Latest Seattle City Police Accountability Reports Declare Success, But Reveal Failures

I've been focusing more and more on national issues of police misconduct lately... maybe all the failures in Seattle are part of the reason why... for example:

The Seattle Police Department's Office of Professional Accountability (the collective name for the department's internal investigations unit and the civilian police oversight system in Seattle) has actually been busy for once... Though not productively, as you'll see in a minute.

The SPD OPA issued several reports last month, the first, interestingly enough, is a report on the progress towards implementing recommendations(pdf) made by two separate "blue ribbon" panels to improve the accountability system. Of course, the city says all of them are in place or progressing forward...

Of course, that's not the case in reality as borne out by all the publicized, and some not so publicized, problems the department has had lately with their attempts to discipline officers being overturned on appeal by the union.

One of those recommendations was that any officer caught lying would be terminated. But, so far, that's proven to be far from the case thanks to language added by the union that made this unenforceable. That's proving to be the case lately... of the three officers who have been disciplined on that new rule, two officers have successfully overturned disciplinary actions taken against them and a third is currently in the process of appealing his, with all expectations being that he'll win as well.

The next problematic recommendation that the city says is working like a charm concerns a 180 day limit the department has for investigating complaints of misconduct. Once those 180 days is up, any findings of misconduct are automatically exonerated unless the union agrees to extend the deadline... which would be like asking a student in detention if he would agree to stay if he had the option to leave early.

As you can guess, the union never agrees to extend the deadline... and the last we heard from the OPA the average time for an investigation to complete is 173 days. Which, as you could imagine, means there are a few investigations that go over that 180 day limit.

In fact, based on recent OPA reports and the latest Seattle Police Officer's Guild newsletter(pdf), there have been 5 investigations that would have resulted in sustained findings but went past the 180 day limit. Two of those have already been overturned on appeal and 3 others are pending appeal... again, with all expectations being that those disciplinary actions will be overturned as well.

So... I guess those recommendation implementations aren't going as well as the OPA and the city are trying to lead us to believe in their reports.

Speaking of, a few of those changes utterly neutered the civilian review board, turning them into a public relations board for the police department, and apparently they've been doing a great job of it lately...

I say that because another report recently released was the OPA auditor's report on SPD relations with diverse communities(pdf) which, according to her, look really positive and shows that the community trusts the police more than ever before...

Guess they haven't been reading.

Oh well, so long as nobody comes crying to me asking why they weren't warned the next time a big police misconduct scandal breaks and the officers involved can't be disciplined like last time. After all, last year I predicted that these exact problems would start happening before that contract was even approved by the council.

...meh, maybe next time.

Seattle's Civilian Police Oversight System Gets New Auditor

On April 10th, the Seattle Police Department's civilian oversight system auditor's contract expired. That auditor, Katrina Pflaumer, was the first auditor for our current system, called the Office of Professional Accountability, or OPA, and appeared to do a pretty good job at being auditor from what little we can tell through the very secretive system we have in place.

What always impressed me were that her reports were always packed with very useful information. Often times there would be no way to tell what OPA finding applied to which case in the OPA's monthly reports until the bi-annual auditor reports came out and cited some of those cases as examples of problems seen within the current system.

In that aspect alone it seems that the auditor's position is the most important within that system since it is the only one that actually gives the system at least a small semblance of transparency.

Ten days after Pflaumer's term expired, Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels announced the appointment of a new auditor for the Seattle Police Department on Monday, April 20th.

That auditor, Michael Spearman, served as a King County Superior Court judge from 1993 through 2007 and before that he was a public defender with The Defender Association.

Currently he's been employed as a mediator with Judicial Dispute Resolution LLC where he's been involved with mediating and acting as an arbitrator in personal injury and family law cases.

Additionally, he's mediated complaints against the Seattle Police Department from citizens through the OPA's mediation program for people who filed complaints against officers in minor misconduct cases.

From most accounts he's generally considered fair and has a reputation for being quite dedicated to the impartiality that's required of a judge despite his past history on the defense side of criminal law.

For those unfamiliar with Seattle's civilian police oversight system, the Office of Professional Accountability or OPA, is made of three parts:

OPA Director - provides general oversight of the OPA. Responsible for reviewing and certifying finalized investigations performed by the OPA, which is staffed entirely by Seattle Police officers, and providing recommendations on findings and disciplines, but the chief has final say in how officers are disciplined and can overturn her findings.

The current director has been a staunch supporter of the SPD, it's officers, and the current OPA process, but is otherwise rarely heard from.

OPA Review Board - The OPARB consists of seven members who are basically limited to review of general statistics on OPA results and heavily redacted files from completed investigations in order to make general recommendations to council and the mayor.

Recent changes to the OPARB has limited it to nothing more than a public relations role after the last board became highly critical of the OPA process and were censored as a result. All previous members have been replaced since then.

OPA Auditor - The auditor is responsible for reviewing investigations as the occur as well as review of finalized investigations in order to provide feedback on any problems with the process and on any specific issues with ongoing investigations to improve the process.

The auditor does not have any real say in determination of findings or recommendations for disciplinary action, but has access to all information available to an investigation, unlike the OPARB, and can make recommendations or annotate investigations as they occur.

The auditor also releases reports to the public twice a year, which is probably the only real informative information released by the OPA so far.

For all intent and purposes, I don't see any problems with this appointment, though I also think that even the best auditor in the world would still be limited by the system in which that person is placed, and the OPA system is incredibly limiting since any changes to that system must be approved by the police union in their contract.

When I asked former judge Spearman about the nomination and what his plans are for his term as OPA Auditor, he was gracious enough to reply, which is alot further than I've gotten with any other member of the OPA, even the OPARB which are supposed to do outreach. So that's a good sign right at the start of his term.

Here's what Spearman had to say about the new challenge he's about to face...

You've asked a number of questions that it is too early for me to give a good answer. I need to make myself more familiar with Ms. Pflaumer's approach to the position before I can really say what I might do differently than her.

I also would like a chance to meet with and talk to Ms. Pflaumer, the members of the review board, members of the community at large, the SPD Guild and get a good sense of the bigger picture beyond retrospectively addressing allegations of police misconduct.

However, I do think that the idea of being pro-active and taking steps to prevent instances of misconduct is a good one that is well within the scope of the auditor's charge.

Initially my biggest challenge will be to assimilate the data that has been collected by the OPA Review Board and the input that has been provided by the community and the guild, which I understand is substantial.

I do think my experience as a judge will be helpful in the position of auditor since I have often had to weigh the practices of law enforcement against the rights guaranteed by our state and federal constitutions. I also have considerable experience in criminal law as both a former judge and a former public defender.

In any case, I certainly wish judge Spearman the best of luck in this new position and I hope that he continues the the same practices of transparency and honest effort that the previous auditor appeared to put forward as the only clear, but small, window that we have into the police department's secretive and opaque disciplinary process.

About the 2008 Annual Report From the Seattle Police OPA

The Seattle Police Department Office of Professional Accountability (SPD OPA, which is Seattle's version of an internal affairs department) released their annual report recently. Most of it is the same old - same old... but there were some interesting tidbits hidden within it's convoluted depths.

First, as you might recall, the OPA is still limited to a 180 day deadline in which any sustained findings of misconduct against an officer are nullified if an investigation takes longer than 180 days... a sort of free pass for bad cops, as it were.

(this site broke the story that, despite the city's insistence that they removed that rule in contract negotiations with the union, that the union actually forced the city to back down and leave it in place. Something the police union has bragged about in their newsletter lately too.)

The worrisome news in the report is that the average time it takes, from the moment a complaint is received to the time a determination is made, is 173 days. That means there is only a 7 day window on average between an officer getting a free pass and getting disciplined for misconduct.

In that regard, the OPA admitted that there were 2 cases in 2008 where the 180 day window had elapsed which resulted in sustained findings being overturned.

There were 98 complaints of excessive force in 2008, (out of over 1300 overall complaints), but only two were sustained. One of which was recently overturned by one of the five separate levels of appeal available to officers. So only one excessive force complaint in 2008 resulted in the termination of an officer.

The overturned finding was the case of Don "Diamond Don" George which we covered a few days ago. He was accused of bashing a handcuffed suspect's head against the backseat partition in a cruiser and then lying about it to OPA investigators.

Despite his long history of complaints and that the department's appeal committee felt he probably did do what he was accused of, they overturned the chief's decision to fire him and gave him a brief suspension instead, forcing the city to hire him back.

So, only one sustained finding of excessive force and dishonesty were actually sustained and disciplined, and that case involved the officer in this video:



Where Mark Hays was beaten by one of SPD's notorious "Anti-Crime Team" officers. In that case, Hays and his friend, Michael Lujan, were stopped when they jaywalked in front of an undercover SPD ACT SUV and the officers escalated the confrontation into the beatdown seen in a dashcam recording of a responding cruiser.

Mark Hays has filed a pro-se lawsuit against the SPD and officers involved in that case. So far it appears as though that officer still remains off the force, but it's unclear whether it will remain that way given all the different appeal options available to officers...

While it's clear the SPD still does a very poor job investigating complaints of excessive force, the new "assumption of termination" for findings of dishonesty provision is also under fire as the Seattle Police Officer's Union has assured officers that this rule is unenforceable since the burden of proof is so high... so far, based on the appeal record, it appears they have a point.

Which is a fact that the OPA is apparently aware of as this disclaimer was slipped into the report:

"However, it is clear from reviewing OPA Sustained cases appealed in 2008 that the Department cannot always predict whether its findings or the disciplined imposed will be upheld."

Based on this report, and others, this site still highly recommends that any victims of police misconduct consult an attorney prior to filing a complaint with the SPD OPA as the complaint process is still highly biased and fatally flawed.

The complaints are often used to gather information for attorneys representing the city in preparation for defense against civil suits instead of to honestly investigate officer wrongdoing.

Please keep this in mind if you become a victim of police misconduct in Seattle.

Interim Police Chief Candidate May Have Trouble With Seattle's Police Union

Seattle Deputy Police Chief John Diaz

News has just been leaked late last night that Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels has picked Seattle Deputy Police Chief John Diaz as the temporary replacement for Seattle Police Chief Gil Kerlikowske who has been picked by President Obama to be the next drug Czar.

However, there appears to be a catch. According to the Seattle Times, the Seattle Police Officer's Guild that represents Seattle Police Department's rank and file officers isn't happy with that pick and appears to have launched a behind-the-scenes mudslinging campaign against Diaz in an attempt to undermine the mayor's choice for the chief's replacement.

Upon looking at Diaz's 29 year history with the SPD though, I don't see any outward indication that he's done anything but toe the line in regards to the public relations front that Seattle and it's police department put forward during any police misconduct incident. In fact, he's often been the public face towards the press when questionable incidents occur and has always urged the media to defer to the department's internal investigations findings, even when those findings were called into question.

So, for the guild to put forward such an aggressive offensive against Diaz means there must be something different that happens internally that's quite different than the deferential demeanor that Diaz has displayed to the press in the past. That could be because, as assistant chief under Kerlikowske, Diaz had an important role in officer discipline.

But, given Kerlikowske's tendencies to overturn findings of misconduct given to him by his own internal affairs department, the Office of Professional Accountability, on a regular basis, it's hard to see how Diaz would have had much disciplinary contact with the rank and file officers in the first place, given that so few ever actually got disciplined.

None the less, the police union's efforts behind the scenes to undermine Diaz's character must be quite intense as Diaz has asked the mayor if he still wants him to accept the post in light of the guild's efforts. Indeed, the Times quotes an unnamed city official as saying that Sgt. Rich O'Neill, president of the Seattle Police Officers' Guild, has privately told Nickels the Guild has serious problems with Diaz.

One thing is clear though, I've not uncovered any indication of misconduct or corruption in Diaz's history with the Seattle Police Department. So, if the guild has a beef with Diaz, it doesn't appear to be because he's a dirty cop.

Whatever the case, this is one we'll have to keep an eye on, especially if the guild offers up their own choice as candidate to replace Kerlikowske and the mayor backs off from his choice of Diaz as interim chief.

Excessive Force Complaint Sustained In Mark Hays Case -Updated

Originally posted at 02:08 on 12/16/08, updated 13:52 on 12/16/08

The Seattle Police Department's Office of Professional Accountability's Civilian Auditor released her biannual report recently and in it was a revelation that I wasn't aware of. It appears as though the OPA, the SPD's internal investigations division, may have found that officers used excessive force when they arrested Mark Hays and Michael Lujan earlier this year.

If you didn't remember, Mark Hays and his friend were walking back from a night out when they apparently jaywalked in front of an unmarked SUV full of undercover Seattle Police officers. The plainclothes officers, part of the "proactive policing" "Anti-Crime Team" yelled at the pair and told them they could be arrested for pedestrian interference. The pair apparently told the officers where they could put their interference and the officers piled out of their unmarked SUV and started arresting them.

What happened next, supposedly in front of several witnesses, is a matter of dispute. Officers allege that when they began arresting Lujan on charges of pedestrian interference that Hays jumped on one officers back, even though witnesses who talked to reporters but later refused to testify said they never saw Hays tackle an officer.



The ACT officers then arrested Hays for assaulting an officer and pedestrian interference, an arrest that was also partially caught on a responding unit's dashcam, as seen above courtesy of The Stranger's coverage of the incident. That video shows an ACT officer repeatedly punching and kneeing Hays after he was under control and face-down on the ground even as the cruiser approached the scene, and then showed even more punches and knees hit Hayes afterward as well.

Hays was later found guilty of assaulting an officer when none of the witnesses testified but Lujan was found innocent of pedestrian interference, essentially meaning that the initial excuse to effect the brutal arrest of Hayes was unfounded.

The SPD OPA Auditor, Katrina Pflaumer, had this to say about her review of a case that had some remarkable similarities with the Hays arrest...

"In another case I agreed with a Sustained finding for excessive force where the back-up officer’s in-car video had recorded the interaction. The officer had been jumped on from the rear as he took control of the subject’s jay-walking friend. When the attacking young man was down and under control, the officer continued to use punches and knee strikes, which he claimed were necessary to control resistance. In the majority of cases, the in-car videos I have seen support the officers. In this case, however, the video was at 180-degree variance with the officer’s perceptions or recollections and a Sustained finding was recommended by OPA and confirmed by the Chief."

While this finding may have been noted in a previously released monthly report from the OPA, generally the description of events in those findings are intentionally left vague, which makes it difficult to determine which person's complaint that finding is related to, but the description the auditor supplied leaves few reasons to doubt as to who this case is referring to... but because the OPA lacks any transparency, it's impossible to determine for certain if they are talking about the Hays case.

One point to remember is the recent contract changes between the city and the police union states that any officers who are found to have lied during an internal investigation are to be fired. The auditor, in this observation about the case, appears to be hinting that she felt the officer in question lied by saying his testimony was a 180 degree contradiction of the video evidence... but we've not heard of any officers being fired from the SPD recently.

But, interestingly enough, the auditor's report doesn't end there as she describes an identical case involving the same officer and, if the case is the Hays case, a member of the rather infamous SPD ACT.

"I was troubled by a case with very similar circumstances three months later, involving the same officer, same kind of strikes delivered, same justification claimed, and same words spoken; but where no in-car recording was available. In that case a person with a felony warrant fled from the officers, was tackled, and was delivered knee strikes in the mid-section during handcuffing. Since the officers’ testimony was consistent and supportive of each other, the result was a finding of Exonerated. The Director and I agreed that, despite some similarities, there was no evidence available to sustain an allegation of excessive force against the employee."

As we covered shortly after the Hays incident, the SPD ACT is responsible for a large number of excessive force complaints due to their aggressive form of "proactive policing" methods. It should be interesting to see if a civil case does develop from this case, if it is the Hays case, as Hays reportedly told reporters that he was in talks with civil rights attorneys shortly after his arrest. Per departmental policy, there has been no word on how the officer was disciplined, or if any discipline had been given over the sustained finding at all.

UPDATE 12/16/08-13:48:
I just realized that this finding may have actually been reported in one of the monthly OPA reports back in October, but the description of the complaint was so vague that there would be no way to link the finding with the case. I covered that report here back in October too... Just struck me now that the two were likely linked.

But again, because of the way the OPA is set up to protect officers, even when they have been found to break the rules, it's impossible to tell if this is the Hays case for certain, even though the similarities are very striking.

October In Seattle

Sorry I've been out of commission for a few days, there's a bunch to catch up on locally so let's get started...

Latest OPA Reports

Jonah, over at The Stranger's blog, posted about some of the rare sustained findings that he found in the September Seattle Police Department Office Of Professional Accountability (SPD OPA) report, including one that found a dispatcher had sex with a 16 year old runaway after supplying him with alcohol.

I was surprised that nobody mentioned the August OPA report, which is also interesting because it details a sustained finding of excessive use of force against an officer and specifically states that the officer was uncooperative with the investigation and mislead investigators.

That's interesting because, according to the new contract between the city and officer's union, any sustained finding of an officer misleading investigators during an internal investigation is suppose to lead to an automatic termination of employment... but we've not heard of any officers being fired during that period of time and nobody has covered that story.

Guess that contract isn't working out as advertised, just like I said it wouldn't.

Tacoma Washington Judge Decides On Police ID Demands
According the The Seattle Times, a Tacoma judge ruled that people are not obliged to show their identification on demand to officers that demand it just because they demand it. As you might recall, we reported on the case of Legrand Jones, a lawyer from Olympia Washington, who was fighting charges that were brought against him when he refused to show officers his ID when they demanded it while he was at an anti-war protest. The judge cited that an officer has to have cause to detain someone, and demanding ID is a form of detaining someone.

The police also charged the lawyer with trespassing because he was NEAR a fence that had a no trespassing sign on it... the same judge dismissed that charge saying that one would have to be on the other side of the fence to be trespassing.... duh.

When Civilian Oversight Isn't
According to the Seattle Post Intelligencer, Mayor Greg Nickels wants to put police department's civilian auditor under his administration in the department of executive administration instead of allowing that position to continue being independent as a non-city government contractor through the office of policy and management.

The obvious problem here is that the civilian auditor would cease to be a civilian and become a city employee, and thus inherit the appearance of bias that comes with such a role. This is particularly problematic because, as I reported earlier this year, all other roles within the civilian oversight process have already been replaced this year and the auditor is the last person left standing with any clear experience and the director has been replaced with someone who has a penchant for defending the police, which already lends the appearance of bias. The last thing the city should do, if it values the public perception of it's police department's trustworthiness, is to fold the auditor into the mayor's payroll.

The Dangers Of Consolidating Jail Services
Finally, according to KING 5 News, King County Executive Ron Sims is trying to find ways to save money while the county budget faces a record shortfall, but his latest proposal for cuts at the jail may end up costing more.

While most are arguing on the basis of travel costs that would increase if all bookings were done in the KCCF instead of at both the KCCF and Regional Justice Center in Kent, there is also the increased likelyhood of intake screenings being overwhelmed, which would increase the likelyhood of detainees who need medical care being overlooked, which is one of the US DOJ findings the jail was blasted for last year.

With the county already facing legal action from the US DOJ and a class action civil suit over failures to provide adequate medical care to detainees, this move may cost them even more than they think.

A New Wall Of Silence Around The SPD

The Office of Professional Accountability (OPA) is the internal investigations branch of the Seattle Police Department that is responsible for investigating allegations of misconduct. Part of the role within that department is community relations in order to build trust within the community for the police department and trust in the internal investigative process itself. Two recent reviews of the OPA found, among other things, that the OPA needs to do a better job of communicating with the public… How well have they done since those reports?

First, the OPA is supposed to issue a monthly report each month that details the findings for the previous month and gives a statistical summary of those findings and the number of investigations opened. However, the OPA is currently 3 months behind in issuing those reports with the latest report available being the one for June. Prior to hiring a new director towards the middle of last year, the department had been fairly consistent in issuing those reports but towards the end of last year the department fell behind. While they had appeared to catch up for a while, they have fallen behind again under the leadership of this new director.

The problem is not with the OPA being overburdened as the number of complaints opened has been lower this year than previous years, unfortunately in large part because so few trust the process anymore after several high profile cases of officers escaping discipline.

Also, as I reported here in an exclusive story, the OPA have not even been performing investigations as often as they used to. In fact they have only investigated 40% of allegations this year and instead allowed SPD officers to make summary findings without investigation 60% of the time, in previous years they would investigate an average of 90% of allegations made. Of course, this has impacted the rate at which officers have been found guilty of misconduct, (previously 28%-30% rate, now only 11% of findings are sustained), but it has not appeared to have made them more open with the public, in fact they grown strangely silent instead.

Earlier this year the civilian oversight review component of the OPA, the OPARB, had issued a report to city council that was sharply critical of the OPA process and had warned it was on a track to failure but that report was kept secret due to civil litigation worries on the part of the city who worried it would prompt the police union to sue. Since then the OPARB members have been replaced with other members and has not issued any new reports.

In fact, the last reports issued were from the OPA auditor in April of this year, nearly 5 full months ago. Furthermore, there have been no publicized community outreach meetings by the OPA and, in fact, if you go to the OPA home page and click on their “Community Outreach” link, this is what you get:

Clearly the OPA is no longer interested in reaching out to the public, nor are they interested in increasing transparency into the internal investigation and disciplinary process as was called for by the SCCPAP in their report made to the city council about the OPA process and what was needed to improve relations between the police and the public.

Instead, this new and increased lack of transparency is deeply disturbing because of the apparent drop in the number of cases that the OPA is actually investigating which has led to a drop in the rate of sustained findings. There are clearly problems within the OPA and the Seattle police department itself, and apparently the city seeks to hide that fact behind a new wall of silence.

UPDATE 09/09/08 13:39 - The SPD OPA finally released their monthly report for July shortly after this article was published.

Seattle Police Brass Excusing More Misconduct

An interesting trend appears to be developing at the Seattle Police Department's "Office of Professional Accountability" (SPD OPA), which is the civilian oversight mechanism for police misconduct investigations. Not only are complaints taking longer to investigate, but it appears as though fewer complaints are making it to the actual investigation process itself. Instead, more complaints than ever appear to be getting dismissed out-of-hand by SPD brass.

We took a look at the current and past OPA statistics and noticed this trend pretty quick because the change in data was startling. First, here's a graph showing the OPA findings from the past few years.

OPA Findings From 2005-2008

Of course, the SPD OPA categorizes how it handles and finds complaints in a number of somewhat confusing ways, as you can see above, but ultimately there are two different ways it goes about establishing a finding and two different basic findings it can come up with: The OPA can investigate the complaint or defer to a supervising officer's discretionary finding and the OPA can either find the complaint as being valid or invalid.

Now, first, let's look at the resulting findings of complaints over the same time period:

Simplified OPA Findings From 2005 to 2008

As you can see, the general trend in findings over the first few years was fairly static, ranging around 30% sustained, until 2007 and 2008 where the trend plummeted to only 11% of complaints being found sustained (of those a vast majority being managerial complaints like incorrectly reporting hours for example). So, why are complaints being dismissed far more often?

Well, while many people have so little trust in the OPA complaint system that they now bypass it and go straight to a lawyer in cases of serious misconduct, yet there may be another factor in play as well... It may have something to do with this:

OPA Investigation vs Administrative Discretionary Findings 2005-2008

As you can see, there has been a very drastic shift in the ratio of complaints that are actually investigated by the OPA and the number of complaints that are simply dismissed by administrative officers like Lieutenants and Captains as "administratively unfounded" or "administratively exonerated" without investigation. Previously, a vast majority of complaints, around 90%, were handled by the OPA with very few being discretionary, but strikingly the trend upended with complaints being deferred to the discretion of the brass in nearly 60% of cases so far this year and only 40% being investigated by the OPA.

Interestingly enough, this trend seems to have started when the OPA Director was replaced near the middle of last year and the entire OPA office was reshuffled. This was also around the time that the civilian oversight portion of the OPA system, the OPA Review Board, made a scathing report that alleged interference in investigations by the police chief and questioned the trustworthiness of the entire OPA process. The outgoing OPA director also expressed concerns about the future of the oversight system but her replacement has been a steadfast defender of the police department.

As a result of the accusations made by the OPA Review Board the entire board has also been replaced this year, with their last report on the status of the OPA system being kept secret because it was reportedly a scathing review that would have left the city open to litigation by the Seattle Police Officer's Guild. It is appearing more and more likely that the city and police department are responding to problems with the oversight and disciplinary system by making it less effective and more secretive than ever and staffing it with members who will keep quiet about problems with the process.

Needless to say, the results of all the changes to the oversight system are clear, whether they are intentional or not. More and more often, complaints are being dismissed without review or oversight and this appears to have a direct correlation with both the changes in management for the civilian oversight system in Seattle and the news coverage last year of failures within the oversight process.

While the city has made pains to publicize the changes to the system that help ensure officers found to have committed acts of misconduct are disciplined, it's becoming clear that the system has been altered to find fewer officers guilty of misconduct in order to bypass those new rules. Sadly, this means that the OPA system of civilian oversight in Seattle is looking more like a PR front that covers up cases of misconduct for the city's embattled and scandal ridden police department than a properly working and transparent civilian oversight system designed to clean up the police department. The end result will be even more distrust between civilians and the police as misconduct and brutality rates continue to climb due to a lack of consequences for misconduct.

Note: Since the 2008 statistics are only based on mid-year reporting statistics, all previous year statistics were taken from the same mid-year reporting time-frame for that year for accurate comparisons.

More Evidence Of Police Misconduct Cover Ups In Seattle

There's an interesting article in the Seattle Times today about the SCCPAP report on police accountability that was presented to the Seattle City Council today. While we reported on the SCCPAP report along with panel member Eric Schnapper's commentary weeks ago, there was some serious accusations in that article that caught our attention.

Apparently, at the same time the SCCPAP report was released, there was another report from the civilian oversight board (the OPARB) that the city has decided to keep secret as it was highly critical of the police department's internal investigations process and appears to suggest that the 180 day loophole was being abused in order to help officers avoid discipline in cases of alleged misconduct.

Abuse of the 180 day loophole is an issue that we've covered and identified as the most serious reform item that was dropped in the latest contract agreement with the Seattle Police Officer's Guild.

This report that's being withheld from the public also appears to accuse the internal investigations director of obstructing the board's efforts to investigate problems with the police accountability program... both the panel and the review board also site a systematic effort to avoid public transparency as a deep concern, a concern that the city seems unable or unwilling to address due to fierce opposition by the police guild.

However, the council has made moves to replace the entire OPARB panel though, seemingly in an effort to quash investigations into problems with the accountability program that this 3 member board has been vocal about. This is another item we covered that appears to be a move to reduce transparency of the accountability process even further than it already is.

These are all issues we've identified for quite some time, they are the reasons why we strongly recommend against reporting misconduct to the police department's "Office of Professional Accountability" (OPA), and it seems clear that we're not alone in our concerns either... so while it is nice to know that the concerns addressed in this site appear justified and validated, it's deeply troubling that it seems that the city's answer to transparency and accountability problems within their government is to reduce transparency even further and hide misconduct problems from the public.

The problem is that secrecy and democracy are never compatible with each other. Eventually, either one or the other will have to give.

Stay tuned.

New SPD Contract Fails To Apply All Accountability Recommendations

I've done some further review of the contract (released Friday) that was negotiated between the City of Seattle and the Seattle Police Officer's Guild ahead of the June 26th vote by the city council to ratify the agreement and compared the language in that agreement with the PARP police accountability recommendations implementation plan set forth by Seattle mayor Greg Nickels.

The mayor's plan indicated that 11 of the 29 recommendations as required negotiations with the guild in order to achieve full implementation and I used that plan as a comparison to determine what changed between the plan and the contract. Upon careful review it becomes clear that the SCCPAP police accountability recommendations that were released yesterday should be getting more attention than they currently are because the PARP recommendations are not being implemented as proposed.

The following are the 11 recommendations that, according to the mayor, had to be negotiated in order to be implemented along with the recommendation number, text, and relevant section of the agreement where that recommendation is discussed. The recommendations in red have been determined to be specifically invalidated by the agreement, the recommendations in yellow have been limited or altered by the agreement, and the ones without highlighting have been implemented in the contract:

Recommendation 1, which gives the auditor more staff, makes it a full time position, and clearly defines the auditor role, was invalidated in section Appendix E Section 1 Subsection A:

A. The City agrees that the IIS Auditor position shall be continued in effect with its current authority but may be renamed the OPA Auditor, with the clarification that the Auditor may audit all OPA cases involving Guild bargaining unit members.

Recommendation 8, which allows investigators to extend the 180 day limitation on investigations to extend that deadline with just cause, was invalidated in Section 3, Subsection 5, Item F:

Unless further investigation is deemed necessary, the Chief shall make the final decision as to whether charges should be sustained, and if so, what discipline, if any, should be imposed, after considering the information presented in any due process hearing. If new material facts are revealed by the named employee during the due process hearing and such new material facts cause the Chief to act contrary to the OPA Director's recommendation, the case must be sent back to the OPA for further investigation. The "further investigation" described above must be completed within the original 180-day time period. The 180-day period runs from the time a sworn supervisor or OPA received notice of the complaint until the proposed Disciplinary Action Report is issued. If further investigation is warranted the 180-day period begins to run again the day after the
due process hearing, and will not include the time between issuance of the proposed Disciplinary Action Report and the due process hearing. The named employee has no obligation to attend his/her due process hearing or to present any information during the due process hearing if he/she chooses to attend.

However, even more than this, even in the event that the additional testimony given by an officer that convinced the chief to countermand OPA recommendations for discipline were found to be based in intentional falsehood, the department would be unable to impose discipline per PARP Recommendation 20, which presumes officers would be terminated upon findings of dishonesty, if the 180 day deadline expires during the resumed investigation as any additional findings would be tied to the original complaint date, not a new investigative start date that resets the 180 day clock. (the same 180 day deadline that cleared officers in the Alley-Barnes case).

So, not only was Recommendation #8 nullified, Recommendation #20 was severely weakened in this section. Of course, we've already warned of the interdependencies between these recommendations and how removing one could impact several others.

Also, as we uncovered right after a quick read of the contract, the guild now has veto power over matters of Review Board candidacy and has full access to any candidates private records. This should send all OPARB members a very clear and chilling reminder that they should stay quiet and not rock the boat like the last OPARB members did about the cases of misconduct that started off the entire accountability review process.

Yes, that's right, in some ways they made officers even less accountable and disciplinary matters even less transparent with this agreement and any way we look at this it's quite clear that all 29 recommendations will not be enacted as intended. Anyone who insists otherwise is not being honest about the police accountability situation in Seattle.

Unsurprisingly, the media hasn't picked up on the contract being issued and they haven't compared it to the recommendations yet, and it's likely that they never will. Instead, they'll reissue press releases from the city that say they were all put into place just fine and that you'll never hear about another case of misconduct going unanswered... at least... not until next time.

Stay safe out there, because Seattle police officers are still just as unaccountable for their actions as they ever were and we're about to have even less oversight than before.

The SPD Contract vs The PARP Recommendations

Busy day today... In addition to releasing the SCCPAP report on police accountability, the agreement between the City of Seattle and the Seattle Police Officer's Guild has also been made public and I did a quick review to determine which of the 29 PARP recommendations had been altered or removed from consideration... and it's clear that all 29 recommendations are not going to be enacted as intended.

The exclusion of those recommendations means that the SCCPAP recommendations, released earlier today, should merit some closer and more serious examination in order to cover the gaps left by the remove and alterations of the PARP recommendations. But, as we've mentioned, it's not clear if that will happen. In any case, here are some of my preliminary findings:

The contract reveals that the 180 exclusionary recommendation was removed from consideration, as alluded to previously by the police guild.

Furthermore, while the recommendation that the chief is to notify the city of any decisions that counter investigative recommendations regarding sustained findings of misconduct, the contract severely limited what the chief may tell the city.

Finally, while not part of the PARP recommendations, the contract provides a clause that allows the guild to overrule appointments to the civilian review board and allows the guild to review the private records of any candidate for the civilian review board... essentially, this clause also allows the guild to control who gets put on the OPARB, which may indicate why the current membership of the OPARB was completely wiped out and replaced by councilmember Tim Burgess.

As we've presumed, it's clear that all 29 recommendation were not implemented as recommended, contradictory to statements from the mayor's office and some council members.

The full contract is available here, but the following are the pertinent sections outlined above:

3.1
The parties agree that discipline is a command function, and that the Department may institute a disciplinary procedure. So much of said procedure that relates to the right of an employee to a hearing and the mechanics thereof are outlined in this Article; provided, however, that it is understood that if deemed appropriate by the Chief of the Department, discipline or discharge may be implemented immediately consistent with the employee's constitutional rights. Disciplinary action shall be for just cause.

In the case of an officer receiving a sustained complaint involving dishonesty in the course of the officer's official duties or relating to the administration of justice, a presumption of termination shall apply. For purposes of this presumption of termination the Department must prove dishonesty by clear and convincing evidence. Dishonesty is defined as intentionally providing false information, which the officer knows to be false, or intentionally providing incomplete responses to specific questions, regarding facts that are material to the investigation. Specific questions do not include general or 'catch-all' questions. For purposes of this Section dishonesty means more than mere inaccuracy or faulty memory.

3.4 F.
Unless further investigation is deemed necessary, the Chief shall make the final decision as to whether charges should be sustained, and if so, what discipline, if any, should be imposed, after considering the information presented in any due process hearing. If new material facts are revealed by the named employee during the due process hearing and such new material facts cause the Chief to act contrary to the OPA Director's recommendation, the case must be sent back to the OPA for further investigation. The "further investigation" described above must be completed within the original 180-day time period. The 180-day period runs from the time a worn supervisor or OPA received notice of the complaint until the proposed Disciplinary Action Report is issued. If further investigation is warranted the 180-day period begins to run again the day after the due process hearing, and will not include the time between issuance of the proposed Disciplinary Action Report and the due process
hearing. The named employee has no obligation to attend his/her due process hearing or to present any information during the due process hearing if he/she chooses to attend.

3.4 G
When the Police Chief changes a recommended finding from the OPA, the Chief will be required to state his reasons in writing and provide these to the OPA Director. A summary of the Chief's decisions should be provided to the Mayor and City Council upon request. In stating his reasons in writing for changing an OPA recommendation from a sustained finding, the Chief shall use a format that discloses the material reasons for his decision. The explanation shall make no reference to the officer's name or any personally identifying information in providing his explanation. In
the event the change of recommendation is the result of personal, family, or medical information the Chief's explanation shall reference "personal information" as the basis of his decision.

App E
3.G.
Because members of the OPA Review Board may serve in a quasi- judicial capacity in making decisions about whether or not investigations of police misconduct are complete, as a requirement for appointment, candidates must be able to comply with the requirements of the appearance of fairness doctrine with respect to their duties as a member of the OPA Review Board. For the purposes of this Appendix, the appearance of fairness doctrine shall be applied as an eligibility criteria for appointment to the OPA Review Board, as opposed to being applied on a case-by-case basis.

In an effort to limit disputes regarding the type of information which must be provided to the Guild regarding a candidate, the parties hereby set forth the information to which the Guild is entitled. Criminal history record information which includes records of arrest, charges, allegations of criminal conduct and nonconviction data relating to a candidate for appointment, and Department records of any complaints of police misconduct filed by the candidate shall be made available to the Guild. Access to such records by the Guild shall be for the sole purpose of assessing whether or not the candidate meets the above eligibility criteria. Access shall be limited to the executive officers and members of the Board of Directors of the Guild and the Guild's attorneys. Such records shall

not be used by anyone in connection with any other civil, criminal or other matter, or for any other purpose. After the Guild has conducted its assessment of the candidate, the records shall be promptly returned to the Department unless the Guild challenges the appointment as set forth in Section V, below. If the Guild challenges the appointment, the records shall be used solely for the purpose of the arbitration, will be presented to the arbitrator under seal, and will be returned to the City at the conclusion of the arbitration. Except as otherwise necessary for the purposes of this Appendix or the resolution of a dispute under Section V below, such records shall be maintained by the Guild as confidential and shall not be copied, disclosed or disseminated.

The SCCPAP Report On Police Accountability In Seattle

The Seattle City Council Police Accountability Panel (SCCPAP) report has been submitted to council and is part of the public record, though it has not been officially released to the press at this time and there is no indication if it will have an official press release like the mayor's Police Accountability Review Panel (PARP) did.

The SCCPAP report offers several recommendations designed to work in tandem with and build upon the PARP report recommendations, while many of those 29 recommendations may be enacted after they were negotiated into the current contract with the Seattle Police Officer's Guild, some were reportedly dropped during negotiations and we are trying to get a hold of that contract in order to determine the extent of intended implementation.

It is up in the air as to whether this report will actually see the light of day, let alone be acted upon in any way since the contract with the guild has already been negotiated and the council, and city government as a whole, seems limited in the scope of what they can, or will, do legislatively about police discipline. So, this might be the only place where you actually hear about it.

I'll list the recommendations here, then provide an analysis and some interesting background on how the police chief and guild refused to cooperate with the process later today or tomorrow. If you would like to review the entire report that includes the reasons why for each recommendation along with background information, it's available online here. (The city's records link seems to be problematic, only partially loads most of the time, so I posted the report HERE on our site as well)

The SCCPAP report contains the following 23 recommendations:

OPA Recommendations:

1. OPA should be expressly authorized to investigate possible misconduct that is not the subject of a formal complaint.

2. OPA should re-interview complaining parties where necessary to assess the accuracy or implications of new information.

3. The "explanation of the finding reached" sent to the complaining party after an OPA investigation should be specific enough to permit the party to (a) make an informed decision about whether to ask for reconsideration, and (b) identify possible
errors or omissions in the explanation.

4. At least one third of the officers assigned to work at OPA should be detectives.
(currently all are line sergeants and they are picked off the roster, usually serve unwillingly which we have mentioned as a problem that introduces bias before).

5. There should be written guidelines setting out what types of misconduct complaints can be referred to mediation. The summary of the mediation process on the OPA website should make clear that complaining parties who opt for mediation may not thereafter renew their complaint.

6. The OPA should not consult with police officials outside that office, other than the Auditor, regarding the classification of a complaint. OPA should not consult with police officials outside that office, other than witnesses, regarding its recommended findings of fact.

7. At the conclusion of the independent OPA investigation, and before the matter is referred to the Chief, the OPA recommendation should be made by the OPA civilian director, and the OPA evaluation and summary of the investigation should be finalized by the OPA civilian director. That recommendation, evaluation and summary should be embodied in a written document signed by the OPA Director.

OPARB Recommendations:

8. The Board should be authorized to issue reports (including statistical reports) and/or make recommendations regarding any one or more of the following:

(i) the processes utilized by the Police Department (including but not limited to the OPA, the Auditor and the Board) to classify, investigate, make factual determinations, impose discipline and otherwise deal with police misconduct in one or more cases of the Board's selection,

(ii) any concern about police conduct that has arisen in an OPA case, or would be within the responsibility of the OPA if it were the subject of a complaint, and

(iii) any concern about police conduct called to the attention of the Board at a public meeting or through other contact with members of the community.

9. The Board shall conduct regular public meetings to obtain information regarding public concerns as to police conduct, and to provide the public with information about the OPA complaint process.

10. In order to prepare a report or recommendation the Board may, among other things:

(a) review the file in any closed OPA case or cases of its selection,

(b) obtain any document in the possession of the Police Department insofar as that document would be subject to disclosure under the Public Disclosure Act,

(c) request any other document in the possession of the Police Department,

(d) request and reach agreement with the Auditor for the Auditor to collect information or prepare reports, including statistical reports, and

(e) review national trends regarding best practices that might improve either the OPA process or other Police Department practices.

11. Police Department documents requested by the Board should in general be provided within 30 days. The Department should not withhold documents from the Board except where:
(a) disclosure is forbidden by law, or
(b) disclosure would materially interfere with an ongoing investigation.
Where redaction occurs, it should exclude only information that could be withheld under the Public Disclosure Act and should not be done in a manner that obscures the meaning of the document. If the Department declines to provide a document requested by the Board, or to do so in the manner or at the time requested by the Board, the Police Chief shall promptly provide to the Mayor and the Public Safety Committee a specific written explanation for that refusal. To the extent that a refusal was based on a lack of resources for copying or redaction,the Chief shall explain what additional resources are required.

12. The Board should be expanded to five members.

13. The Board should be provided with significant staff support and with funds to help defray the cost incurred by the Police Department in copying documents and in
redacting documents in a manner which permits meaningful review.

14. Board members should not be required to execute a "hold harmless" agreement as a condition of service on the Board.

15. The City should without equivocation defend and indemnify Board members for actions in the scope of their official duties.

Auditor Recommendations:

16. In addition to the position's existing authority, the Auditor should be empowered to reach and carry out agreements with the Board to collect information or prepare reports, including statistical reports.

17. The Police Department shall provide the Auditor with any documents or other information required to carry out the duties of that office.

18. The Auditor shall prepare and release at least annually an analysis of the level of discipline imposed for various types of police misconduct.

19. The responsibility now imposed by ordinance on the Board to prepare certain statistics should be transferred to the Auditor. The Board remains authorized, but would not be required, to obtain and analyze statistical data to enable the Board to carry out its duties.

20. The Auditor shall prepare and issue at least annually a report analyzing OPA's response to claims of possible police misconduct as reported by Risk Management.

Additional Recommendations:

21. The city should repeal those parts of SMC sections 3.28.830 and 3.28.870, which impose on the OPA Director and OPA Auditor a duty to treat all materials to which they have access as if they were attorney-client privileged material.

22. The OPA Director, the Auditor and the Board should not be held to a higher level of confidentiality than is consistent with the Public Records Act.

23. If a request made under the Public Records Act for information from the OPA is rejected in whole or part, the Police Department shall promptly report that action to the Public Safety Committee and shall explain the basis for that rejection.

Dismantling Police Accountability From The Inside Out

A lot of attention has been put on the city of Seattle's civilian oversight and police accountability system's proposed reforms lately. While the city insists that all of the proposed reforms have been put into place with the latest contract agreement with the Seattle Police Officer's Guild, the guild has been hinting that they were able to remove and weaken some of those reforms during negotiations and the city appears to be reluctant to release the details still.

However, as we noted previously, there's been a lot of activity behind the scenes to dismantle the accountability process from the inside out while the public is focused on the reform items proposed by the mayor's review panel, or PARP.

The first blow to the accountability system was when Sam Pailca's, the Office of Professional Accountability's previous director, second term expired in June of 2007 and she left the position in the midsts of the Paterson arrest scandal and the Alley-Barnes brutality case. Known to be an outspoken and tenacious director who advocated for the system against severe pressure from the police guild, mayor, and police chief that required her to seek mediation in order to get the internal investigations unit to even talk to her, she stated that she left a lot of work to be done upon her departure.

Prior to her departure she raised serious questions about how the police chief consistently overruled OPA findings of misconduct and allegations of interference with investigations, most notably with the Paterson arrest investigation. But shortly after being replaced by Kathryn Olsen, a housing and labor rights attorney with no experience dealing with color of law civil rights abuse cases, the accusations were squelched and subsequent reports from the OPA became more conciliatory to the police guild and fell into line with the city's attempts to silence the public outcry over the broken system. Indeed, after the replacement of the director the OPA became very quiet, issuing fewer reports than ever and becoming slow to issue the reports it typically did issue previously.

Following this first chip away at the accountability system, the new head of the Public Safety board, the police guild sponsored ex-police officer councilman Burgess, completely dismantled the OPA Civilian Review Board (OPARB) by telling the last remaining experienced OPARB member that she would likely not be asked to continue on and personally filtered all new applicants for the three member board slots.

Now, with an inexperienced OPA Director and a completely guild-vetted and inexperienced OPA Review Board, the last remnant of the previously outspoken OPA system is the OPA Auditor, Katrina Pflaumer, whose second term expires at the end of this year. By replacing her with yet another inexperienced and more compliant member of the civilian oversight team, it seem certain that the public will be kept ignorant of problematic cases of police misconduct that are swept under the rug.

The OPA has been very quiet and compliant lately, and this trend will likely continue despite there still being some very questionable cases of misconduct that the current auditor has been raising red flags over... and it will only get worse once she is replaced and we're left with a novice OPA that is ill-equipped to deal with the intense opposition that the previous OPA officials had finally learned to stand up against.

There was more than one way to skin the OPA civilian oversight process, and the city seems to have succeeded in killing it twice over. Now with the rumors that the last remaining pro-accountability council member will be retiring soon, it seems that there is little left to defend the civilian oversight process from becoming completely gutted and rendered incapable of serving the function it was meant to.

Indeed, it seems that it is well on it's way to becoming yet another mouthpiece for the police chief and city government instead of a way for the citizens of Seattle to police their own police force.

More On The Removed Accountability Reforms

As we've waited to see if the city of Seattle would make the new contract that the police guild accepted public, we went ahead and read through the latest issue of the police guild's newsletter to see if there were any clues about what accountability reform items were removed during negotiations.

While the city has maintained that all 29 accountability reforms that were recommended by the mayor's accountability review panel were adopted with the contract, the guild has apparently been insisting that this isn't the case and has hinted that at least one reform item, an exclusion for the 180 day investigation time limit that could be invoked when new information is brought up by officers during Loudermill hearings that occur between the chief, accused officer, and union representative after an investigation has completed. This exclusion was needed to allow the OPA to investigation any new claims to determine if they were valid and had any real bearing on the case as opposed to the previous process where the chief would just overrule the OPA findings if the officer brought up anything new in the hearing, resulting in administrative exonerations.

Previously, we discussed what affect removing that one rule had on other reform items, here's the items that are related to that rule again:


So, while perusing the Guild's newsletter, we found this quote in regards to what accountability reforms were addressed in the contract:

"The 180 day timeline, all discipline interviews and
procedures and appeal rights remain unchanged."

This language seems to indicate that even more reform items were removed than just the 180 day exclusionary rule. Specifically, this seems to hint at item 6, and maybe even item 7.

After all, item 6 would be a change to the disciplinary process by adding a representative for the investigative unit into the Loudermill hearing process, but it is required to ensure that the other related items are enforced, including referral back to the OPA in case any new information is released by the accused officer during that hearing which was withheld from investigators during interviews. Given the removal of this item, it then seems likely that rule 7 is moot if still on the board, after all, how can new facts be identified if there isn't a party representing the investigators present and how can it be deferred back if the deferral comes at the end of the 180 day limit?

So, it appears that the same problem which sparked the review of the present accountability system will remain in place. The chief will have leeway to overrule any OPA investigation at his leisure without any verification as to whether that contradiction was actually justified or based on any actual merit.

We've discussed before that this set of items is perhaps the most crucial set of items out of the reforms that were suggested to improve accountability and reduce misconduct within the Seattle Police Department. Given these developments, it looks like the city will attempt to ratify this flawed deal that gives officers unheard of raises without asking anything at all in return in the form of improved accountability.

Indeed, instead of 29 accountability reforms, it looks like we'll only get 24... the 24 which don't really address the problems that the reforms were supposed to address: officers being exonerated by the chief despite findings of misconduct and recommendations for discipline. Worst of all, the city is trying to cover that fact up, but nobody in the media seems willing to call them on it.

So much for open government and promises of having an accountable police force.

More Thoughts On The Romelle Bradford Case

Instead of updating the previous post on Romelle Bradford's win against the Seattle Police Department, I figured it best to put some additional thoughts about that case here.

1. About the proposed internal investigation and the city's lawyer suggesting that it would have been used to defend the city and not help the victim. Given past case histories (an example here) an OPA investigation into this same case would have definitely resulted in an exoneration finding because the OPA system is so biased. (Remember, internal investigations are not done by a dedicated internal investigation department but done by officers pulled right off the streets, who are then supposed to be trusted to investigate their fellow officers and pals. It's inherently biased and flawed... and the civilian oversight portion is utterly powerless).

Hence why the city's lawyers stated that if Romelle had filed a complaint with the SPD OPA, the city would have probably won the suit. The system isn't there to help victims of abuse find justice, it's there to cover up abuse. It's why we strongly recommend that victims of police misconduct never use the OPA complaint process without talking with a lawyer (several of them actually) first.

2. The lawyers representing the city want to appeal... of course they do, they have a no-bid contract with the city to defend all cases of police misconduct and have charged the city more in legal fees than what the city pays in settlements. I guarantee this, what the city will ultimately pay that law firm for their work on this case will utterly dwarf the judgment of $268,000 that was found against the city in this case. How's that for efficient and open government?
(The Seattle PI just ran a story about this exact same thing for tomorrow's edition! "The city will spend more than $500,000 -- perhaps a lot more -- as it pays for what a federal civil court jury found Monday was a violation of Romelle Bradford's civil rights.")
(UPDATE: The city filed an appeal on 05/30/08, of course)

3. As one commenter posed... "Can't wait to see the perjury charges against supervising sergeant" (for committing perjury when he lied on reports to cover for the arresting officer). He answered his own rhetorical question of course, the answer being never. Just as the city won't do anything that would actually prevent the same situation that landed them in court from happening again in the first place.

Why? Because the city would rather spend millions trying to cover up cases with a broken oversight system and keep misconduct cases quiet with hushed settlements than actually addressing the underlying problems and policies that still allow their police officers to get away with these kinds of antics without any fear of being held accountable for their actions.

Again we ask the readers which approach they think would be more cost effective and better for community relations, owning up to the problems and fixing them, or covering them up and continually paying for the same misdeeds over and over again?

4. Finally, we certainly thought this story would have gotten quite a bit of media attention... to date, only one Seattle MSM outlet (the Seattle PI newspaper) carried the story and one local independent paper (The Stranger) had a brief link to the story without commentary in their blog's morning news roundup.

Other Seattle blogs? Not a even a single damn peep!

Again, it just shows us why this site is so desperately needed in Seattle. Without attention these problems are only going to get worse.

Stay safe out there people.

UPDATE: Looks like a few more MSMs finally took up the story a bit late. The Seattle Times ran a pretty one-sided piece in defense of the city while KING 5 ran a piece that gave the victim a chance to speak... he plans to use his winnings to give more kids a chance to turn their lives around and get more needed resources for the Boys & Girls Club... That is, if the city pays up as the city attorney is looking to appeal the ruling.

Good luck Romelle, you have our support!

Seattle Loses Wrongful Arrest Lawsuit

Finally... It's good to read about someone who was mistreated and wrongfully arrested by the Seattle Police going to court and getting justice. It's been far too long to read about pitiful settlements and to hear so many cases of people who can't even get that far.

A jury awarded Romelle Bradford (mentioned here as the Boys & Girls Club Youth of the Year in 2003) $268,000 in damages for a federal civil rights case over an August 2006 arrest on charges of Obstruction and Resisting Arrest that were later dismissed.

The shocker is this: The attorney representing the city stated that if the victim had just reported the misconduct to the police department's internal investigation unit (the SPD OPA) the city would have had a better chance to win the case... in other words, the city's own attorney appears to be suggesting that the city's "police accountability" program is nothing more than a way to cover up for police misconduct.

Thanks for the tip.

From the article in the Seattle Post Intelligencer:

Bradford has a clean record and in 2003 was named youth of the year in the state for overcoming chronic truancy, getting good grades and for his work helping other disadvantaged youngsters at the Rainier Vista Boys & Girls Club in South Seattle. His case was featured in a Seattle P-I investigation of obstruction arrests, titled "Strong Arm of the Law."

The P-I found blacks were eight times more likely than whites to be arrested for obstruction, and that about half of the cases were dismissed by the City Attorney's Office before trial. Bradford is black (and) the criminal charges against him were dismissed before any attempt at prosecution.

It was after a club dance Bradford was supervising in August 2006 that he and club volunteers summoned police because of a potentially unruly crowd outside the club. (That) was then a rookie officer arrived as things were settling down, spotted Bradford jogging down the street and ordered him to stop. When Bradford didn't halt immediately, (the officer) rushed at him and slammed him to the ground.

Bradford said he didn't think the officer was talking to him because he said he was wearing a red T-shirt clearly identifying him as a Boys & Girls Club member. He said he was holding up his club badge and showing the officer his T-shirt when he said the officer decked him with his forearm.

Using the F-word, the young officer threatened to break Bradford's arm as he handcuffed him in front of several youngsters who were protesting that he was, indeed, a staff member trying to help.

After a police station interview in which Bradford insisted he was a staff member, police nevertheless booked and jailed him overnight. The arresting officer claimed Bradford's failure to immediately stop justified the obstructing charge and that a hesitation to offer one arm during handcuffing -- which Bradford doesn't recall -- justified the resisting charge.

Criminal defense attorneys refer to "obstructing a public officer" arrests by two other monikers: "Contempt of cop" and "the cover charge." Several told the P-I those nicknames are applied because the charges are sometimes abused to punish people for their being "mouthy" or to cover up when police might have used wrongful force against an innocent person.

"Sergeants, lieutenants, captains, assistant chiefs and chiefs should be alerted to the contempt of cop charge," Howell said after Monday's verdict. "These charges by their very nature are suspicious."

Several jurors said their verdict should send a message to the city to better supervise young officers. Several questioned department procedures and leadership. They even questioned the officer's use of the F-word in front of a crowd of Boys & Girls Club youngsters.

Jurors had to sort through conflicting statements. While Bradford and numerous witnesses said he was wearing the identifying red T-shirt, the police officers testified that he was wearing a plain white T-shirt. They did not explain why they took Bradford's red staff T-shirt into custody when they arrested him.

The supervising sergeant, also made a misleading statement on an after-action "use of force" report, justifying (the officer's) actions. He twice claimed that Bradford took a swing at the officer. Even the officer admitted that wasn't true. The sergeant later explained that he interpreted Bradford's holding up of his identification badge, which was attached to a key chain, as a move tantamount to taking a swing at the officer. The arresting officer also claimed he thought the keys might be used as a weapon.

In the end, I'm very happy to hear that someone finally got some justice after a long uphill battle for it. It's a rare event in Seattle, where several SLAPP lawsuits from police officers and their guild has frightened most lawyers into refusing to take cases against the city...

Seattle police have not lost an officer misconduct case before a judge or a jury for at least a decade and probably longer, said Anne Bremner, a partner at Stafford Frey Cooper, the firm that defends the city against such lawsuits. Some notable cases have been settled with payments made to plaintiffs, including a recent excessive force case on Capitol Hill and the settlement with WTO demonstrators.

Bremner said she has not lost such a case before a judge or jury in the 20 years she has defended Seattle officers against lawsuits.

"I was surprised," she said. "Appeal options are being analyzed."

But, for those still seeking justice and those who will have to in the future, take this advice to heart about the Seattle Police Department's Office of "Professional Accountability" internal investigation and complaint process:

...the private attorney who defended the city and the police against the lawsuit, said there would be no point now in conducting an internal investigation, though he added that ironically an internal investigation might have provided (the city) with more evidence to win the case. He also noted that Bradford didn't file a complaint with internal investigators, a tactical move by his attorney.

Because the OPA process is still broken, and because the city backed down and weakened reforms during contract negotiations with the guild, we still highly recommend that victims of police misconduct DO NOT USE THE OPA COMPLAINT PROCESS. It will only serve to help the city prepare a defense against your case and will not result in any substantive disciplinary action or help you recover from the harm done to you. It can only hurt you, and won't help anyone except for the officers it seeks to cover up for... and even the city's lawyers aren't afraid to tell people the fact that the system only works in their favor, not yours.

Good luck and thank you Romelle, and your attorney Lem Howell, I think what you both achieved has given some people hope in Seattle.