TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. About the Community Police Review Agency……………………………………………… 1 II. Message from Executive Director………………………………………………….............………… 2 o Top 3 Accomplishments For 2025……………..........……………………………………….. 2
1. OPC Approval of CPRA Mediation Program………………….…………. 2
2. Initiation of City Assessment of Transition of OPD Internal Affairs investigations to CPRA……………………………...............……………... 3
3. Increased Staffing……………………………………………………....................………… 3 o Top 3 Priorities and Goals For 2026.…………........………………………………………... 4
1. Fully Staffed Agency…………………………………..................………………………... 4
2. Enhance CPRA’s Investigative Database, Case Management and Reporting Capabilities………………………………………..…………………….. 4
3. Enhance Effectiveness and Efficiencies in Police Disciplinary Process........................................................................................................................4 o CPRA 2026 Proposed Organizational Chart……………………………………….… 5 III. Executive Summary……………………………………………………………...........................………….….. 5 o Types of Allegations Reviewed…………………………………………………............……... 7 IV. Complaint Intake and Investigation Process……………………………………………….. 7 o CPRA Complaint Process……..………………………………..................…………………….…. 8 V. How to File a Complaint…………………………………........................…………………………………... 9 VI. Charter-Required Reporting Data………………............…………………………………………... 9 o Complaint Intake and Investigative Activity………………………………………... 9 o Types of Misconduct Investigated………………………………………….......…………... 9 o Mediation Activity……………………………………………........................………………………... 10 o Timeliness of Investigations…………………………………..............………………………… 10 o Compliance with Investigative Requests…………………………..…………………. 10 VII. Key Statistics Snapshot……………………………………………………………......................…………. 10 o Summary of Key Statistics Metric………………………………........…………………….. 10 VIII. 2025 Completed Investigations………………………………..............……………………………… 11 ii
o Monthly Investigation Trend……………………………….............…………………………... 11 o Completed Investigations by Month…………………………..……...……………….... 11 IX. Investigation Findings and Dispositions………………....…………………………………… 11 o Table 1: Investigation Findings with Dispositions……………………………… 11 o Overall Findings Distribution………………………………………..............………………….12 o Definitions of Findings…………………………………………….......................………………...12 o Comparison of Investigation Findings……………………………....…………………...13 X. Allegation Categories…………………………………………………….........................…………………...13 o Allegation Definitions……………………………………………......................……………………13 o Table 2: Summaries of Allegations by Category Type……………………...14 XI. Sustained Allegations………………………………………………….......................………………….......14 o Table 3: Sustained Allegations by Category……………………………………......14 XII. Trends and Analysis…………………………………………………………………...........................……….14 o Sustained Findings and Adjudication of Discipline
Police......................................................................................................................................15 o Police Commission Discipline Committee...................................................16 o Officer Due Process and Appeals.......................................................................16 o CPRA Discipline Review and Appeals Process Chart............................17 XIII. Potential Transition of IAB Duties to CPRA………………………...……………………….18 o Summary…………………………………………………………..................................……………………18 o Analysis and Policy Alternatives……………………………...........………………………...18 o Key Benefits in Transferring Responsibility to CPRA…………..…………..19 o IAB to CPRA Transitional Challenges…………………………….......…………………..19 o Fiscal Impact………………………………………...............................………………………………….19 o Public Outreach and Interest…………………………...........……………………………….20 o Current Status……………………………………………...........................…………………………....20 XIV. Conclusion………………………………………………...................................…………………………………..…20 XV. Appendices…………………..................................………………………………………………………..………...21 1 About the Community Police Review Agency
The Community Police Review Agency (CPRA) is the independent civilian oversight body responsible for investigating allegations of misconduct involving sworn members of the Oakland Police Department (OPD). CPRA plays a critical role in promoting accountability, transparency, and public trust in law enforcement by conducting impartial investigations and publicly reporting its findings.
CPRA operates pursuant to the City Charter and works in coordination with the Oakland Police Commission to ensure that allegations of police misconduct are independently reviewed. The Agency has the authority to investigate complaints made by members of the public, as well as complaints generated internally by the police department. After completing an investigation, CPRA issues findings and, when appropriate, recommends disciplinary action or policy changes.
Through these functions, CPRA helps ensure that allegations of misconduct are addressed through a fair and thorough investigative process. 2 I. Message from Executive Director
Thank you for your interest and support for CPRA. Although I am the new Executive Director, I am not new to Oakland Police Oversight. For twenty-five years I maintained my private practice in Oakland, where I specialized in representing plaintiffs in civil rights and employment matters, with a specialty in class actions.
For ten of those years, I served as Special Counsel to CPRA’s predecessor, the Community Police Review Board (CPRB). It is now my pleasure to serve as CPRA’s Executive Director. As Executive Director, my goal is to lead CPRA into an era of stability and growth.
Fortunately, the City’s new administration has demonstrated support for stability and growth by significantly increasing CPRA’s operating budget. CPRA’s budget increased from slightly more than $2 million annually in 2024 to $5.1 million for fiscal years 2025/26 and 2026/27. The new budget will allow CPRA to increase staffing and set priorities for effective police oversight. Below, I have identified CPRA’s top 3 accomplishments for 2025 and top 3 priorities/goals for 2026.
Accomplishments
1. OPC Approval of CPRA Mediation
Program
The Oakland City Ordinance No. 13498
requires CPRA to establish a mediation
program. Although the Ordinance was
adopted in 2018, CPRA has yet to initiate a
mediation program. On September 25, 2025,
CPRA presented a Mediation Plan to the
Police Commission for approval. The
Commission unanimously approved CPRA’s
Mediation Policies and Procedures.
To enhance communications and relationships between OPD and the community, the mediation program will provide Oakland citizens with the opportunity to meet with OPD officers and discuss individual complaints of misconduct in an open, non-confrontational environment. Based on the concept of restorative justice, the mediation program is not designed to reach determinations or findings but allows the community and OPD to come together for cooperative discussions thereby furthering communication and cooperation between the Oakland community and OPD.
CPRA is working with the Police Commission, OPD, Community Boards and Oakland’s Youth Alive to design and implement the mediation program this summer.
3 2. Initiation of City Assessment of Transition of OPD Internal Affairs investigations to CPRA
In 2023, the City Council allocated $100,000 to hire an independent consultant to analyze the feasibility and timeline for transitioning IAB responsibilities to CPRA. The Consultant’s Report was completed April 2025. CPRA submitted an informational report to the City Administrator and Public Safety Committee detailing the Report’s findings.
The completion of the Consultant’s Report marked the first step towards transitioning IAB duties to CPRA. Ultimately, transitioning certain IAB investigative duties to CPRA will enhance independent oversight of policing while reducing costs to the City. The City Administrator’s Office initiated a working group to evaluate the feasibility of transitioning IAB duties to CPRA. That working group is currently meeting to assess the transition.
3. Increased Staffing
In the second quarter of 2025, CPRA staff consisted of
just 7 permanent employees and 3 contract
employees. Most notably, the City Charter requires
CPRA to have no less than 7 investigators. In 2025,
CPRA was down to 3 investigators. CPRA’s increased
budget allowed the Agency to hire a Managing
Investigator in October 2025 and a Project Manager
in February 2026. CPRA is currently reviewing
applicants for 2-4 Complaint Investigator positions
that the Agency plans to hire in Spring/Summer 2026.
The Agency plans to increase staffing from 7 permanent employees to 15-17 permanent employees. Additionally, CPRA has contracted with two independent attorneys to augment the Agency’s investigation capabilities. The increased budget and hiring will have a significant impact on CPRA’s ability to investigate cases within the 180-day goal set forth in the NSA. The hiring will also allow CPRA to better manage police oversight and ensure long-term compliance with NSA goals.
Top 3 Priorities and Goals For 2026
The following priorities and goals represent CPRA’s key areas of focus for this year.
These strategic objectives are intended to strengthen the Agency’s operational capacity, enhance oversight effectiveness, and support continued accountability and transparency. Together, they reflect CPRA’s commitment to organizational growth and improved service to Oakland’s community.
4 1. Fully Staffed Agency
CPRA’s goal is to reach a full staff of 17
permanent employees. This includes:
▪ 1 Executive Director
▪ 1 Deputy Director of Investigations
▪ 1 Staff Attorney
▪ 1 Administrative Analyst
▪ 1 Project Manager II
▪ 2 Complaint Investigator IIIs
▪ 7 Complaint Investigator IIs
▪ 3 Intake Technicians
A fully staffed CPRA is integral to police oversight and accountability, and fulfillment of the NSA goals.
2. Enhance CPRA’s Investigative Database, Case Management and Reporting Capabilities
CPRA is committed to furthering its ability to manage, track and report data relating to Police Oversight. These tasks are significant for several reasons. First, effective case and document management support oversight by allowing CPRA to identify and monitor trends, practices and incidents. Additionally, case and document management enhance CPRA’s ability to report data to the City and community. Finally, case and document management is necessary to ensure effective internal oversight and compliance once the NSA’s tasks are satisfied and the City is no longer subject to judicial oversight. To fulfill these goals, CPRA hired a Project Manager in February 2026 to assume the above tasks.
3. Enhance Effectiveness and Efficiencies in Police Disciplinary Process CPRA’s goal is to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the OPD discipline process by focusing on timely completion of investigations and increased quality of investigations. In furtherance of these goals, CPRA has contracted with two outside attorneys, both with prior experience with Oakland Police oversight, to focus on three areas:
5 1) Creating standardized operating
policies and procedures.
2) Advanced training in investigative
procedures and report writing.
3) Serve as leads in high profile
complex investigations.
II. Executive Summary
The following summarizes the agency’s investigative activity, findings, and key trends from the 2025 reporting period.
6 During 2025, CPRA received a total of 1138 complaints. A complaint identifies allegations of police misconduct during a particular incident or event. A complaint may include multiple allegations against multiple officers. For example, an individual may experience a vehicle stop and allege that two officers improperly detained him and searched his vehicle. In that instance, you may have separate allegations of improper detention and illegal search against two officers.
CPRA is mandated to investigate complaints alleging use of force, racial profiling, in-custody deaths, untruthfulness/dishonesty and misconduct during First Amendment assemblies and protests. CPRA’s intake department reviews each complaint to determine whether it includes allegations within the Agency’s jurisdiction. CPRA receives a varying array of complaints, the vast majority do not include alleged mandated misconduct. Complaints that allege potential mandated allegations are reviewed by CPRA’s intake department. All mandated complaints or non-mandated complaints that CPRA determines to be of special concern are then transferred to CPRA’s investigators for a complete investigation with findings.
In 2025, CPRA identified 256 complaints for further review of which 171 were assigned for full investigations. Of the 171 complaints investigated, CPRA sustained 22 allegations of misconduct in 10 complaints.
It’s worth noting that monthly complaint completions varied throughout the reporting period, reflecting differences in case complexity, investigative timelines, and the volume of complaints received.
Across completed investigations, CPRA reviewed 593 allegations of officer misconduct. The most common finding was that the officer’s conduct was within OPD policy, indicating that the investigation determined the conduct occurred but was consistent with departmental rules and applicable law. Other findings included unfounded, not sustained, and sustained determinations, as well as administrative closures in cases where complaints could not proceed to a full investigation.
The most frequently reviewed allegation category
involved Use of Physical Force, followed by
Performance of Duty allegations and Conduct
Toward Others. Additional allegations included
claims of harassment or discrimination,
truthfulness concerns, and procedural violations
such as Miranda-related issues. Investigations
involving use-of-force allegations often include
multiple officers and multiple allegations within a
single case, which contributes to a higher volume of allegation findings in this category.
7 CPRA investigates a range
of allegations involving
sworn officers of the OPD.
Common categories of
allegations include:
III. Complaint Intake and Investigation Process
CPRA conducts independent review of complaints alleging misconduct by sworn members of the OPD. Each complaint undergoes a structured review process designed to ensure fairness, transparency, and thorough review of the available evidence.
CPRA receives most of its complaints from OPD. OPD is required to forward all complaints it receives to CPRA for independent review. Members of the public may also submit complaints directly to CPRA through multiple channels, including online submissions, telephone, written correspondence, or in-person contact with CPRA staff. Complaints are reviewed during the intake process to determine whether the allegations fall within CPRA’s jurisdiction and whether an investigation is required.
When an investigation is initiated, CPRA investigators gather evidence including officer reports, body-worn camera footage, officer interviews, witness statements, and other relevant documentation. After reviewing the evidence, investigators prepare a Report of Investigation that analyzes the facts and issues findings.
Findings may include:
Sustained –
Evidence
shows the
alleged
misconduct
occurred and
violated law or
department
policy.
Within
Policy – The
conduct
occurred but
was consistent
with policy and
applicable law.
(Exonerated)
Unfounded –
Evidence
shows the
alleged
misconduct did
not occur.
Not
Sustained –
Evidence is
insufficient to
prove or
disprove the
allegation.
10 ▪ Mediation Activity
No cases were referred to mediation during the 2025 reporting period. ▪ Timeliness of Investigations
CPRA aims to complete investigations within established timelines. During this reporting period, 23 cases did not meet the 180-day completion goal.
Investigations that are not completed within 180 days typically are those involving significant allegations of misconduct that result in sustained findings and recommended discipline.
▪ Compliance with Investigative Requests
There were no instances of non-compliance by OPD personnel during the reporting period, including zero failures to comply with requests for interviews, document production, or valid subpoenas.
These data points provide insight into complaint volume, investigative workload, and compliance with statutory requirements, supporting transparency and accountability in CPRA’s oversight function.
VI. Key Statistics Snapshot
The following snapshot
provides a summary of key
statistics from the CPRA's
completed investigations
during the 2025 reporting
cycle. These statistics
summarize investigation
outcomes, allegation
categories, and case
completion totals associated
with the 2025 reporting
period.
11 VII. 2025 Completed
Investigations
This table summarizes the
number of cases for which the
investigation was completed
by month for the 2025
reporting period.
Investigations completed in
January 2026 are included as
they represent cases
associated with the 2025
caseload that were finalized
after the close of the calendar
year.
Monthly Investigation Trend
This chart illustrates monthly
trend fluctuations in the number
of investigations completed
during the reporting period.
VIII. Investigation Findings and Dispositions
Table 1: Investigation Findings /
Dispositions
This table summarizes the
findings reached by allegation in
completed case investigations
during the 2025 reporting cycle.
14 Table 2: Summaries of Allegations
This table summarizes the
categories of allegations reviewed in
completed investigations during the
reporting period.
X. Sustained Allegations
Table 3: Sustained Allegations
Breakdown
This table summarizes the 22
Sustained Allegations of 17 Subject
Officers by category for 2025.
XI. Trends and Analysis
The statistical data contained in this report provides insight into patterns and outcomes associated with completed investigations during the 2025 reporting period. A review of the data indicates that CPRA maintained a consistent level of investigative activity throughout the year, completing a total of 171 investigations associated with the 2025 reporting cycle. Monthly completion totals varied across the reporting period, reflecting differences in investigative complexity, case volume, and the time required to gather and review evidence.
Use-of-force allegations accounted for the largest share of allegations reviewed in completed investigations. This trend is consistent with CPRA’s mandated responsibility to investigate complaints involving uses of force, which often involve multiple officers and multiple allegations within a single case. As a result, investigations involving force-related incidents frequently generate a higher number of allegation findings compared to other complaint categories.
Performance-of-duty allegations represented the second most common category reviewed. These cases often involve questions related to officer decision-making, 15 searches, arrests, or other aspects of law enforcement activity conducted during the performance of official duties. Allegations involving officer demeanor, harassment, or discrimination were also present in the dataset, though they occurred less frequently than force-related or performance-of-duty allegations.
With respect to investigative outcomes, the most common finding in completed investigations was that officer conduct was within OPD policy. This finding indicates that while the alleged conduct occurred, investigators determined that the actions were consistent with departmental policy and applicable law. Other outcomes included unfounded findings, where evidence demonstrated the alleged conduct did not occur, and not sustained findings, where available evidence was insufficient to conclusively determine whether misconduct occurred.
Sustained findings represent instances in which the investigation determined that officer conduct violated law or departmental policy. These cases are particularly significant because they may result in disciplinary review, policy evaluation, or recommendations for training improvements.
Administrative closures accounted for a smaller portion of case outcomes and typically occurred when complaints lacked sufficient specificity to investigate, involved duplicate complaints, or fell outside CPRA’s jurisdiction.
Taken together, these findings illustrate the range of allegations reviewed and outcomes reached through CPRA’s investigative process. Continued analysis of these patterns helps support transparency, inform policy discussions, and contributes to ongoing efforts to strengthen accountability in policing.1 ▪ Sustained Findings and Adjudication of Discipline
When the Community Police Review Agency (CPRA) reaches sustained findings in an investigation, CPRA leadership and Oakland Police Department (OPD) leadership participate in a formal review process to evaluate investigative outcomes and determine appropriate disciplinary action. During this process, investigators from CPRA and the Internal Affairs Division (IAD) present the results of their investigations and provide disciplinary recommendations to the Chief of Police.
When the Chief of Police concurs with the findings and disciplinary recommendations supported by the CPRA Executive Director, the Department proceeds with the disciplinary process by issuing the subject officer a Notice of Intent to Discipline.
1 The data presented in this report provides a comprehensive overview of CPRA’s investigative activity and the outcomes of completed cases during the 2025 reporting period. Continued monitoring and analysis of complaint patterns, investigative findings, and allegation categories remain essential for identifying potential areas of improvement, strengthening oversight practices, and supporting informed policy discussions related to policing and accountability in Oakland. 16 In some cases, CPRA and IAD investigations result in differing conclusions regarding findings or recommended discipline. When disagreements occur, the Chief of Police reviews both investigative perspectives and determines whether to accept CPRA’s findings, IAD’s findings, or an alternative conclusion. If the Chief and CPRA are unable to reach agreement regarding investigative findings or disciplinary recommendations, the matter is elevated to the Police Commission for independent review.
▪ Police Commission Discipline Committees
The Police Commission serves an important oversight function by providing an independent mechanism for resolving disputes related to sustained findings and discipline. When the CPRA and the Chief disagree regarding investigative findings or disciplinary recommendations, the matter is referred to a Police Commission Discipline Committee.
The Discipline Committee is established by the Police Commission Chair and consists of three Police Commissioners selected on a rotating basis. Upon convening, the Committee reviews submissions from both CPRA and OPD, including investigative findings, supporting evidence, and disciplinary recommendations.
After evaluating the information presented, the Discipline Committee may request additional investigation, seek clarification from the parties, or render a final determination regarding the disputed findings or discipline. Once a decision is reached, the Committee issues its determination, and the Chief of Police proceeds with notification to the subject officer and any resulting disciplinary action. ▪ Officer Due Process and Appeals
Officers subject to disciplinary action are afforded all applicable due process protections and statutory rights. Following the issuance of proposed discipline, officers may participate in a Skelly hearing, during which an independent hearing officer reviews the proposed action and provides the officer an opportunity to respond to the allegations, present mitigating information, challenge factual findings, or propose an alternative resolution.
Depending on the level of discipline imposed and the provisions contained within applicable Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs), officers may also pursue additional appeal avenues. These procedures help ensure that disciplinary decisions are implemented fairly, consistently, and in accordance with legal and contractual requirements.
17 18
XII. Potential Transition of IAB Duties to CPRA
Summary
On May 31, 2021, the Oakland City Council passed
Resolution Number 88607, which proposed prioritizing
recommendations from the Reimagining Public
Safety Task Force in the 2021-23 Fiscal Budget, to
“[e]xplore possible transfer, no earlier than July 2022, of most of the Internal Affairs Division of OPD to the
Community Police Review Agency (CPRA).”
In the summer of 2024, following a public bidding process, CPRA selected the consultant team from Moeel Lah Fakhoury LLP to examine the feasibility of transferring responsibilities from IAD to CPRA. The project commenced with the consultant team reviewing and analyzing documents and interviewing key stakeholders. During this first phase of the project, the consultant team also conducted interviews with OPD command staff and Internal Affairs leadership, including former Police Chief Floyd Mitchell, and CPRA’s investigative, intake, and leadership teams.
The report, completed in April 2025, evaluates the potential benefits and challenges in transferring investigative responsibility from the Oakland Police Department (OPD) Internal Affairs Division (IAD) to CPRA.2 Analysis and Policy Alternatives
This informational report contains an analysis of the consultants’ observations and recommendations for a transition of Internal Affairs investigations to the civilian run CPRA.
The recommendations outlined in this report contemplate foundational investments in CPRA staffing and systems, consistent coordination with OPD and the City Attorney’s Office, and interim procedural reforms such as the phased transfer of certain complaints. Collectively, these steps are designed to strengthen investigative integrity while ensuring that the City can deliver on its promise of fair, effective, and community-supported independent oversight.
The informational report is intended to highlight potential issues and make recommendations to the City should it move forward with the plan. 2 “Examining the Transfer of OPD Internal Affairs Investigations to the Civil-Staffed Community Police Review Agency” is attached as Appendix A; Page 22.
20 Public Outreach and Interest
On June 12, 2025, CPRA’s presented the Consultants’ Report to the Police Commission and public for review and questions. This presentation followed months of outreach with the community regarding the transition.
Current Status
The City Administrator convened a working group to assess the viability of transitioning IAB duties to CPRA. The working group consists of representatives from the City Administrator’s Office, CPRA, OPD, Finance, Human Resources and the Office of the City Attorney. The working group met in May 2026 and will continue with regularly scheduled meetings.
XIII. Conclusion
The Community Police Review Agency plays a vital role in strengthening accountability and transparency in policing within the City of Oakland. Through its independent investigations of allegations involving sworn members of the OPD, CPRA helps ensure that concerns raised by community members are reviewed through a fair, thorough, and impartial process.
During the 2025 reporting period, CPRA continued to carry out its oversight responsibilities by completing investigations, evaluating allegations of misconduct, and reporting its findings publicly. The investigations summarized in this report reflect the agency’s commitment to maintaining investigative integrity while providing clear and transparent information to the public and the Police Commission.
21 CPRA 2025 Annual Report
Appendix Index
To maintain readability and accessibility of the Annual Report, detailed supporting exhibits, source data, and supplemental documentation referenced throughout the report are maintained separately. The following index identifies materials available upon request or through designated records channels.
Appendix Title / Description Availability
A Examining the Transfer of
OPD Internal Affairs
Investigations to the CivilStaffed Community Police
Review Agency
Attached to 2025 CPRA Annual
Report; Page 22.
B OPD 2025 Stop Data Report Available electronically at https://www.oaklandca.gov/PublicSafety-Streets/Police/OPDData/Data-from-Police-OfficerVisits-and-Stops/2025-Stop-Dataand-Reports