*Updated to reflect the fact that Cienna Madrid can't add worth a good goddamn.

On the subject of allegedly targeting minorities for their abuse, "We do not make a finding that SPD engages in a patter or practice of discriminatory policing," the DOJ report states, "but our investigation raises serious concerns on this issue."
Bluntly put: “The Seattle Police Department is broken,” said Thomas E. Perez, Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division of the DOJ, while explaining that the DOJ would seek a court-order to appoint an independent monitor early next year to oversee SPD's transition to a friendlier, less aggressively baton-wieldy department. The timeline for this transition? "Not a day longer than what's necessary," says Durkan.
But I'm getting ahead of myself.
The DOJ identified breakdowns in all levels of SPD—training, policy, and supervision—which has led to its current excessive force problem. Specifically, Seattle police officers lack adequate training on how and when to use force, and when to de-escalate confrontations. “We found that in the cases we reviewed, when officers used force it was done in an excessive, unconstitutional manner 20 percent of the time,” Durkan says. Surprisingly, officers were found to employ unnecessary force with batons 57 percent of the time. “Officers are taught how to win fights. They are not taught how to avoid them.”

That gives SPD a 0.4 percent average for investigating their own officers for excessive force. Those are some lousy fucking odds that officers are being disciplined for excessive use of force. "It’s become almost a rubber stamp process down the line," Durkan notes.
And those odds get worse if you're a minority!
Even though the DOJ didn't confirm a pattern of discriminatory policing, it found that in "cases that we determined to be unnecessary or excessive uses of force, over 50 percent involved minorities." The DOJ's admittedly limited analysis concludes that "SPD officers may stop a disproportionate number of people of color where no offense or other police incident has occurred."
And it's accompanied by this sharp reprimand:
"SPD must ensure its officers understand that, unless they have a sufficient factual basis to detain someone, a person is free to walk away from police and free to disregard a police request to come or stay. Officers should also understand that in such circumstances, the decision to ‘walk away’ does not by itself create cause to detain.”
While the SPD is doing a somewhat lousy job policing its own, the department's Office of Professional Accountability—which investigates civilian complaints lodged against officers—isn't currently faring much better. "The OPA has become somewhat difficult to navigate," Durkan says. "There's no centralized accountability, and we found that complaints made in other branches [of government] never find their way to the OPA." Part of the problem is that the OPA sends two-thirds of civilian complaints to SPD precincts for investigation—you know, the dudes with the 0.4 percent success rate when it comes to investigating their own people. An unnamed OPA investigator acknowledges in the report that this is "appalling."
Nevertheless, the DOJ decrees the OPA structure "sound" in general—just in need of a good tune up.
The DOJ recommends that city officials meet with SPD command staff early next year to collaborate on a "blueprint for transition" for the department—one with enough bullet points to address training failures, policy failures, supervisor failures, OPA failures, and more. The DOJ would then concurrently file a complaint and accountability document against SPD in court, with the request that an independent monitor come in to oversee changes made to the department. The timeline for this process? "It won't take a day longer than necessary," says Durkan.
Despite all the criticisms, Durkan and Perez were both quick to point out how cooperative and responsive SPD has been to the investigation and their findings along the way.
"Chief Diaz has stated unequivocally his willingness to fix these problems," Perez said.
"[Command staff] did not wait to act," says Durkan. "They took steps immediately when we raised issues and have announced that they're implementing changes... These are very difficult and systemic issues to resolve, but we're very optimistic about the future of SPD and its relationship with Seattle."
1
2
4
5
9
11
13
16
1. The head of SPD should be nominated by the Mayor and approved by the City Council and should not be an officer. This person should answer directly to the Council, who would have sole authority to hire and fire this person on a contract that they have authority to terminate at any time.
2. OPA should be separate from SPD and should be the sole deciding voice in discipline. Appeals made to the City Council. OPA answers to the City Council. SPD would have no veto rights in any way in OPA business or appointments. OPA gets 100% access to all SPD records and documentation.
3. #1 and #2 should be a legal requirement in City Law so that the city can't enter into any police union contract without them. Simple and easy. If the City Council won't do it, the NAACP and local civil rights groups should do a city-level initiative to make such a thing law. If the City Council, Mayor, and SPD won't fix things, then fix things yourselves: get a law passed that the city is barred from entering into any SPD contract without these provisions.
4. The contract runs usually 2 years. Even if the city and SPD enter a new one today and this law passes tomorrow, the next 2014 negotiations would be bound up in it.
5. Once that is all set, everyone get out of the way and let the 99.9% of SPD that are good cops do their work.
20
23
31
33
Comments (34) RSS