Earlier this month, the Seattle Times published a piece about Seattle Police Chief Sue Rahr overturning or modifying disciplinary recommendations in four recent Office of Police Accountability (OPA) investigations involving Seattle cops. In most of the cases, Rahr argued that unless OPA discovered serious misconduct, it should recommend corrective, rather than punitive officer discipline. Meanwhile, Seattle Police Department (SPD) leadership recently celebrated its renewed ability to jail low-level non-violent offenders.
As the City expands the powers of officers to crack down on Seattle’s poorest and most vulnerable populations, Rahr has taken the hypocritical stance that taking a similar approach with SPD officers, most of whom earn six-figure salaries, would be counterproductive in changing behavior.
The Seattle Times article referenced four cases Rahr took issue with, including some of the findings in the case involving former SPD Officer Daniel Auderer’s laughing and making light of the death of Jaahnavi Kandula, who SPD Officer Kevin Dave hit and killed in January 2023. The OPA determined that Auderer’s comment, which suggested Kandula’s age meant she had limited value, amounted to bias against her based on age. Rahr disagreed, arguing that making a derogatory comment about someone’s age cannot rise to the same level of misbehavior as calling someone a slur or mocking their disability. The SPD policy manual states that no officer shall make any prejudiced or derogatory comment regarding a person’s characteristics, including their age.
The other incidents of Rahr overturning discipline involved less high profile cases. In one case, an officer claimed he accidentally tased a woman, who was lying on the ground in handcuffs. Officers had responded to a call about an unarmed woman wandering naked in the middle of an intersection, covered in blood, disoriented, and possibly in crisis. She asked them to call her mom, they said they would but she needed to drop to her knees. The woman took three steps toward the officers, then one of them tasered her causing her to slump over. As the officers finished putting the woman in handcuffs, the officer’s taser zapped again, causing the woman’s body to jerk and her to shout, “Ow! Please stop!” The officer with the Taser said sorry and another officer said, “Fucking hell dude.” That tasering lasted about a second.
In the OPA’s investigation into the incident, the officer explained he wasn’t used to the new Taser model and that led to the accidental discharge. OPA sustained the policy violation against him because he undeniably tased the woman while she lay in handcuffs, which violated department policy. Rahr overturned the OPA’s finding and argued that in the six months it took for the OPA to investigate this case, the officer had no other use-of-force violations. She acknowledged that the officer had tased a woman in handcuffs, and that SPD policy did not require OPA to establish the officer’s intent in order to find a policy violation, but she still argued he should not have his record marred by this incident.
In another case Rahr overturned, two officers failed to activate their in-car video (ICV) when approaching a person they suspected of trespassing in an alley. Both officers did activate their body-worn cameras. The case summary said the officers drove up to the person in the alley, parked, the officer in the driver’s seat exited the car, and the person allegedly punched the officer almost immediately. The body-worn camera footage only captured a struggle due to how close the man was to the officer. After officers arrested the man, he was taken to the hospital for a broken nose.
The OPA sustained two policy violations against the officers. However, Rahr overturned the OPA’s findings meaning they wouldn’t be on the officer’s internal personnel file. Rahr argued that neither officer intentionally left the ICV turned off. She emphasized that, except in serious cases, officer discipline should be corrective rather than punitive. Under the SPD policy manual, failing to activate the ICV constitutes a serious policy violation.
The final case involved a failure to Mirandize a person after placing them in handcuffs and beginning to question them. It took 23 minutes before he was informed of his rights. Failure to Mirandize someone before questioning them violates their constitutional rights, and SPD’s policy manual categorizes it as a serious breach of policy. Despite this, Rahr overturned the sustained finding and said it was important to her that this officer, who had worked for the department for ten years with only one written reprimand in that entire time, be “rehabilitated, not punished and demoralized.”
Rahr’s strategy for dealing with the residents of Seattle seems to be in direct opposition to her rehabilitative stance toward her officers. Since the lifting of the booking restrictions, her department has increasingly sought to punish people for a host of minor infractions by incarcerating them. On November 9, SPD jailed a woman in crisis who hit a man on his shoulder with a water bottle. When officers questioned her about the incident she appeared to not understand the question, and then she said she soiled herself before continuing “to talk incoherently,” according to the police report. She remains in jail and she’s now awaiting a mental health competency evaluation. The officers made no mention in their police report of attempting to divert her from jail before putting a person in crisis into a jail cell, a situation which can be incredibly punishing and demoralizing, to borrow words from Rahr’s description of OPA discipline.
In another case from November 6, Rahr’s officers arrested a man for stealing a Pepsi valued at $3.19 from an AMPM after the store had formally trespassed him. The man spent eight days in jail for that charge, before the court released him and ordered he undergo a competency evaluation. The police report made no mention of officers attempting to contact a prebooking diversion program, which could have been a more appropriate course of action given the circumstances.
Just two days later, Rahr’s officers arrested a woman for stealing two pillows and a blanket from a store. Despite the woman returning the items to officers, they arrested her because the shop owner wanted to press charges. The woman sat in jail for a full day before the court released her. The Seattle City Attorney’s Office later filed misdemeanor theft charges against her.
Like the officers who violated SPD policy with their behavior, all of the individuals arrested in these cases allegedly broke the law. Arguably, both the criminal and policy violations could all be considered minor, aside from Auderer’s case. But at the end of the OPA investigations, Rahr’s officers faced at most a black mark on their personnel file, but even with that they maintained their housing, their jobs, and their freedom. None of that can be guaranteed for the people her officers arrested for stealing blankets or a soda. And yet, Rahr believes arresting these people to be the best course of action. For her officers, Rahr advocates for leniency, and even admonishes OPA Director Gino Betts for following the department’s own policies. While she refers to the incidents in these OPA cases as minor, the SPD policy manual considers every single one of them serious in nature.
In some ways, a difference of opinion between Rahr and Betts isn’t “per se” a cause for concern, said Lisa Daugaard, Co-Executive Director of Purpose Dignity Action and one of the first co-chairs of the Seattle Community Police Commission. Betts makes a recommendation, then the case moves to the chief, who makes a disciplinary decision only after a due process hearing with the officer involved. The hearing may add context or the officer may demonstrate a genuine intent to correct the issues, which could lead the chief to support counseling over formal discipline. From Daugaard’s perspective, what is crucial is that these processes remain transparent and that Rahr shares her reasoning for her decisions with City leaders, which she did.
However, if Rahr had her way, her officers would face fewer black marks on their files and the public would have less transparency into their behavior. Rahr argued in her letters for more cases to be handled through supervisor actions, an opaque process that allows SPD supervisors to investigate and counsel officers without the OPA publicly posting anything about it. Often the only insight into misconduct handled behind the curtain of supervisor action comes when it’s mentioned in a separate OPA case. Given that, OPA surveys show that 60% of respondents believe nothing would be done about police misconduct, and with 93% of people rating police accountability very important for the City, Rahr needs to reconsider undercutting the institution that works to transparently communicate the results of police misconduct investigations to the public.
Rahr did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
If cops believe the best way to handle people with mental illness and drug addiction is through enhanced punishments within the public criminal justice system, then they need to accept the same philosophy when it comes to police misconduct. Accountability and rehabilitation should apply equitably, regardless of whether the individual involved is an officer or a member of the public.
“Rahr did not immediately respond to a request for comment.”
Biased reporting typically leads to outcomes like the above.
What could have been insightful would be to research (and provide the subsequent results) as to whether the folks highlighted as being unfairly jailed had previous records of similar crimes / incidents. As Rahr stated, the OPA incident was the only incident thus her deference to a restorative approach.
“Rahr’s officers arrested a man for stealing a Pepsi valued at $3.19 from an AMPM after the store had formally trespassed him.”
Because the suspect was previously trespassed, this was felony burglary, not misdemeanor theft, under Washington law.
Felonies aren’t eligible for diversion.
Harsh? You bet, but it was the Legislature that was harsh, not officers.
A crime reporter who won’t learn Washington Law.
“Like the officers who violated SPD policy with their behavior, all of the individuals arrested in these cases allegedly broke the law.”
Factually wrong. The officers allegedly violated policy. The suspects arrested allegedly broke laws.
Employers enact policies, not laws. Only the Legislature can enact laws. Violating employment policy is not violating the law.
If the employer wants to be lenient with their policy, they may. If the prosecutor, judge, or jury wants to be lenient with the law, they may. It’s the cops job to arrest people and deliver the suspect to the prosecutor and courts for them to decide what to do with the suspect, not to substitute a cops judgment for prosecutors and courts.
“Like the officers who violated SPD policy with their behavior, all of the individuals arrested in these cases allegedly broke the law.”
The Legislature determines what are crimes, and what potential sentences are for crimes, not police. Prosecutors and courts decide to be lenient or not.
Police are liimited to be evidence gatherers and arrestors, delivering suspects to prosecutors and courts, not to make judgments about penalties or leniency for alleged crimes.
@4 three tries and you still got it wrong. Police have discretion whether or not to make an arrest, and what charges to refer.
@1 do you think first time offenders should have their convictions summarily overturned because it was only their first time?
“If cops believe the best way to handle
people with mental illness and drug
addiction is through enhanced
punishments within the public
criminal justice system, then
they need to accept the
same philosophy when
it comes to police
misconduct.
Accountability
and rehabilitation
should apply equitably,
regardless of whether the
individual involved is an of-
ficer or a member of the public.”
Fucking
BINGO.
this is Seattle.
We can do
Better.
“… an unarmed woman wandering
naked in the middle of an intersection,
covered in blood, disoriented, and possibly in crisis.”
think I’d go with
in a fucking Crisis
“the officer’s taser zapped again,
causing the woman’s body to jerk
and her to shout, “Ow! Please stop!”
the officer
with the Taser
said sorry and another
officer said, “Fucking hell dude.”
THAT’S / the po-po what
Oughtta be In Charge
the ‘fucking
hell?’ dude
so
how many Tazerings might it
take to restore a little Just-
ice into the trigger-/Tazer-
happy ‘Justice of the
Peace’ do you sup-
pose it’d Take?
also
Brava
Ashley.
@5
tS
needs
a three Strikes
you’re OUT! policy:
buh-Bye
mister
mag-
oo.
@5, And that discretion has lead to no end of civil rights abbuses, corruption, and disparate policing based on race.
So why would we want to continue that? Lawmakers are democratically elected and crimes and penalties are democratically determined. We want to alllow one cop to undue that democratically determined societal standard?
Nope lets keep voters and those they elect in their lane, elected prosecutors in their lane, elected judges in theirs, and citizen juries in their lane.
Than means not having unelected cops co-opt all of those roles. If they have probable cause of a traffic infraction, write it. Probable cause of a crime? Arrest for it.
Leave discretion to those the public elected. A cop can’t write tickets or arrest blacks, but not whites, if we take away their discretion not to write or arrest.
If the penalty or consequence for arrest is counter-productive, thats on us and those we elect, and we need to change it, rather than try and make unelected cops substitute their judgment for the democratic society they serve. If we could have wise, incorruptible, error free judge, jury, and execution, we wouldn’t need democracy and seperation of ekected roles and duties in the first place. We could sit back and rely on all perfect philosopher-kings to protect rights and preserve order. You want to revive thst idea and vest it in cops? Nutty.
@9 “And that discretion has lead to no end of civil rights abbuses, corruption, and disparate policing based on race. So why would we want to continue that?”
Couldn’t agree more. Why indeed would we want to perpetuate such an abuse prone profession? Has to be a better way.
The entire premise of this article is bullshit. Ashley takes restorative justice to mean that there should be zero consequences for misbehavior from the point that it occurs. That’s not how it’s intended to work, and she knows this, because she was personally the beneficiary of it. But because her and The Stranger’s current narrative is that there should never be any consequences for misbehavior (except if you’re a police officer, apparently), she writes this article that’s full of nonsense.
Ashley was arrested and charged after stalking and burglarizing an ex romantic partner. She wound up receiving a deferred disposition and having the case wiped off her record. That’s not a bad thing. Restorative justice doesn’t mean people like Ashley don’t get arrested and charged after stalking and burglarizing someone, it means that after an arrest and criminal charges are filed their cases are handled in a way that doesn’t necessarily lead to the typical consequence of jail or prison time, but instead to a more therapeutic outcome. Ashley knows this first hand because she benefited from it first hand!
Her claim that SPD having the ability to arrest and book people means that these individuals are unable to participate in any sort of restorative justice model is completely false. Their cases can still be handled that way if appropriate. And she knows this because that’s how her case was handled.
Ashley and The Stranger’s current narrative is that no person committing crimes should face any consequences for their behavior. Victims of crime don’t matter. But rather than say that explicitly, because they know it’s a totally toxic position with the public, they lie to their readers and write fundamentally dishonest posts like this one. It’s yet another example of The Stranger looking at Fox News and deciding it’s a model to emulate rather than something to avoid.
@11 this is gross and you should feel bad
@10, Every society on the planet has coercive, and if necessary, violent enforcement.
I.e. They have norms and laws, and some group of people deputized to apprehend violators of those norms. The violators are then forcibly banished them from the community for violating those norms, forced to complete some form of rehabilitation as a condition of rejoining the community, or just locked up for some period of time. We don’t do the former option in this society, we do the latter. We have never really even tried the middle option.
All that to say, there is no alternative to police, or whatever name we give to those deputized to apprehend. If we want them to do that even-handedly, with minimal corruption, we need to take away their discretion and require ticketing or arrest every time there is probable cause of a traffic infraction or crime. They then can’t trade not ticketing for arresting for cash, sexual favors, or drugs, since they have no discretion. Showing leniency, when there is probable cause, becomes grounds for discipline, unlike now.
Then they throw the person arrested to an elected prosecutor and judge to apply the accountability and punishment that voters had elected officials write into law. If that accountability isn’t restorative, that isn’t the fault of the arresting officer is it?
If the consequence of that arrest is counter-productive or too punitive, the arresting officer isn’t the one who determined that consequence, we did, through the our legislators. If the application of the consequence isn’t even-handed, that’s on the prosecutor and judge we elected, not the cop.
Are we really going to expect an employee of the state, to nullify what we the voters have chosen, and then blame them when they can’t? Set them up to substitute their judgement, for the judgement of the voters, written into law, and then blame them for the bad outcomes of laws and accountability for violating the laws that we chose?
@11 Bravo! A very cogent take on this blogger’s not so distant past. She is 100% that _!
SPD is not preparing to crack down on Seattle’s most vulnerable populations. They are preparing to crack down on criminals, those who break the law. Someone should be cracking down on the lies The Stranger is printing.
@13 “we need to take away their discretion and require ticketing or arrest every time there is probable cause of a traffic infraction or crime.”
Who decides whether there was probable cause? Do we have sergeants screen non-arrests? That said I would be strongly in favor of eliminating police officer discretion. What I think you don’t realize is that it is far more often used to justify potential 4th Amendment violations. There is significant caselaw, both state and federal, regarding police discretion to make seizures and searches and “good faith” exceptions to the exclusionary rule. Eliminating discretion would not likely result in more arrests, as you seem to believe, but it would likely result in many more cases being dismissed because evidence was suppressed. So, yes, let’s do it.
@5 in general I do believe in contextualizing first time offenses (be that juveniles or adults) – examples (we see a lot) are things like drunk driving, possession, underage drinking, etc.
Take the taser incident – sounds like a legitimate fuck up (so long as there were no extenuating circumstances and the suspect wasn’t injured from the incident), fuck ups should be treated as such (usually this means additional training).
@17 that’s a reasonable response, but first time DUI offenders for example do receive punishment just not as severe as if they do it again, and it goes on their record so they can receive that more severe punishment if they in fact do it again. For Rahr to just overturn the sustained finding for the Taser incident is too much. I’m sure it was a legitimate fuckup, and the cop doesn’t need to be fired, but it is fair and just for him to have that on his record and receive some consequence.
Ashley, you do yourself a disservice with this sort of ‘reporting:
Rahr did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
If you flesh this out a bit, “I called her 5 minutes before filing
and got a busy signal” being different than, “After leaving five
messages over as many days, Rahr is still ghosting me.”
If one were going to investigate, I would be curious to know
how many Officer reprimands, or ‘black marks’ there were on
the average (week, month, year) historically, just before, and
during the consent decree, and pro-rate it to the last relevant
time period.
I mean, if we averaged 8/100 cops/year since the civil war &
4/100 cops/year before the consent decree, and currently
2/100 cops/year, you could see how much is being swept
under the rug behind the blue wall. Comparing to national
averages would provide some useful perspective, too.
When did the Stranger’s supposed readers become such bootlickers? ACAB.
@20
when
Wormtongue
denier of Genocide
supporter of Massacre
became tS’s ‘conscience.’