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.

You Will Never See Videos Of Police Brutality In A Seattle Holding Cell

While many people all over the world are now familiar with the case of Malika Calhoun thanks to the video (at top) that showed a King County Sheriff's Deputy assaulting the 15-year-old girl in a holding cell, some people still mistakenly assume that this video came from a Seattle holding cell.

(If you did, don't feel bad. Even one of Seattle's alternative news weeklies The Stranger made that mistake too).

It didn't, the video came from cameras set up in a SeaTac holding cell that is used by King County Sheriff Deputies, not a Seattle Police Department holding cell.

In fact, it would be impossible for you to see such a video if it showed Seattle Police officers abusing a detainee in a Seattle holding cell.

Why?

The reason you would never see a video of a Seattle Police officer assaulting a detainee isn't because a Seattle Police officer would never do such a thing. Nor is it because of privacy laws and contractual agreements that keep such records and recordings out of the public view. And no, it's not because the city's lawyers are so much better at convincing judges to keep such evidence out of the public view.

Quite simply, it's because there are no cameras in any Seattle Police Department precinct holding cells. In fact, as far as we know, there aren't any cameras anywhere inside any Seattle Police Department precinct.

So, if Malika Calhoun had been arrested by a Seattle Police officer and the same thing occurred, nobody would ever know and Malika would be facing charges of assaulting an officer for the beating she received. She would simply become another one of the nameless victims of police misconduct that never have their case make it to the light of day.

The city of Seattle has been trying to get cameras put into areas of Seattle police precincts where detainees might be held, interviewed, or transported for years now. But, progress has been slow due to opposition by the Seattle Police Officers Guild that has opposed the idea of cameras in precincts due to "privacy concerns". This has left the city and the Seattle Police Department struggling to figure out how to implement a policy governing the use of cameras in holding areas that the police union would agree to.

Unfortunately, as best we can currently tell, the current negotiations only cover cameras in holding cells themselves and do not apply to areas where detainees might be interrogated or moved... and the establishment of a policy that governs the use of cameras is still not finalized, which means the installation of such cameras may still be questionable given the current state of the economy even if there ever is a finalized agreement between the city and the police union.

In the meantime, rest assured that you'll never see a video of Seattle's finest beating on a teenage girl in a holding cell any time soon...

Police Misconduct NewsWatch for 02-03-09

Screenshot of fake site created by SPD officers to gather information on police misconduct victims.

LOCAL NEWS

Seattle Police Department's Spy Website Still Active
The fake "Injustice In Seattle" website (click at your own risk), created by some Seattle Police officers in an apparent attempt to trick victims of police misconduct into giving up their personal information, is still operational over a year since it first popped up in response to this site being created.

I was hoping the domain registration they made at the GoDaddy-hosted site would have been allowed to elapse after a year but their host has now given them the domain for free. Sadly, the officers are apparently having some degree of success in gathering information from victims of misconduct for possible retaliation or who knows what reason.

I say it's probably being effective at tricking people into believing it's part of this site because it's recently risen in Google search rankings to just two spots below this site and is actually listed ahead of this site in MSN Search rankings... which means people are being tricked into going there, where they are immediately prompted for their personal contact information, more often.

Not much I can do about it though since it's not like I can call the police to complain about what the police are doing.

The SPOG Guardian Available To Public Again
Also in SPD news, the Seattle Police Officer's Guild has recently made their monthly newsletter, The Guardian, accessible to the public again after they had taken access away while the one of the Guild board members, and editor of The Guardian, was facing charges in relation to a Sturgis bike rally shooting, of which were dropped a few months ago.

The latest, December, edition contains the usual angry rantings against the Office of Professional Accountability (SPD's Internal Affairs department) and insists to members that the latest contract does not affect the existing loopholes in the accountability system that allows officers to get off scott free if they can delay an internal investigation past a 180 day limit and that the new language to fire officers found to have lied in investigations will be impossible for the OPA to actually enforce.

NATIONAL NEWS

Stoughton Police Officer Wins Suit Against Stoughton Police Department
The city of Stoughton lost a $165,000 civil suit that was filed by a Stoughton Police detectives supervisor who was demoted in retaliation for investigating the recently convicted police chief Manuel Cachopa.

Acting police chief Christopher Ciampa demoted Robert Welch in 2005 after he was assigned to assist a special prosecutor with the investigation and when he refused to support a petition to remove council members who were responsible for removing Cachopa as chief of police.

Both Cachopa and the officer he attempted to cover for, David Cohen, were recently convicted on a variety of charges including witness intimidation, attempted extortion, filing false reports, and accessory to attempted extortion over their efforts to discourage someone from filing a misconduct complaint against Cohen.


Michigan Officer Claims She Was Fired For Complaining About Misconduct
A Raisin township police officer in Michigan has filed a lawsuit against her own police department alleging that she was fired for complaining about misconduct within the department in an effort to keep that misconduct, including sexual harassment, under wraps. The department denies the allegations and, predictably, asserts that she was fired for misconduct herself.

In talking with other officers who have won similar suits against their police departments, the former officer's accounting of how she was fired and why strikes a familiar chord with them... as it did with me too.

The Million Dollar High-Five
The city of Hawthorne California has paid out a $1,000,000 settlement in a civil rights suit alleging that Hawthorne police officers brutally beat a man before and after he was handcuffed and then high-fived each other when one officer kicked the handcuffed man in the face so hard that his jaw was broken. All this over a noise complaint.

The suit also alleged that officers denied the man medical care and then arrested his wife only because she witnessed the attack. Criminal charges against the two failed to gain convictions and the couple sued. After their lawyers, Jonas & Driscoll LLP, revealed they had video evidence of the officers congratulating each other for the beating and a picture of one officer kicking the handcuffed victim in the head while he was laying face down on the ground, the city apparently decided to settle. No word on whether the officers were ever disciplined, but I'd bet they weren't.

INTERNATIONAL NEWS

Indian Police Beat Up Six Year-Old Girl
In a market near Lohamandi in India, two officers have been suspended after two officers assaulted a 6 year old Dalit girl while six other officer looked on silently. Images of the assault have sparked rebukes from human rights organizations and charges may be filed against all officers involved. Charges have also been filed against the girl under allegations that she stole a walled from a woman at the market.

Seattle Police Union May Be Skirting Campaign Finance Laws

Police unions have a very unique position in American politics due to the combination of power they can wield as a collective bargaining organization, the authority each member can wield as a police officer, the influence a police organization has that comes with the title of their office, and the influence they wield on elections with their endorsement activities during campaigns. In a sense, police unions are uniquely positioned to be the only union in the world that can actually control those who manage them and can directly influence the laws that govern them. If only for these reasons alone, it's important to hold these powerful agents of political power to the rules that govern how they may participate in the electoral process.

Prior to 2006, the Seattle Police Officer’s Guild, Seattle’s police union representing over 1000 uniformed officers, participated in campaign finance activities through a statewide political action committee for police officers called the Washington Council of Police and Sheriffs (WACOPS) which raised $102,733 in 2004 and $98,450 in 2006 for various campaigns and had registered under full financial disclosure laws as required for organizations that raise more than $5,000 in an election cycle.

According to the campaign report filing made by COMPAS to the Washington State Public Disclosure Committee, in 2006 the guild registered its own PAC under the name of the Council of Metropolitan Police and Sheriffs (COMPAS) and the COMPAS PAC's reported funding was reported to be $145,835 for that year. That PAC was also registered under the full disclosure rules as required for an organization that raises more than $5,000 and the records show that this organization gathered most of its funds from two organizations, the Seattle Police Officer’s Guild and the King County Police Officer’s Guild and was registered to the same address as the Seattle Police Officer’s Guild.

In 2007 the guild formed yet another organization named the Seattle Police Officer’s Guild Political Action Committee (SPOG PAC) but this time registered that organization under the “mini reporting” exemption which is meant for small organizations that plan to only raise $5,000 or less AND only accept donations of $500 or less per donor, even though their last PAC raised much more than that. In 2007, the SPOG PAC raised nearly triple that limit, $14,638, in its efforts to get 3 sponsored candidates elected to Seattle City Council, of which it succeeded in getting 2 of them elected.

In 2008 the guild re-registered SPOG PAC as an ongoing PAC under the same mini-reporting rules , even though it raised more than that limit last year and had a prior PAC registered under full reporting rules in 2006, and raised $30,358 so far this year, all without any requirement to indicate exactly how it has raised or spent those funds as they would have under the full reporting requirements.

Who have they spent their money to support? How have they spent these funds? Who donated to their causes and how much did they donate? Such questions are important in this election cycle given the guild’s support of the Republican candidate for governor in the tight race between Dino Rossi and Democratic incumbent Christine Gregoire… but we can’t tell because the mini-reporting laws exempt them from having to report their activities.

Of course, it’s not that police related PACs are exempt from reporting laws, the King County Police Officer’s Guild PAC reports under the full reporting laws even though they only raised a little over $5,000 this year. The WACOPS, however, do still function but they may have also been attempting to skirt campaign finance laws by registering a second PAC, (WACOPPS) which shows its sole donor of about $112,151 so far this year to be WACOPS, thus shielding its list of donors as the original WACOPS is no longer listed.

We’re not sure why these two different police-related PACs are taking these steps to shield their donor lists and their expenditures because of the different methods they appear to be using to skirt Washington state campaign finance reporting laws and we’re not certain why they haven’t been called on it yet either, especially given the attention to campaign finance irregularities in this close and contentious election cycle.

UPDATE 10/22/08: A representative from SPOG PAC has verified to us that, even though they have registered under the less stringent "mini-reporting" rules, that they are still submitting the detailed reporting forms to the PDC that would have been required under full-reporting regulations, the links to which are not being published in order to protect the personal information of police officers who are the primary contributors to the guild's funds.

City Pays For Cop To Sue Civilians

In early July we reported on the case of Zsolt Dornay and how he is using tax payer funds to sue a man that he shot, along with four others who were involved in allegedly attacking him while he was off-duty, and in plain clothes, after he had allegedly hit a woman with his motorcycle and then threw her against a wall when his bike had been tipped over in 2006. Well, the story just got much more disturbing...

It's already a matter of public record that, after a lengthy investigation into the incident that included both the Seattle Police Department and an outside police department that was brought in after allegations were made that Seattle police were pressuring witnesses, prosecutors stated that no charges would be filed against the people who allegedly attacked the officer because the attack was justified given that it was done in response to the perceived danger that was posed to the woman the officer allegedly ran over and then assaulted.

Well, now the City of Seattle has reportedly paid at least $76,000 so far for a private law firm, retained under the city's contract with the Seattle Police Officer's Union to defend officers against civil rights suits, to sue these people in a civil suit on the officer's behalf. Which means, of course, that the officer and law firm would get the winnings, not the city or taxpayers.

Meanwhile, the civilians who have been named as defendants in that case have no such funding, they don't have a law firm paid for by taxpayer money. Indeed, some of them appear to be facing the nightmare scenario of going into court without any representation whatsoever to defend themselves against a multi-million dollar law firm that has received millions of dollars in taxpayer money defending misbehaving cops... simply because they cannot afford legal representation.

We know this, unfortunately, because one of those defendants contacted us, desperately trying to find out what to do since he cannot afford a lawyer. While we are currently trying to help him find a lawyer, it's a difficult endeavor considering he doesn't stand to win anything from defending himself against such a suit... a suit against him that he likely funded, ironically, with the very same taxes he paid to the city.

More appalling than this is the outrageous notion that the city would be funding a police officer's private lawsuit using taxpayer money after the defendants named in the lawsuit were found innocent by prosecutors who investigated the very same case. While, if this were a criminal case, the defendants could get a public defender, but since this is a civil suit, there is no such legal assistance available to defend against this city-funded attack.

How insanely unjust is it that a man who was found by government prosecutors to have legal justification for his actions on that night in 2006 to now face a private lawsuit financed by the city on behalf of the person who he was found to have legal justification to act against? A lawsuit that taxpayer can't even afford to defend himself against in a court of law?

It's absurd, it's unjust, and frankly, what the city is doing, with taxpayer money, should be considered a criminal offense in it's own right!

Who Will Watch The Watchmen Now

When three ex-Seattle police officers formed VIEVU with the idea to develop a small wearable camera for police officers that would help reduce the number of false misconduct accusations against police officers and provide them with a useful tool to gather evidence while on the job, it's unlikely that they imagined that the most resistance to their idea would come from their peers and old coworkers at the Seattle Police Department.

The VIEVU is a three ounce rectangular wearable wireless audio/video recording device that is capable of storing up to 4 hours of video that supposedly cannot be manipulated or erased. Approximately the shape of an older style pager, the device can be clipped on a uniform or belt and allows the officer to record potentially volatile interactions or situations from his or her own perspective. The device cannot be tampered with and the recordings cannot be modified even after they are downloaded from the devices onto a central computer system.

In this regard, the VIEVU is unlike dashboard mounted cameras used in police cruisers that only point forward and have been known to miss recording disputed police interactions, such as the case of Maikoiyo Alley-Barnes who could be heard pleading for officers to stop beating him on a dash-mounted police camera that was not positioned to record the actual beating. So this could be a valuable tool that protects officers who have been wrongfully accused of misconduct and to hold officers accountable who do commit acts of misconduct.

However, the Seattle Police Officer's Guild has forced the Seattle Police Department to suspend it's testing of the VIEVU after it was used to help monitor an August 29th Critical Mass bicycle ride through the city of Seattle as a test of the portable recording system. When asked about the guild's problems with the device, Sgt. Rich O'Neill, president of the guild, cited privacy concerns along with the need for officers to undergo training and preparation for potential litigation as reasons for the guild's resistance to the camera.

O'Neill also argued, in an interview with the Seattle Times, that the devices may make it harder for officers to gather evidence in cases instead of making it easier. "If the officers have the cameras going all the time there could be a chilling effect on citizens and juvenile talking to the police. If they think the cops are videotaping all of their conversations they might not want to have their names or faces used." O'Neill was quoted as saying.

Surprisingly, the guild has an ally in it's argument against the cameras in the form of the ACLU of Washington State, headquartered in Seattle, Washington. In an interview taken before the guild stopped the department's testing of the device, Christina Drummond, the Technology and Liberty Project Director for the ACLU of Washington, cited similar concerns over the use of the device.

Are these concerns founded in an age where the common citizenry is told that there should be no expectation of privacy in public? Where workers in the private sector are allowed to be recorded by their employers while on the job and where the police themselves monitor citizens with CCTV cameras positioned on street corners and in public parks?

Why is it that a police officer should have a special expectation of privacy where the common citizen does not? Why is their supposed fear of accountability still taken seriously when they already have job security protections that most of us could only dream of, when it's already nearly impossible to fire a police officer for misconduct?

Now, it's certainly true that the implementation of such devices should be paired with a very well-thought out policy that dictates when and how the devices should be used, that prevent reviewing of recorded materials except for gathering known evidence or incidents that have received complaints. It does seem clear that there was little thought put into the testing performed at the SPD and there have been no mention of protocols that were given to officers that would govern how these devices were used or how information gathered by them would be protected from surreptitious review.

But such guidelines and restrictions already exist for the use of recordings made by the police from public CCTV systems and dashboard mounted cameras that already exist in their vehicles. Why have those technologies been praised by officers while they still resist putting cameras in precincts and the use of wearable recording devices?

In our present-day surveillance society, it's interesting that perhaps the very last bastion of privacy in America might very well reserved for the very same police officers that have been given the power and privileged of monitoring and recording the rest of us...

In the end it seems as though everyone will be left wondering if this technology will finally help us watch the watchers, or if the watchers will be only gaining yet another tool with which to watch us.

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.

Seattle Media Intimidated Into Silence?

An interesting aspect of the Sturgis shooting story seems to have made a lot of people wonder why all the media and blogs in Seattle kept silent about the name of the Seattle police officer who shot a Hells Angel Motorcycle Club member in a South Dakota bar while off-duty this weekend. It seems a good question since the Meade County authorities have already released his name due to the Grand Jury testimony being taken over the case and so has the media outlets in South Dakota and elsewhere.

So why, when the officer's name is readily available, won't anyone in Seattle dare utter the officer's name?

That's what I tried to find out. I have questioned several media contacts in Seattle asking if they've heard of any pressure coming from the Seattle Police Officer's Guild or the Seattle Police Department over keeping the officer's name out of print even after his name was widely released in the South Dakota press. It seemed odd to keep his name out of the Seattle media due to security concerns when his name has been revealed elsewhere after all... and people were calling them and us on it.


Of course, as you can see above, some of our readers took us to task when we didn't release his name when we knew it as well. Well, first, when we realized who it was it hadn't been released yet, but we kept a lid on it originally because we don't want to see any officers or their families hurt due to the valid concerns for the officer's safety. But, after the officer's name became public knowledge we wondered why the press in Seattle still kept it quiet... after all, his name was reported in at least 4 different articles and television stations, albeit in states other than Washington. While the original reason hopefully was for the officer's family's safety, that reason didn't seem plausible anymore, unfortunately.

Since officer safety didn't seem a valid reason anymore and since the press, with it's own legal departments and on-staff lawyers, won't print the name, we sure as heck wanted to be cautious about it as well. After all, the Seattle Police Officer's Guild is no stranger to using lawyers to intimidate people into being quiet about misconduct. For example:

• Seattle Police Guild Threatens to Sue Anti-Police Misconduct Group -1991
• Seattle Police Guild Hires Detectives To Investigate Filers Of Misconduct Claims -1999
• Seattle Police File Charges Against Complainant For Harassment -2001
• King County Police Guild's Rise To Power Through Litigation And Politics -2005
• King County Sheriff Filed Complaint Against Seattle PI For Reporting on "Conduct Unbecoming" -2006
  

It's clear, given their past history, that the police officers make good on their threats to investigate or sue reporters and their employers for publishing their stories. So we had reason to worry and we wondered if others had the same reasons in mind when keeping it quiet.

Adding to our own reasons for being cautious was an incident where this site also had to deal with threats of legal action when, ironically, the same person involved in the Sturgis shooting himself threatened legal action when we published a picture from the Seattle Police Officer's Guild's monthly newsletter "The Guardian" which was critical of civil rights that was also published in the Blogging Georgetown blog (who also told us that they were similarly threatened as well).

With pressure like that, it's little wonder why the free press in Seattle might not be as free as you think. However, this case of self-censorship on the part of the press may not be the direct result of any undue pressure.

One reporter responded to our questions by speculating that it might be a case of reporters holding to a long standing tradition in Seattle of not naming people who might be the potential subject of a criminal investigation when they have not yet been charged or detained. This seems like a valid policy that should be applied to officers and citizens alike and may well be the case as the officer in question has not been charged over the shooting nor for bringing a firearm into a bar while off-duty in a different state. However, this reason didn't stop reporters in South Dakota from revealing his name. So, perhaps there are different journalistic standards in play, but we'll never know for certain.

No matter what the reason, for now, the officer's identity remains a secret... though only to the people of Seattle. Given past pressures police have put on the press in Seattle, it's no wonder that people are asking why the media is keeping information from the public, even if the reason is ultimately innocuous.

UPDATED 08/13/08 16:18 - One area reporter's response noted.
UPDATED 08/15/08 10:13 - The Seattle Times finally released Lt. Ron Smith's name 

SPD Officer Shoots Unarmed Attorney Three Times And Then Sues Him

In June of 2006, off-duty undercover Seattle Police officer Zsolt Dornay, then member of an SPD "proactive policing" Anti-Crime Team (ACT), was driving his motorcycle down a dual-use pedestrian and vehicular alleyway behind Pike Place Market where several nearby taverns were sending their patrons home for the night at the time. Why the officer chose to drive through Post Alley at that time of night, in an area he was well familiar with, instead of nearby main roads is a matter of contention, but witnesses allege that he was gunning his engine in an aggressive manner as he drove through the crowd that numbered at least 75 to 100 people according to most witness accounts.

Post Alley, where the incident occurred, shown in center.

Witnesses allege that as he drove through the crowd he hit a female paralegal with his side mirror which sparked an argument between the woman and the plain-clothed off-duty officer and the woman put herself in front of his bike during the exchange. Witnesses also state at this time that the officer drove forward while the woman was hanging on to his windshield which then caused his bike to tip. At this point, witnesses state that the officer grabbed the woman and threw her forcefully against a nearby door which sparked the nearby crowd to grab the officer.

At this point witness testimony diverges as many witnesses who gave SPD officers testimony later recanted when interviewed by Kent Police investigators when they were brought in to investigate the matter. Some witnesses who later changed their story say their testimony was altered or pressured by SPD officers. Video evidence of what happened also appears to have been lost by the Seattle Police Department who stated to Kent Police investigators that there was no video taken despite there being several nearby cameras that were trained on the site where the attack took place. As a result, there appears to be no way to confirm whether the officer's story or all the witnesses are right about what happened that night.

But witnesses agree that, at this point, the officer was attacked by at least 4 people in the crowd that came to the woman's defense and, in the course of the attack, the officer fired his duty weapon 5 or 6 times into the crowd and shot a nearby unarmed defense attorney 3 times in the abdomen. Witness accounts vary, at worst they say the attorney's involvement was limited to trying to grab the officer to pull him off the woman, others say he never even touched the officer, but all accounts agree that nobody saw him punch or otherwise assault the officer who alleges that he fired into the crowd in self defense and shot the 52 year old lawyer because he was mortally afraid of the lawyer.

The incident drew a great deal of media attention because the officer in question, a second generation cop, had a previous history of problems in the department, and even a possible criminal past. As a result, in a rare step, the SPD turned to an outside department to investigate the incident, the results of which ended up with no charges filed as prosecutors stated that the crowd had some justification to interceded on behalf of the woman who was attacked by the officer.

The problems in this officer's past that prompted this rare move by the SPD include:

• In 1984 he was allegedly arrested and plead guilty to charges of 2nd degree burglary, 3rd degree theft, and criminal trespass as a juvenile.

• In 1991 he was allegedly arrested again and charged with attempting to elude officers in a Grays Harbor incident, the case was ultimately transferred to superior court at the defendant's request and no mention of the case exists in any records afterward. In fact, when questioned about his criminal history by the KIRO 7 news reporters that discovered these court records, the police department stated that the department has no knowledge of such records, nor did they have his initial application for employment or background check in order to ascertain whether these criminal incidents were mentioned on his application... Seems that they conveniently lost his file.

• In 1995 a sustained finding of conduct unbecoming and improper use of force was found against him in an off-duty road rage incident where he assaulted someone at gunpoint. The incident alleges that he chased another motorist for several miles to the victim's workplace while shouting obscenities and "flipping him off", he then held a gun to the victim's head and hit him several times with the gun while grinding his face into the pavement of a parking lot. He only lost 15 vacation days as a result of that sustained finding.

• In 2003 he was accused, along with one other ACT officer, in the widely publicized beating of a 57 year old homeless Native American (in the same area of Post Alley as the incident above). The victim, Nix, was beaten so badly that he nearly died four days later in jail when he collapsed in a shower from a lacerated spleen and several other severe internal injuries. He flat-lined at least twice before surgery that was needed after he nearly bleeding to death after being denied medical care in jail. Nix also alleged that after the beating officers paraded him in front of prisoners and allegedly issued a warning to them that "This is what happens when you mess with the Sgt. In charge of narcotics." Prosecutors dropped all charges against the victim after testimony from several witnesses, some who claimed officers came at them with their clubs and said "you want some of this?", indicated the officers attacked him so quickly he likely wouldn't have known that it was police officers who were beating him.

Photo taken of 65 year old Nix's injuries after a 2003 arrest by SPD ACT Officers

• In 2005 he was accused, along with two other ACT officers, of strip searching three black men, yanking on their testicles, and conducting an invasive body cavity search against policy. Findings partially sustained for strip-searching all three men in front of each other in the same room, a finding that resulted in "re-training".

• 2006: The Post Alley incident noted above.

Additionally, recent reports in the press concerning the possible racial bias of obstruction arrests indicate that this officer is reportedly 12th in the entire department of 1,200 in the number of controversial "stand-alone obstruction" charges issued, (local lawyers sometimes refer to these charges as "contempt of cop"). There have also been several other abuse complaints filed against this officer, though no others are known to have been sustained.

This year, the attorney Dornay shot 3 times filed suit against the officer. In a move highly reminiscent of the infamous SLAPP suits filed by the police guild in the 90's to frighten victims into not reporting abuse, the officer is filing suit against the attorney that he shot, in addition to another suit he filed against the people he alleges attacked him, at the expense of the city who retains a private law firm under a no-bid contract to defend officers against civil rights lawsuits. The city, in fact, has paid the private lawfirm $76,000 in taxpayer funds so far in it's effort to allow this officer with a checkered past to sue the unarmed civilian that he shot while off-duty.

Predictably, as a result, the officer has found himself placed in the media's eye yet again, giving the city of Seattle and it's problematic police department yet another black eye, and it's taxpayer citizens yet another hit in their pocketbooks in the process... more than this, we wonder, what will the toll be in human suffering next time.

The officer in question is still on the SPD payroll, reportedly now as a narcotics officer.

Sources for this story:
A Tale of Two Cops: Seattle Post Intelligencer
Witnesses Give Differing Views Of Fight In Post Alley: Seattle Post Intelligencer
Police Shooting Leads To Two Lawsuits: Seattle Post Intelligencer
Controversial Seattle Police Officer Files Civil Suit: The Stranger
Seattle Officer Accused Of Unecessary Force: KIRO 7 News
The Cops' Credibility Gap: The Seattle Weekly
Shielded From Justice: Human Rights Watch
Law Firm Gets Millions To Defend Cops: Seattle Post Intelligencer

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.

Seattle Police Brutality Statistics

NOTE: For the latest police misconduct statistics, refer to the April 2009 National Police Misconduct Report or for realtime information on police misconduct refer to the National Police Misconduct News Feed on Twitter.

During the contentious contract negotiations between the city of Seattle and the Seattle Police Officer's Guild, representatives of the guild repeatedly asserted that the Seattle Police Department was one of the cleanest in the US, insisting that the complaints against officers were very low for a city of it's size as justification for why they deserved an unprecedented pay raise without having to accept police accountability improvements that had been suggested by the Police Accountability Review Panel.

Reviewing the reports from the Office of Professional Accountability and compiling the numbers paints a different picture of the Seattle Police Department, however. The numbers add up and appear to indicate that while Seattle's police department may not be the worst in the US, it's definitely not the cleanest... and it may be getting much worse.

A recent University of Chicago Law School study determined that the national average for complaints of excessive force against officers within mid-sized to large police departments was around 9.5 complaints per every 100 law enforcement officers according to the latest statistics available from the US Department of Justice and US Department of Labor.

The Seattle Police Department currently numbers around 1,200 sworn officers, so if they were to be better than average they would need to have less than 114 complaints of excessive force per year.

SPD OPA statistics for years 2005-2007:

2005 Use Of Force Complaints: 110 (09.1 per 100)

2006 Use Of Force Complaints: 112 (09.3 per 100)

2007 Use Of Force Complaints: 124 (10.3 per 100)

While statistically hovering around the average for 2005 and 2006, the brutality complaints against the SPD in 2007 clearly jumped higher than the national average. (additionally, this may be under-reported since civil rights lawyers in Seattle had started to advise clients against filing official complaints in use of force incidents because it was becoming clear the accountability system was flawed and biased).

The national average also maintains that departments generally sustain complaints of abuse and issue discipline in 8% of complaints made.

Percentage of abuse complaints sustained:

2005- 7.29%

2006- 6.53%

2007- 3.48%

Sustained complaints were halved in 2007, and even then those sustained complaints only resulted in one known actual disciplinary action; an early retirement with full pension that is currently being fought by the Seattle Police Officer's Guild. While one might first think this is a sign of a clean department, think again. It actually points to an apparent unwillingness of the police department to hold it's officers accountable for misconduct. (see more recent research into OPA records that discovered a shift from investigating complaints to discretionary findings here to see why sustained findings have dropped for use of force as well as all other complaints)

Because of the suddenness of the dramatic drop in sustained rates, the jump in number of complaints over the same time period, and the number of administrative exoneration that countermanded recommendations of disciplinary action by internal investigations means that the small number of sustained use of force complaints appears not to indicate that the department is "squeaky clean" but that the oversight and accountability mechanisms have failed. Recent news articles depicting problems with internal investigations and administrative exoneration appear to back this up as well on a per-case basis.

Those same stories of problematic accountability and investigatory mechanisms that were bypassed in the Seattle Police Department spurred the creation of two different panels (the SCCPAP and OPAPARP) that were tasked to review the civilian oversight program that was supposed to monitor police discipline and make recommendations to fix it. However, the resultant recommendations from both panels were fought by the police union and several were overturned or just dropped by the city. So it appears as though the numbers will only get worse, or they will just go unreported in the foreseeable future.

This dire prediction of the accountability program failing seems especially likely now since ex-police officer councilmember Tim Burgess has been dismantling the previous experienced civilian review boards and restaffing them with inexperienced candidates in order to make them less willing to go public with problematic findings like the previous members did when they identified problems and since the only real accountability proponent on the city council, Nick Licata, has been rumored to be considering retirement after his latest term on the council.

The numbers and recent developments make it clear that the problem with misconduct in the Seattle Police Department is getting worse, and is likely to continue getting worse into the foreseeable future. Stay safe out there, because it's becoming clear that the system in place now is only designed to protect the city from lawsuits and bad cops from discipline, it is no longer designed to help protect citizens from bad cops.

Comparisons that were available for other cities don't stack up well for Seattle:

Seattle: Pop Est 582,454: PD Size 1,200
2007 Use Of Force Complaints: 124 (10.3 per 100)


San Jose: Pop Est 929,936: PD Size 1,400
2007 Use Of Force Complaints: 117 (8.4 per 100)

Washington DC: Pop Est 581,530: PD Size 3,800
2007 Use Of Force Complaints: 101 (2.7 per 100)

San Fransisco: Pop Est 744,041: PD Size 2,100
2007 Use Of Force Complaints: 186 (8.9 per 100)

UPDATED: 09/06/08- referenced newer sets of statistics.

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.

Police Guild Approves Contract

Seattle Police Officer's Guild members voted 921-106 to approve the latest contract offered by the city that would make them the highest paid police force in Washington State (experienced officers would make over $90,000 a year under the new contract).

(update: the contract was released to the public on 06/20/08, details here)

While the city has insisted that all accountability recommendations given by a recent accountability review panel would be implemented in the contract, the guild has since stated that it has altered the recommendations and removed at least one of the most important recommendation items.

We're withholding opinions on the deal until we see exactly what accountability recommendations have been changed or removed because of the contract, which should happen before the city council votes to ratify the deal... but as it stands at the moment, it certainly appears as though the city just caved in and gave officers a whole lot of taxpayer money for a whole lot of nothing in return.

Of course, it's just a matter of time before the public finds out that it's oversight of the police force is still a farce when officers get exonerated for their brutality yet again in the near future. It's unfortunate that it will take more victims of police misconduct to bring it to light in the future instead of some honest changes now... after all, you just have to look at the post before this one to see the kind of brutality the OPA thinks is appropriate and understand how the publics negative perception of the SPD isn't going to get better anytime soon.

Analyzing The Guild's PARP Accountability Alterations

In order to help people understand how removal of the 180 day rule exclusion affects the remaining PARP recommendations I've decided to break it down a little bit better.

Here are all 29 of the mayor's PARP accountability recommendations, color-coded to link the interrelated items:

While not all interrelated items are interdependent, the following items are interdependent:

These items are specifically designed to deal with the loophole that allowed the chief of police to exonerate officers against the recommendations of OPA investigations that had recommended discipline, as in the Alley-Barnes case where officers were exonerated by the chief without explanation and one was promoted after severely beating a man in front of several witnesses without just cause.

Item 6 requires the OPA Director to sit in on Loudermill hearings between the chief, accused officer, and the officer's union defense in order to identify any new information revealed by the officer that was not revealed during the investigation.

Item 7 states that if an officer does reveal new information in the Loudermill hearing, that he must refer the case back to the OPA for further investigation in order to verify the new information and determine if it changes the outcome instead of just deviating from the recommendation on his own judgment.

Item 8 would give the OPA time to investigate any new claims made by an officer during a Loudermill hearing, without it, any new claims made by an officer cannot be investigated because the additional time required would force an exoneration because of the 180 day rule that states if an investigation goes over 180 days that it results in an exoneration.

Item 20 would force the SPD to terminate the employment of any officer who falsified testimony to the chief during a Loudermill hearing in an attempt to extend the process or force the chief to go against an OPA recommendation.

Item 25 would require the chief to provide written explaination whenever he deviated from an OPA recommendation for discipline.

Now... Here's the problem. The police guild has already stated that it has removed item 8 from the list, this means that if new facts are revealed during a Loundermill then the new facts cannot be investigated without risking an exoneration be default via the 180 day limit to an investigation. This also means that the OPA cannot investigate whether new claims made by officers in Loudermill hearings are legitimate and if they did they couldn't discipline them because the 180 day rule would expire, thus the nullification of this recommendation nullifies recommendation number 20.

Also, the guild has hinted that it has weakened item 20 in a Seattle Times interview to put a higher burden of proof on the OPA to prove that any new details revealed by an officer that extended an investigation would have to be shown without doubt to be an intentional and egregious falsehood.

Furthermore, the guild has hinted that it may have weakened item 25 in a Seattle Times interview, if this is the case then it would make the chief more inclined to exonerate against OPA recommendations since deferring an investigation back to the OPA when new details are raised at the end of an investigation would result in the same outcome.

So, the guild has removed one item and weakened two others out of a list of 5 interdependent items that were specifically designed to prevent officers from avoiding punishment by revealing "new information" to the chief at the end of an investigation that they hadn't disclosed during investigations... and by doing so, they can force an exoneration by forcing the investigation to go beyond the 180 day limit.

Now, the guild has said that the OPA can ask the guild to extend the deadline on a per-case basis, but consider this... one of the guild's functions is to act as a defense council to officers accused of misconduct, and in that capacity they act as a defense attorney during these investigations. If a prosecutor were to ask a criminal defense attorney if they could extend an investigation where otherwise the stoppage of an investigation would result in an acquittal, would that attorney allow the prosecutor to continue it?

No... and neither would the guild willingly extend the deadline to allow the OPA to discipline one if it's members. Without item 8, items 6, 7 and 20 are all rendered incapacitated. And since the guild may have weakened item 25, the whole set of 5 are rendered inoperable.

So, the guild has just killed off 5 of the 29 recommendations. We are waiting to see which of the 24 remaining recommendations have been altered as well, but by far, these 5 were the most important of the bunch as they were designed to address the very cases that started this whole mess.