The OPC is an independent, community-centric, civilian oversight body that serves as a national leader in police reform and model of constitutional policing.

OPC fulfills its duties under Measures LL & S1 to provide police oversight by employing bold, innovative and informed strategies to develop policies and practices in the pursuit of justice for the citizens of Oakland.

Our primary strategies include:

• Preventing police misconduct
• Ensuring fair and equitable accountability in disciplinary processes
• Changing the culture of the Oakland Police Department
• Building strong police-community relations

Promoting mental health and wellness in the Oakland Police Department

Core Values

• RESPECT and COURTESY to create space for honest conversations and foster greater participation.

   

• EVIDENCE-BASED DECISION MAKING utilizing quantitative and qualitative data before making decisions that may impact public safety.

   

• IMPACT-ORIENTATION to achieve equitable public safety goals.

   

• TEAMWORK to increase productivity and work together toward a common goal.

   

• RACIAL EQUITY to empower disproportionately impacted populations in black and brown communities.

Oakland has a long and painful history of police misconduct, most infamously exposed during the Riders scandal in the early 2000s. A group of officers was found to have engaged in egregious abuses—falsifying reports, planting evidence, and using excessive force, primarily against young Black men. The fallout led to more than 100 civil rights lawsuits and placed the Oakland Police Department (OPD) under a federal court-monitored consent decree that remains in effect to this day—making it one of the longest-running oversight arrangements in U.S. history.

This legacy reminds us that oversight is not an option—it is a necessity.

Oversight ensures that power is not abused behind closed doors. It is a structural commitment to accountability, transparency, and justice. In cities like Oakland, where communities have suffered from racialized policing and broken trust, there is no such thing as “too much oversight”—only too little protection when systems are allowed to self-police.

Oversight is not about bureaucracy; it's about prevention. It is the difference between a system that responds only after harm has been done, and one that protects people before harm occurs.

The NSA is a federal court-ordered reform agreement established in 2003 between the City of Oakland and plaintiffs in a civil rights lawsuit (Delphine Allen v. City of Oakland). It was created to address widespread misconduct and civil rights violations by OPD officers, particularly in the early 2000s.

Why Was It Created?

The NSA was a result of a lawsuit following the “Oakland Riders” scandal, in which a group of OPD officers were accused of:

• Falsifying police reports

• Planting evidence

• Excessive force

• Abusing citizens’ civil rights

This agreement was part of a settlement to avoid a trial, and it mandated sweeping reforms to improve oversight, accountability, and constitutional policing practices within OPD.

What Does the NSA Require?

The NSA outlines 52 reform tasks, which include:

• Use of force policies

• Racial profiling data collection and analysis

• Internal affairs investigations

• Supervisory oversight

• Officer discipline processes

• Community policing standards

• Transparent reporting and auditing

Click here to see the OPD tasks and subtasks list.(PDF, 263KB)

Who Oversees the NSA?

• The Independent Monitor (currently Robert Warshaw) is appointed by the federal court to assess OPD’s compliance.

• The Federal District Court Judge (currently Judge William H. Orrick) oversees the agreement.

• The City of Oakland, OPD leadership, the Community Police Review Agency (CPRA), and the Police Commission are key internal stakeholders.

Current Status (as of 2025)

• OPD has been under federal oversight for over 20 years.

• While many tasks have been completed, a few key tasks remain in partial or non-compliance, especially those related to accountability, use of force reviews, and discipline consistency.

• The City and OPD remain under federal jurisdiction until full and sustained compliance is met for at least one year.

What is the CMC? 

A Case Management Conference (CMC) is a court proceeding to review the status of a case. In the context of the NSA, CMCs are periodic check-ins where a federal judge assesses OPD’s progress on the required reforms and addresses any concerns raised by the court, monitor, or city stakeholders.

What is the Police Commission's CMC Statement? 

The Police Commission’s CMC Statement is a formal written submission provided by the Oakland Police Commission to the federal court ahead of or in connection with a Case Management Conference (CMC) regarding the Negotiated Settlement Agreement (NSA).

Documents for the 1.27.2026 CMC

Submitted to the Oakland City Attorney’s Office (OCA) on January 14, 2026, for inclusion in the Joint Statement for the January 27, 2026 Case Management Conference (CMC).

Oakland Police Commission (OPC) CMC Statement as of 1.14.2026

 2026_01_13-FINAL-OPC-CMC-Statement.KA.3_3.pdf(PDF, 239KB)

City of Oakland Joint Statement & Exhibits as of 1.14.2026

Submitted by the Oakland City Attorney’s Office (OCA) to Judge Orrick III on January 20, 2026, for the January 27, 2026 Case Management Conference (CMC).

1.27.26-CMC-Joint-Statement.pdf(PDF, 887KB)

1.27.26-CMC-Joint-Statement-Exhibits.pdf(PDF, 6MB)

Previous Case Management Conference Information 

Oakland Police Commission (OPC) CMC Statement(PDF, 372KB)

Submitted to the Oakland City Attorney’s Office (OCA) on July 2, 2025, for inclusion in the Joint Statement for the July 10, 2025 Case Management Conference (CMC).

City of Oakland Joint Statement

Submitted by the Oakland City Attorney’s Office (OCA) to Judge Orrick III on July 3, 2025, for the July 10, 2025 Case Management Conference (CMC).

City of Oakland Joint Statement Exhibit 1 (revised)(PDF, 879KB)

Submitted by the Oakland City Attorney’s Office (OCA) on July 3, 2025, as part of the Joint Statement for the July 10, 2025 Case Management Conference (CMC).

City of Oakland Joint Statement Exhibit 2-5(PDF, 8MB)

Submitted by the Oakland City Attorney’s Office (OCA) on July 3, 2025, as part of the Joint Statement for the July 10, 2025 Case Management Conference (CMC), including the Oakland Police Commission’s statement.

 Coalition-for-Police-Accountability-Statement(PDF, 1MB)  

Submitted as an Additional Statement to the Court

Letter from the Prescott Neighborhood Council (PNC)(PDF, 200KB)

Submitted as an Additional Statement to the Court

Oversight Structure in Oakland

The City of Oakland has established a layered and independent civilian oversight system to monitor police conduct, ensure accountability, and promote public trust. Three main bodies work together to fulfill this mission:

1. Oakland Police Commission (OPC)

The Oakland Police Commission is a civilian-led body responsible for overseeing the policies, practices, and disciplinary systems of the Oakland Police Department. The Commission has the authority to review and recommend changes to OPD policies, and to make final disciplinary recommendations when there is a disagreement between the Chief of Police and the investigative agency. Its work is guided by the City Charter and the expectations of the Oakland community.

The Commission is composed of seven regular members and two alternates, as established by Oakland City Charter Section 604. Of these, one regular and one alternate commissioner are appointed by the Mayor, while the remaining six regular and one alternate commissioner are selected by an independent Selection Panel. All commissioners must be Oakland residents and serve in a volunteer capacity.

2. Community Police Review Agency (CPRA)

The CPRA serves as the independent investigative arm of the Commission. It receives and investigates public complaints involving police conduct, including use of force, racial profiling, First Amendment violations, and other potential misconduct. CPRA may recommend disciplinary action and works independently of OPD’s internal affairs system.

3. Office of the Inspector General (OIG)

The OIG is responsible for auditing and reviewing the performance of both OPD and CPRA. It conducts regular audits, evaluates whether investigations and internal processes meet established standards, and identifies areas for improvement. The OIG helps ensure transparency, consistency, and systemic accountability throughout the oversight process.

Working Together

Each body plays a distinct role but functions collaboratively:

• CPRA investigates misconduct.

• The Chief of Police reviews those findings and may concur or disagree.

• If there is disagreement, the Police Commission’s Discipline Committee makes a final disciplinary recommendation.

• The OIG reviews the integrity of investigations, audits policy adherence, and reports findings to the Commission and the public.

Together, these entities form a robust system of civilian oversight—one designed to protect the public, elevate transparency, and support fair, constitutional policing in Oakland.

OPC Discipline Committee Process: Step-by-Step

When there is a disagreement between the Community Police Review Agency (CPRA) and the Chief of Police regarding proposed discipline for a misconduct case, the matter is escalated to the Oakland Police Commission’s Discipline Committee. The following steps outline how that process unfolds:

1. Case Investigation and Findings

• CPRA conducts an independent investigation into a complaint of police misconduct.

• If CPRA concludes that disciplinary action may be appropriate, they discuss their findings and proposed outcome with the Chief of Police.

2. Chief Review and Response

• The Chief of Police reviews the case and may agree or disagree with CPRA’s conclusions and proposed discipline.

• If the Chief agrees, discipline is imposed accordingly.

• If the Chief disagrees—either with the findings, the level of discipline, or both—the matter moves forward for further review.

3. Referral to the Discipline Committee

• When CPRA and the Chief are not aligned on how the case should be resolved, the disagreement is referred to the Police Commission’s Discipline Committee, a subcommittee of the full Commission.

• The Committee receives all relevant materials, including the investigative file, both positions on discipline, and supporting rationale.

4. Committee Review Meetings

• The Discipline Committee holds a closed-session meeting to:

  • Review the investigative findings and discipline proposals

  • Hear presentations or input from CPRA, OPD, and the City Attorney’s Office

  • Ask questions, request clarifications, or review additional documentation as needed

5. Deliberation and Determination

• After careful review, the Committee determines whether to:

  • Support CPRA’s recommendation

  • Support the Chief’s position

  • Propose an alternative outcome

  • Or, in some cases, decide that no recommendation will be made due to conflicting or insufficient evidence

6. Final Recommendation

• The Committee’s decision becomes the final disciplinary recommendation under the City Charter.

• This outcome is communicated to both CPRA and OPD for implementation or further internal processing.

This process was created to ensure fairness, accountability, and independence in police discipline matters. It prevents any one entity from having unilateral authority and reinforces the City of Oakland’s commitment to transparent and balanced civilian oversight.

When the OPC is the Right Choice:

If you are filing a police misconduct complaint

If you want to challenge OPD policies on discipline, use of force, or officer accountability

If you believe OPD officers engaged in misconduct, racial profiling, or excessive force

When the OPC May Not Be the Right Choice:

Crime Prevention & Public Safety Policies → If your concern is about overall crime rates, community safety programs, or emergency response, the City of Oakland Public Safety Committee (City Council) is the better venue.

OPD Staffing, Budgets & Policy Decisions → The Police Commission does not control police funding or staffing levels—these are decided by the City Council’s Public Safety Committee.

General Public Safety Concerns → If your issue is about fire safety, emergency services, or crime prevention programs, the City Council Public Safety Committee handles those, not OPC.

Immediate Police Response Issues → If you're reporting a crime in progress or have concerns about OPD’s patrol response, you should contact OPD directly or bring concerns to the City Council’s Public Safety Committee if they are about systemic issues.

The OPC ensures police accountability, but broader public safety issues should be directed to the City Council Public Safety Committee.

FAQ: City of Oakland (City Council) Public Safety Committee vs. Oakland Police Commission

Ways to engage the Commission:

• Via email directly to a Commissioner

• Via public comment during open forum portions of Police Commission Meetings (second and fourth Thursday evening of every month)

• Via voice message when you call 510.238.2187 

Leave a Voice Message

• You may leave a voice message by calling 510-238-2187.
  Please note: Voice messages will not be shared as public comment during Commission meetings.

  If you would like to submit a public comment and cannot attend in person, please use the e-Comment submission form at least 24 hours before the meeting by clicking here: Submit Public Comment via e-Comment Form

   

Subscribe

Upcoming / Future Agenda Items

The following list outlines the current status categories used to track the progress of Police Commission Ad Hoc Committees. These definitions help clarify whether a committee is actively meeting, preparing to launch, paused, or no longer in operation.

Active

The ad hoc committee is currently meeting and working on its assigned task(s). Deliverables are in progress, and updates may be regularly provided to the Commission.

Dormant
The ad hoc committee has been paused or is temporarily inactive. Work may resume at a later date, but there are no current meetings or deliverables underway.

Upcoming
The ad hoc committee has been formed and will begin meeting soon. Preparations are underway, and the first meeting date is being scheduled or finalized.

Archived
The ad hoc committee has not met for an extended period (e.g., 6+ months), with no immediate plans to reconvene. While not formally disbanded, its status is preserved for historical reference or future reactivation if needed.

This list provides an overview of all Ad Hoc Committees established by the Police Commission, including their focus areas, current status, and whether they are open to public participation or internal working groups. 

Ad Hoc Committee List 

Archived Ad Hoc Committees

• Armed and Unresponsive Persons and Arrest Teams Ad Hoc Committee
• Body Worn Camera Policy Ad Hoc
• CID Ad Hoc Committee
• Electronic Communication Devices Policy Ad Hoc (DGO I-19)
• Internal Affairs Policy and Procedure Ad Hoc Committee

• • Discipline Matrix Ad Hoc Committee
  • Rules Ad Hoc
  • Negotiated Settlement Agreement (NSA) Ad Hoc
  • OIG Ad Hoc
  • Staff Evaluations Ad Hoc
  • Racial Profiling Ad Hoc
  • Community Policing Ad Hoc (Pursuit Policy)
  • Strategic Planning Retreat Ad Hoc
  • CPRA Manual of Operations Ad Hoc
  • Enabling Ordinance Ad Hoc
  • Budget Ad Hoc
  • Staff Search Ad Hoc

   

Access Ad Hoc Meeting Recordings

Statements | Press Releases | Announcements

OPC Reports | Resolutions | Rules & Code of Conduct

Community Police Review Agency 

Antonio Lawson, Executive Director

Community Police Review Agency (CPRA)

Office of the Inspector General

Zurvohn Maloof, Inspector General

Office of the Inspector General

Oakland Police Department