summary of department of justice’s draft reform plan ......2012/06/25 · united states...
Post on 15-Sep-2020
1 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
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.
PROTECTED BY FRE 408; CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT FOR NEGOTIATING PURPOSES ONLY
STIPULATED MOTION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER OF APPROVAL OF REFORM PLAN AND ENTRY OF JUDGMENT - 2 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
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: Michael.Diaz@usdoj.gov Washington, DC 20530 Tel. (202) 514-6255 Fax. (202) 514-4883 *Conditional Admittance Pending E-mail: Michelle.Leung@usdoj.gov
For the CITY OF SEATTLE:
______________________________ PETER HOLMES Seattle City Attorney
PROTECTED BY FRE 408; CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT FOR NEGOTIATING PURPOSES ONLY
STIPULATED MOTION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER OF APPROVAL OF REFORM PLAN AND ENTRY OF JUDGMENT - 3 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
[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
PROTECTED BY FRE 408; CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT FOR NEGOTIATING PURPOSES ONLY
TABLE OF CONTENTS - i 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
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
PROTECTED BY FRE 408; CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT FOR NEGOTIATING PURPOSES ONLY
TABLE OF CONTENTS - ii 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
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
PROTECTED BY FRE 408; CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT FOR NEGOTIATING PURPOSES ONLY
TABLE OF CONTENTS - iii 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
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
PROTECTED BY FRE 408; CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT FOR NEGOTIATING PURPOSES ONLY
TABLE OF CONTENTS - iv 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
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
PROTECTED BY FRE 408; CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT FOR NEGOTIATING PURPOSES ONLY
ATTACHMENT 1: REFORM PLAN - 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
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.
PROTECTED BY FRE 408; CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT FOR NEGOTIATING PURPOSES ONLY
ATTACHMENT 1: REFORM PLAN - 2 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
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.
PROTECTED BY FRE 408; CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT FOR NEGOTIATING PURPOSES ONLY
ATTACHMENT 1: REFORM PLAN - 3 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
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
PROTECTED BY FRE 408; CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT FOR NEGOTIATING PURPOSES ONLY
ATTACHMENT 1: REFORM PLAN - 4 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
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.
PROTECTED BY FRE 408; CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT FOR NEGOTIATING PURPOSES ONLY
ATTACHMENT 1: REFORM PLAN - 5 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
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
PROTECTED BY FRE 408; CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT FOR NEGOTIATING PURPOSES ONLY
ATTACHMENT 1: REFORM PLAN - 6 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
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.
PROTECTED BY FRE 408; CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT FOR NEGOTIATING PURPOSES ONLY
ATTACHMENT 1: REFORM PLAN - 7 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
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.
PROTECTED BY FRE 408; CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT FOR NEGOTIATING PURPOSES ONLY
ATTACHMENT 1: REFORM PLAN - 8 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
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.
PROTECTED BY FRE 408; CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT FOR NEGOTIATING PURPOSES ONLY
ATTACHMENT 1: REFORM PLAN - 9 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
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
PROTECTED BY FRE 408; CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT FOR NEGOTIATING PURPOSES ONLY
ATTACHMENT 1: REFORM PLAN - 10 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
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
PROTECTED BY FRE 408; CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT FOR NEGOTIATING PURPOSES ONLY
ATTACHMENT 1: REFORM PLAN - 11 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
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
PROTECTED BY FRE 408; CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT FOR NEGOTIATING PURPOSES ONLY
ATTACHMENT 1: REFORM PLAN - 12 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
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
PROTECTED BY FRE 408; CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT FOR NEGOTIATING PURPOSES ONLY
ATTACHMENT 1: REFORM PLAN - 13 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
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
PROTECTED BY FRE 408; CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT FOR NEGOTIATING PURPOSES ONLY
ATTACHMENT 1: REFORM PLAN - 14 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
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
PROTECTED BY FRE 408; CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT FOR NEGOTIATING PURPOSES ONLY
ATTACHMENT 1: REFORM PLAN - 15 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
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,
PROTECTED BY FRE 408; CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT FOR NEGOTIATING PURPOSES ONLY
ATTACHMENT 1: REFORM PLAN - 16 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
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,
PROTECTED BY FRE 408; CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT FOR NEGOTIATING PURPOSES ONLY
ATTACHMENT 1: REFORM PLAN - 17 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
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
PROTECTED BY FRE 408; CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT FOR NEGOTIATING PURPOSES ONLY
ATTACHMENT 1: REFORM PLAN - 18 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
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
PROTECTED BY FRE 408; CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT FOR NEGOTIATING PURPOSES ONLY
ATTACHMENT 1: REFORM PLAN - 19 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
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
PROTECTED BY FRE 408; CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT FOR NEGOTIATING PURPOSES ONLY
ATTACHMENT 1: REFORM PLAN - 20 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
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
PROTECTED BY FRE 408; CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT FOR NEGOTIATING PURPOSES ONLY
ATTACHMENT 1: REFORM PLAN - 21 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
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
PROTECTED BY FRE 408; CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT FOR NEGOTIATING PURPOSES ONLY
ATTACHMENT 1: REFORM PLAN - 22 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
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.
PROTECTED BY FRE 408; CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT FOR NEGOTIATING PURPOSES ONLY
ATTACHMENT 1: REFORM PLAN - 23 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
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
PROTECTED BY FRE 408; CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT FOR NEGOTIATING PURPOSES ONLY
ATTACHMENT 1: REFORM PLAN - 24 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
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.
95. Within 180 days of the Effective Date, SPD shall develop and implement a
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
PROTECTED BY FRE 408; CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT FOR NEGOTIATING PURPOSES ONLY
ATTACHMENT 1: REFORM PLAN - 25 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
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.
PROTECTED BY FRE 408; CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT FOR NEGOTIATING PURPOSES ONLY
ATTACHMENT 1: REFORM PLAN - 26 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
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
104. Within 90 days of the Effective Date, SPD shall develop and implement a
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.
PROTECTED BY FRE 408; CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT FOR NEGOTIATING PURPOSES ONLY
ATTACHMENT 1: REFORM PLAN - 27 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
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
PROTECTED BY FRE 408; CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT FOR NEGOTIATING PURPOSES ONLY
ATTACHMENT 1: REFORM PLAN - 28 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
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.
PROTECTED BY FRE 408; CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT FOR NEGOTIATING PURPOSES ONLY
ATTACHMENT 1: REFORM PLAN - 29 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
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;
PROTECTED BY FRE 408; CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT FOR NEGOTIATING PURPOSES ONLY
ATTACHMENT 1: REFORM PLAN - 30 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
(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.
PROTECTED BY FRE 408; CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT FOR NEGOTIATING PURPOSES ONLY
ATTACHMENT 1: REFORM PLAN - 31 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
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.
PROTECTED BY FRE 408; CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT FOR NEGOTIATING PURPOSES ONLY
ATTACHMENT 1: REFORM PLAN - 32 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
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
PROTECTED BY FRE 408; CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT FOR NEGOTIATING PURPOSES ONLY
ATTACHMENT 1: REFORM PLAN - 33 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
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
PROTECTED BY FRE 408; CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT FOR NEGOTIATING PURPOSES ONLY
ATTACHMENT 1: REFORM PLAN - 34 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
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,
PROTECTED BY FRE 408; CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT FOR NEGOTIATING PURPOSES ONLY
ATTACHMENT 1: REFORM PLAN - 35 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
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,
PROTECTED BY FRE 408; CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT FOR NEGOTIATING PURPOSES ONLY
ATTACHMENT 1: REFORM PLAN - 36 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
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.
PROTECTED BY FRE 408; CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT FOR NEGOTIATING PURPOSES ONLY
ATTACHMENT 1: REFORM PLAN - 37 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
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: Michael.Diaz@usdoj.gov Washington, DC 20530 Tel. (202) 514-6255 Fax. (202) 514-4883 *Conditional Admittance Pending E-mail: Michelle.Leung@usdoj.gov
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
PROTECTED BY FRE 408; CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT FOR NEGOTIATING PURPOSES ONLY
APPENDIX 1: DEFINITIONS AND ABBREVIATIONS - 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
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.
PROTECTED BY FRE 408; CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT FOR NEGOTIATING PURPOSES ONLY
APPENDIX 1: DEFINITIONS AND ABBREVIATIONS - 2 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
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.
PROTECTED BY FRE 408; CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT FOR NEGOTIATING PURPOSES ONLY
APPENDIX 1: DEFINITIONS AND ABBREVIATIONS - 3 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
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.
PROTECTED BY FRE 408; CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT FOR NEGOTIATING PURPOSES ONLY
APPENDIX 1: DEFINITIONS AND ABBREVIATIONS - 4 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
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.
PROTECTED BY FRE 408; CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT FOR NEGOTIATING PURPOSES ONLY
APPENDIX 1: DEFINITIONS AND ABBREVIATIONS - 5 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
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,
PROTECTED BY FRE 408; CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT FOR NEGOTIATING PURPOSES ONLY
APPENDIX 1: DEFINITIONS AND ABBREVIATIONS - 6 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
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
PROTECTED BY FRE 408; CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT FOR NEGOTIATING PURPOSES ONLY
APPENDIX 1: DEFINITIONS AND ABBREVIATIONS - 7 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
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.
PROTECTED BY FRE 408; CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT FOR NEGOTIATING PURPOSES ONLY
APPENDIX 2: POLICY DEVELOPMENT, REVIEW & IMPLEMENTATION - 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
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.
PROTECTED BY FRE 408; CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT FOR NEGOTIATING PURPOSES ONLY
APPENDIX 3: USE OF FORCE WEAPON-SPECIFIC POLICIES - 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
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.
PROTECTED BY FRE 408; CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT FOR NEGOTIATING PURPOSES ONLY
APPENDIX 3: USE OF FORCE WEAPON-SPECIFIC POLICIES - 2 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
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
PROTECTED BY FRE 408; CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT FOR NEGOTIATING PURPOSES ONLY
APPENDIX 3: USE OF FORCE WEAPON-SPECIFIC POLICIES - 3 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
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.
PROTECTED BY FRE 408; CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT FOR NEGOTIATING PURPOSES ONLY
APPENDIX 3: USE OF FORCE WEAPON-SPECIFIC POLICIES - 4 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
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.
PROTECTED BY FRE 408; CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT FOR NEGOTIATING PURPOSES ONLY
APPENDIX 3: USE OF FORCE WEAPON-SPECIFIC POLICIES - 5 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
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.
PROTECTED BY FRE 408; CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT FOR NEGOTIATING PURPOSES ONLY
APPENDIX 3: USE OF FORCE WEAPON-SPECIFIC POLICIES - 6 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
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.
PROTECTED BY FRE 408; CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT FOR NEGOTIATING PURPOSES ONLY
APPENDIX 4: USE OF FORCE REVIEW PROCESS - 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
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
PROTECTED BY FRE 408; CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT FOR NEGOTIATING PURPOSES ONLY
APPENDIX 4: USE OF FORCE REVIEW PROCESS - 2 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
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
PROTECTED BY FRE 408; CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT FOR NEGOTIATING PURPOSES ONLY
APPENDIX 4: USE OF FORCE REVIEW PROCESS - 3 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
(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;
PROTECTED BY FRE 408; CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT FOR NEGOTIATING PURPOSES ONLY
APPENDIX 4: USE OF FORCE REVIEW PROCESS - 4 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
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.
PROTECTED BY FRE 408; CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT FOR NEGOTIATING PURPOSES ONLY
APPENDIX 4: USE OF FORCE REVIEW PROCESS - 5 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
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
PROTECTED BY FRE 408; CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT FOR NEGOTIATING PURPOSES ONLY
APPENDIX 4: USE OF FORCE REVIEW PROCESS - 6 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
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.
PROTECTED BY FRE 408; CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT FOR NEGOTIATING PURPOSES ONLY
APPENDIX 4: USE OF FORCE REVIEW PROCESS - 7 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
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
PROTECTED BY FRE 408; CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT FOR NEGOTIATING PURPOSES ONLY
APPENDIX 4: USE OF FORCE REVIEW PROCESS - 8 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
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.
PROTECTED BY FRE 408; CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT FOR NEGOTIATING PURPOSES ONLY
APPENDIX 4: USE OF FORCE REVIEW PROCESS - 9 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
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
PROTECTED BY FRE 408; CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT FOR NEGOTIATING PURPOSES ONLY
APPENDIX 4: USE OF FORCE REVIEW PROCESS - 10 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
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.
PROTECTED BY FRE 408; CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT FOR NEGOTIATING PURPOSES ONLY
APPENDIX 5: TRAINING - 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
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
PROTECTED BY FRE 408; CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT FOR NEGOTIATING PURPOSES ONLY
APPENDIX 5: TRAINING - 2 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
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.
PROTECTED BY FRE 408; CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT FOR NEGOTIATING PURPOSES ONLY
APPENDIX 5: TRAINING - 3 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
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.
PROTECTED BY FRE 408; CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT FOR NEGOTIATING PURPOSES ONLY
APPENDIX 5: TRAINING - 4 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
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
PROTECTED BY FRE 408; CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT FOR NEGOTIATING PURPOSES ONLY
APPENDIX 5: TRAINING - 5 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
(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.
PROTECTED BY FRE 408; CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT FOR NEGOTIATING PURPOSES ONLY
APPENDIX 5: TRAINING - 6 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
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.
PROTECTED BY FRE 408; CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT FOR NEGOTIATING PURPOSES ONLY
APPENDIX 6: CRISIS INTERVENTION - 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
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
PROTECTED BY FRE 408; CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT FOR NEGOTIATING PURPOSES ONLY
APPENDIX 6: CRISIS INTERVENTION - 2 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
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
PROTECTED BY FRE 408; CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT FOR NEGOTIATING PURPOSES ONLY
APPENDIX 6: CRISIS INTERVENTION - 3 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
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.
PROTECTED BY FRE 408; CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT FOR NEGOTIATING PURPOSES ONLY
APPENDIX 6: CRISIS INTERVENTION - 4 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
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.
PROTECTED BY FRE 408; CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT FOR NEGOTIATING PURPOSES ONLY
APPENDIX 7: SOCIAL CONTACT AND INVESTIGATORY STOP DATA COLLECTION - 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
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;
PROTECTED BY FRE 408; CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT FOR NEGOTIATING PURPOSES ONLY
APPENDIX 7: SOCIAL CONTACT AND INVESTIGATORY STOP DATA COLLECTION - 2 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
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.
PROTECTED BY FRE 408; CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT FOR NEGOTIATING PURPOSES ONLY
APPENDIX 7: SOCIAL CONTACT AND INVESTIGATORY STOP DATA COLLECTION - 3 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
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.
PROTECTED BY FRE 408; CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT FOR NEGOTIATING PURPOSES ONLY
APPENDIX 8: EARLY INTERVENTION SYSTEM - 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
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
PROTECTED BY FRE 408; CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT FOR NEGOTIATING PURPOSES ONLY
APPENDIX 8: EARLY INTERVENTION SYSTEM - 2 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
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
PROTECTED BY FRE 408; CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT FOR NEGOTIATING PURPOSES ONLY
APPENDIX 8: EARLY INTERVENTION SYSTEM - 3 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
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
PROTECTED BY FRE 408; CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT FOR NEGOTIATING PURPOSES ONLY
APPENDIX 8: EARLY INTERVENTION SYSTEM - 4 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
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
PROTECTED BY FRE 408; CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT FOR NEGOTIATING PURPOSES ONLY
APPENDIX 8: EARLY INTERVENTION SYSTEM - 5 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
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.
PROTECTED BY FRE 408; CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT FOR NEGOTIATING PURPOSES ONLY
APPENDIX 9: OFFICE OF PROFESSIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY - 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
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
PROTECTED BY FRE 408; CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT FOR NEGOTIATING PURPOSES ONLY
APPENDIX 9: OFFICE OF PROFESSIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY - 2 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
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
PROTECTED BY FRE 408; CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT FOR NEGOTIATING PURPOSES ONLY
APPENDIX 9: OFFICE OF PROFESSIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY - 3 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
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
PROTECTED BY FRE 408; CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT FOR NEGOTIATING PURPOSES ONLY
APPENDIX 9: OFFICE OF PROFESSIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY - 4 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
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
PROTECTED BY FRE 408; CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT FOR NEGOTIATING PURPOSES ONLY
APPENDIX 9: OFFICE OF PROFESSIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY - 5 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
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
PROTECTED BY FRE 408; CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT FOR NEGOTIATING PURPOSES ONLY
APPENDIX 9: OFFICE OF PROFESSIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY - 6 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
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
PROTECTED BY FRE 408; CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT FOR NEGOTIATING PURPOSES ONLY
APPENDIX 9: OFFICE OF PROFESSIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY - 7 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
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
PROTECTED BY FRE 408; CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT FOR NEGOTIATING PURPOSES ONLY
APPENDIX 9: OFFICE OF PROFESSIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY - 8 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
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
PROTECTED BY FRE 408; CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT FOR NEGOTIATING PURPOSES ONLY
APPENDIX 9: OFFICE OF PROFESSIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY - 9 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
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.
PROTECTED BY FRE 408; CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT FOR NEGOTIATING PURPOSES ONLY
APPENDIX 9: OFFICE OF PROFESSIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY - 10 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
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.
PROTECTED BY FRE 408; CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT FOR NEGOTIATING PURPOSES ONLY
APPENDIX 9: OFFICE OF PROFESSIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY - 11 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
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.
PROTECTED BY FRE 408; CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT FOR NEGOTIATING PURPOSES ONLY
APPENDIX 9: OFFICE OF PROFESSIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY - 12 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
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
PROTECTED BY FRE 408; CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT FOR NEGOTIATING PURPOSES ONLY
APPENDIX 9: OFFICE OF PROFESSIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY - 13 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
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.
PROTECTED BY FRE 408; CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT FOR NEGOTIATING PURPOSES ONLY
APPENDIX 9: OFFICE OF PROFESSIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY - 14 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
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
PROTECTED BY FRE 408; CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT FOR NEGOTIATING PURPOSES ONLY
APPENDIX 9: OFFICE OF PROFESSIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY - 15 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
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.
PROTECTED BY FRE 408; CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT FOR NEGOTIATING PURPOSES ONLY
APPENDIX 10: MONITORING PLAN - 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
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,
PROTECTED BY FRE 408; CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT FOR NEGOTIATING PURPOSES ONLY
APPENDIX 10: MONITORING PLAN - 2 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
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
PROTECTED BY FRE 408; CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT FOR NEGOTIATING PURPOSES ONLY
APPENDIX 10: MONITORING PLAN - 3 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
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
PROTECTED BY FRE 408; CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT FOR NEGOTIATING PURPOSES ONLY
APPENDIX 10: MONITORING PLAN - 4 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
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.
PROTECTED BY FRE 408; CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT FOR NEGOTIATING PURPOSES ONLY
APPENDIX 10: MONITORING PLAN - 5 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
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
PROTECTED BY FRE 408; CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT FOR NEGOTIATING PURPOSES ONLY
APPENDIX 10: MONITORING PLAN - 6 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
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.
top related