Case 2:12-cv-01282-JLR Document 540 Filed 02/28/19 Page 1 of 12

1

THE HONORABLE JAMES L. ROBART

2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

8
9
10

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

11

No. 2:12-cv-01282-JLR

Plaintiff,

12
13

UNITED STATES’ UPDATE ON THE
STATUS OF THE CITY OF SEATTLE’S
SUSTAINMENT OF COMPLIANCE WITH
THE TERMS OF THE CONSENT DECREE

v.
CITY OF SEATTLE,

14

Defendant.

15
16

I.

INTRODUCTION

17
The Sustainment Plan (Dkt. 444) 1 represents the Parties, the Monitoring Team, and the

18

19 Court’s agreement regarding the measures the City must take to demonstrate that it has sustained
20 compliance for the two year period required by the terms of this case’s governing document, the
21

Consent Decree. One requirement of the Plan is that the Parties and the Monitoring Team

22
23

provide a “general overall update [to] the Court on the current status of progress and sustainment

24 of required Consent Decree reforms” in February 2019. See (Dkt. 444-1) at 29. At this time, the
25 United States notifies the Court that since March 2018, the City has met all required deadlines
26
27
1

28

Approved by the Court on March 13, 2018. See (Dkt. 448).

UNITED STATES’ UPDATE ON SUSTAINMENT PERIOD
Case No. 2:12-cv-01282-JLR - 1

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
700 STEWART STREET, SUITE 5220
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101
(206) 553-7970

 Case 2:12-cv-01282-JLR Document 540 Filed 02/28/19 Page 2 of 12

1 set forth in the Sustainment Plan, has worked in good faith with the United States and the
2 Monitoring Team to comply with all requirements of the Consent Decree, and has demonstrated
3
sustained compliance which each of the areas evaluated pursuant to the plan’s deadlines. The

4
5

specifics of these actions are set forth in more detail below and provide the United States with

6 confidence that the City can, if it continues to devote the resources and dedication to reform that
7 it has shown so far, demonstrate its fulfilment of the Consent Decree requirements by January
8

2020. Until that time, and for the remainder of the time that the Consent Decree is in place, the

9
10

United States will continue to monitor and assess the City’s fulfillment of those requirements

11 with diligence and scrutiny.
12
13

II.
A.

HISTORY OF THE SUSTAINMENT PERIOD TO DATE

Phase I of the Consent Decree – Reaching Full and Effective Compliance

14
15

The Consent Decree required reforms to the Seattle Police Department (“SPD”)’s

16 policies and practices to correct an alleged pattern or practice of unconstitutional policing. See
17 (Dkt. 3-1) (calling for reforms related to use of force, crisis intervention, stops and detentions,
18 bias-free policing, supervision, and the Office of Professional Accountability (now the Office of
19
Police Accountability (“OPA”)). After entry of the Consent Decree in 2012, the City of Seattle

20
21

commenced (with assistance of the Monitoring Team and the United States) making changes to

22 policies, practices, and training to conform with these requirements. During Phase I, the Parties
23 and the Monitoring Team agreed to assess SPD’s compliance with the Consent Decree using
24

“Compliance Reviews and Audits.” See id. at ¶¶ 183-185 (as opposed to the Consent Decree’s

25
26

alternate compliance mechanism, “Outcome Assessments”). Accordingly, the Monitoring Team

27 and the United States conducted ten assessments covering each of the general topic areas of the
28
UNITED STATES’ UPDATE ON SUSTAINMENT PERIOD
Case No. 2:12-cv-01282-JLR - 2

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
700 STEWART STREET, SUITE 5220
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101
(206) 553-7970

 Case 2:12-cv-01282-JLR Document 540 Filed 02/28/19 Page 3 of 12

1 Consent Decree (as well as a re-assessment of one assessed area that was not found in initial
2 compliance) for various time periods falling between July 2014 and January 2017. See (Dkts.
3
231, 247, 235, 259-1, 272, 351, 360, 374, 383, and 394). Through these assessments, the

4
5

Monitoring Team and the United States ultimately concluded that the City of Seattle had

6 demonstrated compliance with all of the requirements of the Consent Decree. Id. (finding each
7 area in “initial compliance”). On that basis, the Court found the City of Seattle in “full and
8
effective compliance with the Consent Decree.” See (Dkt. 439).

9
10
11

B.

Phase II of the Consent Decree – Demonstrating Sustained Compliance
The City’s obligations under the Consent Decree did not end when the City initially

12 obtained full and effective compliance. Under the agreement, before the Consent Decree can
13

terminate, the City of Seattle must demonstrate that it has sustained that compliance for a period

14
15

of two years. The Sustainment Plan, approved by the Court in March 2018, sets forth the

16 requirements and deadlines relevant to that demonstration. See (Dkt. 444-1). During this period,
17 the City of Seattle takes the lead in self-assessing each of the topic areas covered by the Consent
18 Decree. This means that the City drafts a methodology that will govern the manner by which the
19
topic area is evaluated or audited and then conducts an assessment consistent with that

20
21

methodology. The Monitoring Team and the United States play an active role in monitoring

22 these efforts – the Monitoring Team and the United States review, comment, and ultimately
23 approve the methodology proposed by the City only if each feels that it satisfies the rigorous and
24
statistically appropriate requirements of assessing compliance with that topic area. Further, the

25
26

Monitoring Team and the United States review randomized samples of documents from the

27 audits conducted by the City of Seattle to verify the results of the City of Seattle’s audit. If the
28
UNITED STATES’ UPDATE ON SUSTAINMENT PERIOD
Case No. 2:12-cv-01282-JLR - 3

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
700 STEWART STREET, SUITE 5220
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101
(206) 553-7970

 Case 2:12-cv-01282-JLR Document 540 Filed 02/28/19 Page 4 of 12

1 Monitoring Team or the United States reach different conclusions than the City regarding the
2 results of any of these audits, the Monitoring Team and the United States both have the ability to
3
file a “Supplemental Brief” flagging such disagreement with the Court. As described in more

4
5

detail herein, such filings have not been necessary as the Monitoring Team and the United States

6 have been in agreement that the City has demonstrated sustained compliance in each of the areas
7 assessed thus far.
8
C.

Status of the City of Seattle’s Sustainment Audits to Date

9
10

Since the Court’s approval of the Sustainment Plan in March 2018, the City of Seattle has

11 been required to complete self-assessments in several topic areas under the Consent Decree:
12 (1) Type I Use of Force Reporting & Investigations; (2) Type II Use of Force Reporting &
13

Investigations; (3) General Supervision; and (4) Crisis Intervention. See (Dkt. 444-1). The City

14
15

of Seattle timely submitted to the Monitoring Team and the United States draft methodologies

16 and draft audit reports for each of these areas. Moreover, for the reasons provided below (and
17 detailed in each audit report filed with the Court), the City of Seattle demonstrated sustained
18 compliance in each of these areas to the satisfaction of the Monitoring Team and United States.
19

Notably, in each of these assessed areas, the Monitoring Team and United States identified issues

20
21

that, while not rising to the level of non-compliance, warrant further attention and review by the

22 City of Seattle. The Monitoring Team and United States identified these issues in the
23 “Validation – DOJ and Monitoring Team Review” section found at the end of each of the City’s
24
audit reports. It is the United States’ expectation that the City will review and address these

25
26

issues in advance of the City’s second round of self-assessments during the Sustainment Period.

27
28
UNITED STATES’ UPDATE ON SUSTAINMENT PERIOD
Case No. 2:12-cv-01282-JLR - 4

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
700 STEWART STREET, SUITE 5220
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101
(206) 553-7970

 Case 2:12-cv-01282-JLR Document 540 Filed 02/28/19 Page 5 of 12

1

1.

2

The City of Seattle opted to combine its self-assessments of SPD’s reporting and

3

Type I and Type II Use of Force Reporting and Investigation

investigation of officer’s use of lower level, “Type I and Type II,” uses of force (primarily

4
5

defined as force that involves either transitory pain, the complaint of pain, or force that causes or

6 is reasonably expected to cause less than great or substantial bodily injury). See (Dkt. 497-1).
7 This assessment covered paragraphs 100-111 of the Consent Decree and assessed, among other
8

things, whether SPD officers appropriately reported and documented Type I and II uses of force

9
10

and whether supervisors appropriately reviewed and investigated that force, including making

11 appropriate referrals to address problems, as warranted. Id.
12
13

SPD conducted its self-assessment of these areas by leveraging the work of the Force
Review Unit (“FRU”) and Force Review Board (“FRB”), whose existing mandate includes

14
15

reviews of each of these issues. Id. Instead of selecting an audit sample, SPD opted to review all

16 uses of force occurring between January 1, 2018 and June 30, 2018 for Type Is and all uses of
17 force occurring between January 1, 2018 and March 30, 2018 for Type IIs. Id. SPD found that
18 92.8% of the investigation files for Type I and II uses of force in the sample period were
19

complete and thorough (an improvement from the 86% identified by the Monitor in Phase I).

20
21

After reviewing this and other data and information (discussed more fully in the audit report),

22 SPD concluded that it had sustained compliance with this topic area.
23
24

The United States and the Monitoring Team’s reviews validated this assertion. In
addition to providing guidance and ultimate approval for the methodology governing SPD’s

25
26

audit, the United States and the Monitoring Team also conducted their own sampling of Type I

27 and II uses of force from the audit period. Specifically, the United States and the Monitoring
28
UNITED STATES’ UPDATE ON SUSTAINMENT PERIOD
Case No. 2:12-cv-01282-JLR - 5

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
700 STEWART STREET, SUITE 5220
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101
(206) 553-7970

 Case 2:12-cv-01282-JLR Document 540 Filed 02/28/19 Page 6 of 12

1 Team reviewed 10% of the Type I uses of force and 20% of the Type II uses of force from SPD’s
2 audit. After reviewing these cases, the United States and the Monitoring Team concluded,
3

among other things, that the “overall quality of SPD’s review and investigation was high and the

4
5

care that officers and their chain of command took in writing reports, reviewing information,

6 ensuring complete reporting, probing issues of concern, and addressing shortcomings was
7 impressive.” Id. at 23. As a result, the United States and the Monitoring Team concurred that
8

SPD has demonstrated sustained compliance in this topic area. However, the United States and

9
10

Monitoring Team also offered up technical assistance for areas of improvement, such as

11 clarifying the rules around delegation of review authority and articulating the sufficiency (or lack
12 thereof) of the Lieutenant-level review. The next (and potentially last) audit and validation of
13

this topic area is scheduled to occur by July 2019 and October 2019 (though SPD may opt to

14
15

combine these two use of force investigation and review audits again, in which case the deadline

16 for filing would be combined).
17

2.

18

The City of Seattle audited paragraphs 153-156 of the Consent Decree through an audit,

19

General Supervision

filed as the “Supervision Report.” 2 See (Dkt. 497-2). This audit covered the period from the

20
21

Court’s declaration of full and effective compliance (January 10, 2018) to June 30, 2018. Id.

22 The audit addressed the specific supervisory mandates of paragraphs 153-156, namely:
23 (1) adequacy of supervision (i.e. whether SPD deploys enough trained first-line supervisors to
24
25
26
27
28

2

Because SPD opted to use all data in the sampled period, it chose to rename the audit a “report” to be
more semantically accurate. For purposes of discussing SPD’s work relative to the requirements of the
Sustainment Plan, which calls this work “audits,” we have continued to refer to it as an audit throughout.
This difference in nomenclature may apply to other “audits” as well.

UNITED STATES’ UPDATE ON SUSTAINMENT PERIOD
Case No. 2:12-cv-01282-JLR - 6

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
700 STEWART STREET, SUITE 5220
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101
(206) 553-7970

 Case 2:12-cv-01282-JLR Document 540 Filed 02/28/19 Page 7 of 12

1 respond to and investigate all uses of force); (2) unity of command (i.e. whether SPD provides
2 first-line supervisors that work the same days and hours as officers they supervise); and (3)
3

adequacy of acting sergeant training (i.e. whether officers serving as acting sergeants for more

4
5
6

than 60 days received appropriate sergeant-level training). Id.; (Dkt. 3-1) at 48-49.
With respect to the adequacy of supervision, the City examined supervisor work and

7 reporting on Type I and II uses of force during the study period. See (Dkt. 497-2). From this
8
data, the City was able to demonstrate that supervisors were routinely completing all of the

9
10

investigation and reporting requirements related to use of force. Id. at 10. Indeed, they did not

11 find any cases in which a supervisor failed to screen a use of force and they confirmed that
12 supervisors responded to the scene of all Type II uses of force during the study period. Id.
13

Accordingly, the City was able to conclude that SPD is employing enough first-line supervisors

14
15

to investigate uses of force. Id. at 11. With respect to unity of command, the City noted that

16 during the period of the United States’ investigation, a different patrol staffing approach was in
17 place in which officers did not consistently report to the same supervisor. Id. That approach has
18 since changed and the City was able to examine data from its Data Analytics Platform (“DAP”),
19
cross-referenced with roll calls sheets, to confirm that all officers within a squad now have the

20
21

same scheduled work week and report to the same supervisor. Id. at 11-12. Finally, the City was

22 able to query its training data to demonstrate that 100% of all officers serving as acting sergeants
23 for more than 60 days received sergeant training within 90 days of assuming that position. Id. at
24
14-15. Accordingly, the City demonstrated compliance with paragraphs 153-156 of the Consent

25
26

Decree.

27
28
UNITED STATES’ UPDATE ON SUSTAINMENT PERIOD
Case No. 2:12-cv-01282-JLR - 7

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
700 STEWART STREET, SUITE 5220
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101
(206) 553-7970

 Case 2:12-cv-01282-JLR Document 540 Filed 02/28/19 Page 8 of 12

1

The United States and the Monitoring Team validated the work and conclusions of this

2 audit by consulting with the City regarding the data to be queried and by cross-referencing the
3

outcome of other audits (for instance the Type I and Type II Force Reporting and Investigation

4
5

Audit, which demonstrated SPD’s compliance with supervisory requirements related to

6 investigating and reporting force). The United States and the Monitoring Team will continue
7 evaluating other audits during Phase II for indications of lack of inadequate supervisory staffing
8
or training. At this time, we have not seen indications of either. The next (and potentially last)

9
10

General Supervision Audit is currently scheduled to occur by November 2019.

11

3.

12

The City of Seattle audited paragraphs 130-137 of the Consent Decree through a Crisis

13

Crisis Intervention

Intervention Audit. See (Dkt. 511). This audit covered the time period from January 1, 2017, to

14
15

June 30, 2018. Id. The audit examined requirements related to crisis intervention training,

16 staffing and deployment of Crisis Intervention Certified Officers (“CIT officers”), disposition
17 and outcome of crisis calls, consultation with a Crisis Intervention Committee (“CIC”) (made up
18 of mental health and social work professionals), analysis of crisis data, and a qualitative
19
evaluation of uses of force involving persons in crisis. Id. at 4-5.

20
21

Through the audit, the City was able to verify its compliance with the Consent Decree

22 mandates in each of these areas. Among other things, the audit verified that the City provides at
23 least 8 hours of crisis-intervention related training to all of its officers, trains dispatchers how to
24

identify and dispatch crisis-related calls, and provides 40 hours of crisis intervention training for

25
26

CIT-certified officers. Id. at 5-6. And, as of the study period, 73% of patrol officers are CIT-

27 certified. In addition, the City confirmed its regular consultation with the CIC, which includes
28
UNITED STATES’ UPDATE ON SUSTAINMENT PERIOD
Case No. 2:12-cv-01282-JLR - 8

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
700 STEWART STREET, SUITE 5220
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101
(206) 553-7970

 Case 2:12-cv-01282-JLR Document 540 Filed 02/28/19 Page 9 of 12

1 participants from local hospitals, mental health service providers, and social service providers.
2 Id. at 39-40. Further, the City demonstrated that approximately 80% of SPD’s 15,000 contacts
3
involving someone in crisis involved a CIT certified officer. Id at 40-41. Only 1.7% of those

4
5

contacts resulted in the use of any reportable force. Id. Moreover, SPD’s Force Investigation

6 Unit and Force Investigation Board found that officers’ use of force was necessary, reasonable,
7 and appropriate and, when officer action violated policy or suggested the need for additional
8
training, supervisors made appropriate referrals. Id. at 25.

9
10

The United States and the Monitoring Team validated the results of this audit by

11 consulting on and approving the methodology used, conducting independent interviews of Crisis
12 Response Unit Staff, and by conducting an independent assessment of a randomly generated
13

sample of use of force cases involving people in crisis during the study period. Id. at 39-41.

14
15

Specifically, the United States and the Monitoring Team examined six Type I case files, five

16 Type II force case files, and three Type III case files (representing all of the Type III uses of
17 force against people in crisis during the 18 month study period). Id. at 40. The United States
18 and the Monitoring Team ultimately concluded that these case files supported SPD’s finding of
19
compliance with the requirements of the Consent Decree, and noted that in the few instances

20
21

where officer behavior was at odds with SPD policy or training, supervisors made appropriate

22 referrals to address these concerns. Id. The United States and the Monitoring Team also offered
23 technical assistance regarding crisis intervention, including: focusing training on the designation
24
of a tactical leader and tactical positioning, particularly in crisis-related events; ensuring that an

25
26

officer’s degree of crisis training is clear in the force review file; and training the Hostage

27 Negotiation Team in a manner consistent with the Crisis Intervention Certification training to
28
UNITED STATES’ UPDATE ON SUSTAINMENT PERIOD
Case No. 2:12-cv-01282-JLR - 9

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
700 STEWART STREET, SUITE 5220
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101
(206) 553-7970

 Case 2:12-cv-01282-JLR Document 540 Filed 02/28/19 Page 10 of 12

1 assist in their encounters with people in crisis. There is no additional Crisis Intervention Audit
2 scheduled, however, a Comprehensive Use of Force Audit is scheduled to occur by October
3

2019, which will include in-depth evaluations of SPD’s uses of force in cases involving persons

4
5

in crisis.

6 D.

Update on the Status of Other Requirements of the Sustainment Plan to Date

7

The City has also met the rest of its obligations under the Sustainment Plan to date,

8

including:

9
10

1.

Policy Reviews. SPD timely reviewed its existing policies on Bias Free Policing

11 (Dkt. 451-1 at 25), Crisis Intervention (Dkt. 451-1), Use of Force (Dkts. 471-1 to 471-3 and 50012 1 to 500-5), Early Intervention System (Dkt. 502-1), and Stops and Detentions (Dkt. 461-1) since
13

March 2018, as required by the Sustainment Plan/Matrix. See (Dkt. 444-1). SPD also timely

14
15

shared draft policy changes in these areas with the United States and the Monitoring Team and

16 timely filed such proposed changes with the Court. Each have been approved by the Court and
17 have gone into effect.
18
19

2.

Outcome Reports. SPD timely filed Outcome Reports with the content mandated

by the Sustainment Plan/Matrix regarding Community Engagement (Dkt. 452-1), Stops &

20
21
22

Detentions (Dkt. 458-1), Crisis Intervention (Dkt. 495-1), and Force Outcomes (Dkt. 442-1).
3.

Quarterly Reports. SPD timely filed Quarterly Reports with the content mandated

23 by the Sustainment Plan/Matrix on July 31, 2018 (Dkt. 470), October 31, 2018 (Dkt. 497), and
24
January 31, 2019 (Dkt. 523).

25
26
27
28
UNITED STATES’ UPDATE ON SUSTAINMENT PERIOD
Case No. 2:12-cv-01282-JLR - 10

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
700 STEWART STREET, SUITE 5220
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101
(206) 553-7970

 Case 2:12-cv-01282-JLR Document 540 Filed 02/28/19 Page 11 of 12

1
2
3

III.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the United States advises the Court that, since March 2018, the
City has met all required deadlines set forth in the Sustainment Plan, has worked in good faith

4
5

with the United States and the Monitoring Team to comply with all requirements of the Consent

6 Decree, and has demonstrated sustained compliance which each of the areas evaluated pursuant
7 to the plan’s deadlines.
8

DATED this 28th day of February, 2019.

9
10
11 For the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
12
BRIAN T. MORAN
United States Attorney for the
14 Western District of Washington

13

ERIC S. DREIBAND
Assistant Attorney General
Civil Rights Division

15
16 s/Christina Fogg
17
18
19
20
21

Kerry J. Keefe, Civil Chief
Christina Fogg, Assistant United States Attorney
United States Attorney’s Office
Western District of Washington
700 Stewart Street, Suite 5220
Seattle, Washington 98101-1271
Phone: (206) 553-7970
Fax: (206) 553-4073

s/Timothy Mygatt
Steven H. Rosenbaum, Chief
Timothy D. Mygatt, Deputy Chief
Jeffrey R. Murray, Trial Attorney
United States Department of Justice
Civil Rights Division
Special Litigation Section
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Phone: (202) 514-6255

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
UNITED STATES’ UPDATE ON SUSTAINMENT PERIOD
Case No. 2:12-cv-01282-JLR - 11

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
700 STEWART STREET, SUITE 5220
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101
(206) 553-7970

 Case 2:12-cv-01282-JLR Document 540 Filed 02/28/19 Page 12 of 12

1
2
3

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that on the 28th day of February 2019, I electronically filed the foregoing with the
Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which will send notification of such filing to the

4
5

following attorneys of record:

6

Annette L Hayes

Annette.Hayes@usdoj.gov

7

Christina Fogg

Christina.Fogg@usdoj.gov

8

Gregory Colin Narver

gregory.narver@seattle.gov

9

Kerry Jane Keefe

kerry.keefe@usdoj.gov

Peter Samuel Holmes

peter.holmes@seattle.gov

Jeff Murray

jeff.murray@usdoj.gov

Rebecca Boatright

rebecca.boatright@seattle.gov

Ronald R. Ward

Ron@wardsmithlaw.com

13

Timothy D. Mygatt

timothy.mygatt@usdoj.gov

14

Carlton Seu

carlton.seu@seattle.gov

15

Gary T. Smith

gary.smith@seattle.gov

16

Hillary H. McClure

hillarym@vjmlaw.com

17

Kristina M. Detwiler

kdetwiler@unionattorneysnw.com

Anna Mouw Thompson

annathompson@perkinscoie.com

David Perez

dperez@perkinscoie.com

10
11
12

18
19
20
21
22
23

DATED this 28th day of February, 2019.
s/Brittany Cirineo
Brittany Cirineo, Legal Assistant (Contractor)

24
25
26
27
28
UNITED STATES’ UPDATE ON SUSTAINMENT PERIOD
Case No. 2:12-cv-01282-JLR - 12

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
700 STEWART STREET, SUITE 5220
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101
(206) 553-7970