Earlier this month, a federal judge overseeing court-mandated reforms at the Seattle Police Department (SPD) called out the city for giving an SPD cop his job back after he punched a handcuffed woman in the face. U.S. District Judge James Robart demanded answers—was this officer’s reinstatement an example of the city violating court-mandated police reforms?
The officer in question, Adley Shepherd, got his job back after an arbitrator (a type of mediator) ruled in his favor. The City Council’s recent police accountability reform law got rid of the controversial arbitrators, which reform advocates say are inherently biased in favor of cops. But that changed this fall when Mayor Jenny Durkan negotiated a new police union contract that overrides the city’s accountability laws and keeps arbitrators around.
How can the city continue police reform, Robart asked on Dec. 3, with this arbitrator in place?
The city claims in their Monday filing that this one “erroneous arbitration decision” is an anomaly and the continued use of arbitrators will not erode police reforms. The city claims that even with the new police union contract, which rolled back key aspects of the accountability ordinance, police reform will continue and “ensure that the Shepherd incident remains an outlier.”
The city is also currently asking a King County court to reverse the Shepherd decision and is waiting to reinstate him until that decision is made.
“The city will not reinstate Shepherd until it is ordered to do so by a court. If ordered to reinstate Shepherd, the city will comply, but it will place him in a ‘suitable position’ as described by the arbitrator, which will not include patrol or training duties,” the city said in their Monday filing.
The city claims that regardless of what happens with Shepherd, the success of police reforms cannot be based on one incident and should instead be based on the court-mandated audits the city is complying with.
“The department’s performance under the consent decree cannot be assessed based on a single incident. That is why the parties, the monitor, and the court approved a schedule of audits and outcome reports during the sustainment period. The city’s continued compliance with the consent decree should be measured by this standard.”
The city has been under court-mandated reforms for six years, after the Obama Administration’s Department of Justice sued the city for engaging in unconstitutional policing. Instead of fighting the lawsuit, the city entered into a legal agreement called a consent decree, which requires police reform while under the supervision of Robart. The city is now in a “wind down” period of the consent decree after Robart ruled in January that Seattle was in “full and effective” compliance with agreement. The city now needs to show sustained reforms for the next two years.
The consent decree does not dictate the specific policies in the police accountability system, instead allowing the city to choose its own laws as long as they comply with the spirit and the intent of the federal police reform agreement. Because of this, the city argues, Mayor Durkan’s agreement to roll back certain police reforms from the City Council’s law doesn’t violate the consent decree. It’s still better than the old system, the city argues.
“The results of the City’s labor negotiations should therefore be compared against the status quo—not against the terms of the accountability ordinance (which could not legally take effect until after bargaining),” the city writes in their Monday filing.
Robart is still skeptical. He told the city to provide a detailed list of every instance where Durkan’s police union contract changes the police accountability ordinance. Here are some highlights:
•The city will no longer require officers to appeal discipline at the city’s Public Safety Civil Service Commission, which is open to the public. Officers are instead allowed to appeal their discipline behind closed doors with an arbitrator.
•The statute of limitations for disciplining officers is reduced from five years to four.
•The two main police accountability agencies, the Office of Inspector General and the Office of Police Accountability, will no longer be able to subpoena officers and their families.
•The city must demonstrate a higher burden of proof for firing officers when the case can be “stigmatizing” to a cop.
Robart has also asked for the Community Police Commission (CPC)—a city board established by the new police accountability laws—to weigh in on the current situation. The CPC has been vocally critical of Durkan’s new police union contract. We’ll see what they say. Robart plans to respond to the city’s filing at a later court hearing.
