The Seattle police department has revised and reformed many of its policies concerning when their police officers can use force. These revisions are the result of a settlement with the Justice Department, stemming from the latter's findings that the Seattle police department frequently used
excessive and unconstitutional force on suspects.
• When SPD officers use force, they do so in an unconstitutional manner nearly 20% of the time. This finding (as well as the factual findings identified below) is not based on citizen reports or complaints. Rather, it is based on a review of a randomized, stratified, and statistically valid sample of SPD’s own internal use of force reports completed by officers and supervisors.
• SPD officers too quickly resort to the use of impact weapons, such as batons and flashlights. Indeed, we find that, when SPD officers use batons, 57% of the time it is either unnecessary or excessive.
• SPD officers escalate situations and use unnecessary or excessive force when arresting individuals for minor offenses. This trend is pronounced in encounters with persons with mental illnesses or those under the influence of alcohol or drugs. This is problematic because SPD estimates that 70% of use of force encounters involve these populations.
• Multiple SPD officers at a time use unnecessary or excessive force together against a single subject. Of the excessive use of force incidents we identified, 61% of the cases involved more than one officer.
• In any given year, a minority of officers account for a disproportionate number of use of force incidents. Over the more than two-year period reviewed, 11 officers used force 15 or more times, and 31 officers used force 10 or more times. In 2010, just 20 officers accounted for 18% of all force incidents. Yet, SPD has no effective supervisory techniques to better analyze why these officers use force more than other officers, whether their uses of force are necessary, or whether any of these officers would benefit from additional use of force training.
Well, 125 of those police officers affected by these new policies were not happy with this compromise. They brought a
lawsuit (civil rights complaint) against Attorney General Eric Holder, the city of Seattle, the Mayor, their Police Chief, the city attorney, and the Police monitor. In it they say the policies violate their constitutional rights guaranteed by the
Second, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments.
The good news is it was just thrown out of court. With "prejudice." Follow me below the fold to read some highlights from Chief U.S. District Judge Marsha Pechman's denial of their case.
The officers' arguments were unsupported by the Constitution or case law, Chief U.S. District Judge Marsha Pechman said in an opinion issued Monday.
The Seattle Police Department adopted a new policy concerning the use of force under a 2012 settlement agreement with the U.S. Justice Department, which found that Seattle police routinely used excessive force, especially in low-level situations that might otherwise have been defused.
"It would be at least surprising if allegations of such a pattern or practice did not lead to the adoption of stricter standards for use of force by officers," Pechman wrote.
Think Progress also notes that the 125 officers:
They represent about ten percent of the Seattle Police Officers’ Guild membership. The police union itself declined to endorse the lawsuit.
Pechman dismissed the case "with prejudice, which means that the officers cannot amend or refile their claim. A few more
highlights:
The judge also dismissed the officers’ constitutional arguments, saying that while the Second Amendment ensures the right to keep and bear arms, it doesn’t protect the right to use the weapons.
Nor did she agree with the officers’ insistence that the policy violated a “right of self-defense as embedded in the Fourth Amendment,” which protects against unreasonable search and seizures. Pechman said the argument grossly misconstrued Fourth Amendment law.
The lawsuit itself shows a profound lack of training and understanding of what law enforcement is supposed to accomplish in our society. Hopefully, more decisions like this can help to begin to reshape the conversation in a more productive direction.