Oakland’s Latest Top Cop Was Reportedly Ousted From His Last Job After 11 Months

David Downing allegedly stirred up resentment in the ranks.

Russell Mondy/Flickr

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


David Downing—the officer promoted last Friday to the title of acting assistant chief of the Oakland Police Department—was asked to leave his previous position with the Concord, California, police department because he clashed with colleagues, according to a May 2012 article by Claycord, a local news site.

Downing is Oakland’s fourth top cop in two weeks as the city struggles with a series of police scandals. The OPD’s original chief, Sean Whent, was fired on June 9 after he allegedly failed to act on his knowledge of a potentially criminal sex scandal in the ranks. Two senior officers Shaaf subsequently named to replace Whent promptly stepped down. The first, Ben Fairow, resigned after the mayor learned of past incidents she said caused her to lose confidence in him. The second interim chief, Paul Figueroa, stepped down just two days after he was appointed, for reasons that haven’t yet been made public.

Downing was not forced out for fixing a colleague’s ticket, but rather, sources said, for his “military style of leadership.”

Downing, according to the Claycord report, was told by the Concord Police Officers Association to leave or be forced out just 11 months after he was hired as a police captain. One episode in particular may have played a role: In October 2011, Robin Heinemann, an off-duty Concord police lieutenant, struck another driver’s car as she turned into the department’s parking lot en route to work, causing minor injuries. The responding officer issued the lieutenant a $234 ticket, but Downing voided it, reversing the decisions of the issuing officer, a sergeant, and another lieutenant. In a police report, Downing wrote that he had voided the ticket “in the interest of justice.”

Guy Swager, Concord’s police chief at the time, told another news outlet that the officer responding to the accident had a history of conflict with Heinemann, and therefore should not have given her a ticket, but Claycord spoke to multiple sources who said there was no conflict between the two. The site also reported that Downing had conducted an audit of the responding officer’s handling of past collisions, and that the audit showed the officer had acted reasonably in ticketing the off-duty lieutenant. In any case, Claycord‘s sources said Downing ultimately was forced out because other cops bristled at his “military style of leadership.”

The site added that it had filed a Freedom of Information Act request to view a copy of the voided ticket, but was told the ticket was missing and would be handed over if found—Concord’s city attorney told Claycord that Chief Swager was conducting an investigation to find out what became of it.

This week, KRON4 reported that Downing—now the top cop in a department that is under federal scrutiny thanks to a band of rogue cops who profiled and planted drugs on African Americans—allegedly suggested using water cannons on protesters on more than one occasion, and appeared oblivious to the racial undertones of that proposal. According to KRON4’s police sources, Downing made one such comment at a meeting where an assistant to the OPD’s federal monitor was present and taking notes.

Press officers for the OPD and the CPD did not respond to calls and emails seeking more details about the circumstances of Downing’s departure from the Concord force. Mayor Shaaf’s office was provided with written questions, but did not respond by the deadline provided. But as it stands, Downing shouldn’t be around for long. According to press reports, he’s slated to retire in six months.

Correction: Downing was named acting assistant chief by interim chief Paul Figueroa, not Mayor Libby Shaaf, as previously reported. Figueroa stepped down as chief shortly thereafter.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate