Black Lives Matter requests sanctions to improve transparency, accountability from Seattle police — UPDATE
A federal judge had found four clear instances where Seattle Police violated court orders.
UPDATE [12/21/20] — This story has been updated to include the City of Seattle’s response to requested sanctions by Black Lives Matter Seattle-King County and ACLU of Washington.
UPDATE [1/28/21] — Judge Jones largely denies Black Lives Matter Seattle-King County’s requests for sanctions they believe would improve transparency and accountability in SPD. The ruling only forces the city to compensate BLMSKC for legal fees, at a reduced rate. SCC Insight has more details on the ruling:
On Friday, Black Lives Matter Seattle-King County and ACLU of Washington submitted a list of proposed sanctions to Judge Richard Jones after the federal judge found the City of Seattle in contempt of an injunction issued in June that aimed to limit the Seattle Police Department’s (SPD) use of force against protesters.
The sanctions are largely focused on more transparency and accountability from a police department that has been under a federal consent decree since 2012.
In the motion, the plaintiff’s sanctions request the following:
- “The City shall distribute the Court’s December 7, 2020 Order to all Seattle Police Department officers” with “clear instructions about what conduct is prohibited, that any future occurrence will trigger negative consequences, and what those negative consequences might entail.”
- “The City shall submit a Use of Force Report to Plaintiffs and provide relevant body worn video within five days each time the Seattle Police Department deploys less-lethal weapons against protesters.”
- “The City shall pay Plaintiffs’ [legal fees].” UPDATE: The city cites the plaintiff's legal fees are nearly $264,000, which the city argues “is excessive.”
ALCU of Washington released the following statement:
“It’s vital that police officers protect protesters’ rights to free speech, and the Court’s contempt ruling showed that the Seattle Police Department and the City of Seattle have failed to do that in their response to the city’s ongoing protests. Our proposed sanctions will create better transparency and accountability for SPD’s future compliance with the Court’s injunction.”
UPDATE: The city formally responded to the Black Lives Matter motion, arguing against all three proposed sanctions. “In a system that is already thoroughly transparent, reporting requirements to the Plaintiffs do nothing to advance compliance.” the 8-page response reads.
The city goes on to argue that “even if SPD officers are somehow able to complete and have their reports reviewed immediately”, it would require “significant SPD and City Law Department time, personnel, and resources” to complete the reports in the proposed five-day turnaround time.
Jones previously had ruled the department failed to prove that its use of crowd control munitions at protests was “necessary, reasonable, proportional, and targeted”, specifically finding four clear violations.
In the 27-page order, Jones also noted that the city did not provide body-worn video footage from numerous instances of crowd control munitions deployment that may have revealed more violations, something that the department will need to provide moving forward if the court approves the proposed sanctions.
An increase in transparency of police actions at protests will likely result in an increase in cases opened by the Seattle Office of Police Accountability (OPA). However, recent criticism around the effectiveness of the OPA leaves many questions unanswered as to whether or not these new sanctions, if approved, will lead to more substantive change or accountability within SPD.
It is also unclear if the officers involved in the four violations are currently being investigated by the OPA. Due to existing contract terms between the City of Seattle and Seattle Police Officers’ Guild (SPOG), the OPA is not permitted to confirm nor deny any details regarding potentially open cases.
