Seattle Cops Claim Constitutional Right to Continue Using Excessive Force

[XLFD]

A group of over 120 Seattle Police officers have sued the Seattle Police Monitor, City Attorney, Police Chief and Mayor (current and former), the City of Seattle, and Justice Department officials including Eric Holder.  The reason why?  The Justice Department came in to review the SPD after several high profile instances of police brutality, some with racial elements, and created new protocols for the use of force by Seattle officers. 

 

These officers have found the new rules to violate their own 'rights' of using force.  The 43 page lawsuit has such interesting phrases like "reckless and deliberate indifference protections afforded to the (police officers) by the Constitution", "policies and practices are designed to trap (police officers) into violations", "second-guessing prohibited in the Constitution".  If you know the Second, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments, you should be amused by the lawsuits using those rights of the individual citizens to construct what seems to be a ludicrous Constitutional basis for their claim of being unable to protect themselves and others due to a policy that makes them try alternative means of problem solving rather than to shoot first. 

 

If you have the time to do your research, few police departments other than perhaps the Albuquerque and Detroit squads, seem to find themselves under as much scrutiny as the SPD for violating those same rights and more of those they have sworn to protect and serve. 

 

The story, along with a response from the Justice Department attorney follows.  I have to agree with her assessment. 

 

 

 

(Reuters) - Seattle police officers filed a federal lawsuit on Wednesday challenging new policies that restrict use of force, saying the rules endanger lives of both officers and civilians.

More than 120 officers have joined the lawsuit, which seeks a complete dismantling of a new use of force policy hammered out between the Seattle Police Department and the U.S. Department of Justice to stem an alleged pattern of excessive force.

The Seattle Police Department has been under federal monitoring since 2012, following an investigation into a series of incidents in which officers appeared to engage in excessive force, particularly against minorities.

The lawsuit says the policy, which went into effect this year, "unreasonably restrict and burden Plaintiffs' right to use force reasonably required, to protect themselves and others from apparent harm and danger."

The officers are seeking financial compensation and a complete overhaul of the policy, calling it "unconstitutional and beyond repair."

U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, the city of Seattle and Mayor Ed Murray are among those targeted in the lawsuit.

Murray declined to comment on the lawsuit, but told local media "We are under a federally mandated court order. We will follow that court order."

"The Justice Department and the federal courts say we need to deal with issues of use of force as well as other issues in our police department," he told Seattle's Fox affiliate.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/05/29/us-usa-washington-police-...

U.S. Attorney Jenny Durkan [above] says allegations by Seattle police that new use-of-force policies are putting officers and citizens in danger are groundless and she expects a lawsuit on the issue to be dismissed.

Durkan on Thursday defended the detailed policy, adopted in January and still being implemented, arguing that it was created “with the police, by the police and for the police” as part of court-monitored reforms. She said the policy will,   in the end, make both police and citizens safer.

She predicted the concerns of many officers will be eased as training for the new policy is ramped up this summer.

Within every organization undergoing change, Durkan said, there are those who resist. She said she expected pushback from police.

But Durkan said resisters within the SPD need to know that the mayor and police commanders, from the chief down, are on board with the reforms and “for the first time in decades,” have a single, clear message to the troops: “Reform is under way. Get on the train, or leave.”

Durkan called an impromptu news conference the day after 123 Seattle officers joined as plaintiffs in a federal civil-rights lawsuit alleging the new use-of-force policies have hampered officers and emboldened criminals, placing police and the public in danger.

The officers claim the changes have effectively created “hesitation and paralysis” among police, stripping them of their constitutional and legal rights to make reasonable, split-second judgments in the line of duty.

As a result, officers are afraid to do their job for fear of being second-guessed over burdensome, complicated and voluminous policies, the suit says.

The plaintiffs make up about 10 percent of the SPD’s rank-and-file officers.

Durkan believes  the lawsuit was “without merit and will be dealt with quickly by the court.”

“Nobody can say the use-of-force policies make things harder for police officers, because they haven’t been implemented yet,” she said.

Thursday afternoon, the SPD posted an item on its online blotter stating the lawsuit “does not represent the views of the Seattle Police Department.”

"The department is committed to reform,” the SPD said.

Indeed, Durkan believes the lawsuit actually “represents some progress” since the Department of Justice concluded in 2011 that Seattle police routinely used unconstitutional force during arrests and demonstrate disturbing, if inconclusive, evidence of biased policing. The reforms stem from that finding.

Two previous lawsuits filed by officers at the outset of the reforms — both since dropped — were sponsored by police unions and handled by lawyers. The latest lawsuit was filed by the individual officers, representing themselves, without the approval of their union, the Seattle Police Officers’ Guild.

The new policy resulted from a 2012 consent-decree entered into by the city and the Department of Justice (DOJ). A federal judge and court-appointed monitor are overseeing the reforms.

It states officers shall “use only the force necessary to perform their duties” and “with minimal reliance upon the use of physical force.”

It requires them, if circumstances allow, to attempt to de-escalate tense situations through “advisements, warnings, verbal persuasion, and other tactics” to reduce the need for force.

When using force is unavoidable, the policy cautions officers to use only the force necessary to make the arrest, and says their conduct before force was used may be considered by the department in determining whether force was appropriate.

The policy also requires all officers be armed with one “less-lethal” tool, such as a Taser, pepper spray or a “beanbag” shotgun, in addition to their sidearm.

http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2023726305_lawsuitdoj1xml.html

[Willy]

I can understand why the officers don't want a change. They have been trained in and have implemented the existing procedures for years so they are skeptical about changing. On the other hand, folks are getting fed up with aggressive police behavior.  It simply boils down to those who are in charge telling subordinates how to perform their job. It's as simple as that and if the officers don't like it they are free to seek employment elsewhere.

[XLFD]

Few people want more restrictions on what they can do at work, or for their work's parameters to change so that they are perceived to be at greater risk.  But every time an innocent person is victimized by the police and the officer(s) get away with it scot-free or have the insurance company bail them out of civil damages, our justice system dies just a little.  Those police officers who already follow the reasonable limitations on their use of force are put in more danger, simply because some officers get away with murder of innocents without any repercussions.