summary of department of justice’s draft reform plan ......2012/06/25 · united states...

Summary of Department of Justice’s Draft Reform Plan (Delivered to the City of Seattle March 30, 2012)

The following summarizes the Department of Justice’s comprehensive proposal to the City of Seattle to address issues identified in the DOJ’s civil rights investigation of the Seattle Police Department. The goal of the court-enforceable Reform Plan is to protect the constitutional rights of all members of the community, improve the safety and security of the people of Seattle and its police officers, and increase public confidence in the SPD, in a cost-effective, timely, and collaborative manner. A court-appointed monitor will oversee the Reform Plan by, among other things, conducting compliance reviews, and by conducting qualitative and quantitative outcome assessments to measure whether the City and SPD’s implementation of this Agreement has eliminated practices that resulted in DOJ’s finding a pattern or practice of constitutional violations. Prior to delivering its Reform Plan to the City, the DOJ solicited and obtained invaluable input from the many varied communities of Seattle, including police officer associations, community advocacy organizations, and the City itself. The purpose of the Plan is to enhance good police work, not to hamper; thus, input on operational impacts is essential. As to the City’s elected leaders, the DOJ indicated our willingness to be flexible with the Reform Plan’s many deadlines and asked to be apprised of any budgetary, operational or other concerns. 1. Use of Force

The Reform Plan’s use of force provisions aim to remedy unconstitutional patterns in the application of the use of force, as well as the structural deficiencies that led to this pattern, including policies, reporting, investigation, and supervision/mentoring:

Application of the Use of Force: o Develop policies and associated training to provide clear guidance as to when,

how, and how much force is appropriate, including specific policies for every weapon available to an officer;

o Integrate the LEED (Listen and Explain with Equity and Dignity) training, and the use of verbal tactics as an alternative to the use of force;

o Assure sufficient officer support and training through mentoring; and o In coordination with the relevant experts and service providers throughout the

City, develop protocols for interactions with individuals with mental health issues or under influence of drugs or alcohol, including creating Crisis Intervention Teams.

Reporting of the Use of Force: o Clarify and expand use of force reporting requirements so that everything above

unresisted handcuffing is considered a use of force and appropriately reported; o Clarify and strengthen the reporting requirements following a use of force; and

2

o Establish a process to work with stakeholders to address Garrity language preceding use of force statements.

Investigations of the Use of Force: o Require supervisory response and investigation of all reportable uses of force; o Clarify and expand the responsibilities of an investigating supervisor of a use of

force; and o Develop a multidisciplinary roll-out team to investigate serious uses of force

Supervision and Use of Force:

o Provide adequate number of permanent, qualified first-line supervisors; o Hold the line of command responsible for the quality of the first-line supervisor’s

force investigations, including through the further development of the Force Review Committee, and identify problematic use of force patterns and training deficiencies;

o Increase mentoring and revamp the Early Intervention System by adjusting and adding indicator thresholds, and ensuring that officer interventions are effective; and

o Analyze the force data captured in officers’ force reports and supervisors’ investigative reports to identify and correct deficiencies.

2. Discriminatory Policing

Policy revision o Revise the Social Contact, Terry Stop, & Arrest Policy to ensure that definitions

of social contacts and Terry stops are in accordance with constitutional rights, including informing individuals when they are free to leave;

o Revise the Unbiased Policing Policy to outline what behaviors are impermissible and to clarify supervisor’s investigatory responsibilities; and

o Clarify Street Check database reporting requirements and purpose to capture all pedestrian Terry stops (but not truly social stops or contacts).

Training o Ensure that existing training requirements cover the following topics:

investigatory encounters and temporary investigatory detentions (consistent with policy change addressed above), communications skills and cultural competency.

Supervision and Oversight o Conduct regular audits and analyses of SPD databases to identify problematic

trends of disproportionate policing and to ensure compliance with officers’ reporting requirements.

3

3. Office of Professional Accountability (OPA)

o Improve community confidence in OPA by, among other things, strengthening the independence of the OPA Director and expanding the role of the OPA Auditor;

o Continue implementation of its revised classifications and findings systems, including eliminating the finding of “Supervisory Intervention,” to make the system more transparent;

o Decrease the time it takes to complete its investigations, so that all investigations are completed within 90 days of receipt of the complaint;

o Improve the quality of investigations; o Clarify and strengthen the obligations of supervisors and officers to report

misconduct or potential misconduct to OPA and improve the remediation of officers where needed; and

o Institute a process by which the City determines if the director of OPA should continue to report to the Chief of Police, or instead to the Mayor or some other independent official(s).

4. Community Engagement

o Conduct a comprehensive assessment of SPD’s community outreach and engagement efforts with input and comment from community members and experts;

o With public comment, propose a comprehensive community outreach program to the Monitor;

o Regularly solicit feedback from community in developing policies and training, particularly those related to discriminatory policing and cultural competency;

o Require SPD to increase transparency and public reporting; and o The Monitor shall periodically meet with interested community stakeholders to

discuss the Monitor’s public reports and to receive community feedback about SPD’s progress and/or compliance with this Agreement.

PROTECTED BY FRE 408; CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT FOR NEGOTIATING PURPOSES ONLY

STIPULATED MOTION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER OF APPROVAL OF REFORM PLAN AND ENTRY OF JUDGMENT - 1 12-CV-

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY 700 Stewart Street, Suite 5220

Seattle, WA 98101-1271 (206) 553-7970

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

Hon.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v. CITY OF SEATTLE, and SEATTLE POLICE DEPARTMENT,

Defendants.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Civil Action No. 12-cv- STIPULATED MOTION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER FOR APPROVAL OF REFORM PLAN AND FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT (Please note on Motion Calendar for: , 2012)

STIPULATED MOTION

The United States of America, the City of Seattle and the Seattle Police Department

(“SPD” or “Department”; together with the City of Seattle, the “City”) hereby AGREE,

STIPULATE, and respectfully JOINTLY MOVE this Court for approval of the Reform Plan

attached hereto as Attachment 1 and entry of Judgment in the form proposed below.




Seattle, WA 98101-1271 (206) 553-7970

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

Respectfully submitted, this day of , 2012.

For the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR. Attorney General of the United States of America

________________________________ ____________________________ JENNY A. DURKAN *THOMAS E. PEREZ United States Attorney for the Assistant Attorney General Western District of Washington Civil Rights Division Kerry J. Keefe, Civil Chief *Jonathan M. Smith, Chief J. Michael Diaz, Assistant United States Attorney *Timothy Mygatt, Special Counsel United States Attorney’s Office *Zazy Lopez, Senior Trial Attorney Western District of Washington *Michelle Leung, Trial Attorney 700 Stewart Street, Suite 5220 United States Department of Justice Seattle, Washington 98101-1271 Civil Rights Division Phone: (206) 553-7970 Special Litigation Section Fax: (206) 553-4073 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW E-mail: [email protected] Washington, DC 20530 Tel. (202) 514-6255 Fax. (202) 514-4883 *Conditional Admittance Pending E-mail: [email protected]

For the CITY OF SEATTLE:

______________________________ PETER HOLMES Seattle City Attorney

mailto:[email protected]





Seattle, WA 98101-1271 (206) 553-7970

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

[PROPOSED] ORDER APPROVING REFORM PLAN AND

ENTRY OF JUDGMENT

AND NOW, this _______ day of _____________, 2012, upon consideration of the

Complaint of the United States of America, and the Parties’ below-signed Reform Plan, it is

hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the Reform Plan is APPROVED and

Judgment shall be ENTERED in this matter in the below-agreed form.

_______________________________

Hon. ____________

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE


TABLE OF CONTENTS - i 12-CV-


Seattle, WA 98101-1271 (206) 553-7970

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

I. INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................. 1 A. Background ............................................................................................................. 2 B. General Provisions .................................................................................................. 3

II. POLICIES AND PROCEDURES GENERALLY ......................................................... 5

III. USE OF FORCE ............................................................................................................... 5 A. Use of Force Principles ........................................................................................... 6 B. General Use of Force Policy ................................................................................... 7 C. Use of Force Reporting Policy and Use of Force Report ....................................... 8 D. Use of Force Supervisory Investigations ................................................................ 9 E. Force Investigation Teams .................................................................................... 10 F. Force Review Committee...................................................................................... 11 G. Use of Force Training ........................................................................................... 12 H. Crisis Intervention................................................................................................. 12

IV. STOPS AND DETENTIONS ......................................................................................... 13 A. Social Contacts and Investigatory Stops ............................................................... 13 B. Social Contact and Investigatory Stop Data Collection and Review.................... 14 C. Social Contact and Investigatory Stop Training ................................................... 15

V. BIASED-FREE POLICING .......................................................................................... 15 A. Biased-Free Policing Policies ............................................................................... 16 B. Biased-Free Policing Training .............................................................................. 17 C. Ensuring Biased-Free Policing ............................................................................. 17

VI. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT, OUTREACH, AND PROBLEM-SOLVING ..... 18

VII. TRAINING ...................................................................................................................... 20 A. Training Generally ................................................................................................ 20 B. Visual and Audio Documentation of Police Activities ......................................... 22 C. Officer Assistance and Support............................................................................. 23

VIII. SUPERVISION ............................................................................................................... 23 A. Duties of Supervisors ............................................................................................ 23 B. Supervisor and Command Level Training ............................................................ 25 C. Promotions ............................................................................................................ 26 D. Early Identification System................................................................................... 26

IX. MISCONDUCT COMPLAINT INTAKE, INVESTIGATION, AND ADJUDICATION ........................................................................................................... 27


TABLE OF CONTENTS - ii 12-CV-


Seattle, WA 98101-1271 (206) 553-7970

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

X. TRANSPARENCY AND PUBLIC REPORTING ...................................................... 27

XI. AGREEMENT IMPLEMENTATION AND ENFORCEMENT ............................... 28 A. Role of the Monitor and Informal Dispute Resolution ......................................... 28 B. Compliance Reviews and Audits .......................................................................... 29 C. Outcome Assessments .......................................................................................... 29 D. Selection and Compensation of the Monitor ........................................................ 32 E. Court Jurisdiction, Modification of the Agreement, and Enforcement ................ 34 F. Termination of the Agreement .............................................................................. 35


TABLE OF CONTENTS - iii 12-CV-


Seattle, WA 98101-1271 (206) 553-7970

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

APPENDIX 1: DEFINITIONS AND ABBREVIATIONS ........................................................ 1

APPENDIX 2: POLICY DEVELOPMENT, REVIEW & IMPLEMENTATION ............... 1

APPENDIX 3: USE OF FORCE WEAPON-SPECIFIC POLICIES ..................................... 1

A. Use of Firearms ....................................................................................................... 1 B. Electronic Control Weapons ................................................................................... 1 C. Oleoresin Capsicum Spray...................................................................................... 3 D. Batons...................................................................................................................... 5 E. Flashlights ............................................................................................................... 5

APPENDIX 4: USE OF FORCE REVIEW PROCESS ............................................................ 1 A. Supervisory Investigations ...................................................................................... 1 B. Supervisor’s Force Investigation Report ................................................................ 3 C. Use of Force Report Review by Chain of Command ............................................. 4 D. Force Investigation Teams ...................................................................................... 7 E. Force Review Committee........................................................................................ 9

APPENDIX 5: TRAINING ......................................................................................................... 1 A. Patrol Officers ......................................................................................................... 1 B. Supervisors.............................................................................................................. 4 C. Commanders ........................................................................................................... 5

APPENDIX 6: CRISIS INTERVENTION ................................................................................. 1 A. Program Development ............................................................................................ 1 B. C-I-Training ............................................................................................................ 2 C. Maintenance of C-I-Team Program ........................................................................ 4

APPENDIX 7: SOCIAL CONTACT AND INVESTIGATORY STOP DATA COLLECTION ................................................................................................... 1

A. Street Check Database Revision ............................................................................. 1 B. Street Check Policy and Procedure Manual............................................................ 1 C. Supervisory Review of Street Check Database ...................................................... 2

APPENDIX 8: EARLY INTERVENTION SYSTEM .............................................................. 1


TABLE OF CONTENTS - iv 12-CV-


Seattle, WA 98101-1271 (206) 553-7970

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

APPENDIX 9: OFFICE OF PROFESSIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY................................... 1

A. Reporting Misconduct............................................................................................. 1 B. Preventing Retaliation............................................................................................. 1 C. OPA Staffing and Selection Requirements ............................................................. 1 D. Complaint Information............................................................................................ 3 E. Response to Service Complaints Directed to Supervisors ...................................... 4 F. Complaint Intake and Tracking By OPA ................................................................ 4 G. Complaint Classification, and Assignment By OPA .............................................. 6 H. Training Requirements............................................................................................ 8 I. Investigation Timeframe ......................................................................................... 9 J. Collection of Evidence/Investigation.................................................................... 10 K. Analysis of Evidence/Findings ............................................................................. 11 L. Discipline Process ................................................................................................. 13 M. Integrity of Investigative File and Evidence ......................................................... 14 N. Communication with Complainant and Transparency ......................................... 14 O. Additional Functions of the OPA Auditor and OPA Review Board .................... 14

APPENDIX 10: MONITORING PLAN ..................................................................................... 1 A. Monitoring Plan and Review Methodology............................................................ 1 B. Monitor’s Recommendations and Technical Assistance ........................................ 1 C. Comprehensive Re-Assessment .............................................................................. 2 D. Monitor’s Reports ................................................................................................... 2 E. Coordination with OPA and Auditor ...................................................................... 3 F. Communication between the Monitor and Parties .................................................. 3 G. Communication between the Monitor and Communities ....................................... 4 H. Public Statements, Testimony, Records, and Conflicts of Interest ......................... 4 I. Implementation and Assessment and Report .......................................................... 5 J. Access and Confidentiality ..................................................................................... 5


ATTACHMENT 1: REFORM PLAN - 1 12-CV-


Seattle, WA 98101-1271 (206) 553-7970

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

I.

ATTACHMENT 1: REFORM PLAN

The United States and the City (collectively “the Parties”) recognize that the vast

majority of the City’s police officers are honorable law enforcement professionals who risk their

physical safety and well-being for the public good. The Parties enter into this Reform Plan (or

“Agreement”) with the goal of ensuring that SPD’s police services are delivered to the people of

Seattle in a manner that effectively ensures officer and public safety, and fully complies with the

Constitution and laws of the United States.

INTRODUCTION

The Parties further recognize that the ability of police officers to protect themselves and

the community they serve is only as strong as the relationship they have with that community.

Public and officer safety, constitutional policing, and the community’s trust in its police force

are, thus, interdependent. The full and sustained implementation of this Agreement is intended

to protect the constitutional rights of all members of the community, improve the safety and

security of the people of Seattle, and increase public confidence in the Seattle Police Department

in a cost effective, timely, and collaborative manner. The United States commends the City for

the steps it already has taken to implement reforms to effectuate these three goals.

To fully achieve these goals, this Agreement requires the City and the Department to

further revise or, where needed, adopt new policies, training, supervision, and practices in those

areas of the Department touching on: the use of force; pedestrian stops and discriminatory

policing; community engagement; and misconduct complaint intake, investigation, and

adjudication, among others.

Although nothing in this Agreement shall be construed as an admission of liability by the

City, this Agreement requires the City and SPD to demonstrate that the pattern or practice of

constitutional violations that the United States found no longer exists. This Agreement further

requires that the City and SPD revise or put in place the systems of oversight and self-correction

that will identify and correct problems before they develop into patterns or practices of

unconstitutional conduct and/or erode community trust.

This Agreement further identifies measures, to be met within fixed periods of time, that

will assist the Parties and the community in determining whether: the unconstitutional conduct

that the United States believes exists and led it to file this case has ceased; community trust in

SPD has increased; and improvements will be sustainable.




Seattle, WA 98101-1271 (206) 553-7970

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

For these reasons, and noting the general principle that settlements are to be encouraged,

particularly settlements between government entities, the Parties agree to implement the Reform

Plan under the following terms and conditions.

A. Background

The Parties note that the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) investigation was conducted in

collaboration and with the full and open cooperation of the City and SPD. The City timely

provided the United States with access to its documents, information, and personnel. This

Agreement is the product of a continued cooperative effort built on the Parties’ mutual and

deeply-held commitment to constitutional policing. This Agreement is also the product of input

from the many varied communities of Seattle, including police officer unions, community

advocacy organizations, and minority and ethnic community organizations, whose input the

United States and the City have solicited and jointly acknowledge has been indispensible to the

resolution of this matter.

In March 2011, DOJ formally notified the City that it was initiating an investigation of an

alleged pattern or practice of excessive force and discriminatory policing in SPD, pursuant to the

Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, 42 U.S.C. § 14141 (“Section 14141”);

the anti-discrimination provisions of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968,

42 U.S.C. § 3789d (“Safe Streets Act”); and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as

amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d (“Title VI”).

DOJ issued a written report of its findings (“Report”) on December 16, 2011. The Report

conveyed DOJ’s finding that it had reasonable cause to believe that SPD engages in a pattern or

practice of using unnecessary or excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the

United States Constitution and Section 14141. The unconstitutional patterns include, but are not

limited to, the following: (1) the use of excessive force in the course of arrests for minor

offenses; (2) the use of excessive force inflicted by multiple officers on one person; (3) the

premature or excessive use of impact weapons, such as batons and flashlights; and (4) the use of

excessive force on subjects who were already restrained. DOJ determined that deficiencies in

SPD’s training, policies, and oversight with regard to the use of force contribute to the

constitutional violations.




Seattle, WA 98101-1271 (206) 553-7970

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

The Report further stated that, though DOJ did not make a finding on this issue at that

time, DOJ’s investigation raised serious concerns as to whether SPD engaged in a pattern or

practice of discriminatory policing.

On November 23, 2011, DOJ also provided the City and SPD with a technical assistance

letter regarding SPD’s application of the principles set forth in Garrity v. New Jersey, 385 U.S.

493 (1967), and its progeny. In this Agreement, at Appendix 9.J.49-51, the Parties have agreed

to certain procedures and safeguards when officers are given Garrity protections in an

investigation. However, additional issues remain relating to current Garrity practices, as the

November technical assistance letter sets forth. The Parties recognize that resolution of the

remaining issues in the technical assistance letter require consultation with entities throughout

the City, with the Washington State Criminal Justice Training Commission, and others.

To address these concerns, within 30 days of the entry of this agreement, the City will

propose new policies and procedures consistent with the technical assistance provided by the

United States. The Parties will have 30 days thereafter to negotiate any differences. If the

Parties cannot agree, the Monitor will, within 30 days, prepare policies and procedures that are

consistent with DOJ’s technical assistance letter, and that will become the terms of this

Agreement to be implemented by Seattle.

The City does not admit or agree with all of DOJ’s findings and conclusions, but enters

into this Agreement because it wishes to improve the functioning of its police department,

improve relations between SPD and the community, and to avoid the cost, delay, and effect on

the City’s interests of protracted litigation.

B. General Provisions

1. This Agreement is effectuated pursuant to the authority granted to DOJ under

Section 14141 to seek declaratory or equitable relief to remedy a pattern or practice of conduct

by law enforcement officers that deprives individuals of rights, privileges, or immunities secured

by the Constitution or federal law.

2. The Parties agree that nothing in this Agreement, the United States’ Complaint, or

the negotiation process shall be construed as an admission of wrongdoing by the City or

evidence of liability under any federal, state, or municipal law.

3. This court has jurisdiction of this action under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1345. The

United States is authorized to initiate this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 14141. Venue is proper




Seattle, WA 98101-1271 (206) 553-7970

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

in the Western District of Washington pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391, because the City and SPD

are located in and the claims arose in the Western District of Washington.

4. This Agreement, which includes all appendices to it, shall constitute the entire

integrated agreement of the Parties. No prior drafts or prior or contemporaneous

communications, oral or written, shall be relevant or admissible for purposes of determining the

meaning of any provisions herein in any litigation or any other proceeding.

5. This Agreement is binding upon all Parties hereto, by and through their officials,

agents, employees, and successors. If the City establishes or reorganizes a government agency

or entity whose function includes overseeing, regulating, accrediting, investigating, or otherwise

reviewing the operations of SPD or any aspect thereof, the City agrees to ensure these functions

and entities are consistent with the terms of this Agreement and shall incorporate the terms of

this Agreement into the oversight, regulatory, accreditation, investigation, or review functions of

the government agency or entity as necessary to ensure consistency.

6. This Agreement is enforceable only by the Parties. No person or entity is

intended to be a third-party beneficiary of the provisions of this Agreement for purposes of any

civil, criminal, or administrative action, and accordingly, no person or entity may assert any

claim or right as a beneficiary or protected class under this Agreement. The Parties agree to

defend the terms of this Agreement, should they be challenged in this or any other forum.

7. This Agreement is not intended to impair or expand the right of any person or

organization seeking relief against the City, SPD, or any officer or employee thereof, for their

conduct or the conduct of SPD officers; accordingly, it does not alter legal standards governing

any such claims by third parties, including those arising from city, state, or federal law. This

Agreement does not expand, nor will it be construed to expand, access to any City, SPD, or

DOJ documents, except as expressly provided by this Agreement, by persons or entities other

than DOJ, the City and SPD, and the Monitor. All federal and state laws governing the

confidentiality or public access to such documents are unaffected by the terms of this

Agreement.

8. The City shall be responsible for providing necessary support and resources to

SPD to enable SPD to fulfill its obligations under this Agreement.




Seattle, WA 98101-1271 (206) 553-7970

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

9. The City and SPD, by and through their officials, agents, employees, and

successors, are enjoined from engaging in conduct that deprives persons of rights, privileges, or

immunities secured or protected by the laws of the United States.

10. The terms and definitions that shall apply to this Agreement may be found in

Appendix 1.

II.

SPD’s policies and procedures shall reflect and express the Department’s commitment to

constitutional policing, especially with respect to uses of force and discriminatory policing. SPD

and the City shall ensure that all SPD officers and employees are trained to understand and be

able to fulfill their duties and responsibilities pursuant to SPD policies and procedures. To

achieve these outcomes, SPD shall implement the requirements below as well as the

requirements in the Appendices.

POLICIES AND PROCEDURES GENERALLY

11. SPD and the Professional Standards Section (“PSS”), or its equivalent body

should SPD choose to reorganize its structure, shall revise policies and procedures and, where

necessary, develop new policies to ensure full implementation of this Agreement. SPD shall

follow the guidelines for policy development, review, and implementation contained in

Appendix 2.

12. SPD shall ensure that the annual in-service training program trains each officer

and employee on the content of this Agreement and the responsibilities of each officer and

employee pursuant thereto.

13. Within 30 days after issuing a policy or procedure pursuant to this Agreement,

SPD shall ensure that all relevant SPD personnel have received, read, and understand their

responsibilities pursuant to the policy or procedure, including, but not limited to, the

requirements that each officer or employee report misconduct; that supervisors of all ranks shall

be held accountable for identifying and responding to misconduct by personnel under their

command; and that personnel will be held accountable for misconduct. SPD shall document that

each relevant SPD officer or other employee has received, read, and sufficiently understands any

such policy.

III. SPD shall revise its existing use of force policy and force reporting requirements, and

develop new weapon-specific policies to ensure (a) that force by SPD officers is used in

USE OF FORCE




Seattle, WA 98101-1271 (206) 553-7970

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

accordance with the Constitution and laws of the United States, (b) that all uses of force and

complaints of such force are properly documented, reported and accounted for, and (c) that all

uses of force and complaints of such force are properly investigated, reviewed, evaluated, and

remedied. To address the unconstitutional patterns DOJ found, SPD shall ensure that officers

use non-force and verbal techniques to effect compliance with police orders whenever feasible,

especially in the course of effecting arrests for minor offenses; de-escalate the use of force at the

earliest possible moment; only resort to those use of force weapons, including less- lethal

weapons, that are necessary; and refrain from the use of force against individuals who are

already under control by officers, or who may express verbal discontent with officers but do not

otherwise pose a threat to officers or others, or impede a valid law enforcement function. To

achieve these outcomes, SPD shall implement the requirements set out below.

A. Use of Force Principles

14. SPD uses of force, regardless of the type of force or weapon used, shall abide by

the following requirements:

a) Officers will use disengagement and de-escalation techniques, and/or call

in specialized units when possible, in order to reduce the need for force

and increase officer and civilian safety.

b) Force use shall be de-escalated as resistance decreases.

c) The amount of force used, and the number of officers who use force, shall

be proportionate to the amount and type of force or resistance used by the

subject.

d) Officers shall use flashlights in compliance with a proper policy and only

after receiving training on the use of a flashlight.

e) Officers shall not use a strike to the head with any weapon, including a

baton, except where lethal force is authorized.

f) The use of force against persons in handcuffs or otherwise restrained is

presumptively improper except in exigent circumstances.

g) Actively pointing a firearm at a person constitutes a use of force and shall

be reported accordingly.




Seattle, WA 98101-1271 (206) 553-7970

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

h) Officers shall not use force against individuals who only verbally confront

them or “talk back,” and do not impede a legitimate law enforcement

function.

i) Immediately following a reportable use of force, officers shall accurately

and properly report and document the incident consistent with this

Agreement and department general orders. Upon arrival at the scene, a

supervisor shall conduct a thorough investigation of the incident.

B. General Use of Force Policy

15. SPD shall revise its use of force policy to correct the issues identified in the

DOJ Report, to comply with applicable law, and to comport with best practices and current

professional standards.

16. The general use of force policy will incorporate the use of force principles

articulated above and shall specify that the unreasonable use of force will subject officers to

corrective action, including education or training; discipline; possible criminal prosecution;

and/or civil liability. A goal of the revised use of force policy shall be to account for every use

of force and, where necessary, remedy improper uses of force. This Agreement seeks to direct

resources to the most serious uses of force, to enhance the ability of supervisors to take

disciplinary or non-disciplinary corrective actions where appropriate, and to increase the overall

accountability for each officer and supervisor.

17. The use of force policy shall include specific policies for all force weapons, both

lethal and less-lethal, that are available to SPD officers. The use of force policies for specific

weapons shall clearly describe the generalized circumstances under which use of such force is

appropriate. No policy can or should intend to define every circumstance under which a

particular weapon is appropriate. However, the specific policies for each force weapon shall

provide guidance for each weapon’s use.

18. The weapon-specific use of force policies shall include training and certification

requirements that each officer must meet before being permitted to carry and use the authorized

weapon. It shall be presumptively improper for any officer, absent exigent circumstances, to

carry any weapon or use force that is not authorized by the Department.




Seattle, WA 98101-1271 (206) 553-7970

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

19. The use of force weapons that require policy revision or development include, but

are not limited to, the following. SPD shall implement policies for each of the following

weapons using the requirements attached as Appendix 3:

a) Firearms;

b) Electronic Control Weapons (“ECW”);

c) Oleoresin Capsicum Spray (“OC Spray”);

d) Batons; and

e) Flashlights.

20. Pursuant to the procedure articulated in Appendix 2, when SPD conducts its

review of the implementation of the new use of force policies, SPD shall seek the timely input of

the relevant members of the Training Section and patrol officers.

C. Use of Force Reporting Policy and Use of Force Report

21. DOJ’s investigation concluded that SPD’s existing use of force policy, and other

factors, resulted in underreporting of force and rendered the Department’s statistics on its use of

force incomplete. To remedy this problem, SPD shall undertake the following:

22. All uses of force above unresisted handcuffing shall be reported in a use of force

report, including the active pointing of a firearm. Even in cases of unresisted handcuffing, force

should be reported if the subject complains of injury or excessive force.

23. Officers shall immediately notify their supervisor following any use of force.

24. Pursuant to SPD Policy 6.240.XII.A.4, the use of force report shall include:

a) a detailed description of the incident circumstances, and the words,

actions, and/or threat posed by the suspect warranting the need for force;

b) a detailed description of the force used, to include descriptive information

regarding the use of any weapon;

c) a description of any apparent injury to the suspect, any complaint of

injury, or the absence of injury. Include information regarding any

medical aid or on-scene medical evaluation provided; and

d) officers shall be required to use descriptive and detailed language to

document uses of force. Officers are prohibited from using conclusory,

formulaic, or patterned language in reports documenting use of force.




Seattle, WA 98101-1271 (206) 553-7970

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

25. In addition to the minimum requirements enumerated in SPD Policy

6.240.XII.A.4, the use of force report shall include:

a) a detailed account of the incident from the officer’s perspective, including

the force the officer observed being used by other officers;

b) the reason for the initial police presence;

c) a specific description of the acts of each subject that led to each separate

use of force and, if applicable, injury; and

d) the level of resistance encountered by each officer that led to each separate

use of force and, if applicable, injury.

26. Officers’ use of force reports shall completely and accurately describe the use of

force. Officers shall be subject to corrective action or discipline for material omissions or

inaccuracies in the use of force report, and for the failure to report a use of force, whether applied

or observed, and whether or not the force was reasonable.

27. SPD shall routinely, but no less than annually, analyze the force data captured in

officers’ force reports and supervisors’ investigative reports, including the force-related outcome

data listed in section XI.C below, to determine significant trends; to determine if any officer,

SPD unit, or group of officers is using a disproportionate amount of force; to identify and correct

deficiencies revealed by this analysis; and to document its findings in an annual public report.

28. Among other outcome measures described below, SPD should also track the

prosecutorial dispositions of arrests to identify possible trends in the misapplication of law

enforcement discretion.

D. Use of Force Supervisory Investigations

DOJ believes that SPD’s failure to provide adequate supervision of force has contributed

to the Department’s pattern or practice of excessive force. No external accountability system

(such as the OPA) can adequately replace an internal culture of accountability, which begins and

ends with proper supervision. SPD Manual 6.240 lays out many responsibilities of the

investigating supervisor at a use of force incident. In some places, SPD’s policy appears to set

forth adequate supervisory responsibilities that require minor refinement (which is noted by

references to existing policy provisions). In other places, SPD’s policy requires more

substantive revision and additional requirements. Because the investigation at the scene of a use

of force incident is so crucial to effective reporting, investigation, and supervision of force to




Seattle, WA 98101-1271 (206) 553-7970

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

ensure compliance with constitutional requirements, SPD’s Manual 6.240 shall be revised to

improve and expand the role and duties of an investigating supervisor at the scene of a use of

force, pursuant to the following requirements, which are further described in Appendix 4.

29. SPD Manual 6.240.XII.B.1-2 require revision. Currently, the policy requires

supervisors to “determine if it is necessary to respond to the scene [of a use of force].” The

policy also states, “Absent extenuating circumstances, supervisors shall respond to the scene of

any use of force incident that involved three or more TASER applications and/or circumstances

requiring an on-scene medical evaluation.”

30. As further described in Appendix 4A, the direct supervisor of the officer(s) using

force -- upon notification of a use of force, allegation of excessive force, or complaint of injury --

immediately shall respond to the scene of the use of force and shall investigate thoroughly all

uses of force except those to be investigated by Force Investigation Teams (“FIT”), as described

below. No supervisor who was involved in the incident, including by participating in, being

present at the scene of the use of force, or ordering the force being investigated, shall be

responsible for the investigation of the incident.

31. SPD Manual 6.240.XII.B.3-9 further lay out the responsibilities of the

investigating supervisor for a use of force incident. These sections require revision. SPD shall

revise the use of force policy to require the direct supervisor of the officer(s) using force to

conduct the investigatory responsibilities laid out in Appendix 4A and perform the reporting

responsibilities specified in Appendix 4B. As part of this requirement, SPD shall develop a

supervisor investigation checklist to ensure that supervisors carry out these responsibilities.

Pursuant to the requirements in Appendix 2 to review each policy or procedure identified herein,

SPD shall review and revise the adequacy of this checklist regularly, but not less frequently than

annually.

32. SPD Manual 6.240.XII.B.10 & 12 require the use of force packet to be forwarded

through the chain of command to the involved employee’s bureau commander. SPD shall revise

and clarify the process for review of a use of force report, as laid out in Appendix 4C.

E. Force Investigation Teams

33. Accountability and supervision of serious uses of force require enhanced

investigation of serious uses of force as soon as they occur. To accomplish this, SPD shall create

and maintain FIT teams, as defined in Appendix 1. SPD shall ensure that FIT investigates the




Seattle, WA 98101-1271 (206) 553-7970

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

following incidents: (1) those incidents involving a serious use of force (except critical firearms

discharges); (2) a use of force indicating potential criminal conduct by an officer; (3) a use of

force by SPD personnel of a rank higher than sergeant; or (4) a use of force reassigned to FIT by

the COP or his/her designee.

34. SPD’s existing Firearms Review Board (“FRB”) has provided a thorough and

established process for investigating and reviewing incidents involving critical firearms

discharges. See SPD Manual 11.030. The FRB shall continue to review serious uses of force

that involve the discharge of firearms.

35. FIT shall be staffed with individuals with appropriate expertise, independence,

and investigative skills to ensure that uses of force that are contrary to law or policy are

identified and appropriately resolved; that policy, training, equipment, or tactical deficiencies or

positive lessons related to the use of force are identified and corrected; and that investigations are

of sufficient quality to ensure that officers are held accountable.

36. Mayor McGinn’s December 7, 2011 letter to the ACLU, indicates that SPD has

already begun development of a FIT. SPD shall continue development of its FIT by developing

the policies and protocols identified in Appendix 4D.

37. In conducting its investigation, FIT shall conduct the investigatory responsibilities

identified in Appendix 4D. If FIT’s investigation reveals officer misconduct, FIT shall refer its

investigation report to OPA for discipline. If at any point during FIT’s investigation FIT

discovers criminal conduct, FIT shall refer the matter to the appropriate agency.

38. If the case may proceed criminally, or where SPD requests a criminal prosecution,

any compelled interview of the subject officers shall be delayed. No other part of the

investigation shall be held in abeyance by the FIT team or other investigators unless specifically

authorized by the COP in consultation with the agency conducting the criminal investigation, and

notification to the OPA Director.

F. Force Review Committee

39. SPD shall establish a Force Review Committee (“FRC”) that reviews all FIT

investigations, regardless of whether FIT has forwarded its investigation report directly to OPA

or an agency investigating potentially criminal conduct.

40. The FRC shall be comprised of the Deputy Chief of Operations, the OPA

Director, the Assistant Chief of the Patrol Operations Bureau, the training commander, a




Seattle, WA 98101-1271 (206) 553-7970

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

representative from PSS, a Captain not within the chain of command of the involved officer, a

representative from the Seattle Police Officers’ Guild, and the civilian observer appointed to the

FRB. See SPD Policy 11.030.II.2.

41. The FRC’s primary role is to conduct timely, comprehensive, and reliable reviews

of FIT’s investigations. To accomplish these goals, the FRC shall conduct the duties identified

in Appendix 4E.

42. The FRC’s secondary role is to identify problematic use of force patterns, and

policy or training deficiencies in use of force incidents reviewed by the FIT team. If FRC’s

review reveals potential officer misconduct, or if the review is unable to resolve substantial

conflicts in statements and/or injuries sustained by the subject, FRC shall refer its investigation

report to OPA. If the FRC identifies deficiencies that do not rise to the level of misconduct, the

FRC shall document the corrective action that an officer should receive and the officer’s

supervisor shall ensure that the officer receives this corrective action. The corrective action shall

be tracked in FIT and FRC files, as well as in the employee’s personnel file.

43. According to Mayor McGinn’s December 7, 2011 letter to the ACLU, SPD has

already begun development of a “Force Review Board.” This Force Review Board, headed by

the Assistant Chief of Patrol Operations, reviews every single SPD use of force report to ensure

the integrity of investigations, and to identify potential department-wide patterns of training,

tactics, and policy deficiencies. SPD shall continue its development of this review board, whose

primary goal is to provide the Assistant Chief of Patrol Operations with the staff support and

expertise necessary to review all use of force reports. However, the role of this board should be

distinct from the role of the FRC.

G. Use of Force Training

44. SPD shall provide all SPD officers with use of force training based on

developments in applicable law and SPD policy. SPD shall coordinate and review all use of

force policy and training to ensure quality, consistency, and compliance with the Constitution,

Washington law, this Agreement, and SPD policy. SPD’s use of force training shall total the

number of hours and include the topics identified in Appendix 5A.

H. Crisis Intervention

DOJ found that some SPD officers escalate situations and use unnecessary or excessive

force when arresting individuals for minor offenses, particularly in encounters with persons with




Seattle, WA 98101-1271 (206) 553-7970

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

mental illnesses or those under the influence of alcohol or drugs. The City estimates that 70% of

use of force encounters involve these populations.

45. SPD shall work to minimize the use of force against individuals in behavioral or

mental health crisis, including individuals who appear to be under the influence of drugs or

alcohol, and direct such individuals to the appropriate services where possible.

46. SPD shall attempt to avoid or minimize the use of force against individuals in

behavioral or mental health crisis, including individuals who appear to be under the influence of

drugs or alcohol, and direct such individuals to the appropriate services where possible. To

achieve this outcome, SPD shall implement the requirements set out in Appendix 6.

IV.

The Parties acknowledge that pro-active policing, including investigatory stops and social

stops, is necessary to accomplish strong community based policing and effective crime control.

However, SPD shall ensure that all SPD social contacts and investigatory stops are conducted in

accordance with the rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or

laws of the United States. SPD shall ensure that investigatory stops and detentions are part of an

effective overall crime prevention strategy; avoid counter-productive divisions between SPD and

the community; and are adequately documented for tracking and supervision purposes. To

achieve these outcomes, SPD shall implement the requirements below.

STOPS AND DETENTIONS

A. Social Contacts and Investigatory Stops

47. SPD shall revise the Social Contact, Terry Stop, & Arrest Policy, Section 6.220,

to ensure that the definitions of Social Contact and Terry Stops explicitly protect individuals’

constitutional rights. Specifically, the policy shall (1) define a Social Contact as a pedestrian

encounter that is voluntary and consensual; and (2) prohibit investigatory stops where the officer

lacks reasonable suspicion that a person has been, is, or is about to be engaged in the commission

of a crime. The policy shall also require (1) that SPD officers call in investigatory stops to

dispatch, which should be captured in the CAD database; (2) that dispatch maintains a searchable

log of these calls and stops; and (3) that officers properly record investigatory stops in the Street

Check database.

48. SPD’s current Unbiased Policing policy only proscribes the consideration of race

or ethnicity in establishing reasonable suspicion or probable cause, or in deciding to initiate

encounters. See SPD Manual 5.140. SPD shall expand the policy to prohibit officers from using




Seattle, WA 98101-1271 (206) 553-7970

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

race, color, ethnicity, national origin, religion, gender, gender identity, disability, or sexual

orientation as a factor, to any extent or degree, in establishing reasonable suspicion or probable

cause, or in deciding to initiate encounters, except as part of an actual and credible description of

a specific suspect in an ongoing investigation.

49. SPD officers shall be required to specifically and clearly articulate the reasonable

suspicion leading to a stop. SPD officers shall not use patterned, formulaic, or conclusory

language in any reports or database entries documenting investigatory stops or detentions.

50. SPD shall require that officers have reasonable suspicion before they conduct

investigatory stops or detentions, conduct field interviews for Terry stops, and/or document

investigatory field contacts, including field interviews, in SPD’s Street Check database and in

accordance with the stop data collection requirements of this Agreement.

B. Social Contact and Investigatory Stop Data Collection and Review

51. Currently, SPD’s Street Check database is used to document incidents if an

individual is detained in handcuffs and subsequently released (see SPD Manual 6.010.III.2), to

document field interview contacts concerning suspicious activity (see SPD Manual 6.220.IV.A),

and to document any incidents where no offense or other police incident has occurred (see SPD

MRE (Mobile Reporting Entry) Training Manual). Despite SPD’s efforts to implement the

Street Check database, DOJ found that officers still do not consistently document stops in the

Street Check database and confusion still exists about when officers should document incidents

in the database. Moreover, DOJ found that there is still mistrust in segments of the community

about their interactions with police officers during pedestrian stops, and that SPD has failed to

keep sufficient data in the Street Check database that would permit SPD to address, contradict, or

correct allegations of biased policing.

52. To ensure accurate data keeping and supervision of pedestrian stops, and to

address community perceptions of negative police-civilian encounters during pedestrian stops,

within 270 days of the Effective Date, SPD shall revise its Street Check database to include the

requirements in Appendix 7. Supervisors shall be able to access the Street Check database on a

regular basis to review pedestrian stops. If a supervisor identifies any material violation in

policy regarding pedestrian stops, the supervisor shall enter that information into the Early

Intervention System (“EIS”). SPD’s development of the Street Check database shall be subject




Seattle, WA 98101-1271 (206) 553-7970

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

to the review and approval of the Monitor and DOJ, and shall require officers to document the

requirements of Appendix 7A.

53. SPD shall develop a data collection policy and procedure manual that describes

SPD’s data collection systems, including the Street Check database and the CAD system. This

policy shall include the requirements identified in Appendix 7B.

54. Officers shall submit documentation of investigatory stops in the Street Check

database, and any searches resulting from or proximate to the stop or detention, to their

supervisors by the end of the shift in which the police action occurred.

55. Supervisors shall conduct the review of Street Check database entries pursuant to

the responsibilities laid out in Appendix 7C.

C. Social Contact and Investigatory Stop Training

56. SPD shall provide all officers with comprehensive training on the legal

distinctions between social contacts and investigatory stops. Such training shall be taught by a

competent legal instructor with significant experience litigating or teaching Fourth Amendment

issues, and shall address the topics identified in Appendix 5B.

57. SPD shall provide all officers with comprehensive training on the documentation

of social contacts, investigatory stops, and detention, as required by this Agreement. This

training shall provide guidance on the topics identified in Appendix 5B.

58. Additionally, SPD shall provide all officers with regular roll call trainings

regarding social contact and Terry stop scenarios.

V.

SPD has begun to address concerns surrounding discriminatory policing issues in a

variety of manners, including developing various training curricula, including Perspectives in

Profiling, Race: The Power of Illusion, and LEED. However, it is critical to the community and

SPD that these changes be sustained over the long term.

BIASED-FREE POLICING

SPD shall deliver police services that are equitable, respectful, and free of unlawful bias,

in a manner that promotes broad community engagement and confidence in the Department.

Officers shall treat all members of the Seattle community with courtesy, professionalism, and

respect, and shall not use harassing, intimidating, or derogatory language.

In conducting pedestrian stops, SPD shall ensure that members of the public receive

equal protection of the law, without bias based on race, color, ethnicity, national origin, religion,




Seattle, WA 98101-1271 (206) 553-7970

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

gender, disability, sexual orientation, or gender identity, and in accordance with the rights,

privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States.

To achieve these outcomes, SPD shall implement the requirements below.

A. Biased-Free Policing Policies

59. SPD shall revise the Unbiased Policing policy to provide clear guidance on

prohibited conduct, including examples of the types of activities that would constitute

discriminatory policing. See SPD Manual 5.140. The proscribed activities should be consistent

with state, federal, and constitutional law, the terms of this Agreement, and SPD policies,

procedures, and protocols.

60. SPD Manual 5.140 shall be revised to identify supervisory responsibility in

investigations of discriminatory policing in accordance with the terms of this Agreement. The

investigating supervisor shall conduct the following investigative duties:

a) Canvass for, and interview, all civilian witnesses, including the subject

and third parties. Supervisors shall not ask any witnesses (whether

officers or civilian witnesses) leading questions that improperly suggest

legal justifications for the officers’ conduct, when such questions are

contrary to appropriate law enforcement techniques. As practicable,

investigators shall ask to record all interviews with civilian witnesses and

all follow-up interviews with officers.

b) Ensure that all officer witnesses provide a statement regarding the

incident.

c) Consider all relevant evidence, including circumstantial, direct, and

physical evidence, as appropriate, and make credibility determinations and

resolve material inconsistencies in statements.

d) Canvass, identify, and secure all relevant evidence; ensure collection of all

evidence (including audio and video recordings).

61. Where a reasonable and trained supervisor would determine that there may have

been misconduct, the supervisor shall immediately notify OPA to complete the investigation.

62. Each supervisor shall provide a written report to the watch commander and

precinct commander, documenting the supervisor’s preliminary determination of the incident,




Seattle, WA 98101-1271 (206) 553-7970

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

including whether there were any deviations in policy regarding the collection and

documentation of evidence and summaries of subject, witness, and officer statements.

63. Where an investigating supervisor repeatedly conducts deficient investigations,

SPD shall identify appropriate corrective action, including training, demotion, and/or removal

from a supervisory position. This corrective action shall be monitored in EIS.

B. Biased-Free Policing Training

64. SPD shall provide all officers with comprehensive and interdisciplinary training

on biased-free policing based on developments in Washington or federal law and SPD policy.

Such training shall emphasize that discriminatory policing is prohibited by policy and will

subject officers to discipline. This training shall address the topics identified in Appendix 5C.

65. Supervisors, in conjunction with the SPD Training Section, Community Outreach

Unit, and OPA, should develop a roll call training curriculum that reviews issues related to

discriminatory policing, including activity identified within SPD.

C. Ensuring Biased-Free Policing

66. SPD shall apply and administer all programs, initiatives, and activities without

discrimination on the basis of race, color, ethnicity, national origin, religion, gender, disability,

sexual orientation, or gender identity.

67. SPD leadership and supervising officers shall unequivocally and consistently

reinforce to subordinates that discriminatory policing is an unacceptable tactic, including in

making decisions to use particular police tactics in particular communities.

68. Officers who engage in discriminatory policing will be subjected to discipline

and, where appropriate, risk criminal prosecution and/or civil liability.

69. Officers shall take steps that can build positive community relationships,

including: (1) identifying themselves at the initiation of contact with an individual; (2) stating

the reason for the investigatory stop or detention as soon as practicable; (3) ensuring that an

investigatory stop or detention is no longer than necessary to take appropriate action; and

(4) acting with professionalism and courtesy throughout the interaction regardless of any

provocation.

70. Within 365 days of the Effective Date, and at least annually thereafter, SPD shall

assess (with the Racial Equity Toolkit or otherwise) all SPD programs, initiatives, and activities

to ensure that no program, initiative, or activity is applied or administered in a manner that




Seattle, WA 98101-1271 (206) 553-7970

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

discriminatorily targets individuals. As part of its assessment, SPD shall specifically include an

assessment of use of force, pedestrian stops, arrests, and the geographic deployment of

specialized tactical units for preventive patrols. SPD shall base its assessment of programs,

initiatives, and activities on accurate, complete, and reliable data, including data contained in

EIS, stop and detention data, use of force analyses, operations plans, and after action reports.

SPD shall make this assessment publicly available for comment.

VI.

DOJ found that SPD’s ability to maintain the trust of the community, and thus its ability

to avoid the unnecessary use of force and discriminatory policing, is hindered, in part, by SPD’s

inconsistent engagement with the community. To ensure constitutional and biased-free policing,

to closely interact with the community to resolve neighborhood problems, and to increase

community confidence in the Department, SPD shall develop and finalize its community

engagement and outreach plan, with the goal of creating robust community relationships and

sustainable dialogue with Seattle’s diverse communities. SPD shall consult with community

members (not only through its Advisory Councils and Roundtables) and conduct public hearings

in developing this plan. In particular, SPD shall develop and implement ongoing and sustained

mechanisms to measure officer outreach to a broad cross-section of community members, with

an emphasis on youth outreach, to establish extensive problem-solving partnerships and develop

and implement cooperative strategies that build mutual respect and trusting relationships with

this broader cross-section of community stakeholders. To achieve this outcome, at a minimum,

SPD shall implement the requirements below.

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT, OUTREACH, AND PROBLEM-SOLVING

71. Within 60 days of the Effective Date, SPD shall complete its comprehensive

assessment of the Department’s activities in regards to community outreach, engagement, and

problem-solving policing. This assessment will include a reliable, comprehensive, and

representative survey of members of the Seattle community, including civilians, SPD officers,

and arrestees, regarding their experiences with and perceptions of SPD’s community outreach,

engagement, and problem-solving policing.

72. Within 60 days thereafter, SPD shall complete its comprehensive set of strategies

that will address the findings of the assessment, and its revision to SPD Manual 17.100

(Community Police Teams). SPD shall provide notice and solicit community comment into its




Seattle, WA 98101-1271 (206) 553-7970

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

assessment and strategies, and shall consider both the OPA Review Board’s (“OPA-RB”)

recommendations and the Restorative Justice/Circle models.

73. SPD shall then submit its assessment and strategies to the Monitor and DOJ for

approval. Approval will be based upon, among others, the following principles:

a) that SPD has integrated community and problem-oriented policing

principles into its management, policies and procedures, recruitment,

training, personnel evaluations, tactics, deployment of resources, and

systems of accountability;

b) that SPD has assigned sufficient personnel and devoted sufficient funds to

carry out the strategies identified;

c) that SPD is collecting appropriate demographic data for each precinct, so

that the precinct captain, together with the Community Outreach Unit,

may develop outreach and policing programs specifically tailored to the

residents of the precincts; and

d) that SPD has developed a Community Outreach Unit manual that clearly

delineates responsibilities for its personnel, including: (i) what is expected

of officers assigned to this unit in terms of their commitment to the

Department’s community development goals; (ii) reporting requirements

as required by the terms of this Agreement, (iii) continuity of services

following reassignment; and (iv) a crisis communication plan. The Unit

manual shall specifically address the role of community outreach and

development at the different command levels, including supervision of

outreach programs.

74. The Captain supervising the activities of the Community Outreach Unit shall

conduct annual audits of the Community Outreach Unit’s programs to determine their

effectiveness within the community in accordance with the terms of this Agreement. Within

180 days of the Effective Date, and in consultation with the community, SPD shall submit the

metrics for such an audit.

75. Annually, SPD shall issue a publicly-available report that summarizes these

problem-solving and community policing activities. SPD shall hold at least one meeting in each

precinct to present its report and to educate the community about its efforts and about SPD’s




Seattle, WA 98101-1271 (206) 553-7970

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

policies and laws governing pedestrian stops, stops and detentions, and biased-free policing,

including a civilian’s responsibilities and freedoms in such encounters.

76. Within 180 days of the Effective Date, SPD shall revise COMSTAT to include

qualitative assessments of SPD’s policing efforts and outcomes. This qualitative assessment

shall be informed, but not replaced, by the collection and reporting of accurate and meaningful

data regarding crime trends and other public safety measures. This COMSTAT model shall

include discussion of community policing successes and challenges. SPD shall ensure

COMSTAT includes discussion and analysis of trends in misconduct complaints; use of force

patterns; pedestrian encounters, stops, and detentions; and community priorities to identify areas

and/or units of concern, and to better develop interventions to address them.

VII.

A. Training Generally

TRAINING

77. In addition to the requirements in Appendix 5, SPD shall ensure that all officers

and employees understand their responsibilities, particularly with respect to use of force and

bias-free policing. SPD’s training curricula shall instruct officers on how to use tools and

techniques in a way that emphasizes the importance of officer safety. SPD has already begun to

develop several new training curricula to address supervisor investigatory responsibilities and

communication skills with community members (LEED curriculum). All aspects of SPD

training shall reflect and instill agency expectations that officers are committed to the

constitutional rights of the individuals they encounter, and employ strategies to build community

partnerships to effectively increase public trust and safety. To achieve these outcomes, SPD

shall implement the requirements below.

78. Within 90 days of the Effective Date, SPD shall designate a full- time Department-

Wide Training Liaison within the Training Section, and designate dedicated training coordinators

in each precinct. The Training Liaison shall establish and maintain communications with each

precinct training coordinator to ensure that all officers complete training as required and that

confirmation of training is provided to the Training Section. The Training Liaison should also

coordinate with the Washington State Basic Law Enforcement Academy to ensure consistency in

training curricula.

79. The Training Section shall review and update SPD’s training plan annually. To

inform these revisions, the Training Section shall conduct a needs assessment and modify this




Seattle, WA 98101-1271 (206) 553-7970

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

assessment annually, taking into consideration: trends in hazards officers are encountering in

performing their duties; analysis of officer safety issues; misconduct complaints; problematic

uses of force; input from members at all levels of the Department; input from the community;

concerns reflected in court decisions; research reflecting best practices and the latest in law

enforcement trends; individual precinct needs; and any changes to Washington or federal law or

to SPD policy.

80. Within 180 days of the Effective Date, SPD shall develop and implement a

process that provides for the collection, analysis, and review of data to document the

effectiveness of training and to improve future instruction, course quality, and curriculum. These

evaluations shall measure and document student satisfaction with the training received; student

learning as a result of training; and the extent to which program graduates are applying the

knowledge and skills acquired in training to their jobs. This audit shall be reported to the

Training Liaison and shall include student evaluations of the program and the instructor.

81. SPD shall ensure that the Training Section is accurately electronically tracking,

maintaining, and reporting complete and accurate records of current curricula, lesson plans,

training delivered, and other training materials in a central, commonly-accessible, and organized

file system. Each officer’s immediate supervisor shall review the database for the officers under

her command at least semi-annually.

82. SPD shall document all training provided or received by SPD officers or

employees, required or otherwise. Officers and employees shall sign an acknowledgement of

attendance or digitally acknowledge completion of training. SPD shall report training delivered

and received semi-annually to the Deputy Chief of Operations and, during the pendency of this

Agreement, the Monitor.

83. SPD shall ensure that all officers and employees understand their responsibilities

and the limits on their authority under law and SPD policy, and are able to fulfill these

responsibilities to police effectively. All aspects of SPD training shall reflect and instill agency

expectations that officers police diligently, have full understanding of and commitment to the

constitutional rights of the individuals they encounter, and employ strategies to build community

partnerships to more effectively increase public trust and safety. In consultation with the

Training Section and experienced training personnel, within 120 days of the Effective Date, SPD

shall develop a training schedule, training curricula, and an implementation schedule, to be




Seattle, WA 98101-1271 (206) 553-7970

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

approved by DOJ and the Monitor. To achieve these outcomes, SPD shall require patrol officers,

supervisors, and commanders to receive training on the topics outlined in Appendix 5. The

Monitor shall assess the appropriate number of required hours of training for each of these

groups. Training related to discriminatory policing will be conducted in consultation with the

Community Outreach Section as well, who shall solicit community input in developing such

training. One hundred and eighty days after implementation of such training, the Training

Section shall review and report to the Monitor as to the effectiveness of such training.

B. Visual and Audio Documentation of Police Activities

84. Consistent with the recommendations found in the OPA Director’s

December 2011 In-Car Video (“ICV”) Review, SPD shall ensure that ICV recordings are

captured, maintained, and reviewed as appropriate by supervisors, in addition to any review for

investigatory or audit purposes, to assess the quality and appropriateness of officer interactions,

uses of force, and other police activities.

85. Supervisors shall review ICV recordings regularly and incorporate the knowledge

gained from this review into their ongoing evaluation and supervision of officers. SPD shall

require random audits of ICV recordings to ascertain proper use of the equipment, officer safety,

training and tactics, and equipment sufficiency.

86. Supervisors shall be responsible for ensuring that officers under their command

use in-car camera recording equipment, ICV equipment, and similar equipment, as required by

policy. Supervisors shall report equipment problems and seek to have equipment repaired as

needed. Supervisors shall refer for OPA investigation any officer found to fail to properly use or

care for in-car camera recording, ICV, or similar equipment. See SPD Manual 17.260.IV.A.

87. The Training Section and OPA shall have direct remote (“portal”) access to ICVs

in OPA complaint files. Videos identified by officers or supervisors may also get referred to the

Training Section. See SPD Manual 17.260.III.12. The Training Section may use these videos to

identify patterns in officer activity that require new or supplemental training, and create

hypothetical training scenarios based on the videos. The Training Section will not use actual

videos for training purposes. Nothing in this agreement intends to alter federal or state law as to

whether ICV may be made public for any other reason.




Seattle, WA 98101-1271 (206) 553-7970

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

C. Officer Assistance and Support

88. To provide mentoring, support, and informal supervision to patrol officers, SPD

shall implement a pilot volunteer patrol officer mentoring program at one of SPD’s precincts. In

this pilot program, officers with five or more years of experience, “Master Patrol officers,” shall

be paired with officers with less than five years of experience. Officers who volunteer for this

program shall participate for a minimum of one year. Participation shall not create a new

administrative classification or additional formal supervisory obligations.

89. To provide mentoring, support, and informal supervision to patrol officers who

would like to be promoted to sergeant, SPD shall implement a pilot aspiring sergeant mentoring

program at one of SPD’s precincts.

90. SPD shall assess each program 180 days after it has been implemented. SPD

shall consult with officers as part of its assessment. After this assessment, SPD shall consider

any appropriate revisions and implementation of the mentoring program at all SPD precincts.

VIII. SPD and the City shall ensure that an adequate number of permanent qualified field/first-

line supervisors (typically sergeants) are deployed in the field to allow supervisors to provide the

close and effective supervision necessary for officers to improve as police officers; to police

actively and effectively; and to identify, correct, and prevent misconduct. To achieve these

outcomes, SPD shall implement the requirements below.

SUPERVISION

A. Duties of Supervisors

91. SPD first- line supervisors shall provide, and shall be held accountable for

providing, the close and effective supervision necessary to direct and guide officers. Close and

effective supervision requires that first- line supervisors, as described in greater detail throughout

this Agreement: continue to respond to the scene of arrests and review each arrest report;

respond to the scene of uses of force; investigate each use of force (except those investigated by

FIT); confirm the accuracy and completeness of officers’ Daily Activity Reports; respond to

each complaint of misconduct; ensure officers are working actively to engage the community

and increase public trust and safety; provide counseling, redirection, and support to officers as

needed; and are held accountable for performing each of these duties.

92. As has already begun, within 120 days of the Effective Date, all operational field

officers (including patrol officers) shall be assigned to a single, consistent, clearly identified




Seattle, WA 98101-1271 (206) 553-7970

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

first- line supervisor. First- line supervisors shall be assigned to and shall actually work the same

days and hours as the officers they are assigned to supervise, absent extenuating circumstances.

93. Within 180 days of the Effective Date, first- line supervisors shall be assigned to

supervise no more than on average six officers (“span of control”). The span of control may vary

depending on the nature of the duties that any officer or group of officers performs. On-duty

first- line supervisors shall be available throughout their shift to respond to the field to provide

supervision to officers under their direct command and, as needed, to provide supervisory

assistance to other units. At least one on-duty first-line supervisor shall be out or available in the

field to fulfill these duties.

94. The City and SPD shall assess this anticipated span of control within 90 days of

the Effective Date and re-assess 120 days after implementation, to evaluate and determine

whether this is the proper span of control for each supervisor, and to promote or retain the

number of supervisors necessary to achieve that span. Per the provisions below, acting sergeants

shall not be included in that calculation and shall not be permitted to supervise for longer than

strictly necessary to relieve temporary (for no longer than 30 days every six months) absences of

permanent sergeants. In consultation with the Monitor and DOJ, the City and SPD shall also

review the feasibility and benefits of rotating more senior supervisors placed on specialty units

back through precinct patrol units where they can provide perspective and mentoring.


program to identify and train acting first- line supervisors who can fill- in, on a temporary, as-

needed basis, for assigned first- line supervisors who are on vacation, in training, ill, or otherwise

temporarily unavailable. SPD shall ensure consistent supervision by acting first-line supervisors

for first- line supervisors who are on extended leave, and shall reassign officers to a new,

permanent, non-acting first- line supervisor when the currently assigned first- line supervisor has

been or is expected to be absent for longer than six weeks.

96. Precinct commanders and watch lieutenants shall closely and effectively

supervise the first- line supervisors and officers under their command. All SPD commanders and

supervisors shall ensure that all first- line supervisors and officers under their command comply

with SPD policy, state and federal law, and the requirements of this Agreement.

97. SPD shall hold commanders and supervisors at any level directly accountable for

the quality and effectiveness of their supervision, including whether commanders and




Seattle, WA 98101-1271 (206) 553-7970

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

supervisors identify and effectively respond to uses of force or misconduct, as part of their

performance evaluations and through non-disciplinary corrective action, or through the initiation

of formal investigation and the disciplinary process. Supervisors shall be presumptively subject

to discipline for failure to report and remedy misconduct he/she knew or reasonably should have

known occurred. SPD shall develop metrics to determine a supervisor’s performance.

98. Supervisors shall receive the data necessary to conduct focused reviews of any

officers involved in a disproportionately high number of use of force incidents for any training or

discipline issues, as well as to conduct focused reviews of any officers who appear to be

underreporting or who are showing signs of inactivity. Data analysis should focus on the

relatively small number of officers who use force frequently to better understand why they use

force, when they use force, and what training, rotation of duties, or other steps are needed to

minimize the use of force.

99. Within 60 days of the Effective Date, SPD shall analyze and submit to DOJ and

the Monitor a proposed policy for rotation of officers, including sergeants and detectives, to

maximize the presence of experienced personnel in patrol units, and to allow command staff the

ability to determine what personnel are assigned to any specialty unit. Within 30 days of DOJ

and the Monitor’s approval, SPD shall adopt such a rotation protocol.

B. Supervisor and Command Level Training

100. Consistent with the requirements in Appendix 5, SPD shall develop and

implement mandatory supervisory training for all new first-line supervisors, which shall be

completed prior to assuming supervisory responsibilities or, for current SPD supervisors, within

180 days of the Effective Date. In addition to this initial supervisory training, SPD shall require

each first- line supervisor to complete supervisor-specific training annually thereafter.

101. SPD shall develop and implement mandatory supervisory training for all new

second- line supervisors (lieutenants and higher), which shall be completed prior to assuming

secondary supervisory responsibilities or, for current SPD secondary supervisors, within

180 days of the Effective Date. Annual in-service training for second- line supervisors, including

commanders and command staff, shall provide necessary updates, as well as training in the new

skills and the training their subordinate officers have received in the past year.

102. SPD’s supervisory training program shall include instruction in topics identified

in Appendix 5.




Seattle, WA 98101-1271 (206) 553-7970

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

103. SPD command staff shall visit each precinct on a regular basis to gain a current

understanding of how the precincts operate, areas where precincts are succeeding and/or require

additional support, and to interact and communicate directly with patrol officers.

C. Promotions


protocol for identifying the top tier of officers on the sergeant promotion list and ensure that they

attend sergeant training school and receive any other necessary training before they are officially

promoted to, and acting in, the position of sergeant.

105. Sergeants who aspire to be promoted to lieutenants and who are in the top 15% of

the sergeant promotion list shall attend management training prior to sitting for promotion.

D. Early Identification System

SPD already has an existing Early Identification System (“EIS”) policy to identify

employees and design assistance strategies to address specific issues affecting the employee.

See SPD Manual 3.070. However, SPD’s EIS policy and procedure must be revised to more

effectively identify at-risk employees or intervene in problematic behavior in a timely manner.

An EIS system should provide a powerful means for supervising officer behavior, particularly

with regard to use of force incidents and discriminatory policing.

106. To accomplish the goal of identifying and responding to officers who require

additional supervision, and to ensure that EIS is effectively promoting ethical and professional

police practices; managing risk and liability; and evaluating the performance of SPD employees

across all ranks, units, and shifts, SPD shall revise its existing EIS policy and protocol to

incorporate the guidelines contained in Appendix 8.

107. Within 90 days of the Effective Date, SPD shall ensure that there is sufficient

staff to facilitate EIS data input and provide training and assistance to EIS users. SPD shall

develop and implement a protocol setting deadlines for inputting data related to existing and new

information, and the individuals responsible for capturing and inputting data.

108. SPD shall develop and implement a protocol for using EIS to conduct data

analysis, pattern identification, identifying officers for intervention, supervisory use,

supervisory/departmental intervention, documentation, and audit. SPD shall include analysis of

the topics identified in Appendix 8.




Seattle, WA 98101-1271 (206) 553-7970

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

109. In addition to the data EIS already collects, EIS shall be used to collect, maintain,

integrate, and retrieve the data identified in Appendix 8.

110. EIS shall be used to track supervisor activity, including collecting, maintaining,

and retrieving information related to the topics identified in Appendix 8.

111. SPD shall maintain all personally identifiable information about an officer

included in EIS as long as an officer is a member of SPD and for at least five years following the

officer’s separation from the agency. Information necessary for aggregate statistical analysis

will be maintained indefinitely in EIS.

112. SPD will provide training to all employees, including officers, supervisors, and

commanders regarding EIS prior to its implementation to facilitate proper understanding and use

of the system. SPD supervisors shall be trained in and required to use EIS. Commanders and

supervisors shall be trained in evaluating and making appropriate comparisons in order to

identify any significant individual or group patterns.

IX.

Although DOJ found the structure of OPA was sound, and the investigations OPA itself

conducted generally were thorough, DOJ found that SPD’s internal affairs department (OPA) did

not provide the intended backstop for the failures of the direct supervisory review process and

did not enjoy the public confidence it must to adequately discharge its oversight role.

MISCONDUCT COMPLAINT INTAKE, INVESTIGATION, AND ADJUDICATION

113. SPD and the City shall ensure that all complaints regarding officer conduct are

fully and fairly dealt with; that all investigative findings are supported by a preponderance of the

evidence and documented in writing; that officers and complainants receive a fair and

expeditious resolution of complaints; and that all officers who commit misconduct are held

accountable pursuant to a disciplinary system that is fair and consistent. To achieve these

outcomes, SPD and the City shall implement the requirements in Appendix 9.

X.

All SPD audits and reports related to the implementation of this Agreement shall be made

publicly available via website and at the Department, OPA, City Hall, and other public locations,

to the fullest extent permissible under law. Each datapoint of such audits and reports shall be

posted on SPD’s website in “dashboard” format, displayed as interpreted and not raw data.

TRANSPARENCY AND PUBLIC REPORTING




Seattle, WA 98101-1271 (206) 553-7970

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

114. SPD shall collect and maintain all data and records necessary to facilitate and

ensure transparency and wide public access to information related to SPD decision making and

activities, and compliance with this Agreement, as permitted by law.

115. To improve community confidence and trust, SPD, in consultation with the City

Attorney’s Office, shall assess and improve the transparency of SPD’s operations, including, but

not limited to, its disclosure of documents, videos, and other materials related to the use of force

and discriminatory policing. Within 60 days of the Effective Date, SPD and the City Attorney

shall submit their assessment and proposed improvements (including any changes in policy) to

the Monitor for review. Within 30 days of the Monitor’s approval, SPD shall adopt such

policies.

XI.

A. Role of the Monitor and Informal Dispute Resolution

AGREEMENT IMPLEMENTATION AND ENFORCEMENT

116. The Parties shall select one Monitor to oversee the terms of this Agreement. The

Monitor will assess and report whether the requirements of this Agreement have been

implemented, and whether this implementation is resulting in the constitutional treatment of

individuals by SPD.

117. The Monitor shall be subject to the supervision and orders of the Court, consistent

with this Agreement and the Monitoring Plan, attached hereto as Appendix 10. The Monitor

shall only have the duties, responsibilities, and authority conferred by this Agreement. The

Monitor shall not, and is not intended to, replace or assume the role and duties of the City or

SPD, including the COP.

118. The Monitor and DOJ shall review and approve all proposed changes to SPD

policies, procedures, and practices made pursuant to this Agreement, and provide the City with

any changes either believes is necessary. Unless stated otherwise elsewhere in this Agreement,

if, after good faith informal consultation, the City concludes it disagrees with either the Monitor

or DOJ’s proposed changes, the City shall, within ten days of being informed of such changes,

inform the United States in writing of the fact of the disagreement. Within 21 days thereafter,

the Parties shall meet and confer on the disagreement at a mutually agreeable time. If necessary,

and consistent with the other deadlines herein, any party may petition the Court thereafter to

resolve the dispute pursuant to the provisions below.




Seattle, WA 98101-1271 (206) 553-7970

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

B. Compliance Reviews and Audits

119. In order to assess and report on the City and SPD’s implementation of this

Agreement, the Monitor shall conduct the compliance reviews and audits, outcome assessments,

and incident reviews specified below, and such additional audits, reviews, and assessments as the

Monitor or the Parties deem appropriate.

120. Compliance with a material requirement of this Agreement requires that the City

and SPD have: (a) incorporated the requirement into policy; (b) trained all relevant personnel as

necessary to fulfill their responsibilities pursuant to the requirement; and (c) ensured that the

requirement is being carried out in practice. Compliance reviews and audits shall contain both

qualitative and quantitative elements as necessary for reliability and comprehensiveness.

C. Outcome Assessments

121. In addition to compliance reviews and audits, the Monitor shall conduct

qualitative and quantitative outcome assessments to measure whether the City and SPD’s

implementation of this Agreement has eliminated practices that resulted in DOJ’s finding a

pattern and practice of constitutional violations, and whether the implementation of this

Agreement has had any unintended negative impacts on either accomplishing the purposes of

this Agreement or the ability of SPD to conduct effective constitutional policing. These outcome

assessments shall include collection and analysis, both quantitative and qualitative, of the

following outcome data:

a) Use of Force Measurements, including:

(1) the rate of force used per arrest by SPD; force implement used;

geographic area (i.e. street address, neighborhood, or police

precinct or district); type of arrest; and demographic category;

(2) the rate of force complaints that are sustained, overall and by force

type; source of complaint (internal or external); type of arrest; type

of force complained of; demographic category;

(3) uses of force that were found to violate policy overall and by force

type; type of arrest; demographic category; force implement used;

and number of officers involved;




Seattle, WA 98101-1271 (206) 553-7970

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

(4) the number and rate of use of force administrative

investigations/reviews in which each finding is supported by a

preponderance of the evidence; and

(5) the number of officers who frequently or repeatedly use force, or

have more than one instance of force found to violate policy.

b) Stop and Arrest Measurements, including:

(1) the number and rate of arrests for which there is documented

reasonable suspicion for the stop and probable cause for the arrest,

overall and broken down by geographic area; type of arrest; and

demographic category;

(2) the number and rate of arrests which are prosecuted, overall and

broken down by type of arrest; and demographic category; and

(3) the number and rate of searches that result in a finding of

contraband, overall and broken down by precinct and district; type

of arrest; and demographic category.

c) Biased-Free Policing and Community Engagement Measurements,

including:

(1) a reliable, comprehensive, and representative annual survey of

members of the Seattle community regarding their experiences

with and perceptions of SPD and of public safety. This

comprehensive community survey shall include measures to ensure

input from a statistically valid sample size from each demographic

category; and

(2) the number and variety of community partnerships, with particular

consideration of partnerships with youth, and qualitative

assessment of the depth and effectiveness of those partnerships.

d) Training Measurements, including:

(1) officer and agency reports of adequacy of training in type and

frequency; and

(2) training assessment of incidents involving officer or civilian injury

and performance trends.




Seattle, WA 98101-1271 (206) 553-7970

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

e) Performance Evaluation and Promotion Measurements, including:

(1) uses of force found to be unreasonable, misconduct complaints

sustained and not sustained, and other performance related

indicators for supervisors/commanders promoted pursuant to the

requirements of this Agreement, and for the units these

supervisors/commanders command.

f) Supervision Measurements, including:

(1) initial identification of officer violations and performance

problems by supervisors, and effectiveness of supervisory

response;

(2) appropriate responses to allegations of biased policing, including

steps taken to investigate the allegation; and

(3) appropriate review and assessment of stop data to identify potential

trends.

g) Accountability Measurements, including:

(1) the number of misconduct complaints (broken out by type of

complaint), with a qualitative assessment of whether any increase

or decrease appears related to access to the complaint process;

(2) rate of sustained, not sustained, exonerated, and unfounded

misconduct complaints;

(3) the number and rate of misconduct complaints in which the finding

for each allegation is supported by a preponderance of the

evidence;

(4) the number of officers who are subjects of repeated misconduct

complaints, or have repeated instances of sustained misconduct

complaints;

(5) the number, nature, and settlement amount of civil suits against

SPD officers regardless of whether the City is a defendant in the

litigation;

(6) arrests/summons of officers for on or off duty conduct; and

(7) criminal prosecutions of officers for on or off duty conduct.




Seattle, WA 98101-1271 (206) 553-7970

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

122. In conducting these outcome assessments, the Monitor may use any relevant data

collected and maintained by SPD and OPA, provided that it has determined, and the Parties

agree, that this data is reasonably reliable and complete. Additionally, the Monitor shall solicit

input from community groups or initiatives (such as the Racial Disparity Project) that have

relevant experience conducting statistical analyses. To conduct the annual community survey,

the Monitor may retain an individual or entity which shall:

a) develop a baseline of measures on public satisfaction with policing,

attitudes among police personnel, and the quality of police-citizen

encounters;

b) conduct baseline surveys of City residents, police personnel, and detained

arrestees, and follow-up surveys on at least an annual basis; and

c) ensure that the resident surveys are designed to capture each demographic

category.

D. Selection and Compensation of the Monitor

123. The Parties have selected ______ to be the Monitor who shall assess and report on

SPD’s implementation of this Agreement. The Effective Date of this Agreement shall be

considered the day of the “appointment” of the Monitor.

124. Within 60 days of appointment, the Monitor shall submit to the Court for the

Court’s approval a proposed budget for the first 12 months of operations. The Monitor will

provide both Parties with a draft of the proposed budget at least 30 days in advance of

submission to the Court. The Parties shall raise with the Monitor any objections they may have

to the draft of the proposed budget within ten days of its receipt. If the objection is not resolved

before the Monitor’s submission of a proposed budget to the Court, a Party may file an objection

with the Court within ten days of the submission of the proposed budget to the Court. The Court

will consider such objections and make any adjustments the Court deems appropriate prior to

approving the budget.

125. Thereafter, the Monitor shall submit annually a proposed budget for the Court’s

approval in accordance with the process set forth above.

126. At any time, but at least 30 days after sending to the Parties for review, the

Monitor may submit to the Court for approval a proposed revision to the approved budget, along

with any explanation of the reason for the proposed revision. The Parties shall have an




Seattle, WA 98101-1271 (206) 553-7970

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

opportunity to submit an objection to the Court concerning a proposed revision to the approved

budget in accordance with the process set forth above. Budget revisions will be effective upon

approval by the Court.

127. The City shall provide the Monitor with office space and reasonable office

support during their site visits, such as office furniture, telephones, computers, internet access,

secure electronic and document storage, photocopying, and scanners.

128. The Monitor, at any time after his or her appointment, may request to be allowed

to hire, employ, or contact such additional persons or entities as are reasonably necessary to

perform the tasks assigned to the Monitor by this Agreement. Any person or entity hired or

otherwise retained by the Monitor to assist in furthering any provision of this Agreement shall be

subject to the provisions of this Agreement. The Monitor shall notify the City and DOJ in

writing if the Monitor wishes to select such additional persons or entities. The notice shall

identify and describe the qualifications of the person or entity to be hired or employed and the

monitoring task to be performed.

129. In the event that full and effective implementation of this Agreement requires

technical assistance beyond the scope of the Monitor’s duties or expertise, DOJ, SPD, and/or the

Monitor shall inform the City of the need for technical assistance and its relation to

implementation of this Agreement. The Monitor, with assistance from the City, shall arrange for

the prompt initiation of the required technical assistance, to be performed by the Monitor or

his/her agent or independent contractor, or a separate entity. If any Party disagrees with the need

for the technical assistance requested, the Party shall, within 15 days of being informed in

writing of the requested technical assistance, inform the Parties in writing of the fact of the

disagreement. Within 10 days thereafter, the Parties shall meet and confer on the disagreement

at a mutually agreeable time. If necessary, any party may petition the Court thereafter to resolve

the dispute.

130. In the event that the Monitor is no longer able to perform his or her functions,

within 30 days thereof, the City and DOJ shall together select and advise the Court of the

selection of a replacement Monitor, acceptable to both. The Parties’ selection of the Monitor

shall be made pursuant to a method jointly established by DOJ and the City, and will not be

governed by any formal or legal procurement requirements. The Monitor shall him/herself be of,

and shall include a team with, the highest ethics and have the relevant training and experience. If




Seattle, WA 98101-1271 (206) 553-7970

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

the Parties are unable to agree on a Monitor or an alternative method of selection within 30 days

of the Monitor’s incapacitation, each Party shall submit the names of three candidates, or three

groups of candidates, along with resumes and cost proposals, to the Court, and the Court shall

select and appoint the Monitor from among the qualified candidates/candidate groups.

131. Should any of the Parties to this Agreement determine that the Monitor or any

member of the Monitor’s consulting teams, their agents, employees, or independent contractors

have exceeded their authority or failed to satisfactorily perform the duties required by this

Agreement, the Party may petition the Court for such relief as the Court deems appropriate,

including replacement of the Monitor, and/or any individual members, agents, employees, or

independent contractors. Any Party bringing such a petition is required to meet and confer with

the other Party at least 21 days prior to such a petition in a good faith attempt to resolve the

concern.

E. Court Jurisdiction, Modification of the Agreement, and Enforcement

132. This Agreement shall become effective upon entry by the Court.

133. To ensure that the requirements of this Agreement are properly and timely

implemented, the Court shall retain jurisdiction of this action for all purposes, including but not

limited to any disputed changes to policies, procedures, and practices, until such time as the City

has achieved full and effective compliance with this Agreement and maintained such compliance

for no less than two years. At all times, the City and SPD shall bear the burden of demonstrating

full and effective compliance with this Agreement. When the United States and the Monitor

agree that the City has maintained full and effective compliance for two years, the City shall be

relieved of that portion of the Settlement Agreement.

134. The United States acknowledges the good faith of the City of Seattle in trying to

address the remedial measures that are needed to ensure constitutional policing in Seattle. The

United States, however, reserves its right to seek enforcement of the provisions of this

Agreement if it determines that the City and SPD have failed to fully comply with any provision

of this Agreement. The United States agrees to consult with officials from the City of Seattle

before commencing enforcement proceedings, and to provide opportunity to cure.

135. The Monitor, City, and DOJ may jointly stipulate to make changes, modifications,

and amendments to this Agreement. Such changes, modifications, and amendments to this

Agreement shall be encouraged when the Parties agree, or where the reviews, assessments,




Seattle, WA 98101-1271 (206) 553-7970

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

and/or audits of the Monitor demonstrate, that this Agreement provision as drafted is not

furthering the purpose of this Agreement or that there is a preferable alternative that will achieve

the same purpose. The Parties may jointly move for approval of any proposed changes,

modifications, and/or amendments, which will become effective upon approval by the Court.

136. The Parties agree to defend the provisions of this Agreement. The Parties shall

notify each other of any court or administrative challenge to this Agreement. In the event any

provision of this Agreement is challenged in any State, County or Municipal court, removal to a

federal court shall be sought by the Parties.

137. The City and SPD agree to promptly notify DOJ if any term of this Agreement

becomes subject to collective bargaining consultation. DOJ agrees to work in good faith to

accomplish the goals through alternate means, if necessary.

138. The City shall require compliance with this Agreement by their respective

officers, employees, agencies, assigns, or successors.

F. Termination of the Agreement

139. The Parties anticipate that the City and SPD will have reached full and effective

compliance with this Agreement within five years of its Effective Date. The Parties may agree

to jointly ask the Court to terminate this Agreement prior to this date, provided the City and SPD

have been in full and effective compliance with this Agreement for two years. “Full and

effective compliance” shall be defined to require both sustained compliance with all material

requirements of this Agreement and sustained and continuing improvement in constitutional

policing and public trust, as demonstrated pursuant to this Agreement’s outcome measures.

140. If, after five years from the Effective Date, the Parties disagree as to whether the

City and SPD have been in full and effective compliance for two years, either Party may seek to

terminate this Agreement. In the case of termination sought by the City and SPD, prior to filing

a motion to terminate, they agree to notify DOJ in writing when the City and SPD have

determined that they are in full and effective compliance with this Agreement and that such

compliance has been maintained for no less than two years. No later than 21 days thereafter, the

Parties shall meet and confer at a mutually agreeable time as to the status of compliance. If,

after a reasonable period of consultation and the completion of any audit or evaluation that DOJ

and/or the Monitor may wish to undertake, including on-site observations, document review, or

interviews with the City and SPD’s personnel, the Parties cannot resolve any compliance issues,




Seattle, WA 98101-1271 (206) 553-7970

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

the City and SPD may file a motion to terminate this Agreement. If the City and SPD move for

termination of this Agreement, DOJ will have 60 days after the receipt of the City and SPD’s

motion to object to the motion. If DOJ does not object, the Court may grant the City and SPD’s

motion. If DOJ does make an objection, the Court shall hold a hearing on the motion and the

burden shall be on the City to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that it is in full

and effective compliance with this Agreement and have maintained such compliance for at least

two years.




Seattle, WA 98101-1271 (206) 553-7970

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

AGREED to, this day of , 2012.

For the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR. Attorney General of the United States of America

________________________________ ____________________________ JENNY A. DURKAN *THOMAS E. PEREZ United States Attorney for the Assistant Attorney General Western District of Washington Civil Rights Division Kerry J. Keefe, Civil Chief *Jonathan M. Smith, Chief J. Michael Diaz, Assistant United States Attorney *Timothy Mygatt, Special Counsel United States Attorney’s Office *Zazy Lopez, Senior Trial Attorney Western District of Washington *Michelle Leung, Trial Attorney 700 Stewart Street, Suite 5220 United States Department of Justice Seattle, Washington 98101-1271 Civil Rights Division Phone: (206) 553-7970 Special Litigation Section Fax: (206) 553-4073 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW E-mail: [email protected] Washington, DC 20530 Tel. (202) 514-6255 Fax. (202) 514-4883 *Conditional Admittance Pending E-mail: [email protected]

For the CITY OF SEATTLE:

______________________________ ______________________________ HON. MICHAEL McGINN PETER HOLMES Mayor Seattle City Attorney _____________________________ ______________________________ JOHN DIAZ SALLY CLARK Chief of Police President Seattle Police Department Seattle City Council




APPENDIX 1: DEFINITIONS AND ABBREVIATIONS - 1 12-CV-


Seattle, WA 98101-1271 (206) 553-7970

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

Unless otherwise noted, the following terms and definitions shall apply to this

Agreement:

APPENDIX 1: DEFINITIONS AND ABBREVIATIONS

1. “SPD” or “Department” means the Seattle Police Department and its agents,

officers, supervisors, and employees (both sworn and unsworn) in their official capacity.

2. “City” means the City of Seattle, including its agents, officers, and employees in

their official capacity.

3. “DOJ” means the United States Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division, the

USAO, and its agents and employees in their official capacity.

4. The “USAO” means the United States Attorney’s Office for the Western District

of Washington.

5. “Active resistance” means a subject’s physical actions to defeat an officer’s

attempt at control and to avoid being taken into custody. Verbal statements alone do not

constitute active resistance.

6. “Actively pointing” means holding a firearm high and ready to fire.

7. “C-I-Team” stands for Crisis Intervention Team.

8. “C-I-Training” stand for Crisis Intervention Training, which is training on how to

respond to persons in behavioral or mental health crisis, including persons under the influence of

drugs or alcohol. Officers who receive such training are “C-I-Trained.”

9. “Complainant” means any person, including a SPD officer or employee, who

makes a complaint against SPD or an officer or employee of SPD.

10. “Complaint” means any complaint made to the City and/or SPD by a member of

the public, a SPD officer, or a civilian employee, regarding SPD services, policy, or procedure,

or any claim for damages or criminal complaint that alleges misconduct by a SPD officer or

civilian employee.

11. “COMSTAT” means those command status reports routinely provided to

SPD command staff.

12. “COP” means the Chief of Police of SPD.

13. “Court” means the United States District Court Judge for the Western District of

Washington presiding over this case.




Seattle, WA 98101-1271 (206) 553-7970

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

14. “Critical firearm discharge” means each discharge of a firearm by a SPD officer

as defined by SPD Manual 8.060. This term includes discharges at persons where no one is

struck.

15. “Demographic category” means age, race, color, ethnicity, national origin,

religion, gender, disability, sexual orientation, or gender identity.

16. “Discipline” means a personnel action for violation of an established law,

regulation, rule, or SPD policy, including, but not limited to, an admonishment, written

reprimand, suspension, demotion, or dismissal.

17. “Discriminatory policing” means selective enforcement or non-enforcement of the

law, including the selecting or rejecting of particular policing tactics or strategies, based on

membership in a demographic category specified in this Agreement. Discriminatory policing

does not include using race, ethnicity, or any other status in any reliable suspect-specific

description.

18. “ECW” means Electronic Control Weapon, a weapon, including TASERs,

designed primarily to discharge electrical charges into a subject that will cause involuntary

muscle contractions and overrides the subject’s voluntary motor responses.

19. “ECW application” means the contact and delivery of electrical impulse to a

subject with an ECW.

20. “Effective Date” means the day this Agreement is entered by the Court.

21. “EIS” means the Early Intervention System.

22. “Exigent circumstances” means emergencies in which a reasonable person would

believe that imminent and serious bodily harm to a person or persons or the destruction of

evidence is likely.

23. A “field interview” is the stopping and questioning of a person by a SPD officer

because the officer has reasonable suspicion the subject may have committed, may be

committing, or may be about to commit a crime; or believes the interview may have a preventive

effect.

24. “Firearm” is any instrument capable of discharging a bullet or shot as defined in

SPD Manual 8.030.

25. “FRB” is the Firearms Review Board, whose duties are described at SPD

Manual 11.030.




Seattle, WA 98101-1271 (206) 553-7970

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

26. “Flashlight” means any multi-cell (C or D battery or larger) flashlight.

27. “Force Investigation Team” or “FIT” is the SPD unit to be tasked with conducting

investigations of (1) all serious uses of force except for critical firearms discharges (as defined

below); (2) uses of force that appear to involve misconduct or criminal conduct; (3) uses of force

by SPD personnel of a rank higher than sergeant; and (4) uses of force reassigned to FIT by an

officer’s supervisor, the COP, his/her designee, or FRC.

28. “Force Review Board” or “FRB” is the SPD team that assists the Assistant Chief

of Operations in reviewing all use of force reports.

29. “Force Review Committee” or “FRC” is the SPD unit responsible for the review

of FIT investigations and, in coordination with PSS and OPA, identifying problematic use of

force patterns and training deficiencies.

30. “ICO” is the Integrity Control Officer.

31. “ICV” means in-car video.

32. “Implement” or “implementation” means the development or putting into place of

a policy or procedure, including the appropriate training of all relevant personnel, and the

consistent and verified performance of that policy or procedure in actual practice.

33. “Including” means “including, but not limited to.”

34. “Investigatory stop” means a temporary restraint or detention where the subject is

not free to leave the presence of an officer. An investigatory stop is lawful when supported by

reasonable suspicion and narrowly tailored in scope and duration to the reasons supporting the

seizure. An investigatory stop may include a pedestrian, vehicle, or bicycle stop.

35. “LEED” is the “Listen and Explain with Equity and Dignity” training, which

focuses on respect, listening skills, and the use of verbal tactics as an alternative to the use of

force.

36. “Less- lethal” force means a force application that is not intended or expected to

cause death or serious injury and that is commonly understood to have less potential for causing

death or serious injury than conventional, more lethal police tactics. Nonetheless, use of less-

lethal force can result in death or serious injury.

37. “Lethal force” means any use of force likely to cause death or serious physical

injury, including the use of a firearm, neck hold, or strike to the head, neck, or throat with a hard

object, including a fist.




Seattle, WA 98101-1271 (206) 553-7970

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

38. “Line Investigation” means the investigation of a misconduct complaint, which is

conducted by the precinct to which the subject officer is assigned and which is monitored by the

ICO.

39. “Misconduct” means conduct by an officer or other SPD employee that, if proven

by a preponderance of evidence, would be a violation of law; or a violation of SPD policy or

procedure, rules and regulations, including, but not limited to, the improper use of force or

discriminatory policing.

40. “Misconduct complaint” means any allegation of improper conduct by an officer

or other SPD employee, whether the complaint alleges corruption or other criminal misconduct;

a violation of law; or a violation of SPD policy or procedure, rules, and regulations, including,

but not limited to, the improper use of force or discriminatory policing.

41. The “Monitor” means a person who shall be selected to monitor and report on the

City and SPD’s implementation of this Agreement.

42. “Non-disciplinary corrective action” refers to action other than discipline taken by

a SPD supervisor to enable or encourage an officer to improve his or her performance.

43. “OPA” means the Office of Professional Accountability, the SPD unit charged

with, among other tasks, conducting or overseeing all internal and administrative investigations

of SPD officers, agents, and employees arising from complaints, whose current duties are

governed by Seattle City Ordinance 3.28.800ff.

44. “OPA Auditor” is the OPA Auditor, whose duties are governed by Seattle City

Ordinance 3.28.850ff.

45. “OPA-RB” is the OPA Review Board, whose duties are governed by Seattle City

Ordinance 3.28.900ff.

46. “Passive resistance” means non-compliance with officer commands that is non-

violent and is less aggressive than active resistance.

47. “Personnel” means SPD officers and employees.

48. “Police officer” or “officer” means any law enforcement agent employed by SPD,

including supervisors and cadets.

49. “Policies and procedures” means regulations or directives, regardless of the name,

describing the duties, functions, and obligations of SPD officers and/or employees, and

providing specific direction in how to fulfill those duties, functions, or obligations.




Seattle, WA 98101-1271 (206) 553-7970

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

50. “Precinct” refers to one of the five police service areas of SPD, which together

cover the entire geographic area of the City of Seattle and each of which is led through the chain-

of-command by a precinct commander.

51. “Probable cause” means reasonably trustworthy facts and circumstances that,

within the totality of the circumstances, lead an officer to reasonably believe that an individual

has committed or is committing a crime.

52. “PSS” is the “Professional Standards Section,” which is the SPD unit responsible

for conducting research on standards and best practices, internal audits and inspections, and

managing strategic initiatives.

53. “Reasonable force” means that force which an ordinary, prudent, and reasonable

officer placed in the same position with the same knowledge would find to be reasonably

necessary to effect compliance or arrest. In determining whether the force used by a police

officer in effectuating an arrest was reasonable under the circumstances, factors to be considered

are: (1) the known character of the arrestee; (2) the risks and dangers faced by the officers and

third parties; (3) the nature of the offense involved; (4) the chance of the arrestee’s escape if the

particular means are not employed; (5) the existence of alternative methods of arrest; (6) the

physical size, strength, and weaponry of the officers as compared to the arrestee; and (7) the

exigency of the moment. Force that is not “reasonable” is “unreasonable.”

54. “Reasonable suspicion” means articulable facts that, within the totality of the

circumstances, lead an officer to reasonably suspect that criminal activity has been or is about to

be committed.

55. “Seizure” or “detention” means a restriction on the liberty interest of an

individual. A seizure occurs when an officer’s words or actions convey to a reasonable person

that he or she is not free to leave.

56. “Serious use of force” means: (1) all uses of force by a SPD officer that

reasonably appear to create or do create a substantial risk of death, serious disfigurement,

disability, or impairment of the functioning of any body part or organ; (2) all critical firearm

discharges by a SPD officer; (3) all uses of force by a SPD officer resulting in a significant

injury, including, but not limited to, a broken bone, an injury requiring hospitalization, an injury

requiring medical care above first aid, or an injury deemed to be serious by an officer’s

supervisor; (4) all head (including face), neck, and throat strikes with or without a weapon,




Seattle, WA 98101-1271 (206) 553-7970

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

including neck holds; (5) force used on the following individuals: juveniles known or presumed

to be under 16, and females known or presumed to be pregnant; (6) all uses of force by a SPD

officer resulting in a loss of consciousness; (7) all canine apprehensions where injury occurs;

(8) more than two applications of an ECW on an individual during a single interaction,

regardless of the mode or duration of the application, and whether the applications are by the

same or different officers, or ECW application for longer than 15 seconds, whether continuous or

consecutive; (9) any strike, blow, kick, ECW application, or similar use of force against a

handcuffed, otherwise restrained, under control, or in custody subject with or without injury; and

(10) any use of force referred by an officer’s supervisor to FIT and deemed in FIT’s discretion to

be serious.

57. “Shall” means that the provision imposes a mandatory duty.

58. “Social contact” means a purely voluntary and consensual encounter between a

SPD officer and a civilian. During a social contact, a civilian is free to walk away from the

officer at any time.

59. “Span of control” indicates the number of officers within the supervision of a

supervisor.

60. “SPD Manual” refers to SPD’s Policy and Procedure Manual, revised

May 21, 2011.

61. “SPD unit” or “unit” means any designated organization of officers within SPD,

including precincts and specialized units.

62. The “Street Check” database is the SPD database that documents incidents if an

individual is detained in handcuffs and subsequently released (see SPD Manual 6.010.III.2), a

field interview concerning suspicious activity (see SPD Manual 6.220.IV.A), and any incident

where no offense or other police incident has occurred (see SPD MRE (Mobile Reporting Entry)

Training Manual).

63. “Supervisor” means a sworn SPD employee at the rank of sergeant or above

(or anyone acting in those capacities) and non-sworn personnel with oversight responsibility for

other officers.

64. “Training” means any adult- learning methods that incorporate role-playing

scenarios and interactive exercises that instruct officers about how to exercise their discretion at




Seattle, WA 98101-1271 (206) 553-7970

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

an administrative level, as well as traditional lecture formats. Training also includes testing

and/or writings that indicate that the officer comprehends the material taught.

65. “Use of force” means any physical coercion used to effect, influence, or persuade

an individual to comply with an order from an officer, above unresisted handcuffing, including

actively pointing a firearm.

66. “Use of force indicating criminal conduct by an officer” means that force which a

reasonable and trained supervisor would conclude could result in criminal charges due to the

apparent circumstances of the use of force, such as: (a) the level of the force used as compared to

the offense committed or resistance encountered; (b) material discrepancies in the use of force as

described by the officer; or (c) the use of force as evidenced by any resulting injuries, witness

statements, or other evidence. It includes, but is not limited to, all strikes, blows, kicks,

ECW applications, or other similar uses of force against a handcuffed subject.


APPENDIX 2: POLICY DEVELOPMENT, REVIEW & IMPLEMENTATION - 1 12-CV-


Seattle, WA 98101-1271 (206) 553-7970

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

1. Unless otherwise noted, all policies, procedures, and manuals required by this

Agreement shall be fully drafted and implemented within 180 days of the Effective Date.

APPENDIX 2: POLICY DEVELOPMENT, REVIEW & IMPLEMENTATION

2. SPD policies and procedures required or referenced by this Agreement shall

define terms clearly, comply with applicable law and the requirements of this Agreement, and

comport with best practices and current professional standards. Further, in consultation with the

City Leadership, SPD shall adopt all policies necessary to effectuate the letter and spirit of this

Agreement.

3. SPD shall submit its revised policies, procedures, and manuals to the Monitor and

DOJ for review and comment prior to publication and implementation. The Monitor shall

provide the Parties with written comments regarding any concerns with any of the policies. If

any Party disagrees with the proposed policies or the Monitor’s comments, the Party shall, within

ten days of being informed of the Monitor’s comments, inform the Parties in writing of the fact

of the disagreement. Within 14 days thereafter, the Parties shall meet and confer on the

disagreement at a mutually agreeable time. If necessary, and consistent with the other deadlines

herein, any party may petition the Court thereafter to resolve the dispute. Upon approval by DOJ

and the Monitor, policies and procedures shall be implemented within 30 days of agreement or

the Court’s decision.

4. The PSS shall review each policy or procedure required by this Agreement

180 days after it is implemented, and annually thereafter (on a regularly published schedule), to

ensure that the policy or procedure provides effective direction to SPD personnel and remains

consistent with the purpose and requirements of this Agreement, best practices, current law, and

professional standards, including incorporating mechanisms to promote and measure

accountability and community engagement. The PSS shall provide notice and solicit comment

from the community as part of its review. The PSS also shall review policies and procedures as

necessary whenever it has notice of a policy deficiency. Within 60 days of that review, the PSS

shall revise the policy or procedure and, if necessary, submit it to the Monitor and DOJ for

review and approval.

5. SPD shall apply policies uniformly and hold officers accountable for complying

with SPD policy and procedure.


APPENDIX 3: USE OF FORCE WEAPON-SPECIFIC POLICIES - 1 12-CV-


Seattle, WA 98101-1271 (206) 553-7970

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

A. Use of Firearms

APPENDIX 3: USE OF FORCE WEAPON-SPECIFIC POLICIES

1. SPD Manual 8.060 regarding Officer Discharges of Firearms shall be revised so

that critical firearms discharge-related data, as well as data regarding accidental discharges, are

tracked in EIS, SPD’s annual use of force report, and the OPA Director’s use of force reports.

B. Electronic Control Weapons

2. SPD shall develop an ECW policy that complies with applicable law and the

requirements of this Agreement. The ECW policy shall formalize the training and tactics

guidance already contained in SPD Directive D05-016 regarding Less-Lethal Options and SPD’s

Annual TASER Recertification Course, including the following:

a) Unless it would present a danger to the officer or others, officers shall

issue a verbal warning to the subject that the ECW will be used prior to

use. See SPD Directive D05-016.

b) After one standard ECW cycle (5 seconds), the officer shall reevaluate the

situation to determine if subsequent cycles are necessary, including

waiting for a reasonable amount of time to allow the subject to comply

with the warning. See SPD 2009 On-Line Recertification Review.

c) Officers shall be trained in the risks of prolonged or repeated

ECW exposure.

d) Officers shall clearly articulate and justify each and every cycle used

against a subject in a written use of force report. See SPD 2009 On-Line

Recertification Review.

e) ECWs shall not be used in drive stun mode as a pain compliance

technique. ECWs shall be used in drive stun mode only to supplement the

probe mode to complete the incapacitation circuit, or as a countermeasure

to gain separation between officers and the subject so that officers can

consider another force option. See SPD’s Annual TASER Recertification

Course.

f) SPD shall continue to require officers to keep ECWs in a weak-side

holster to reduce the chances of accidentally drawing and/or firing a

firearm. See SPD Manual 9.050.XIV.B.4.




Seattle, WA 98101-1271 (206) 553-7970

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

g) Officers shall report all ECW discharges, except for training discharges, to

their supervisor and the communications command center as soon as

possible. See SPD Manual 6.240.XII.A.5.

h) Officers shall be trained in and follow protocols developed by SPD in

conjunction with medical professionals, on their responsibilities following

ECW use. See SPD’s Annual TASER Recertification Course.

3. In addition to its existing training and directive, SPD shall also incorporate the

following guidance in its ECW policy:

a) Only one ECW at a time may be used against a subject, except where

lethal force would be permitted.

b) ECWs may not be used against pregnant women, elderly persons,

children, or visibly frail persons, except where lethal force would be

permitted, or the officer has reasonable cause to believe there is an

imminent risk of serious bodily harm to themselves or others, and lesser

force options are not feasible.

c) ECWs may not be applied to a subject’s head, neck, or genitalia, absent

exigent circumstances.

d) ECWs shall not be used on handcuffed or otherwise restrained persons,

except in exigent circumstances.

e) ECWs will not be used where such deployment may cause serious injury

or death from situational hazards, including falling, drowning, losing

control of a moving vehicle, or becoming ignited from the presence of a

potentially explosive or flammable material or substance, except where

lethal force would be permitted.

f) Officers shall receive annual ECW certifications, which should consist of

physical competency; weapon retention; SPD policy, including any policy

changes; technology changes; and scenario-based training.

4. SPD shall develop and implement integrity safeguards on the use of ECWs to

ensure compliance with SPD policy, including conducting random and directed audits of

ECW deployment data. The audits should compare the downloaded data to the officer’s report




Seattle, WA 98101-1271 (206) 553-7970

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

on use of force. Discrepancies within the audit should be addressed and appropriately

investigated.

5. In consultation with DOJ and the Monitor, within 90 days of the Effective Date,

SPD shall propose whether or not to issue ECWs to all patrol officers in the Seattle downtown

area (D, M, and K sectors) of the West Precinct, after proper training and certification. If, with

DOJ and the Monitor’s approval, SPD does issue ECWs to all properly trained and certified

patrol officers, the PSS, OPA, and FRB shall conduct an analysis of such a deployment 180 days

after its implementation. DOJ and the Monitor shall review this analysis, and if they assess that

any changes in implementation are necessary, such changes will be agreed upon by all Parties.

6. SPD shall include the number of ECWs in operation and the number of ECW uses

as elements of EIS. Analysis of this data shall include a determination of whether ECWs result

in an increase in the use of force and whether officer and subject injuries are affected by the rate

of ECW use. ECW data and analysis shall be included in SPD's use of force annual report.

C. Oleoresin Capsicum Spray

7. SPD shall develop an Oleoresin Capsicum Spray (“OC Spray”) policy that

complies with applicable law and the requirements of this Agreement. This policy shall provide

guidance regarding the appropriate use of OC Spray on an individual subject as well as use on

crowds. The OC Spray policy and training shall incorporate the guidance contained within the

SPD Post-Basic Law Enforcement Academy (“BLEA”) course on Less-Lethal Force, including

the following:

a) Subject to the further guidance below, officers shall use OC Spray only

when such force is necessary to disburse an unlawful gathering or to

protect the officer, the subject, or another party from physical harm, and

other less intrusive means are ineffective.

b) Unless it would present a danger to the officer or others, officers shall

issue a verbal warning to the subject or crowd that OC Spray will be used

prior to use, and, where feasible, the officer shall defer using OC Spray a

reasonable amount of time to allow the subject to comply with the

warning.

c) Officers shall use only agency- issued and approved OC Spray.




Seattle, WA 98101-1271 (206) 553-7970

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

d) Officers shall be trained in and follow protocols developed by SPD in

conjunction with medical professionals on their responsibilities following

OC Spray use. Officers shall request medical response or assistance for

subjects exposed to chemical spray when they complain of continued

effects after having been decontaminated, or they indicate that they have a

pre-existing medical condition (e.g., asthma, emphysema, bronchitis, heart

ailment, etc.) that may be aggravated by chemical spray.

8. In addition to its existing training and directive, SPD shall also incorporate the

following:

a) Absent exigent circumstances, officers shall: (a) spray at a distance of

four to six feet from the subject; (b) shall not spray at a distance closer

than 20 inches from the subject; and (3) shall target only the subject’s face

and upper torso.

b) After one standard OC Spray (one second), the officer will reevaluate the

situation to determine if subsequent sprays are necessary or effective.

c) OC Spray shall not be used on handcuffed or otherwise restrained persons,

except in exigent circumstances.

d) Officers shall not use prone restraint after an OC Spray application.

Officers shall be trained in the potential for increased risk of harm when

using certain forms of restraint, such as prone restraint.

e) SPD shall ensure that officers are trained on SPD Manual 14.090.D

regarding the “Use of Chemical Agents in Civil Disobedience, Crowd or

Riot Situations Involving Unlawful Activity.”

9. SPD shall maintain written documentation of (1) the number of OC Spray

canisters annually distributed to, and utilized by, each officer; and (2) the exchange of empty or

used canisters for new canisters, including the length of time the officer had the canister and the

number of uses of chemical spray reported by the officer during that time period, including the

corresponding use of force report tracking number. Any discrepancies between the recorded

weight and the officer’s reported use shall be immediately investigated. OC Spray data and

analysis of this data shall be included in SPD’s use of force annual report and tracked in EIS.




Seattle, WA 98101-1271 (206) 553-7970

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

10. In consultation with DOJ and the Monitor, within 90 days of the Effective Date,

SPD shall examine its use of the large canister (“frogger”) OC spray. If, with DOJ and the

Monitor’s approval, SPD continues to deploy large canister OC spray, it will develop protocols

and policies consistent with the foregoing section.

D. Batons

11. SPD’s current use of force policy does not provide explicit guidance regarding

proper use of the baton. See SPD Manual 6.240. SPD shall develop a baton policy that complies

with applicable law and the requirements of this Agreement. The baton policy and training shall

recognize the multiple circumstances under which its use is appropriate, and incorporate the

guidance contained within this section of this Agreement.

12. SPD shall limit the active use of batons as an impact weapon to situations in

which such force is necessary to protect the officer, the subject, or another party from immediate

physical harm, and other less intrusive means are ineffective. Batons may also be used passively

in other lower level confrontations (e.g., as a defensive weapon or as a means of overcoming

resistance, as when it is used in the two-hand horizontal thrust on a police line; as a show of

force; or as a means to gain compliance in crowd control scenarios) in line with the use of force

principles articulated in Section III.A of this Agreement. Batons may not be applied to a

subject’s head, neck, or other vital areas, except where lethal force is authorized.

13. Batons shall not be used on handcuffed or otherwise restrained persons, persons

under control, or persons complying with police direction, except in exigent circumstances.

14. Officers shall be trained in and follow protocols developed by SPD on the use of a

baton.

15. Officers shall report all baton uses in use of force reports. Officers shall clearly

articulate and justify each and every use of a baton against a subject in a written use of force

report. See SPD Manual 6.240.

E. Flashlights

16. SPD’s current use of force policy does not provide explicit guidance regarding

proper use of the flashlight. See SPD Manual 6.240. SPD shall develop a flashlight policy and

provide training that complies with applicable law and the requirements of this Agreement. The

flashlight policy and training shall incorporate the guidance contained within this section of this

Agreement.




Seattle, WA 98101-1271 (206) 553-7970

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

17. SPD shall limit the active use of flashlights to situations in which such force is

necessary to protect the officer, the subject, or another party from immediate physical harm, and

other less intrusive means are ineffective. Flashlights may not be applied to a subject’s head,

neck, or other vital areas, except where lethal force is authorized.

18. Flashlights shall not be used on handcuffed or otherwise restrained persons,

persons under control, or persons complying with police direction, except in exigent

circumstances.

19. Officers shall only be permitted to use department-authorized flashlights that are

of uniform weight and size, and after meeting training and certification requirements.

20. Officers shall be trained in and follow protocols developed by SPD on the use of a

flashlight.

21. Officers shall report all flashlight uses in a use of force report. Officers shall

clearly articulate and justify each and every use of a flashlight against a subject in a written use

of force report. See SPD Manual 6.240.


APPENDIX 4: USE OF FORCE REVIEW PROCESS - 1 12-CV-


Seattle, WA 98101-1271 (206) 553-7970

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

A. Supervisory Investigations

APPENDIX 4: USE OF FORCE REVIEW PROCESS

1. SPD Manual 6.240, and any other policies that affect the use of force review

process, shall be revised to include the following:

2. The investigating supervisor at a use of force incident shall:

a) respond to the scene, examine the subject of the force for injury, interview

the subject for complaints of pain, and where necessary ensure that the

subject receives medical attention from an appropriate medical provider.

Cf. SPD Manual 6.240.XII.B.1;

b) in every incident involving a serious use of force, or any use of force

indicating criminal conduct by an officer, the supervisor shall immediately

notify FIT. A supervisor retains the discretion to refer any use of force to

FIT for FIT’s determination of whether to take investigatory responsibility

over the matter. Otherwise, the supervisor shall:

(1) canvass, identify, and secure all relevant evidence and shall

evaluate that evidence to determine whether the use of force:

(i) was consistent with SPD policy, constitutional standards, and

best practices; and/or (ii) raises any policy, training, tactical, or

equipment concerns. See SPD Manual 6.240.XII.B.8.e.(4);

(2) ensure collection of all evidence to establish material facts related

to the use of force, including, but not limited to, physical evidence,

audio and video recordings, photographs, and other documentation

of injuries or the absence of injuries. See SPD Manual

6.240.XII.B.4;

(3) canvass for and interview all civilian witnesses, including the

subject and third parties. Supervisors shall not ask any witnesses

(whether officers or civilians) leading questions that improperly

suggest legal justifications for the officers’ conduct. Where

practicable, investigating supervisors shall record all interviews

with civilian witnesses and all follow-up interviews with officers.

In addition, civilian witnesses should be encouraged to provide and




Seattle, WA 98101-1271 (206) 553-7970

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

sign a written report in their own words. Cf. SPD Manual

6.240.XII.B.8.d;

(4) ensure that all officer witnesses provide a statement regarding the

incident. Officers involved in a use of force incident shall be

separated until they are interviewed. Group interviews shall be

prohibited. Cf. SPD Manual 6.240.XII.B.8.d;

(5) require each officer at the scene to describe what he/she did and

saw as comprehensively and descriptively as possible. In other

words, supervisors shall not permit officers to describe their

actions in use of force incidents in isolation without referencing

whether other officers used force or the timing of other officers’

uses of force; and supervisors shall require officers to use

descriptive, not patterned, language in their use of force reports.

See SPD Manual 6.240.XII.A.5;

(6) ensure that all use of force reports identify all officers who were

involved in the incident or were on the scene when it occurred;

(7) review all use of force reports and ensure that all reports include

the information required by this Agreement and SPD policy;

(8) consider all relevant evidence, including circumstantial, direct, and

physical evidence and make credibility determinations and resolve

material inconsistencies in statements, if feasible. Specifically, the

supervisor shall assess the subject’s injuries and determine whether

the subject’s injuries are proportional to the amount of force used

by the officer(s). Where a reasonable and trained supervisor would

determine that there may have been misconduct, the supervisor

shall immediately notify OPA to respond to the scene and conduct

or complete the investigation. Where there is no misconduct,

supervisors also shall determine whether additional training or

counseling is warranted; and




Seattle, WA 98101-1271 (206) 553-7970

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

(9) determine whether the officer’s use of force was lawful, and

determine whether the stop of the civilian leading to the use of

force was lawful.

B. Supervisor’s Force Investigation Report

3. Each supervisor shall provide a written report to the unit commander by the end

of the shift during which the force occurred, documenting the supervisor’s preliminary

determination of the appropriateness of the use of force, including whether the force used was

consistent with SPD policy, constitutional standards, and best practices; whether the injuries

appear proportionate to the use of force described; and summaries of subject, witness, and officer

statements. If a supervisor is unable to assess the appropriateness of the use of force, whether or

not misconduct is suspected, the supervisor shall immediately refer the matter to OPA to conduct

an independent investigation.

4. Each supervisor shall complete and document a use of force supervisory

investigation using a Supervisor’s Force Investigation Report (a revised form 1.40b) within

72 hours of learning of the use of force. See SPD Manual 6.240.XII.B.8. Because the

Supervisor’s Force Investigation Report is so crucial to the reporting, investigation, and

supervision of uses of force, SPD shall revise its use of force policy to require the Supervisor’s

Report to include the following:

a) the supervisor’s narrative description of the incident, including a precise

description of the evidence that either justifies or fails to justify the

officer’s conduct based on the supervisor’s independent review of the facts

and circumstances of the incident. See SPD Manual 6.240.XII.B.8.b &

6.240.XII.B.8.c.(2). A supervisor’s narrative shall detail every use of

force used by every officer and subject, and every injury sustained by the

subject and officer, and shall describe the sequence of events from each

officer’s use of force statements and other evidence to “make sense” of

what happened. Such analysis will provide a commander reviewing the

supervisor’s analysis a complete understanding of the incident from

beginning to end, including, crucially, when each officer used force, why

the force was necessary at each point in time, and how each injury, if any,

occurred;




Seattle, WA 98101-1271 (206) 553-7970

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

b) documentation of all evidence that was gathered, including physical

evidence; photographs; and names, phone numbers, addresses, and

summaries of statements by all civilian witnesses to the incident. See SPD

Manual 6.240.XII.B.8.d. In situations in which there are no known

witnesses, the report shall specifically state this fact. In situations in

which witnesses were present but circumstances prevented the author of

the report from determining the identification, phone number, or address

of those witnesses, the report shall state the reasons why. The report

should also include all available identifying information for anyone who

refuses to provide a statement;

c) the names of all other SPD employees witnessing the use of force and

summaries of their statements. See SPD Manual 6.240.XII.B.8.d;

d) the investigating supervisor’s evaluation of the basis for the use of force,

including a determination of whether the officer’s actions appear

consistent with SPD policy, constitutional standards, and best practices

(See SPD Manual 6.240.XII.B.8.e.(4)); whether there is any evidence of

criminal conduct by the officer; and an assessment of the incident for

tactical and training implications, including whether the use of force may

have been avoided through the use of de-escalation techniques or lesser

force options;

e) the investigating supervisor’s evaluation of credibility determinations and

material inconsistencies in statements; and

f) documentation of any non-disciplinary corrective action to remedy

training deficiencies, policy deficiencies, or poor tactical decisions. This

non-disciplinary corrective action shall be tracked in EIS.

C. Use of Force Report Review by Chain of Command

5. SPD Policy 6.240.XII.B.11 already establishes a process by which the use of

force packet is forwarded through the chain of command to the involved employee’s bureau

commander. SPD shall revise and clarify the process for review of a use of force report to

incorporate the process detailed in this section of this Agreement.




Seattle, WA 98101-1271 (206) 553-7970

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

6. Upon completion of the Supervisor’s Force Investigation Report, the investigating

supervisor shall forward the report to the watch or unit commander, who shall review the report

to ensure that it is complete and that the findings are supported by a preponderance of the

evidence. The watch or unit commander shall order additional investigation when it appears that

there is additional relevant evidence that may assist in resolving inconsistencies or improve the

reliability or credibility of the findings.

7. Where the findings of the Supervisor’s Force Investigation Report are not

supported by a preponderance of the evidence, the watch or unit commander shall modify the

findings after consultation with the investigating supervisor, and document the reasons for this

modification, including the specific evidence or analysis supporting the modification. The watch

or unit commander shall counsel the investigating supervisor regarding the modification and of

any investigative deficiencies that led to it, and initiate corrective action where appropriate.

Even if there is no formal deficiency in the report, the watch or unit commander will determine

whether the supervisor could benefit from additional training or counseling. The watch or unit

commander shall be subject to corrective action or discipline for the accuracy and completeness

of use of force Supervisor’s Investigation Reports completed by supervisors under the command

of that watch or unit commander.

8. The watch or unit commander shall document any training deficiencies, policy

deficiencies, or poor tactical decisions, discuss these with the officer, and ensure they are being

tracked in EIS.

9. Upon completion of review of the Supervisor’s Force Investigation Report, the

watch or unit commander shall forward the report to the precinct or section commander, who

shall review the report to ensure that it is complete and that the findings are supported by a

preponderance of the evidence. The precinct or section commander shall order additional

investigation when it appears that there is additional relevant evidence that may assist in

resolving inconsistencies or improve the reliability or credibility of the findings.

10. Where the findings of the Supervisor’s Force Investigation Report are not

supported by a preponderance of the evidence, the precinct or section commander shall modify

the findings after consultation with the investigating supervisor and the watch or unit

commander, and document the reasons for this modification, including the specific evidence or

analysis supporting the modification. The precinct or section commander shall counsel the




Seattle, WA 98101-1271 (206) 553-7970

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

investigating supervisor regarding the modification and of any investigative deficiencies that led

to it, and initiate corrective action where appropriate. Even if there is no formal deficiency in the

report, the precinct or section commander will determine whether the first- or second-line

supervisors could benefit from additional training or counseling. The precinct or section

commander shall be subject to corrective action or discipline for the accuracy and completeness

of use of force Supervisor’s Investigation Reports completed by supervisors under the command

of that precinct or section commander.

11. The precinct or section commander shall document any training deficiencies,

policy deficiencies, or poor tactical decisions, and discuss these with the watch and unit

commanders, the supervisor, and the officer.

12. Where an investigating supervisor repeatedly conducts deficient investigations,

the supervisor shall receive the appropriate corrective action, including training, demotion,

and/or removal from a supervisory position. Where a watch or unit commander, or precinct or

section commander, repeatedly permits deficient investigations, the watch or unit commander, or

precinct or section commander, shall receive the appropriate corrective action, including training,

demotion, and/or removal from a supervisory position.

13. Whenever an investigating supervisor, watch or unit commander, or precinct or

section commander finds evidence of apparent criminal conduct by an officer, he or she shall

suspend the investigation immediately and notify FIT, the Seattle City Attorney, OPA, and FRC.

The City Attorney shall determine whether a referral needs to be made to the King County

Prosecuting Attorney’s Office (“KCPAO”), the FBI, and the First Assistant United States

Attorney of the USAO or the United States Attorney’s designee.

14. Whenever a watch or unit commander, or precinct or section commander finds

evidence of apparent misconduct by a SPD officer or employee, he or she shall report the matter

directly to OPA for review and investigation.

15. When the precinct commander finds that the investigation is complete and the

findings are supported by the evidence, the investigation file shall be forwarded to the Assistant

Chief of Patrol Operations, who shall review the investigation to ensure that it is complete and

that the findings are supported by the evidence, as described below. The Assistant Chief of

Patrol Operations shall employ his Force Review Board to assist in the review of these use of

force reports.




Seattle, WA 98101-1271 (206) 553-7970

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

16. At the discretion of the COP, his designee, or OPA, a use of force investigation

may be assigned or re-assigned for investigation to FIT or to another supervisor, whether within

or outside of the precinct in which the incident occurred, or may be returned to the Unit for

further investigation or analysis. This assignment or re-assignment shall be explained in writing.

17. Where, after investigation, a use of force is found to be out of policy or in

violation of constitutional standards, the COP shall direct and ensure appropriate discipline.

Where the use of force indicates policy, training, tactical, or equipment concerns, the COP shall

ensure also that necessary training is delivered and that policy, tactical, or equipment concerns

are resolved.

D. Force Investigation Teams

18. SPD shall ensure that FIT is staffed with individuals with appropriate expertise,

independence, and investigative skills to ensure that serious uses of force that are contrary to law

or policy are identified and appropriately resolved; that policy, training, equipment, or tactical

deficiencies related to the use of force are identified and corrected; and that investigations of

sufficient quality to ensure that officers are held accountable as necessary. To achieve this

outcome, SPD shall:

a) Create a FIT to conduct investigations of (1) all serious uses of force,

except for firearms discharges (which will continue to be reviewed by the

FRB); (2) a use of force indicating criminal conduct by an officer; (3) uses

of force by SPD personnel of a rank higher than sergeant; or (4) uses of

force reassigned to FIT by the COP or his/her designee. Cf. SPD

Manual 6.240.XII.B.11. Response by FIT to the scene of such incidents

does not presume an administrative or policy violation has occurred.

b) FIT shall be comprised of personnel who are specially trained in both

criminal and administrative force investigations. FIT members will

include several representatives from OPA, the Training Section, and a

representative from the Seattle City Attorney’s Office. At least one

member of FIT shall be available at all times to evaluate referrals from an

officer’s supervisors.

c) FIT investigations may result in criminal charges, administrative action, or

both. If a FIT investigation, at any point, reveals officer misconduct, FIT




Seattle, WA 98101-1271 (206) 553-7970

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

shall directly refer its investigation report to OPA for discipline. OPA

retains the discretion to investigate the matter further or rely on FIT’s

investigation.

d) Within 90 days from the Effective Date, SPD shall recruit, assign, and

train a sufficient number of personnel to FIT to fulfill the requirements of

this Agreement. Prior to performing FIT duties, FIT members shall

receive FIT-specific training in FIT procedures; call out and investigative

protocols; Homicide Unit and OIS investigative protocols; proper roles of

on-scene counterparts such as crime scene technicians, Seattle City

Attorney’s Office and the Monitor; investigative documentation; accident

reconstruction; and investigative equipment and techniques. FIT members

shall also receive FIT-specific annual in-service training.

e) SPD shall create a FIT procedural manual to be approved by DOJ and the

Monitor. DOJ and the Monitor shall assess and approve the number of

hours of training and the curriculum. The procedural manual shall

include:

(1) definitions of all relevant terms;

(2) clear statements of the mission and authority of FIT;

(3) procedures on report writing;

(4) procedures for collecting and processing evidence;

(5) procedures to ensure appropriate separation of criminal and

administrative investigations in the event of compelled subject

officer statements;

(6) procedures for consulting with the King County Prosecutor’s

Office, including ensuring that administrative investigations are

not unnecessarily delayed while a criminal investigation is

pending;

(7) scene management procedures; and

(8) management procedures.

19. In conducting its investigation, FIT shall carry out the same investigatory

responsibilities required by SPD policy and Appendix 4A.




Seattle, WA 98101-1271 (206) 553-7970

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

20. FIT shall complete a preliminary report to be presented to the COP or the COP’s

designee as soon as possible, but in no circumstances later than 12 hours after learning of the use

of force.

21. FIT shall complete its administrative use of force investigation within 30 days

from the use of force. At the conclusion of each use of force investigation, FIT shall prepare a

report on the investigation. The report shall include the elements required by SPD policy and

Appendix 4B.

22. If FIT’s investigation concludes that misconduct may have occurred, FIT shall

forward its report and any other results of its investigation directly to OPA for review and

discipline, if warranted. OPA retains the discretion to investigate the matter further or rely on

FIT’s investigation

E. Force Review Committee

23. The FRC shall conduct timely, comprehensive, and reliable reviews. To

accomplish these goals, the FRC shall conduct the duties identified below:

a) Review each FIT investigation within 30 days of receiving the FIT

investigation report to ensure that it is complete and that the findings are

supported by a preponderance of the evidence.

b) Hear the case presentation from the lead investigator and discuss the case

as necessary with the investigator to gain a full understanding of the facts

of the incident. The officer(s) who used the force subject to investigation,

or who are otherwise the subject of the FIT investigation, shall not be

present.

c) Order additional investigation when it appears that there is additional

relevant evidence that may assist in resolving inconsistencies or improve

the reliability or credibility of the findings. Where the findings are not

supported by a preponderance of the evidence, the FRC shall modify the

findings and document the reasons for this modification, including the

specific evidence or analysis supporting the modification.

d) Determine whether the force violated SPD policy, constitutional standards,

or best practices. If the force violated SPD policy, constitutional




Seattle, WA 98101-1271 (206) 553-7970

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

standards, and best practices, the FRC shall refer it to OPA for disciplinary

action if warranted.

e) Determine whether the incident raises policy, training, equipment, or

tactical concerns, and refer such incidents to the PSS to ensure they are

resolved.

f) Direct precinct supervisors to take and document non-disciplinary

corrective action to enable or encourage an officer to improve his or her

performance.

g) Document its findings and recommendations in a FRC Report within

45 days of receiving the FIT investigation and within 15 days of the FRC

case presentation.


APPENDIX 5: TRAINING - 1 12-CV-


Seattle, WA 98101-1271 (206) 553-7970

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

A. Patrol Officers

APPENDIX 5: TRAINING

1. SPD shall provide all SPD patrol officers with 40 hours of in-service training on

an annual basis based on developments in applicable law and SPD policy.

2. SPD officers shall receive training on the following topics:

a) Use of Force

(1) SPD’s use of force policy, use of force reporting requirements, and

the mechanics of efficiently writing an informative use of force

report;

(2) proper use of force decision making;

(3) the Fourth Amendment and related law;

(4) role-playing scenarios and interactive exercises that illustrate

proper use of force decision making, including training officers on

the importance and impact of ethical decision making and peer

intervention;

(5) the proper deployment and use of all intermediate weapons or

technologies, including batons, OC Spray, and ECWs;

(6) the use of force that is proportionate to the amount of force and

resistance exhibited by an individual;

(7) integrated de-escalation techniques that encourage officers to make

arrests without using force; prior engagement training that

encourages officers to avoid situations where force may be

necessary; and instruction that disengagement, area containment,

surveillance, waiting out a subject, summoning reinforcements,

calling in specialized units, or delaying arrest may be the

appropriate response to a situation, even when the use of force

would be legally justified. Many of these topics will already be

covered by the LEED curriculum that is in development;

(8) threat assessment;

(9) basic crisis intervention and interacting with people with mental

illnesses, including instruction by mental health practitioners and




Seattle, WA 98101-1271 (206) 553-7970

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

an emphasis on de-escalation strategies, as further described in

Appendix 6; and

(10) appropriate training on conflict management and how to respond to

contemptuous behavior from the public.

b) Social Contact and Investigatory Stops

(1) the importance of social stops for effective policing and

community relations and trust;

(2) Fourth Amendment and related law; SPD policies, and

requirements in this Agreement regarding investigatory stops and

detentions;

(3) First Amendment and related law in the context of the rights of

individuals to verbally dispute officer conduct. Specifically,

officers shall be trained not to retaliate against onlookers or

bystanders simply because they comment on officer conduct,

including stops, detentions, searches, arrests, or uses of force in

accordance with their rights, privileges, and immunities protected

by the Constitution or the laws of the United States. Officers shall

respect the rights of civilians to comment on or complain about the

performance of police duties occurring in public, and SPD shall

ensure that officers understand that exercising this right serves

important public purposes;

(4) legal distinction between social contacts and investigatory

Terry stops;

(5) distinction between various police contacts according to the scope

and level of police intrusion, including the distinction between a

social contact and an investigatory stop, probable cause, reasonable

suspicion, and mere speculation; and the distinction between

voluntary consent and mere acquiescence to police authority; and

(6) the facts and circumstances that should be considered in initiating,

conducting, terminating, and expanding an investigatory stop or

detention.




Seattle, WA 98101-1271 (206) 553-7970

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

c) Documentation of Investigatory Stops

(1) collection of stop data described in Section XI.C, including

guidance on documenting demographic data;

(2) describing the reason for the stop, including a description of the

facts creating reasonable suspicion;

(3) calling investigatory stops into dispatch for officer safety reasons;

and

(4) entering investigatory stops in the Street Check database.

d) Strategies to Prevent Discriminatory Policing

(1) methods and strategies for more effective policing that relies upon

non-discriminatory factors;

(2) police and community perspectives related to discriminatory

policing;

(3) constitutional and other legal requirements related to equal

protection and unlawful discrimination, including the requirements

of this Agreement;

(4) the protection of civil rights as a central part of the police mission

and as essential to effective policing;

(5) the existence and impact of arbitrary classifications, stereotyping,

and implicit bias;

(6) identification of key decision points where prohibited

discrimination can take effect at both the incident and strategic-

planning levels;

(7) methods, strategies, and techniques to reduce misunderstanding,

conflict, and complaints due to perceived bias or discrimination,

including problem-oriented policing strategies; and

(8) cultural competency training regarding the unique histories and

cultural differences of various racial and ethnic groups, including,

but not limited to, Native Americans. SPD shall solicit community

input regarding cultural competency training curricula.




Seattle, WA 98101-1271 (206) 553-7970

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

B. Supervisors

3. SPD shall provide all SPD supervisors with 40 hours of in-service training on an

annual basis based on developments in applicable law and SPD policy.

4. SPD supervisors shall receive training on the following topics:

a. Use of Force

(1) SPD’s use of force policy and use of force reporting requirements;

(2) conducting use of force investigations, including the supervisory

investigatory responsibilities identified in Appendix 4;

(3) evaluation of written reports, including what constitutes a fact-

based description, and how to identify conclusory, formulaic,

patterned, or non-descriptive language that is not supported by

specific facts;

(4) burdens of proof; interview techniques; and the factors to consider

when evaluating officer, complainant, or witness credibility, to

ensure that investigative findings, conclusions, and

recommendations are unbiased, uniform, and legally sound;

(5) strategies for effectively directing officers to minimize uses of

force and to intervene effectively to prevent or stop unreasonable

force;

(6) responding to and investigating allegations of officer misconduct;

(7) supporting officers who report unreasonable or unreported force,

or who are retaliated against for using only reasonable force or

attempting to prevent unreasonable force;

(8) techniques for effectively guiding and directing officers, and

promoting effective and ethical police practices; and

(9) LEED leadership training, and techniques for de-escalating

conflict, including peer intervention when necessary.

b. Use and Analysis of SPD Data Systems that Track Officer Activity

(1) EIS;

(2) ICV;

(3) Street Check database; and




Seattle, WA 98101-1271 (206) 553-7970

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

(4) incorporating integrity-related data into COMSTAT reporting.

c. OPA

(1) how to forward complaints received at precincts to OPA; and

(2) how to refer complaints to OPA.

d. Officer Mentoring and Performance Evaluation

(1) evaluating officer performance as part of SPD’s annual

performance evaluation system; and

(2) fostering positive career development and imposing appropriate

disciplinary sanctions and non-disciplinary corrective action.

e. Strategies to be Appropriately Proactive and Avoid Discriminatory

Policing

(1) what constitutes discriminatory policing under state, federal, and

constitutional law;

(2) how to identify discriminatory practices when reviewing

investigatory stop data, arrest data, and use of force data; and how

to respond to a complaint of discriminatory police practices,

including conducting a preliminary investigation of the complaint

in order to preserve key evidence and potential witnesses;

(3) how to evaluate complaints of pedestrian encounters for potential

discriminatory police practices;

(4) how to engage the community and develop positive relationships

with diverse community groups; and

(5) how to ensure that community relationships are positive, including

attendance at, and participation in, community meetings and

programs and making a presence through community-based

policing.

C. Commanders

5. SPD shall provide all SPD commanders with 40 hours of in-service training on an

annual basis based on developments in applicable law and SPD policy.




Seattle, WA 98101-1271 (206) 553-7970

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

6. SPD commanders shall receive training that includes the following:

a) Incident Management

(1) evaluation of written reports;

(2) strategies for effectively directing officers to minimize uses of

force;

(3) responding to allegations of officer misconduct;

(4) supporting officers who report unreasonable or unreported force,

or who are retaliated against for using only reasonable force or

attempting to prevent unreasonable force; and

(5) de-escalating conflict.

b) Ethics and Leadership

(1) techniques for effectively guiding and directing officers, and

promoting effective and ethical police practices.

c) Community Engagement

(1) how to engage the community and develop positive relationships

with diverse community groups; and

(2) how to ensure that community relationships are positive.


APPENDIX 6: CRISIS INTERVENTION - 1 12-CV-


Seattle, WA 98101-1271 (206) 553-7970

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

SPD shall implement the requirements set out below.

APPENDIX 6: CRISIS INTERVENTION

A. Program Development

1. Currently, SPD Policy 1.110.I.A.1.a directs the C-I-Team to “act as a liaison with

mental health professionals and respond to crisis situations involving mentally ill persons.” SPD

and the City shall expand its C-I-Team program to, among other things, develop and maintain

specially- trained C-I-Trained officers. This program shall incorporate the following

requirements:

a) Within 90 days of the Effective Date, SPD shall develop a C-I-Team

Planning Committee to direct the development and expansion of the C-I-

Team program. The Planning Committee shall include representation

from SPD command leadership, SPD’s PSS and Video and current C-I-

Team units, and SPD shall also seek representation from: the civilian

leadership of the City government; Public Health-Seattle & King County

(“PH-SKC”) and King County’s Sherriff’s Office; Washington State

Department of Social and Health Services’ Division of Behavioral Health

and Recovery (“DBHR”); the Washington affiliate of the National

Alliance on Mental Illness (“NAMI”); the Downtown Emergency Services

Center (“DESC”); professionals from the emergency health care receiving

facilities; the King County Jail; and mental health and homeless services

professionals and advocates or others. Each of the participants of the

Planning Committee should attend roll calls and the SPD citizen academy.

b) Within 180 days of the Effective Date, an operations subcommittee,

appointed by and reporting to the Planning Committee, shall develop

policies and procedures for the transfer of custody or voluntary referral of

individuals between SPD, receiving facilities, and local mental health and

social service agencies. These policies and procedures shall clearly

describe the roles and responsibilities of these entities and of C-I-Team

officers in the process.

c) Within 180 days of the Effective Date, SPD shall select C-I-Team officer

volunteers, based upon on supervisor recommendations, OPA records, and




Seattle, WA 98101-1271 (206) 553-7970

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

interviews. Preference should be given to officers with at least three years

of field experience. The goal is to have a sufficient number of C-I-Team

officers in each precinct for each shift to efficiently cover crisis events.

SPD shall conduct a data analysis to determine how many C-I-Team

officers are required.

d) C-I-Team officers shall be assigned to the patrol operations bureau and

maintain their standard patrol duties, except when called to respond to

potential behavioral or mental health crisis events.

e) C-I-Team officers who are dispatched to a crisis event shall have the

responsibility for the scene and discretion to determine strategies for

resolving the event unless an appropriate supervisor is present and

affirmatively assumes the scene responsibility.

f) SPD shall centrally track C-I-Team use through data provided by the C-I-

Team officer after each response and shall publically report this data,

consistent with privacy law, and include this information in CIT training

and roll calls as case studies. SPD shall gather and track the following

data at a minimum:

(1) date, time, and location of the incident;

(2) subject’s name, age, gender, and address;

(3) whether the subject was armed, and the type of weapon;

(4) whether the subject is a U.S. military veteran;

(5) complainant's name and address;

(6) name and badge number of C-I-Team officer on the scene;

(7) whether a supervisor responded to the scene;

(8) techniques or equipment used;

(9) any injuries to officers, subject, or others;

(10) disposition, and;

(11) brief narrative of the event (if not included in any other document).

B. C-I-Training

2. Within 180 days of the Effective Date, a curriculum subcommittee of the C-I-

Team planning committee shall develop a 40-hour curriculum and eight-hour annual in-service




Seattle, WA 98101-1271 (206) 553-7970

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

training for the C-I-Team, based on the national C-I-Team model. The Monitor shall assess the

number of hours of C-I-Training that should be required for patrol officers not on the C-I-Team,

based on the training for the C-I-Team. The curriculum subcommittee may adapt BLEA or

SPD’s existing training curriculum for this purpose. C-I-Training faculty should include

volunteer local area professionals and advocates to the greatest extent possible. This C-I-

Training shall emphasize mental health-related topics, crisis resolution skills and de-escalation

training, and access to community-based services. The training, both for members of the C-I-

Team or those who are not, shall include not only lecture-based instruction, but also on-site

visitation and exposure to mental health facilities, intensive interaction with individuals with a

mental illness, and scenario-based de-escalation skill training. The C-I-Training shall include

when the C-I-Team should be consulted, and how situations involving impaired subjects should

be addressed when C-I-Team cannot respond. Additionally, the C-I-Training shall provide clear

guidance as to when an officer may detain an individual solely because of his/her crisis. The

City further shall consider funding a detoxification location and a Crisis Diversion Facility.

3. SPD shall require the volunteer officers selected for the C-I-Team program to

undergo the 40-hour initial comprehensive C-I-Training prior to being assigned C-I-Team duties,

and eight hours of in-service C-I-Training annually thereafter.

4. Within 30 days of the Effective Date, the Monitor shall determine how many

hours of C-I-Training shall be provided to all new officers and what percentage of current

officers in the patrol operations bureau (who have not received the training in the last three

years) require C-I-Training, with the goal of ensuring that C-I-Trained officers are assigned to

each shift in each precinct, whether or not the officers are in the C-I-Team program. Within one

year of the Effective Date, or within 180 days of an officer’s start date, the C-I-Training shall be

provided to new officers and current patrol operations bureau officers. SPD shall provide eight

hours of in-service C-I-Training tri-annually thereafter. The C-I-Training shall be in addition to

and integrated with tactics and LEED training.

5. Within 365 days of the Effective Date, SPD shall provide the 40-hour C-I-

Training to all new and current dispatchers to enable them to identify calls for service that

involve behavioral or mental health crisis events. SPD shall provide this training to new

dispatchers within 90 days of their start date. SPD shall include C-I-Training in annual in-

service training for dispatchers.




Seattle, WA 98101-1271 (206) 553-7970

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

6. Where possible, the City shall apply for reimbursement of the costs of these

trainings from King County’s Mental Illness - Drug Dependency Action Plan.

C. Maintenance of C-I-Team Program

7. SPD shall maintain the C-I-Team Planning Committee after the C-I-Team

program is operational. The Planning Committee shall serve as a problem-solving forum for

interagency issues and monitor ongoing outcome indicators collected by each agency. These

indicators shall include data such as C-I-Team use, C-I-Team behavioral event disposition data,

King County Jail booking data, the number of individuals with a mental health diagnosis at the

jail, and the transfer of custody and voluntary referral rates between SPD, emergency receiving

facilities, and community agencies. The Planning Committee should also track officer and

agency staff satisfaction with the transfer process, the recidivism rate in calls for service, the use

of the mental health commitment law, the availability of appropriate treatment options, and the

eventual resolution of transfers and referrals.

8. SPD shall use the outcome data generated through the process described above to

recognize individual C-I-Team officer performance that deserves commendation, develop new

response strategies for repeat calls for service, identify training needs for the annual in-service C-

I-Training, make C-I-Training curriculum changes, and identify systemic issues that impede

SPD’s ability to provide an appropriate response to a behavioral crisis event.


APPENDIX 7: SOCIAL CONTACT AND INVESTIGATORY STOP DATA COLLECTION - 1 12-CV-


Seattle, WA 98101-1271 (206) 553-7970

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

A. Street Check Database Revision

APPENDIX 7: SOCIAL CONTACT AND INVESTIGATORY STOP DATA COLLECTION

1. SPD officers shall submit documentation to the Street Check database after every

investigatory stop.

2. SPD’s revision of the Street Check database shall require officers to document the

following information:

a) the officer’s name and badge number. See SPD Manual 6.010.III.2.d;

b) the number of officers who initiated and/or participated in the stop;

c) date and time of the stop;

d) location of the stop. See SPD Manual 6.010.III.2.d;

e) duration of the stop;

f) officer’s perception of subject’s apparent race/ethnicity (including Latino

as a separate category), color, or national origin; gender and apparent age.

See SPD Manual.010.III.2.a;

g) reason for the stop, including a description of the facts creating reasonable

suspicion. See SPD Manual 6.010.III.2.b; and

h) disposition of the stop, including whether a citation was issued or an arrest

made to any individual.

B. Street Check Policy and Procedure Manual

3. SPD shall develop a data collection policy and procedure manual that describes

the SPD’s data collection systems, including, but not limited to, the Street Check database and

the CAD system. Currently, SPD does not have a policy and procedure manual for the Street

Check database. This policy shall:

a) require that officers enter all investigatory stops and searches in the Street

Check database;

b) require that all investigatory stops be called in to dispatch;

c) describe each data collection tool in detail, including the purpose of the

data collection, how the data is to be collected, and how it is to be

reviewed;




Seattle, WA 98101-1271 (206) 553-7970

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

d) describe the responsibility of supervisors regarding the oversight of data

collection and any corrective action necessitated by an officer’s failure to

comply with the policy;

e) require strict adherence to the data collection process, expressly denounce

any deviation from the policy, and indicate that corrective or disciplinary

action will be taken should officers refuse to adhere to the policy; and

f) provide training on how supervisors should review the data collected and

appropriate reporting mechanisms, as required by this Agreement.

C. Supervisory Review of Street Check Database

4. Absent exceptional circumstances, by the end of each shift, a supervisor shall

obtain and review a report on his/her supervisees’ Street Check database entries and shall

document: (1) those investigatory stops that appear unsupported by reasonable suspicion;

(2) stops in violation of SPD policy, federal or state law, or this Agreement; or (3) stops that

indicate a need for corrective action or review of agency policy, strategy, tactics, or training.

See SPD Manual 6.220.IV. The supervisor shall determine the need for and, if necessary, obtain

additional information before making any decision on corrective action.

5. The precinct captain shall review and refer to OPA all complaints related to

pedestrian stop encounters. The precinct captain additionally shall review the Street Check

database to determine whether additional information is necessary, and whether the stop was

appropriately reported according to policy. The precinct captain shall refer any repeated

deficiencies in recording stop data to OPA.

6. The precinct captain shall take appropriate action to address all violations or

deficiencies in social contacts and investigatory stops including recommending non-disciplinary

corrective action for the involved officer, and/or referring the incident for administrative or

criminal investigation.

7. The precinct captain shall track repeated violations or deficiencies and the

corrective action taken, if any, in EIS, to identify officers in need of corrective action. The

quality and completeness of these supervisory reviews shall be taken into account in the

supervisor’s own performance evaluations. SPD shall take appropriate corrective or disciplinary

action against supervisors who fail to conduct complete, thorough, and accurate reviews of

officers’ social contacts and investigatory stops.




Seattle, WA 98101-1271 (206) 553-7970

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

8. SPD shall develop a protocol for comprehensive analysis, on a semi-annual basis,

of precinct- level investigatory stop and search data collected in the Street Check database. This

protocol shall be subject to the review and approval of the Monitor and DOJ, and shall identify

and incorporate appropriate benchmarks for comparison.

9. On a semi-annual basis, SPD shall issue a report summarizing the investigatory

stop and search data collected, the analysis of that data, and the steps taken to correct problems

and build on successes. The report shall be publicly available. SPD shall ensure that databases

containing individual specific data comply fully with federal and state privacy standards

governing personally identifying information.

10. SPD shall retain basic demographic data related to stops, detentions, and searches

per the Department’s record-keeping policy. After five years, personally identifiable

information, including an individual’s name, address, and social security number (if collected),

should be removed for all individuals who were stopped, detained, and or searched without a

resulting charge.


APPENDIX 8: EARLY INTERVENTION SYSTEM - 1 12-CV-


Seattle, WA 98101-1271 (206) 553-7970

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

1. SPD shall review and adjust, where appropriate, the threshold levels for each of

the current EIS indicator criteria. See SPD Manual 3.070.II. The Monitor shall review and

approve the revised EIS threshold levels.

APPENDIX 8: EARLY INTERVENTION SYSTEM

2. In addition to the indicator data and threshold levels that EIS already collects

pursuant to SPD Manual 3.070.II, EIS shall be used to collect, maintain, integrate, and retrieve

the following data:

a) the number of ECW units in use and the number of canisters of OC Spray

used by officers;

b) all instances in which force is used and a subject is charged with resisting

or obstructing an officer, interfering with a law enforcement investigation,

disorderly conduct, or similar charges;

c) any violations of policy related to investigatory stops or uses of force;

d) all criminal proceedings initiated;

e) all arrests without probable cause or in which the individual was released

without formal charges being sought;

f) all disciplinary action taken against employees;

g) a revision of the aggregate indicator to track use of force incidents (see

SPD Manual 3.070.II.I); and

h) single-event thresholds that are so serious that they require immediate

intervention, including, but not limited to, critical discharges of a firearm

and in-custody deaths.

3. EIS shall also be used to track precinct- level activity, including collecting,

maintaining, and retrieving information related to:

a) uses of force;

b) OPA complaints (and their dispositions);

c) any violations of policy related to investigatory stops; and

d) the number of individual officers captured by EIS.

4. Within 30 days, SPD shall revise its EIS policy to include a mechanism for

intervention of an officer whose activity has already triggered a threshold for one of the EIS

indicator criteria, so that the threshold level is lower if EIS is triggered again. For example, if an




Seattle, WA 98101-1271 (206) 553-7970

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

officer has participated in seven uses of force in a six-month period, SPD shall design a protocol

for intervention before the officer is put in a position where he can participate in another seven

uses of force.

5. SPD will track an officer’s behavior to ensure that an EIS intervention is

successful and that the officer has not engaged in repeated instances of the behavior that led to

the initial EIS intervention.

6. Currently, EIS is principally designed to track patrol- level officer behavior.

However, to enhance supervisor accountability over individual officers’ activities, SPD shall

expand EIS so that it also tracks supervisor activity, including collecting, maintaining, and

retrieving information related to the following topics:

a) untimely EIS reviews with officers;

b) insufficient review and analysis of officer use of force reports;

c) insufficient investigations of use of force incident, including failure to

collect relevant evidence and failure to canvass for and interview civilian

and officer witnesses; and

d) evaluation of SPD commanders and supervisors based on their appropriate

use of EIS to enhance effective and ethical policing and reduce risk.

7. In order to manage and ensure accountability of their officers, SPD commanders

and supervisors shall conduct the following analysis of EIS system records on a regular basis:

a) bi-weekly analysis of each officer under the commander or supervisor’s

direct command and, quarterly, broader, pattern-based reports;

b) prompt review of EIS records of all officers upon transfer to their

supervision or command;

c) comparative data analysis, including peer group and specialty team

analysis, to identify patterns of activity by individual officers and groups

of officers; and

d) assessment of the effectiveness of interventions for individual officers,

supervisors, and units, based on assessment of the information contained

in EIS.

8. SPD currently has a very complex EIS intervention review protocol and

intervention process. See SPD Manual 3.070.III-IV. The intricacy of the process contributes to




Seattle, WA 98101-1271 (206) 553-7970

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

the lengthy time that it takes to review and intervene on an officer’s pattern of behavior. To

improve the timeliness of interventions, the meaningfulness and appropriateness of interventions,

and effective tracking and monitoring of behavior post- intervention, SPD shall revise and

simplify the EIS intervention review protocol and intervention process to incorporate the

following guidance:

a) The EIS Coordinator in Human Resources shall establish a protocol for

EIS to automatically identify employees who have reached a threshold for

one of the EIS indicator criteria, as identified in SPD Manual 3.070.II.

b) After EIS identifies an employee who has reached a threshold for one of

the EIS indicators, the EIS Coordinator or the employee’s supervisor shall

prepare the EIS report, which contains the documents already identified in

SPD Manual 3.070.III.A.3. Cf. SPD Manual 3.070.III.A.4.

c) The EIS Coordinator shall forward the EIS report to the EIS Review Team

within three days of the identification of the employee in EIS. Cf. SPD

Manual 3.070.III.A.5.

d) Consistent with current policy, the EIS Review Team shall consist of the

EIS Coordinator, the SPD HR Director, the Department Legal Advisor,

the training commander, and a designated union representative, as well as

the employee’s precinct commander, watch commander, and direct

supervisor. See SPD Manual 3.070.VI.

e) The EIS Review Team shall continue to hold the responsibility of

conducting a review and analysis of the EIS Review Report, and make a

determination about whether or not there is a need for an intervention.

See SPD Manual 3.070.III.A.6. The EIS Review Team shall conduct their

review and analysis of the employee’s EIS Review Report within 14 days

of the triggering event.

f) The EIS Review Team shall also identify an appropriate intervention for

the employee, and develop an intervention strategy, to include the planned

intervention(s), the expected outcomes, and the period of monitoring, with

timelines by which the intervention must take place. Cf. SPD

Manual 3.070.IV.F. Interventions may take the form of counseling or




Seattle, WA 98101-1271 (206) 553-7970

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

training, or of other supervised, monitored, and documented action plans

and strategies designed to modify activity. SPD shall seek the services of

mental health professionals and others to ensure that interventions are

appropriate and effective. All interventions will be documented in writing

and entered into the automated system. The decision to order an

intervention for an employee or group using EIS data shall include peer

group analysis, including consideration of the nature of the employee’s

assignment, and not rely solely on the number or percentages of incidents

in any category of information recorded in EIS.

g) Within 14 days of the EIS Review Team’s determination about the

intervention, and within 30 days of the triggering event, the members of

the EIS Review Team in the employee’s direct chain of command shall

have a meeting with the employee to discuss the employee’s pattern of

behavior, the EIS Review Team’s findings, and the intervention strategy.

h) Employee participation in EIS recommended interventions shall be

mandatory, not voluntary. Cf. SPD Manual 3.070.IV.D.

i) SPD shall continue to require the precinct commander of the employee to

ensure that the EIS Review Teams’ recommendations are implemented

within a reasonable time, usually not to exceed 24 days from the time the

recommendation was made. See SPD Manual 3.070.IV.I.

j) An employee’s intervention shall be tracked for a minimum period of six

months. Cf. SPD Manual 3.070. The employee’s direct supervisor shall

write a monthly report documenting the employee’s performance,

monitoring the employee’s progress in completing the intervention

strategy, and any remaining problems remaining in the officer’s activity.

See SPD Manual 3.070.IV.J. The employee’s precinct commander shall

review these monthly reports and provide appropriate feedback to the

employee and the supervisor.

k) SPD shall develop procedures for monitoring EIS interventions, including

(1) ensuring that the intervention strategy is implemented in a timely

manner; (2) ensuring that data regarding the implementation of the




Seattle, WA 98101-1271 (206) 553-7970

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

intervention is entered into EIS; (3) ensuring that the employee’s EIS

intervention is included in the employee’s personnel file and performance

evaluation; and (4) ensuring that the employee’s supervisor drafts monthly

EIS intervention reports.

l) SPD shall develop procedures for monitoring employees who fail to

follow the existing EIS intervention plan, or whose performance fails to

improve after completing an EIS intervention plan. For example, SPD

may require that, in addition to any appropriate discipline, an employee

receive increased supervision, lengthened monitoring, additional training,

or transfer.

m) Once the employee has completed the intervention strategy, SPD shall

continue to require the employee’s supervisor to notify the chain of

command, who shall then notify the EIS Coordinator. See SPD

Manual 3.070.V.


APPENDIX 9: OFFICE OF PROFESSIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY - 1 12-CV-


Seattle, WA 98101-1271 (206) 553-7970

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

A. Reporting Misconduct

APPENDIX 9: OFFICE OF PROFESSIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY

1. SPD shall revise its policies to require that all officers and employees must report

conduct that a reasonable officer would believe is misconduct or criminal behavior by another

SPD officer or employee directly to OPA for review and investigation. Cf. SPD Manual

5.001.VII.A.11.a. Failure to do so shall be grounds for discipline, up to and including

termination of employment. The presumptive discipline for a failure to report criminal behavior

shall be termination. The City and SPD shall develop metrics to assess proper internal reporting

of misconduct.

2. SPD shall continue to require an employee (1) who witnesses or becomes aware

of misconduct or a misconduct complaint to take appropriate action to prevent aggravation of the

incident or the loss of evidence that could prove or disprove misconduct; and/or (2) who

observes instances of serious misconduct or criminal behavior to intervene to stop the serious

misconduct or criminal behavior. See SPD Manual 11.001.III.A&C.

B. Preventing Retaliation

3. The City and SPD shall strengthen its policies that expressly prohibit all forms of

retaliation, whether subtle or direct, including discouragement, intimidation, coercion, or adverse

action, against any person who reports misconduct, makes a misconduct complaint, or conducts

or cooperates with an investigation of misconduct. Cf. SPD Manual 11.001.III.H. This

prohibition will include any interference with the conduct of an investigation of misconduct.

Within 180 days of the Effective Date, and semi-annually thereafter, the City, in consultation

with the OPA Auditor, shall review SPD’s anti-retaliation policy and its implementation. This

review shall consider the alleged incidents of retaliation that occurred or were investigated

during the reporting period, the discipline imposed for retaliation, and supervisors’ performances

in addressing and preventing retaliation. Following such review, the City shall modify policy

and practice as necessary to protect individuals, including other SPD officers and employees, and

civilians, from retaliation for reporting misconduct. The presumptive penalty for retaliation shall

be termination.

C. OPA Staffing and Selection Requirements

4. The City and the United States agree that the independence of OPA’s civilian

Director is the lynchpin of the public’s trust in the system. Within 120 days of the Effective




Seattle, WA 98101-1271 (206) 553-7970

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

Date, the Monitor shall assess and submit to the Parties its recommendation as to whether the

OPA Director should continue to report to the Chief of Police or should begin to report to the

Office of the Mayor or another civilian entity. In conducting its assessment, the Monitor shall

seek input from the Parties, any necessary experts, the community, the affected police unions,

and other interested stakeholders. Within 90 days thereafter, the Parties shall confer and the City

shall determine if it will accept the Monitor’s recommendation. In the interim, the structure of

the OPA shall remain the same and SPD shall continue to have a civilian serve as OPA Director,

whose rank is the equivalent of an Assistant Chief of Police. Additionally, the Director’s

primary offices shall not be physically located in the same building as the COP or other

Command Staff, and the Director shall not attend command staff meetings unless the

OPA Director believes it is necessary. The Director shall be limited to two four-year terms,

which coincide with the election of the Mayor of Seattle. Every appointment of a new Director

shall require notice to and comment from the community. Every two years, there shall be a

mandatory review of the Director, which shall require notice to and input from the community.

5. The City shall once again fund the position of a civilian OPA Deputy Director and

an operational Captain, who are primarily tasked with programmatic/policy assignments and the

additional duties herein.

6. SPD and the City shall ensure that a sufficient number of well- trained staff is

assigned and available to complete and review thorough and timely misconduct investigations in

accordance with the requirements of this Agreement. SPD and the City further shall ensure

sufficient resources and equipment to conduct thorough and timely criminal and administrative

misconduct investigations.

7. Integrity Control Officers (“ICOs”) shall be assigned to each of the precincts by

the OPA. The ICOs, who will report directly to the OPA Director, shall review the quality of

precinct investigations and monitor how service complaints are handled by the precincts, among

other tasks.

8. Within 180 days of the Effective Date, SPD shall review the staffing of OPA and

ensure that individuals currently serving as or who are selected to be dedicated misconduct

investigators or commanders possess excellent investigative skills, a reputation for integrity, the

ability to write clear reports, and the ability to be fair and objective in determining whether an

officer committed misconduct. SPD shall institute minimum scores and competency measures




Seattle, WA 98101-1271 (206) 553-7970

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

for OPA duty, both for sergeants and lieutenants. OPA must be drawn, and be seen to draw,

from the best of the best investigators. The City shall provide for overtime for OPA personnel

on FIT and other duties, and the City shall consider increased pay or bonuses for OPA

investigators. Officers with a sustained complaint of, or who have been disciplined for,

excessive use of force, false arrest, unlawful search or seizure, sexual harassment,

discrimination, or dishonesty, shall be presumptively ineligible from becoming dedicated

misconduct investigators or commanders.

9. Officers shall be required to serve in OPA to be eligible for promotion to the rank

of lieutenant or higher.

D. Complaint Information

10. Within 180 days of the Effective Date, the City and SPD shall develop and

implement, in coordination with its Community Outreach Unit and community groups, a

program to ensure broad knowledge throughout the Seattle community about how to make

misconduct complaints, and the availability of effective mechanisms for making misconduct

complaints. The requirements below shall be incorporated into this program.

11. The City and SPD shall make complaint forms and informational materials,

including brochures and posters, available at appropriate government properties, including, at a

minimum, SPD headquarters, precincts, SPD and City websites, City Hall, Courthouses within

Seattle, all public libraries, public defender offices, and at the offices or gathering places of

community groups (such as, for the Native American community, at the Daybreak Cultural

Center, Chief Seattle Club, and Indian Health Board).

12. At the locations listed above, SPD shall post and maintain a permanent placard

describing the external complaint process that includes relevant contact information, such as

telephone numbers, email addresses, and Internet sites. SPD will require all officers to assist any

person who wishes to file a complaint by carrying complaint forms containing basic complaint

information in their department vehicles at all times. See SPD Manual 11.001.III.B. Officers

shall also provide complaint forms and the officer’s name and badge number upon request. If an

individual objects to an officer’s conduct, that officer will inform the individual of his or her

right to make a complaint and shall provide the complaint form, informational brochure, and the

officer’s name and identification number. If the individual indicates that he or she would like to




Seattle, WA 98101-1271 (206) 553-7970

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

make a complaint, the officer shall immediately inform his or her supervisor who will

immediately respond to the scene.

13. Complaint forms and related informational materials shall be made available and

posted in the foreign languages appropriate to the local community.

E. Response to Service Complaints Directed to Supervisors

14. SPD shall develop and establish protocols for OPA and supervisors to evaluate

expressions of dissatisfaction regarding the services provided by SPD officers or employees to

determine whether these complaints include allegations of misconduct and are, therefore,

“misconduct complaints” (as defined below), or are purely service infractions (such as rudeness,

professionalism, lateness, improper attire, etc.) and are, therefore, “service complaints.” Cf. SPD

Manual 11.001.IV.A.

15. SPD shall develop and establish protocols requiring supervisors to take

appropriate disciplinary or non-disciplinary corrective action when the supervisor directly

receives a service complaint, whether internal or external, about an officer under the supervisor’s

command. Such a complaint should not normally require OPA action. However, the service

infraction and the supervisor’s response shall be reported to OPA within five business days.

Within 21 days, OPA, through its ICOs, shall review the report and supervisory response to

determine whether additional action is required and to evaluate the imposed discipline or

corrective action to determine whether the supervisory response was fair and consistent with

SPD disciplinary protocols. OPA shall assign a tracking number as with other complaints.

F. Complaint Intake and Tracking By OPA

16. DOJ discovered written complaints by citizens regarding significant issues (e.g.,

use of force) directed to locations other than OPA (such as to individual officers, to the precincts,

or to the City itself) of which OPA was not advised. Within 180 days of the Effective Date, SPD

shall develop protocols with its officers, precincts, and any other component of the City that

receives complaints, so that OPA receives timely notice of all complaints, whether service or

misconduct, for its review, tracking, and further action, if appropriate.

17. Within 120 days of the Effective Date, SPD shall provide its revised written

protocols on OPA’s intake, classification, tracking, and assignment systems.

18. OPA shall continue to accept all complaints, including anonymous and third-party

complaints, for review and possible investigation. See SPD Manual 11.001.V.A. Complaints




Seattle, WA 98101-1271 (206) 553-7970

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

may be made in writing or verbally, in person or by mail, telephone (or TDD), facsimile, by

internet, or electronic mail. Any limited English proficient individual who wishes to file a

complaint about a SPD officer or employee shall be provided with a complaint form in the

appropriate language and such complaints will be investigated in accordance with this

Agreement.

19. OPA shall audio-record all complaints that are received directly by OPA, unless

the complainant expressly does not provide consent to record the complaint.

20. All officers and employees who become aware of or receive a complaint in the

field shall immediately (a) inform a supervisor of the complaint so that the supervisor can ensure

proper disposition of the complaint, or (b) if a supervisor is unavailable, proceed consistent with

SPD Manual 11.001.V.B.

21. All supervisors who become aware of or receive a misconduct complaint also

shall proceed consistent with SPD Manual 11.001.V.C-F. Additionally, where a supervisor

receives a misconduct complaint in the field alleging that misconduct has just occurred, the

supervisor shall gather all relevant information and evidence and provide this information and

evidence to OPA. This information includes a detailed summary of the complaint and incident

(include time, date, place of the incident), the names and contact information for all

complainants and witnesses, the names of all SPD officers and employees on the scene at the

time of the alleged misconduct, and any available physical evidence such as voluntarily provided

video or audio recordings, or documentation of the existence of such recordings where the

witness chooses not to provide the recording.

22. Regardless of the initial recipient, all misconduct complaints received outside of

OPA by SPD personnel or employee shall be forwarded to OPA before the end of the shift in

which it was received.

23. SPD shall ensure that allegations of officer misconduct made during criminal

prosecutions or civil lawsuits are identified and investigated as misconduct complaints. SPD

shall continue to enforce the self-reporting requirements of SPD Manual 11.001.III.G.

24. Within 180 days of the Effective date, OPA shall develop and implement a

centralized numbering and tracking system for all complaints. Upon the receipt of a complaint,

OPA shall promptly assign a unique numerical identifier to the complaint, which shall be

provided to the complainant at the time the complaint is made. Where a complaint is received in




Seattle, WA 98101-1271 (206) 553-7970

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

the field, a supervisor shall contact OPA to obtain the unique numerical identifier and provide

this identifier to the complainant.

25. SPD’s centralized numbering and tracking system shall maintain accurate and

reliable data regarding the number, nature, and status of all complaints, from initial intake to

final disposition, including investigation timeliness and notification to the complainant of the

interim status and final disposition of the investigation. This system shall be used internally to

determine caseflow updates, the status of complaints, and to generate other statistics integrating

not only the OPA’s (AIM) database, but also EIS and other SPD databases, as well as for

periodic assessment of compliance with SPD policies and procedures and this Agreement. The

OPA Auditor shall have direct (remote) access to this tracking system and OPA’s database.

26. Within 180 days of the Effective Date, and semi-annually thereafter, the City shall

retain an independent expert to conduct a bi-yearly randomized, stratified audit of OPA’s intake

and tracking systems, including those service complaints directed to a supervisor. This audit

shall be in addition to, and not in place of, the OPA Director and OPA Auditor’s periodic review

of the contact log and classifications.

G. Complaint Classification, and Assignment By OPA

27. The protocols on OPA’s classification and assignment systems shall clearly

delineate whether a civilian’s communications with OPA reflect a misconduct complaint, service

complaint, or involve no complaint at all (“contact log”). Cf. SPD Manual 11.001.V.G.

28. The complaint classification protocol shall be allegation-based rather than

anticipated outcome-based to guide the OPA in determining where a complaint should be

assigned.

29. Pursuant to OPA’s recently established classification system, misconduct

complaints shall be classified for “Investigation,” whether by OPA itself or by the precinct

(a.k.a., “Line Investigation”); and service complaints shall be classified for “Supervisory

Action.” OPA investigations shall not longer be termed “OPA-IS” investigations, but simply

OPA investigations.

30. DOJ found that precincts, for the most part, failed either to adequately review,

document, or remediate service complaints and investigations sent to the precincts, and that OPA

did not sufficiently monitor or review the disposition of service complaints and investigations

sent to the precincts. Supervisors in the precincts shall adequately review, document, and, if




Seattle, WA 98101-1271 (206) 553-7970

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

appropriate, initiate remediation of service complaints within five days from classification and

receipt, whether in the form of one-time counseling, more thorough training, or more recurrent

mentoring. The OPA Auditor shall have the discretion to review not only all investigations, but

all Supervisory Action taken by the precincts and approved by OPA, including, but not limited

to, observing any non-disciplinary corrective action (e.g., mentoring or coaching).

31. Supervisors shall have the discretion to mandate mediation of service complaints,

in which the complainant does not forfeit his/her complaint if he/she accepts mediation, and

which are conducted in a mutually agreeable location. SPD shall provide guidance as to when

mediation would be appropriate.

32. OPA, through its ICOs, must provide final approval of any action or inaction on

service complaints and on any investigations directed to the precincts within 21 days of their

completion, and shall follow up within 180 days thereafter.

33. This complaint classification protocol shall ensure that OPA investigates

allegations including, but not limited to:

a) serious misconduct, including, but not limited to: criminal misconduct,

unreasonable use of force, discriminatory policing, false arrest or planting

evidence, untruthfulness/false statements, unlawful search, retaliation,

sexual misconduct, domestic violence, and theft;

b) repeated minor misconduct (see SPD Manual 11.001.IV.B);

c) misconduct implicating the conduct of the supervisory or command

leadership of the subject officer;

d) allegations that may be subject to unusual media or community scrutiny;

and

e) allegations that any precinct commander requests be conducted by OPA

rather than the subject officer’s precinct.

34. A misconduct complaint investigation may not be conducted by any officer who

used force during the incident; whose conduct led to the injury of a person; who authorized the

conduct that led to the reported incident or complaint; or who was on the scene of the incident

leading to the allegation of misconduct.

35. SPD shall track, as a separate category of misconduct complaints, allegations of

use of excessive force and discriminatory policing, along with characteristics of the




Seattle, WA 98101-1271 (206) 553-7970

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

complainants. SPD shall ensure that complaints of excessive use of force and discriminatory

policing are captured and tracked appropriately, even if the complainant does not specifically

label the misconduct as such.

36. Within three business days of the receipt of a misconduct complaint, OPA shall

determine whether the complaint will be assigned to the precinct for Supervisor Action or

Investigation, retained by OPA for investigation, and whether it will be investigated criminally.

The OPA Auditor and lieutenant shall meet with the OPA sergeant assigned to an investigation

to prioritize and craft the expected investigation.

H. Training Requirements

37. DOJ found that there was not sufficient documentation to show the quality of the

precinct investigations was adequate. All personnel conducting SPD officer misconduct

investigations, whether assigned to OPA, a precinct, or elsewhere, shall receive at least 40 hours

of initial training in conducting officer misconduct investigations within 180 days of the

Effective Date of, and shall receive at least eight hours of in-service training each year. This

training shall include instruction in:

a) investigative skills, including proper interrogation and interview

techniques (such as avoiding leading questions); gathering and objectively

analyzing evidence; surveillance; and data and case management;

b) the particular challenges of administrative police misconduct

investigations, including identifying alleged misconduct that is not clearly

stated in the complaint or that becomes apparent during the investigation;

properly weighing credibility of civilian witnesses against officers; using

objective evidence to resolve inconsistent statements; and the proper

application of the preponderance of the evidence standard;

c) relevant city ordinance and state, local, and federal law, including state

employment law related to officers and the rights of public employees and

local Civil Service requirements, as well as criminal discovery rules such

as those set out in Garrity v. New Jersey, 385 U.S. 493 (1967), and

Brady v. Maryland, 373 U. S. 83 (1963); and




Seattle, WA 98101-1271 (206) 553-7970

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

d) SPD rules and policies, including the requirements of this Agreement, and

protocols related to criminal and administrative investigations of alleged

officer misconduct.

38. Within 180 days of the Effective Date, all personnel conducting intake or

responsible for the classification of misconduct complaints will be provided substantive, written

guidance and formal training on: how to assess the nature of the misconduct complaints civilians

present; what evidence they should be eliciting; when it is appropriate to classify a certain type

of complaint as one type or another; when an investigation of some kind is necessary; and how to

avoid any conflicts of interest in investigations, perceived or otherwise, in order to ensure

consistent intake and a consistent application of classifications. The protocols and guidance shall

also include how to properly provide complaint materials and information, the consequences for

failing to take complaints, and strategies for turning complaints into positive police-civilian

interactions.

39. Within 180 days of the Effective Date, OPA must complete a Training and

Operations Manual for OPA that will codify OPA’s policies, best practices, and its training

requirements.

40. In consultation with the City Attorney’s office, SPD shall develop policies and

training governing the use of ICV recordings, which videos shall be made available to

supervisors for review and training purposes, consistent with section XII.B above.

I. Investigation Timeframe

41. SPD and the City shall undertake all necessary efforts in good faith and devote all

necessary resources to enable the completion of administrative investigations of officer

misconduct within a reasonable timeframe, while ensuring that such investigations are thorough,

reliable, and complete.

42. In accordance with all applicable law, all investigations shall be completed within

90 days of the receipt of the complaint, including assignment, investigation, review, and final

approval, unless granted an extension by the OPA Auditor, in which case the investigation shall

be completed in 120 days. Where an allegation is sustained, SPD shall have 30 days to

determine and impose the appropriate discipline. All administrative investigations shall be

subject to appropriate tolling periods when requested either by the complainant or as necessary to

conduct a concurrent criminal investigation, or as otherwise provided by law.




Seattle, WA 98101-1271 (206) 553-7970

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

43. To achieve these targets, SPD shall eliminate the OPA Director’s intermediary

meeting with the Deputy Chief and further refine the use of parallel investigations, subject to the

limitations below.

44. If SPD is unable to reduce the timeframe to these targets, it shall undertake a

review of the OPA process to determine why it is unable to do so.

J. Collection of Evidence/Investigation

45. Investigations of officer misconduct shall be as thorough as necessary to reach

reliable and complete findings. The misconduct complaint investigator shall interview each

complainant in person, absent extenuating circumstances, and this interview shall be recorded in

its entirety, absent specific, documented objection by the complainant. All officers on the scene

of an incident shall provide a written statement regarding the incident, even to state that they did

not see or hear anything.

46. Where the alleged misconduct is particularly serious or information from an

officer or other witness may be necessary to resolve an allegation, the investigator shall conduct

an in-person interview of the officer or other witness. Each officer, witness, and complainant

shall be interviewed separately. No individual shall be permitted to suggest responses, phrasing

of responses, or otherwise coach a witness. Consistent with SPD Manual 11.001.III.F, every

employee shall be required to cooperate in internal investigations.

47. All officer and civilian witness statements should be documented in their entirety,

including any statement that the witness saw or heard nothing. All interviews should be

recorded. All recordings shall be stored and maintained in a secure location within OPA.

48. SPD shall require officers to cooperate with administrative investigations,

including appearing for an interview when requested by a SPD or City investigator and providing

all requested documents and evidence. Supervisors shall be notified when an officer under their

supervision is summoned as part of an administrative investigation and shall facilitate the

officer’s appearance, absent extraordinary and documented circumstances.

49. SPD shall require an OPA investigator or SPD supervisor to refer any potentially

criminal conduct to the prosecuting agency, who will determine whether there is sufficient

reason to indicate that an officer has engaged in criminal conduct.




Seattle, WA 98101-1271 (206) 553-7970

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

50. SPD, the City, and the criminal investigative agency shall develop and implement

protocols to ensure that the criminal and administrative investigations are kept appropriately

separate after a subject officer has provided a Garrity-compelled statement.

51. SPD shall require that all incident investigators and prosecuting attorneys are

effectively and appropriately shielded from reviewing any Garrity-compelled statement that may

be taken for any purpose. SPD shall consult with the appropriate prosecuting attorney, before

Garrity protections are provided to any officer in any investigation involving a matter that

involves a serious use of force, in any officer- involved shooting, or in any matter that the

investigator knows or reasonably should know should be referred for criminal investigation or

review.

52. Where there is a potential criminal investigation or prosecution of the officer,

OPA shall continue with the administrative investigation of the allegation, except that it may

delay or decline to conduct an interview of the subject officer(s) or other witnesses until

completion of the criminal investigation unless, after consultation with the investigating agency

(e.g., the King County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office or USAO), the OPA Director, and COP,

such interviews are deemed appropriate.

53. OPA may conduct additional investigation for any complaint referred from FIT.

K. Analysis of Evidence/Findings

54. In each investigation, SPD shall consider all relevant evidence including

circumstantial, direct, and physical evidence, as appropriate, and make credibility determinations

based upon that evidence. Again, there will be no automatic preference for an officer’s

statement over a non-officer’s statement, nor will SPD disregard a witness’ statement merely

because the witness has some connection to the complainant or because of any criminal history.

SPD shall make efforts to resolve material inconsistencies between witness statements.

55. A misconduct investigation shall not be closed simply because the complaint is

withdrawn or the alleged victim is unwilling or unable to provide additional information beyond

the initial complaint. In such instances, the investigation shall continue as necessary to determine

whether the original allegation(s) can be resolved based on the evidence and investigatory

procedures and techniques available. In each investigation, the fact that a complainant pled

guilty or was found guilty of an offense will not be considered dispositive as to whether a SPD

officer committed the alleged misconduct, nor shall it justify discontinuing the investigation.




Seattle, WA 98101-1271 (206) 553-7970

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

56. As stated in SPD Manual 11.001.V.I, every investigation shall include a

conclusion of fact. Pursuant to OPA’s recently established findings system, the misconduct

investigator further shall explicitly identify and recommend one of the following dispositions for

each allegation of misconduct in an administrative investigation:

a) “Sustained,” where the investigation determines, by a preponderance of

the evidence, that the alleged misconduct did occur, meriting discipline

(“Sustained-Discipline”) or additional training (“Sustained-Training

Referral”);

b) “Unfounded,” where the investigation determines, by a preponderance of

the evidence, that the alleged misconduct did not occur or did not involve

the subject officer;

c) “Inconclusive,” where the investigation is unable to determine, by a

preponderance of the evidence, whether the alleged misconduct occurred;

or

d) “Lawful & Proper,” where the investigation determines, by a

preponderance of the evidence, that the alleged conduct did occur but did

not violate SPD policies, procedures, or training.

57. SPD shall cease the use of “Supervisory Intervention” or similar findings

(“Training Referral”) for misconduct complaints. Where the complaint is sustained, but training

or other remediation is the recommended option, OPA shall then vigorously track such

remediation.

58. The OPA Director shall accept the investigator’s recommended disposition and

certify the complaint, and the COP shall approve the disposition, unless the disposition is

unsupported by a preponderance of the evidence or additional investigation is necessary to reach

a reliable finding. Where the Director believes the disposition is unsupported by a

preponderance of the evidence, the Director may correct the disposition or order additional

investigation, as necessary; however, that decision must be documented and reviewed by the

OPA Auditor. Where the COP believes the disposition is unsupported by a preponderance of the

evidence, or otherwise does not accept the Director’s certification, that decision must be

documented, reviewed by the OPA Auditor, and reported to the Mayor. Regardless of whether




Seattle, WA 98101-1271 (206) 553-7970

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

the OPA Director or the COP believes the disposition is supported by the preponderance of the

evidence, the OPA Auditor will be informed of the discipline.

59. OPA (whether its investigators or Director) should not communicate prior to the

certification of a misconduct complaint with the COP, command staff, or their representatives.

60. In addition to determining whether the officer committed the alleged misconduct,

administrative investigations shall assess and document whether: (a) the police action was in

compliance with training and legal standards; (b) the use of different tactics should or could have

been employed to achieve a potentially better outcome; (c) the incident indicates a need for

additional training, counseling, or other non-disciplinary corrective measures; and (d) the

incident suggests that SPD should revise its policies, strategies, tactics, or training. This

information shall be shared with the relevant commander(s) who shall document the

commander’s disagreement or agreement with these findings. OPA shall then refer any

recommendations and comments to the OPA Auditor.

61. OPA shall enhance use of the AIM system for management, analysis, and

reporting; in particular, OPA shall conduct more OPA work electronically.

L. Discipline Process

62. SPD shall ensure that discipline for sustained allegations of misconduct is based

on the nature of the allegation and defined, consistent, mitigating and aggravating factors, and

not the identity of the officer or his or her status within SPD or the broader community. SPD and

the City shall develop and implement procedures to ensure that discipline is fair and consistent

including potentially the following:

63. SPD and the City shall establish a unified system for reviewing the proposed

discipline pursuant to SPD’s potential disciplinary matrix to facilitate consistency in the

imposition of discipline. All disciplinary decisions shall be documented, including, if applicable,

the rationale behind any decision to deviate from the level of discipline set out in the disciplinary

matrix.

64. SPD and the City shall develop and establish written policies and procedures to

ensure that the City Attorney’s Office provides close guidance to SPD at the disciplinary stage to

ensure that SPD’s disciplinary decisions are as fair and legally defensible as possible.

65. SPD shall establish procedures for complainant appeals of SPD’s misconduct

findings.




Seattle, WA 98101-1271 (206) 553-7970

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

M. Integrity of Investigative File and Evidence

66. Precinct investigation reports and all related documentation and evidence shall be

provided to the ICO immediately upon completion of the investigation, but no later than three

business days.

67. All investigation reports and related documentation and evidence shall be securely

maintained in a central and accessible location until every officer who was a subject of the given

complaint has severed employment with SPD.

68. The OPA Auditor shall continue to review all completed but still open complaints

and continue to have the discretion to order additional investigation.

69. The City should conduct anonymous Integrity Checks of OPA by retaining a

qualified, independent individual to file pretextual complaints with OPA, the precinct(s) and the

City and report on how the complaint is directed and handled. This individual will report his/her

findings to the OPA Auditor, who will report its findings in its Annual Report, discussed below.

N. Communication with Complainant and Transparency

70. Each complainant shall be kept regularly informed about the status of their

complaint. In addition to receiving a tracking number upon receipt of the complaint, the

complainant will be notified of the classification (Investigation, Supervisor Action, or Contact

Log), assignment (precinct or OPA), mid-point progress (interviews/evidence collection), and

outcome of the complaint (Sustained, Unfounded, etc.), in writing (whether mail, email/text, or

fax), within ten business days of each respective cycle of the complaint, including regarding

whether any disciplinary or non-disciplinary action (whether counseling, training, etc.) was

taken. SPD shall establish a website through which a complainant can track his/her complaint.

71. In consultation with the City Attorney’s office, SPD pledges to release as much

documentation about the complaint as possible, consistent with state law, the collective

bargaining agreement, or any other legal impediment thereto.

72. Within 180 days of the Effective Date, in consultation with the OPA Auditor and

OPA Review Board, SPD shall develop metrics to measure community satisfaction with the

OPA.

O. Additional Functions of the OPA Auditor and OPA Review Board

73. The OPA Director shall cease to issue semi-annual reports. Instead the OPA

Director, through the Deputy Director, will consult with the OPA Auditor on programmatic or




Seattle, WA 98101-1271 (206) 553-7970

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

policy issues. The OPA Auditor shall have sole responsibility for annual reporting and include

in its semi-annual reports, inter alia, aggregate misconduct complaint data showing the number

of each type of complaint and the number and rate of sustained cases after final approval, and

shall provide an analysis of this data that identifies trends and concerns and documents SPD’s

response to the identified trends and concerns. The OPA Auditor shall coordinate and confer

with the OPA Deputy Director in collecting, analyzing, and reporting this data. Finally, the OPA

Auditor will continue to recommend policy or practices changes, to which SPD and the City

shall be required to respond initially within 30 days in a report to the Mayor and City Council,

followed by an update every 90 days thereafter. The Department’s response to each

recommendation shall fall into one of three general categories: (1) recommendations that are

already current practice or have been implemented partially or fully to date (indicate date of full

implementation); (2) recommendations the Department agrees with and will implement by a date

certain; and (3) recommendations the Department disagrees with and why.

74. To perform the policy review function, the OPA Auditor shall have the ability to

request additional documents from SPD on any topic raised by her review and shall review the

precincts’ investigations.

75. The OPA Auditor shall be provided additional support and necessary staff persons

to complete these tasks.

76. The OPA Review Board shall cease to be an advocate for the accountability

system and shall be purely a repository of community education, input, and advocacy. The

OPA-RB shall perform satisfaction surveys, pursuant to the metrics provided below. The OPA-

RB shall coordinate and confer with the OPA Auditor in collecting, analyzing, and reporting this

data. The OPA-RB shall be provided staff persons to perform these tasks.


APPENDIX 10: MONITORING PLAN - 1 12-CV-


Seattle, WA 98101-1271 (206) 553-7970

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

A. Monitoring Plan and Review Methodology

APPENDIX 10: MONITORING PLAN

1. Within 90 days of the Effective Date, the Monitor shall develop individual plans

for conducting the above outcome assessments and compliance reviews and audits, and shall

submit these plans to the Parties for review and approval. The plans shall:

a) clearly delineate the requirements of this Agreement to be assessed for

compliance, indicating which requirements will be assessed together;

b) set out a schedule for conducting outcome measure assessments for each

outcome measure at least annually, except where otherwise noted, with the

first assessment occurring within 18 months of the Effective Date; and

c) set out a schedule for conducting a compliance review or audit of each

requirement of this Agreement within the first year of this Agreement, and

a compliance review or audit of each requirement at least annually

thereafter.

2. Where the Monitor recommends and the Parties agree, the Monitor may refrain

from conducting a compliance audit or review of a requirement previously found to be in

compliance by the Monitor pursuant to audit or review, or where outcome assessments indicate

that the outcome intended by the requirement has been achieved.

3. Ninety days prior to the initiation of any outcome measure assessment or

compliance review or audit, the Monitor shall submit a proposed methodology for the

assessment, review, or audit to the Parties. The Parties shall submit any comments or concerns

regarding the proposed methodology to the Monitor 45 days before the proposed date of the

assessment, review, or audit. The Monitor shall modify the methodology as necessary to address

any concerns or shall inform the Parties in writing of the reasons it is not modifying its

methodology as proposed.

B. Monitor’s Recommendations and Technical Assistance

4. The Monitor may make recommendations to the Parties regarding measures

necessary to ensure timely, full, and effective implementation of this Agreement and its

underlying objectives. Such recommendations may include a recommendation to change,

modify, or amend a provision of this Agreement, a recommendation for additional training in any

area related to this Agreement, or a recommendation to seek technical assistance. Additionally,




Seattle, WA 98101-1271 (206) 553-7970

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

the Monitor may, at the request of DOJ or the City, and based on the Monitor’s reviews, provide

technical assistance consistent with the Monitor’s responsibilities under this Agreement.

C. Comprehensive Re-Assessment

5. The Monitor shall conduct comprehensive assessments annually after the

Effective Date to determine whether and to what extent the outcomes intended by this

Agreement have been achieved, and any modifications to this Agreement that are necessary for

continued achievement in light of changed circumstances or unanticipated impact (or lack of

impact) of the requirement. This assessment shall also address areas of greatest achievement and

the requirements that appear to have contributed to this success, as well as areas of greatest

concern, including strategies for accelerating full and effective compliance. Based upon this

comprehensive assessment, the Monitor shall recommend modifications to this Agreement

necessary to achieve and sustain intended outcomes. Where the Parties agree with the

recommendations of the Monitor, the Parties shall stipulate to modify this Agreement

accordingly. This provision in no way diminishes the Parties’ ability to stipulate to

modifications to this Agreement, as set out in Section XI.E.

D. Monitor’s Reports

6. The Monitor shall file with the Court quarterly, written, public reports covering

the reporting period that shall include:

a) a description of the work conducted by the Monitor during the reporting

period;

b) a listing of each Agreement requirement indicating which requirements

have been: (1) incorporated into implemented policy; (2) the subject of

sufficient training for all relevant SPD officers and employees;

(3) reviewed or audited by the Monitor to determine whether they have

been fully implemented in actual practice, including the date of the review

or audit; and (4) found by the Monitor to have been fully implemented in

practice;

c) the methodology and specific findings for each audit or review conducted,

redacted as necessary for privacy concerns. An unredacted version shall

be filed under seal with the Court and provided to the Parties. The

underlying data for each audit or review shall not be publicly available but




Seattle, WA 98101-1271 (206) 553-7970

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

shall be retained by the Monitor and provided to either or both Parties

upon request;

d) for any requirements that were reviewed or audited and found not to have

been fully implemented in practice, the Monitor’s recommendations

regarding necessary steps to achieve compliance;

e) the methodology and specific findings for each outcome assessment

conducted;

f) qualitative assessment of SPD’s progress in achieving the desired

outcomes for each area covered by this Agreement, noting issues of

concern or particular achievement; and

g) a projection of the work to be completed during the upcoming reporting

period and any anticipated challenges or concerns related to

implementation of this Agreement.

7. The Monitor shall provide a copy of quarterly reports to the Parties in draft form

at least ten business days prior to Court filing and public release of the reports to allow the

Parties to informally comment on the reports. The Monitor shall consider the Parties’ responses

and make appropriate changes, if any, before issuing the report.

8. The Monitor’s quarterly reports shall also be posted to the City’s public website.

The City shall establish an electronic mechanism for receiving public feedback to the Monitor’s

quarterly reports.

E. Coordination with OPA and Auditor

9. In conducting its assessments, reviews, and audits, and in developing the

monitoring plans and review methodologies, the Monitor shall coordinate and confer with OPA

and the Auditor to facilitate the efficient and effective use of external oversight resources.

F. Communication between the Monitor and Parties

10. The Monitor shall maintain regular contact with the Parties in order to ensure

effective and timely communication regarding the status of the City’s implementation of and

compliance with this Agreement. To facilitate this communication, and to allow the public the

opportunity to remain informed about this Agreement implementation process, the Monitor shall

conduct monthly meetings which shall include participation by SPD, COP, representatives of the




Seattle, WA 98101-1271 (206) 553-7970

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

City Attorney’s Office, and DOJ, and shall be open to the public. These meetings may be held

during normal daytime work hours.

G. Communication between the Monitor and Communities

11. The Monitor shall periodically meet with interested community stakeholders to

discuss their quarterly reports, and to receive community feedback about SPD’s progress and/or

compliance with this Agreement.

H. Public Statements, Testimony, Records, and Conflicts of Interest

12. Except as required or authorized by the terms of this Agreement or the Parties

acting together: the Monitor, including, for the purposes of this paragraph, any agent, employee,

or independent contractor thereof, shall not make any public statements or issue findings with

regard to any act or omission of the City, or their agents, representatives, or employees; or

disclose non-public information provided to the Monitor pursuant to this Agreement. Any press

statement made by the Monitor regarding their employment or monitoring activities under this

Agreement shall first be approved by DOJ and the City.

13. The Monitor may testify as to the their observations, findings, and

recommendations before the Court with jurisdiction over this matter; however, no Monitor shall

testify in any other litigation or proceeding with regard to any act or omission of the City or any

of its agents, representatives, or employees related to this Agreement or regarding any matter or

subject that the Monitor may have received knowledge of as a result of his or her performance

under this Agreement. This paragraph does not apply to any proceeding before a court related to

performance of contracts or subcontracts for monitoring this Agreement.

14. Unless such conflict is waived by the Parties, the Monitor shall not accept

employment or provide consulting services that would present a conflict of interest with the

Monitor’s responsibilities under this Agreement, including being retained (on a paid or unpaid

basis) by any current or future litigant or claimant, or such litigant’s or claimant’s attorney, in

connection with a claim or suit against the City or its departments, officers, agents, or

employees.

15. The Monitor is not a state or local agency, or an agent thereof, and accordingly

the records maintained by the Monitor shall not be deemed public records subject to public

inspection.




Seattle, WA 98101-1271 (206) 553-7970

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

16. The Monitor shall not be liable for any claim, lawsuit, or demand arising out of

the Monitor’s performance pursuant to this Agreement.

I. Implementation and Assessment and Report

17. SPD and the City shall collect and maintain all data and records necessary to:

(1) document implementation of and compliance with this Agreement, including data and

records necessary for the Monitor to conduct reliable outcome assessments, compliance reviews,

and audits; and (2) perform ongoing quality assurance in each of the areas addressed by this

Agreement.

18. Beginning with the Monitor’s first quarterly report, the City shall file with the

Court, with a copy to the Monitor and DOJ, a status report, no later than 45 days before the

Monitor’s quarterly reports are due. The City’s report shall delineate the steps taken by the City

during the reporting period to implement this Agreement; the City’s assessment of the status of

their progress; plans to correct any problems; and response to any concerns raised in the

Monitor’s previous quarterly reports.

J. Access and Confidentiality

19. To facilitate his or her work, the Monitor may conduct on-site visits and

assessments without prior notice to the City. The Monitor shall have access to all necessary

individuals, facilities, and documents, which shall include access to Agreement-related trainings,

meetings, and reviews such as FIT, FRC, and OPA reviews. SPD shall notify the Monitor as

soon as practicable, and in any case within twelve hours, of any critical firearms discharge, arrest

of any officer, or any other potentially high-profile serious incident.

20. The City shall ensure that the Monitor shall have timely, full, and direct access to

all City staff, employees, critical incident crime scenes, and facilities that the Monitor reasonably

deems necessary to carry out the duties assigned to the Monitor by this Agreement. The Monitor

shall cooperate with the City to access people and facilities in a reasonable manner that,

consistent with the Monitor’s responsibilities, minimizes interference with daily operations and

shall not compromise the integrity of any ongoing criminal investigation.

21. The City shall ensure that the Monitor shall have full and direct access to all City

documents and data that the Monitor reasonably deems necessary to carry out the duties assigned

to the Monitor by this Agreement, except any documents or data protected by the attorney-client

privilege. The attorney-client privilege may not be used to prevent the Monitor from observing




Seattle, WA 98101-1271 (206) 553-7970

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

reviews, meetings, and trainings such as use of force review boards, disciplinary hearings, or

discussions of misconduct complaint investigations. Should the City decline to provide the

Monitor access to documents or data based on attorney-client privilege, the City shall inform the

Monitor and DOJ that it is withholding documents or data on this basis and shall provide the

Monitor and DOJ with a log describing the documents or data.

22. For the purpose of implementing this Agreement, which is related to on-going

potential litigation, DOJ and its consultative experts and agents shall have full and direct access

to all City staff, employees, facilities, documents, and data. DOJ, and its consultative experts

and agents, shall cooperate with the City to access involved personnel, facilities, and documents

in a reasonable manner that, consistent with DOJ’s responsibilities to enforce this agreement,

minimizes interference with daily operations. If the City declines to provide DOJ with access to

documents or data based on attorney-client privilege, the City shall inform DOJ that it is

withholding documents or data on this basis and shall provide DOJ with a log describing the

documents or data.

23. The Monitor and DOJ shall provide the City with reasonable notice of a request

for copies of documents. Upon such request, the City shall provide, in a timely manner, not to

exceed 30 days, copies (electronic, where readily available) of the requested documents to the

Monitor and DOJ. The Monitor shall have access to all records and information relating to

closed investigations, administrative or criminal, of SPD officers as permissible by law. The

Monitor and DOJ shall maintain all non-public information provided by the City in a confidential

manner. Other than as expressly provided in this Agreement, this Agreement shall not be

deemed a waiver of any privilege or right the City may assert, including those recognized at

common law or created by statute, rule, or regulation against any other person or entity with

respect to the disclosure of any document.

summary of department of justice’s draft reform plan ......2012/06/25 · united states...

Documents