Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« Roads/Transit Campaign Strikes... | Santorum Leaks Possible Run »

Monday, October 1, 2007

OPA Clears Officers in DV-One Case

posted by on October 1 at 14:51 PM

The Seattle Police Department’s Office of Professional Accountability has cleared officers of any wrongdoing in DV-One’s September 2006 arrest:

The complainant alleged the named employee and unknown employees used excessive force when they slammed him to the ground, kicked him in the head repeatedly, and tased him while he was subdued on the ground causing injuries.

The complainant also alleged the employees made unprofessional and racist remarks during the arrest. There is no evidence to support that the named employees did anything inappropriate during the arrest of the complainant.

An independent witness saw the complainant approach the named employees, who had detained his daughter for walking in the street and blocking traffic. The employees told the complainant to calm down and step back, but the complainant tried to brush past one employee and elbowed this employee in the face.

The complainant was arrested for assaulting the employee and the force used during the arrest was deemed reasonable, proper, and necessary as it was done to rescue a police officer struggling with a much larger suspect. Finding Force— EXONERATED (two officers); UNFOUNDED (two officers).

None of the other witnesses at the scene, civilian or sworn, heard the employees use any derogatory language. Their conduct was described as professional. Finding Language (all officers)—UNFOUNDED.

dv3.jpg

The OPA defines unfounded and exonerated as follows:

“Unfounded” means a preponderance of evidence indicates the alleged act did not occur as reported or classified, or is false.

“Exonerated” means a preponderance of evidence indicates the conduct alleged did occur, but that the conduct was justified, lawful and proper.

UPDATE

According to OPA Review Board (OPARB) member Sheley Secrest, OPARB “plans on pulling that case [to] see if the investigation was thorough and proper.”

Here we go again.

RSS icon Comments

1

It's such a shame. Police are the people you're supposed to be able to trust.

Posted by monkey | October 1, 2007 3:30 PM
2

Terrible terrible terrible news...

Posted by KELLY O | October 1, 2007 3:32 PM
3

ren said it with authority.

Posted by kerri harrop | October 1, 2007 3:37 PM
4

How much would it cost to get small, shoulder mounted cameras for officers? It seems that camera technology and hard drive space have gotten so damn cheap that it shouldn't be a problem to record everything officers do.

Posted by Gitai | October 1, 2007 3:38 PM
5

I understand that the uniform can make the officer feel all-powerful. That feeling is intoxicating. It might help if we stopped recuiting recent ex-military men for the service... Those guys are already psychos after all they've seen, and their triggers are hyper-sensitive.

Posted by Katelyn | October 1, 2007 3:45 PM
6

“The complainant was arrested for assaulting the employee and the force used during the arrest was deemed reasonable, proper, and necessary as it was done to rescue a police officer struggling with a much larger suspect.”

This is what you can expect when you let girls be cops.

Posted by You_Gotta_Be_Kidding_Me | October 1, 2007 3:49 PM
7

So when does this ass-hat go on trial for assaulting these officers? Sounds like he needs a time out in Walla Walla.

Posted by You_Gotta_Be_Kidding_Me | October 1, 2007 3:52 PM
8

They just started using a helmet cam system for cops in London as is apparently working well in every regard (i.e. both police and suspects keep a lid on their behavior during arrests). I'd be in favor of trying this in America cities.

BTW - what happens if officers aren't exonerated by the Board? Is there any real penalties or is it just a little show they put on for the public?

Posted by Dougsf | October 1, 2007 3:58 PM
9

@8 If the board doesn't exonerate them, the Police Chief does and they get off scot free.

Posted by Gitai | October 1, 2007 4:04 PM
10

this is a more difficult case as the only people to observe the incident were involved. either party could be telling the truth (and both versions could be very close to the truth given how different people view the same situation -- concern for your child could be interpreted as hostility towards those between you and your child).

it's just, unfortunately, not a clear case.

i don't believe that just because they are police they must be telling the truth. or just because they are police they must be lying. but what to do without witnesses? difficult.

Posted by infrequent | October 1, 2007 4:44 PM
11

i'm for the helmet cam.

Posted by infrequent | October 1, 2007 5:00 PM
12

@10

There were witnesses:

“An independent witness saw the complainant approach the named employees, who had detained his daughter for walking in the street and blocking traffic."

“None of the other witnesses at the scene, civilian or sworn, heard the employees use any derogatory language.”

Posted by You_Gotta_Be_Kidding_Me | October 1, 2007 5:16 PM
13

Police accountability is just one of the many reasons everyone should vote next month, and vote for Bill Sherman for King County Prosecutor.

Posted by Meinert | October 1, 2007 5:26 PM
14

So, was the original trigger a jaywalking violation by the man's daughter?

But, there are no resources to keep gangbangers from shooting up Rainier AV.

Well, now we know where some of those resources are deployed.

Posted by old timer | October 2, 2007 8:55 AM
15

How many commenters read before commenting?

The complaint was bogus, according to multiple disinterested witnesses (including at least one contra-interested witness), and the complainant initiated a physical assault on one of the officers.

Some complaints are legit, some can't be determined for lack of evidence, and some bogus, bogus, bogus complaints are and lodged by lowlifes who think they can improve their odds of getting away with shit by playing on public gullibility, suspicion and prejudice (as in this case).

In my book, people who play the accountability system to get away with shit belong to the same circle of hell as robbers who feign distress to sucker in their good samaritan victims.

Posted by RonK, Seattle | October 2, 2007 8:59 AM
16

the witness (not plural) who saw the elbow said it appeared accidental. is this how you want police to use their judgement? even if dvone was hostile it seems like it might be considered an over-reaction... but this response when the contact was likely accidental? i hope that's not what you consider acceptable police behavior.

furthermore, if the police used expressions like, "liked being Tased?" i would be disgusted. i have seen police verbally express attitude like this when dealing with people, and when dealing with obvious criminals. i don't care; it is not necessary. police should have the emotional detachment of the law when administering it. if an officer cannot do this, they should not be a police officer.

Posted by infrequent | October 4, 2007 12:00 PM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).