I Want To Do More

Lately I've been trying to think of what more I could do to help reduce police misconduct and detainee abuses. So if anyone has any suggestions please feel free to let me know... as long as it doesn't involve public speaking (I don't talk well anymore because of my head injuries) or my coming into any contact with a member of the Seattle Police Department because I really don't know what they would do to me if they saw me.

In any case... I've been thinking getting a prepaid phone with voicemail and putting up flyers and posters in various neighborhood urging people to call my number to report instances of police misconduct. I'm thinking the citizens of Seattle would be more inclined to call someone who wasn't a police officer to report cases of police misconduct than they would to call the Seattle Police run Office of Professional Accountability. Trust me, when I called to report what happened to me at the hands of their fellow officers, they were none too polite... and with all the reports of brutality and corruption in the news, I'm sure a lot of people are too afraid to report incidents.

I've already been in contact with some city officials in an effort to discuss accountability issues and that's gone well so far I think, at least they seem to listen and have been trying to improve things. Unfortunately the police union really has the upper-hand against the city's efforts to improve accountability and oversight right now, and the police union is apparently fighting tooth and nail to kill those efforts.

Anyhow... Just let me know if anyone has any reasonable ideas about what I can do to help improve the terrifying police misconduct situation here in Seattle.

Thanks for reading.

OPARP Report Analysis

I've finally sifted through the mayor's review panel's report and while I think there are some changes in there that would be a good start, I think it does miss some of the more glaring problems and while it might improve things a little, it still leaves bad officers enough loopholes to keep on abusing citizens without being held accountable... and doesn't address the guild's veto capability and tendency in regards to oversight reforms. Before I list the recommendations, let's examine the gist of the report.

First, one of the recommendations deals with allowing the OPA Director to have more control over which officers he can recruit from the department for OPA duties, including investigatory roles and demands more training for these officers who are rotated in and out of the OPA department. This does not go far enough to isolate the OPA department from biased influence since there are some very public complaints from people drafted into the OPA department that state they don't want to be there.

The obvious problem here is that the OPA has to pull officers (union members) from duty where they have already developed biases against citizen complaints and are part of the "blue wall" culture that states you never snitch on fellow officers and support other officers no matter what. The OPA needs to be completely independent from the duty officers and should recruit only willing officers who will be permanent members of the internal investigations OPA section so that they are shielded from these biases and the culture of silence and cover-ups.

Some of the recommendations center on the culture of secrecy at the SPD which has, up to this point, been notoriously protective of disciplinary records and has a history of illegally denying FOIA requests for records and video associated with brutality claims. While the recommendations do encourage the SPD to be more transparent in this regard, it is a very vague and open to interpretation. I anticipate it won't lead to much change in this regard and one point the panel did not recommend is the recommendation that was legislated from the council's panel (SCCPAP) that gave the civilian oversight board (OPARB) access to unredacted disciplinary files so they could identify serial offenders and trends better.

Next, the most widely publicized recommendations (I've seen it mentioned on The Agitator and Reddit) deal with the chief being forced to document in writing when he does not follow OPA findings and disciplinary recommendations. Some of these address officer dishonesty after the chief had ignored dishonesty findings and others center around the practice of officers "withholding facts" from the OPA investigators in order to reveal them in private with the chief in order to sway his opinion against the OPA findings.

The recommendations try to address this by forcing the chief to defer investigations back to OPA when officers try to bring up new "facts" that would cause him to rule in opposition to the OPA. Of course, if the guild demands that their 180 day imposed limit on investigations cannot be extended for just cause (another recommendation) then this deferal will result in voided findings.

The complete list of summarized recommendations are as follows:

1. The role of the OPA auditor should be clarified and expanded. It should include additional trending and analysis roles that include assessments of complaints in real-time and retrospect.


2. The OPA Director, Auditor, and Review Board should agree on at least three focus areas for enhanced review by the auditor each year.


3. OPA investigations should be performed seperately from any criminal or civil investigations and OPA officers should not be involved with any civil or criminal actions or investigations.


4. The SPD should adopt a rule that forbids the use of paid leave or sick time during any unpaid disciplinary leave.


5. The OPA should focus investigations on more serious allegations of misconduct and refer less serious charges to mediation.


6. The OPA Director should attend all disciplinary hearings in order to identify new information that might have been withheld from investigators that would require referral back to the OPA investigation.


7. The Chief of Police should be required to defer cases back to the OPA if any new material facts are revealed during disciplinary hearings which would cause the chief to rule in opposition to the OPA findings.


8. The union imposed 180 day limit to investigations should be able to be expanded for just cause, (e.g. if further investigation is required due to withheld information or due to ongoing criminal investigations).


9. The city should review and ammend it's policy in regards to "Garrity" protection and staff should be trained in its proper usage. (Garrity protections involve an officer's right to not sacrifice their right to avoid self-incrimination in order to save their jobs)


10. OPA investigators should be specifically trained in the use of internal investigative techniques and procedures. Previously officers were sporatically and inadequately trained to perform such investigations properly.


11. The civilian OPA Review Board (OPARB) should conduct at least four public hearings a year since they are the link between the SPD OPA and the public.


12. The OPARB should devote time to research trends and best practices from other cities in regards to police training, oversight, and accountability and make recommendations in those regards.


13. The OPARB should be expanded from three members to five members that reflect the diversity of Seattle's population.


14. The Seattle Office for Civil Rights (SOCR) should make civilian advocates available to help to people who need to use the OPA process for complaints of misconduct.


15. The OPA Director should have control of the OPA budget and report the state of that budget to the mayor and city council for annual consideration.


16. The OPA Director should have the authority to select and transfer staff, including investigators and the Deputy Director.


17. The OPA Director should not have worked for the city of Seattle for at least 10 years prior to being assigned as director to avoid conflicts of interest.


18. The OPA Director should not also be a member of the SPD Firearms Review Board.


19. The OPA Auditor should be a civilian role and remain unassociated with the SPD.


20. The SPD should adopt a policy of automatic termination in cases of sustained findings of dishonesty within the scope of an officer's official duty or the administration of justice. Any disciplinary findings other than termination must be explained in writing by the chief and submitted to the auditor, mayor, and city council.


21. The SPD Chief of Police should promote a high-ranking officer to an ethics officer role that would provide training and guidance to SPD officers.


22. The SPD should adopt a policy strictly prohibiting officers from participating in retaliatory contact in response to a complaint.


23. The SPD should implement more cultural competency training for officers.


24. The SPD should improve it's public disclosure policies and make all disciplinary information as public as possible while still protecting the privacy of officers to the point where required by law.


25. The SPD Chief of Police should provide written explaination whenever the chief deviates from OPA recommendations for disciplinary action. A summary of the explainations should be delivered to the city council and mayor.


26. The OPA Director, OPA Auditor, and OPARB should meet quarterly and prepare joint semiannual recommendation reports for the mayor and city council.


27. The Chief of Police should reply to the recommendations of the joint committee within 60 days of receiving that report that includes a list of recommendations the chief rejects and the reasons for rejection.


28. The OPA Auditor should monitor the implementation of all accepted recommendations and give progress reports on a semiannual basis.


29. The OPA Director should document all correspondence with the OPA Auditor and OPARB in regards to disciplinary processes and the oversight system.

We Need More Investigative Stories Like These!

The Seattle Post Intelligencer had a couple of pretty good investigative articles this week about corruption at the Seattle Police Department, specifically their failure to hold officers accountable for misconduct. Their first story came on Tuesday, "Cops Who Lie Don't Always Lose Jobs" which centered on cases of dishonesty in sworn statements by officers that went undisciplined in Seattle, specifically, of 13 cases where the actual finding of dishonesty was sufficient to have normally deserved dismissal, nobody was dismissed.

The follow-up article, "The Strong Arm Of The Law" that came out yesterday examined how the Seattle Police Department hasn't disciplined any officers for unnecessary force in the past 18 months, during a time when it ruled on at least 161 force cases. During that same period, 12 other excessive-force complaints resulted in supervisory intervention with officers (supervisory intervention means the officer was referred to additional training).

This second article goes on to focus on one officer involved in three cases of excessive force during that time period, one of those cases involved the officer performing a combination arm hold and leg sweep from behind on a 125 lb unarmed female with a clean record that resulted in the woman being sent face first to the sidewalk and then to an operating table with compound facial fractures that almost left her blind... all because she yelled legal advice to a friend of her's who the officer arrested.

...of this training the officers were sent to, the trainer criticized the officer in this incident for not being aggressive enough!

Let me say this again... The Seattle Police Department sends Officers who are found to be guilty of excessive force to a martial arts trainer for retraining and that trainer insists officers are not being excessive enough with their use of force!

In any case, I was hoping that the Seattle PI wasn't done with this series of reports, but since there wasn't anything new today, I'm thinking they are... even though I know there are a lot more things that the SPD does that it shouldn't.

But, in any case... Be safe out there, because those officers found guilty of brutality are being trained to be even more brutal by the SPD.

Seattle To Appeal Anti-Oversight PERC Ruling

The Seattle PI has reported today that mayor Greg Nickels supports appealling the PERC ruling against Seattle which bars the city from allowing civilian police oversight agents from viewing un-altered disciplinary reports to identify patterns of misconduct and disciplinary gaps. While the official decision of whether to appeal is expected on Monday, after the city council, mayor, and city attorney have reached a concensus, there is no expected opposition to the effort to overturn the ruling at this time.

The argument centers on the guild's reason for contesting the legislation enacted unanimously by Seattle's city council based on recommendations from a review panel that was formed after Seattle police chief Gil Kerilowski refused to follow disciplinary recommendations made by the department's internal investigations agency against several officers in high-profile misconduct cases without explaination.

The city states that the PERC ruling is fatally flawed since the guild's complaint is that the change affected disciplinary issues that must be bargained into their contract but the city states the changes do not affect the disciplinary process since the civilian oversight committee (OPARB) only reviews closed files after findings and discipline have been decided upon and they have no authority or input over the disciplinary process itself.

The OPARB only reviews closed files in order to identify patterns of abuse and discipline and report those patterns to the city, police department, and the public. Members of the OPARB must sign a confidentiality agreement that bars them from revealing any details about disciplinary decisions or identifying officer information, which they have never violated to date.

The appeal is necessary for the city to have any chance at implementing 29 recommendations for civilian oversight reforms suggested by the mayor's oversight review panel in addition to other recommendations made by the council's oversight review panel as well.

The guild has issues statements that indicate it refuses to discuss the reforms until it's next contract negotiations are scheduled, which are in 2010, despite stalled negotiations on it's current contract which expired over a year ago.

The review panel and city officials worry that if the guild can delay negotiations or refuse to accept the reforms during current talks that they will not be implemented at all, especially if the PERC ruling is allowed to stand, which gives them precedence if contract talks go into arbitration. The panel emplored the police union to not hinder the much needed reforms, to no avail.

Of The OPARP Report and Media Bias

Before I offer an analysis of Mayor Greg Nickels' Police Accountability Review Panel's report and the reactions to it, I wanted to stop for a bit and help everyone process how the report was reported on and maybe demonstrate why this site, and blogs in general, can help people grasp the nuances that can be missed in mainstream media reporting.

Of course, this site is intended to be more than just a storehouse for reported issues of police misconduct and detainee abuses in Seattle, it's also meant to be a place where people can report instances of misconduct and get information to help protect themselves from Seattle's aggressive police force, especially for tourists and new residents who may not know about the misconduct problems here.

Anyway, as you may know the Police Accountability Review Panel, that was formed by the mayor of Seattle to review the oversight and accountability processes in Seattle after several high-profile cases of police misconduct went unpunished last year, released it's final report yesterday. After the release city officials, panel members, and police union representatives all gave their opinions on the report and it's 29 recommendations.

However, each media outlet had a slightly different take on what the accountability and oversight foe, the police union, had to say about the report... and some outlets didn't even say anything at all.

Of Seattle's 2 major daily newspapers, 3 major television outlets, two major independent weekly papers, and numerous blogs; the following was reported:

The Seattle Times gave a pretty balanced and well written report and did a fair job explaining that the Seattle Police Officer's Guild (SPOG) refuses to consider the oversight reforms during current contract negotiations, instead they might consider negotiating some of the reforms in 2010, it also presented the city's and the panel's positions in a detailed manner as well.

The Seattle Post Intelligencer offered a very different and somewhat pro-SPOG perspective by suggesting SPOG was eager to discuss the reforms with the city while it gave the city's and panel's concerns very short shrift in a rather one-sided piece of reporting.

King 5 News did a very in-depth piece that gave detailed interviews with all sides which revealed that SPOG's position was clearly that it felt there was no real need for these reforms and that it intended to fight the reforms unless they are negotiated in contract talks, but will only negotiate those terms several years from now. It also reported that city officials are insisting that they are going to be assertive about implementing these reforms, and that panel members have pleaded with the union to not hinder these reforms to no avail.

KOMO 4 News only briefly mentioned that SPOG will not accept any changes unless they are negotiated and was very sparce on details, giving the issue very little consideration overall.

KIRO 7 News refused to report on the story.

The Stranger Weekly and it's blog refused to report on the story.

The Seattle Weekly and it's blog refused to report on the story.

All other Seattle blogs refused to report on the story.

So, as you can tell, sifting through all these different reports is required in order to get the whole story since there are so many biases involved with issues surrounding police misconduct and accountability. Most people are very biased towards having absolute trust in police officers, it's ingrained into our psyches at a very young age and it flows through the reporting done by many Seattle reporters and media outlets. So it takes a great deal of effort and time to sift through all the information to find the truth of the matter.

That's why I see this site as filling a vital role, especially here in Seattle when one paper or station will report on a story of misconduct and the others will completely ignore it, like this case or this case or this case which were only reported at one place for example. But also to sift through the contradictory reports and find the heart of the issue and give it more analysis than general interest news outlets would.

Police misconduct, accountability, and detainee abuses are very serious erosions of constitutionally protected rights in the US, it slowly corrupts the entire premise upon which the American government and society were based and can utterly destroy lives and families without just cause and without recourse when allowed to continue unabated. These are very serious issues that must be reported on and thouroughly analyzed or else it will cause the foundations of our society to slowly rot away.

I wish I didn't have to write about this stuff, I'm not the best person to do it because of my condition... but nobody else in Seattle does it consistently... so I do.

Let me know if there's a way I can do it better... not for my sake, but for your's.

The OPARP Report Has Been Released

The Seattle Mayor's OPARP committee has finally released the final report and recommendations regarding Seattle's police accountability and oversight system today. A PDF of the report is here for right now and the Seattle Times has published some details as well.

The mayor is slated to give a briefing on the report later today and I'm going to take some time to review the report and give an analysis later when I have some time, so long as my severe headache gives me a moment's reprieve today... which it never does... so expect more details to come later anyway.

UPDATE:
The mayor committed to enacting all 29 recommendations for improving police accountability efforts that were released by his Police Accountability Review Panel today. He also stated that he will release a list of the recommendations the city considers possible for implementation and those that will require the acquiescence of the traditionally anti-accountability Seattle Police Officer's Guild in contract negotiations order to be implemented.

The "official" response from the police officer's union is less encouraging: "SPOG (Seattle Police Officer's Guild) looks forward to discussing the recommendations with representatives from the City of Seattle at the appropriate time at the bargaining table."

As mentioned in previous posts, (here and here for example) the guild was responsible for inserting the weak points into the current program through contract negotiations when it was first implemented in the early 2000s and they have declared that they will not consider oversight changes for the current contract negotiations currently underway, but may consider very small tweaks to the accountability programs during the next talks slated for 2010... for the right price. (one guild member, posting in response to a version of this story written by the apparently pro-guild Seattle PI reporter Scott Guitierrez, laughed about how the guild intends to hold the accountability changes hostage for $4.00 more per hour per member, which would cost the city nearly $10,000,000.00 just to regain the ability to protect the constitutional rights of it's citizens).

The guild currently has precedence legally to overturn any accountability efforts due to the recent PERC ruling in their favor that overturned legislation recommended by the SCCPAP, city council's version of the mayor's panel. Therefore, if negotiations go into arbitration without the decision being appealed, the union will win arbitration to remove any accountability changes they want.

In fact, due to the dubious nature of the PERC finding in favor of the police union, all of the 29 recommendations may be up for challenge by the guild, even the few that the city might think can be implemented without guild approval at the bargaining table.

Therefore, the recommendations, while seemingly well thought out and apparently supported by the mayor and city council, are unlikely to be implemented for several years, if at all, because of the fierce Seattle police opposition to oversight and accountability efforts. The ball is in the guild's court, and historically they have chosen to take it out of play, and by what's been said so far, this time will be no different.

UPDATE:
King 5 News has just released a new report about the OPARP recommendations, specifically it seems to have gotten some clarification from the Seattle Police Officer's Guild about it's stance on the recommended reforms after some other reporters mistakenly suggested that the guild "was eager to negotiate the changes"... and it's just as I said it would be.

In the interview with guild president Sgt. O'Neil, the guild's position is that it will not negotiate any changes to the accountability processes currently in place during this round of contract talks, even though they have been working without a contract for over a year.

Additionally, the guild states it will fight any changes implemented by the city that aren't negotiated as part of contract talks, and the earliest that it will even CONSIDER negotiating those conditions will be 2010. The guild states that the current system that has resulted in confirmed cases of misconduct going unpunished and intensive public outcry is just fine and there is no pressing need for changes.

The mayor, the panel, and other city officials strongly insist that all panel recommendations must go into effect as is and as soon as possible if the current accountability system is to be fixed and that they will do whatever they can to assert their right to implement them. Yet the guild has made it clear it intends to fight the changes, and as of now it seems as though they might win the fight against oversight and our civil rights.

A Little More Advice

A while back I wrote a post offering some tips for people who find themselves in the unfortunate event of an interaction with members of the Seattle Police Department either as a potential victim of police misconduct or as a witness to police misconduct. I promised some more advice eventually, and I'll work on a more refined list when I have some time, hopefully with the help of a real legal professional this time.

In any case, I would like to give people another useful tip in the meantime, it's one that I use all the time these days.

If you are walking in Seattle alone, I highly recommend that you do so with your cell phone in hand and ready with an easy to remember speed-dial entry for both a number of someone that you trust and who is a reliable witness. I personally have my speed dial set for a civil rights lawyer I know, since I know that even if he doesn't pick up his number goes straight to voicemail. In case I get attacked by some rogue cops for what I write here, there will be an audio record of the unprovoked assault or a reputable witness to the event that can't be harmed and silenced by corrupt cops.

If you're walking with a friend, make sure you both have cell phones, ones with video capabilities are better, and ones that can quickly upload images to an internet site are the best since the police here have been known to confiscate cameras and cell phones and destroy images on them when they capture misconduct or even normal arrests. Some have even been known to attack and arrest witnesses recording misconduct, so be careful if you're trying to record misconduct in action or else you might become a victim of the abuse you're witnessing as well.

Whatever you do, don't fight, don't argue, don't resist, and don't run. Ask questions about the officer's name, badge number, and the reason for the contact, but otherwise be quiet. Also, if you are recording an instance of suspected police misconduct, make certain that you do not interfere in any way while you are doing so.

If you've done this and do encounter a Seattle Police officer, hit that speed dial as soon as you can and keep the phone at a distance where it can still capture your voice without being a provocation to the officer. While doing this, give a narative of what's happening and, if possible, start off by asking for the officer's name and identification. Again, keep narrating what's happening, it will help you remember details and will provide the person or recording on the other end of a record of the encounter.

The idea that the encounter might be recorded may be enough to make an officer think twice about abusing you... and if it doesn't, it may well be the difference between suffering injuries without recourse or having a successful lawsuit against the officer. You would be suprised to hear how many people have to pay for their own injuries and suffer in silence because of police abuse, don't be a victim if you can help improve your odds by using a simple technique like this.

Yes, it is sad that I have to make these kinds of recommendations in this otherwise very nice city, me and my family love this town... but we're all frightened to death of its police force... and honestly, I'm about as straight-laced as they come.

I'd like to admit it's paranoia, but it's not... sadly enough, the fear of police in this city is all too real and too justifiable. So don't take any chances out there, especially when you can take a few inconspicuous and simple steps like this to help improve your chances of surviving a chance encounter with one of Seattle's worst.