the need, the demand, that all officers 22 indeed be on "a perpetual state of high alert," knowing that any citizen contact does have 23 24 25 26 27
4824033.1 9

According to the City of Oakland Weekly Crime Report (10/22/12 to 10/28/12), there

has been 6 Firearm Assaults on a Police Office YTD in 2012, compared to just two such assaults YTD in 2011 and 3 YTD in 2010.

28

-13DECLARATION OF NANCY O'MALLEY RE PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF A RECEIVER; Case No. C-00-4599 TEH

Case3:00-cv-04599-TEH Document857 Filed11/08/12 Page14 of 17

1 the "potential to go badly" and that the officers need to be ready to defend themselves at 2 all times against such a reality. To fault the Oakland Police Department for such training 3 and policies is to ignore the events of March 21, 2009, to discard the lessons learned 4 from that day, and to place police officers directly in harm's way without proper training 5 and appropriate perspective. Furthermore, the monitors emphasis on police readiness 6 ignores the friendly and cooperative interactions officers have with Oakland's citizens on 7 a daily basis. In virtually every Neighborhood Crime Prevention Council and 8 Neighborhood Watch meeting I attend, citizens of Oakland cry out for a strong, stable 9 police department and have established positive communication lines and working 10 relationships with the Oakland Police Department. 11 28. The monitor's report contains an analysis of individual incidents. The

12 monitor's "Summary of Investigations Reviewed" describes two separate officer involved 13 shootings resulting in three fatalities. This description, and the time period covered by 14 the report, makes it possible for us to identify the incidents at issue. My office conducted 15 a separate and thorough investigation into these officer involved shootings resulting in 16 fatalities. 17 29. At the conclusion of the monitor's report, he states, "It is our intention to

18 discuss with the Court our concerns regarding the actions of individual officers who were 19 involved in 'OIS's' as well as the behaviors of those who have investigated or reviewed 20 certain cases that have been of great concern to us." 21 30. To the extent that the monitor is referring to one or both of the officer

22 involved shootings investigated by my office, it is notable that the monitor has never 23 contacted my office to express concern regarding the police investigation or findings 24 regarding these incidents. The monitor claims that he seeks perfection in the 25 investigation and review of officer involved shootings resulting in fatalities. This stated 26 goal seems inconsistent with the actions of the monitor in failing to even consult with my 27 office on these issues in spite of attempts made by my office, through those in contact
4824033.1

28

-14DECLARATION OF NANCY O'MALLEY RE PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF A RECEIVER; Case No. C-00-4599 TEH

Case3:00-cv-04599-TEH Document857 Filed11/08/12 Page15 of 17

1 with the monitor, to meet. 2 31. We know all too well that criminals in Oakland are using guns to shoot

3 people. The number of gun related homicides and shootings in Oakland are shocking. In 4 2012, Oakland's crime statistics reveal: 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 32. o o o o o o o o 103 murders, much higher than the already comparatively high three year average of 79; More than 450 firearm assaults against persons (not homicides) reported, which is a five-year high; More than 500 firearm offenses at vehicles and structures reported, also a five year high and 25% more than last year; At least 6 firearm assaults on a police officer, an increase of 200%; More than 3,250 robberies reported have plagued Oakland's streets and of those, more than half involved a firearm--an increase of 30% over the same time last year; More than 160 sexual assault crimes reported, an increase of 18%; Nearly 7,000 calls for help on domestic violence cases that are increasingly more violent, involve weapons and serious injury; 8 Domestic Violence homicides, a significant increase in Oakland and an all-time Alameda County high since 2002. When confronted with these sobering statistics, our community expects and

21 quite frankly demands law enforcement officers to be proactive in their attempts to locate 22 and arrest criminals armed with guns. This expectation puts police officers in harm's 23 way. The community expects these officers to be lawful in the execution of their duties 24 and to be accountable when they fail to act within the law. These officers expect that 25 when the need for deadly force is presented, the officers' actions will be evaluated fairly 26 and not by individuals who lack insight into the true nature of imminent threats. 27 ///
4824033.1

28

-15DECLARATION OF NANCY O'MALLEY RE PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF A RECEIVER; Case No. C-00-4599 TEH

Case3:00-cv-04599-TEH Document857 Filed11/08/12 Page16 of 17

33.

The City of Oakland, given the challenges of scarce resources, has

2 struggled to address gun related violence. In recognition of the challenges facing 3 Oakland and its police department, United States Attorney General Eric Holder, and 4 United States Attorney Melinda Haag, have pledged assistance to Oakland from federal 5 law enforcement agencies. Accordingly, agents from the FBI, ATF, DEA, Secret Service, 6 and others, have been deployed to Oakland in an attempt to reduce gun related violence 7 and successfully prosecute those engaging in such violence. 8 9 CONCLUSION 34. The NSA came about as a result of the Riders case. The Court recalls that

10 those involved officers were prosecuted by my Office and an arrest warrant remains 11 outstanding against one. When police officers have broken the law in Alameda County, 12 they have been prosecuted by this Office, for crimes ranging from murder to driving under 13 the influence. Oakland, its residents, and all those who visit Oakland, deserve a police 14 department that is the finest it can be. They also deserve a police department that 15 operates within the law, with a high level of professionalism, and the highest level of 16 integrity. 17 35. Police misconduct and abuse of civil rights are detrimental to professional

18 law enforcement and the ability of my office to successfully prosecute criminal behavior, 19 which depends on public trust in the criminal justice system and a willingness of citizens 20 to come forward as witnesses in the cases we decide to prosecute. I therefore have a 21 vested interest in seeing the Oakland Police Department come into compliance with the 22 NSA and to follow the best practices of modern constitutional policing. That said, I also 23 want to make sure that this monitor (or any other monitor selected by the Court should 24 that be the Court's determination) is providing the court with a fair and unbiased 25 assessment of the Oakland Police Department's performance using proper standards of 26 review. With respect to officer involved shootings and the monitors recent report, I do 27 not believe that to be the case.
4824033.1

28

-16DECLARATION OF NANCY O'MALLEY RE PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF A RECEIVER; Case No. C-00-4599 TEH

Case3:00-cv-04599-TEH Document857 Filed11/08/12 Page17 of 17