After a heap of bad press and expensive lawsuits, the city appears
to finally be taking steps to reduce the number of obstruction arrests
made by the Seattle Police Department.
Charges of obstruction—a gross misdemeanor punishable by a
$5,000 fine and up to a year in jail—are intended to protect
officers from interference during an arrest. However, in some cases
they are slapped on as a punitive measure when arrestees—or even
bystanders—talk back or complain about officer conduct.
Obstruction arrests have become so controversial that earlier this
month, in an apparent effort to protect bystanders from obstruction
charges, Seattle police chief Gil Kerlikowske issued a directive
outlining department policy. The directive states that bystanders can
stay “in proximity” to an ongoing arrest as long as they don’t get in
the way.
However, not every city agency appears to have the same goal.
Since 1994, the city has had a law on the books that clearly defines
obstruction and outlines the five ways obstruction can occur: physical
interference in a police investigation, disobeying orders to stop,
refusing to cease dangerous behavior, destroying material pertinent to
an investigation, and refusing to leave the scene of an incident when
lawfully requested.
But despite the existence of the city law, City Attorney Tom Carr
continues to prosecute nearly a third of the city’s obstruction cases
using a more vaguely written state law that offers no such specifics.
Of the 256 stand-alone obstruction cases the city has filed since
January 2007, 106 were prosecuted under the state law, which simply
defines obstruction as “willfully hinder[ing], delay[ing], or
obstruct[ing]” an officer, and does not account for unlawful contact by
an officer.
Carr’s actions have drawn the attention of city council member Nick
Licata, a longtime civil rights watchdog on the council. On June 12,
Licata sent a letter asking Carr to explain why city prosecutors
continue to file charges under the state code, despite the fact that
the city council “indicated its wish that Seattle resources not be
devoted to prosecuting people for failure to abide by unlawful police
orders.”
In addition to the firm definition of obstruction, the city law also
protects people from obstruction convictions if a judge determines an
officer was “not acting lawfully” during an arrest. In contrast, the
state law does not take into account whether an obstruction charge
arose from a perfectly legal traffic stop or an unlawful interrogation
and search on the street.
It’s not all that uncommon for on-street contact to quickly turn
into an obstruction arrest. In the last few years, SPD has racked up a
number of egregious obstruction cases that the city has taken to trial:
Aaron Claxton, who was repeatedly Tasered in his North Seattle home and
charged with obstruction when he failed to respond to officers who he
claims did not identify themselves; Romelle Bradford, who was arrested
outside the South Seattle Boys & Girls Club, where he worked, and
thrown in jail for failing to respond to an officer’s command to halt;
and Carl Sandidge, who was Tasered in downtown Seattle by officers who
also reportedly did not identify themselves. Claxton filed a claim
against the city and settled for $20,000 in February. In May, a jury
awarded Bradford $268,000 for his suit against the city, although the
city has asked for a new trial. And in 2006, a judge ruled Sandidge not
guilty and dismissed SPD’s case with prejudice.
Because obstruction cases continue to be controversial, the police
department’s Office of Professional Accountability (OPA)—which
handles SPD’s internal investigations—is also doing an audit of
obstruction cases. So far, OPA is only examining obstruction cases that
resulted in a complaint against the arresting officer; but they may
expand their audit in the future.
While the department appears to be taking a hard look at how it
deals with obstruction, it’s not clear if the city has any plans to
change how it prosecutes cases. City Attorney Tom Carr did not return
The Stranger‘s calls for comment on why the city continues to
use the state law to prosecute obstruction. 
