Citing systemic “unconstitutional patterns” of excessive force at the hands of Seattle police, the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) unleashed a damning report on December 16 that demanded 31 reforms from our police department, including creating specific policies for using pepper spray and batons. But a police union and a stubborn chief are already digging in their heels, and they may stymie reforms—or even get the city sued—by refusing to cooperate.
“In the cases we reviewed, when officers used force, it was done in an excessive, unconstitutional manner 20 percent of the time,” said Jenny Durkan, US Attorney for the Western District of Washington, when explaining the DOJ’s recommendations. Surprisingly, officers were found to employ unnecessary force with batons 57 percent of the time.
But within hours of receiving the DOJ’s 66-page report, Seattle police chief John Diaz told reporters that he wanted to “see evidence” that his officers used excessive force in one out of five cases. “Let us see the numbers,” Diaz defiantly said. Likewise, police labor union president Rich O’Neill issued a statement that afternoon that said changes to working conditions for officers must be hammered out “at the bargaining table.”
But protracted bargaining over labor contracts, quibbling over numbers, and lawsuits over working conditions all stand to prevent Seattle from being able to “make improvements swiftly,” as the Feds insist.
“What this is, basically, is a potential lawsuit against the city,” explains Seattle City Council member Tim Burgess. “The DOJ is kind of giving us advance notice and saying, ‘We can reach a settlement with you.'” That is, if we comply quickly.
“To the extent that things are subject to negotiation with the union, that’s another hurdle we need to get over,” concedes Mayor Mike McGinn. “The union has the ability to go to arbitration if we can’t reach an agreement.” For now, McGinn’s staff is still identifying which recommendations are subject to labor negotiations.
The problem stems from the city’s contract with the Seattle Police Officers’ Guild (SPOG), which represent more than 1,250 uniformed officers. To get a sense of its political leanings: The group’s membership has sought to repeal race and social justice training, said it was “outraged” by the city council’s 11 recommendations last year to increase police accountability, and even called to have the city attorney arrested. But SPOG has leverage. Page 36 of the Feds’ report acknowledges that “many of the issues identified in this letter may implicate some aspects of the SPD Collective Bargaining Agreement.” In other words, SPOG must approve certain reforms in their contracts. Optimistically, DOJ suggests that finding common ground will be simple: “Seattle’s policing community has an established history of coming together to address shortcomings,” writes the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division and United States Attorney’s Office Western District of Washington. “We have every reason to believe it will do so now.”
But that is, in fact, quite the opposite of what we’ve seen.
SPOG is notorious for filing more unfair labor practice complaints than any other city union. Currently, our police officers operate under a contract that expired in 2010 because SPOG officials have repeatedly opposed reforms and deadlocked with the city on developing a new working agreement. This year, SPOG filed a labor complaint because the city is denying police their preferred private defense law firm, Stafford Frey Cooper (City Attorney Pete Holmes insists this matter doesn’t even need to be negotiated). Likewise, SPOG is at another impasse with the city over releasing the names of officers accused of misconduct.
If these fringe concerns about transparency and lawyers can hold up contracts for a year, tie up the city’s resources in court, and still remain unresolved, then it raises questions about our ability to comply “swiftly” with federal orders to make more substantial changes.
What are federal investigators so concerned about? In a nine-month investigation, Feds found that officers used force for “minor offenses, including pedestrian interference, obstruction, open container violations, jaywalking, and shoplifting,” the report says. In one case, a man was found yelling at traffic lights and holding a stuffed animal. When he walked away from officers, police sprayed him with “a powerful form of pepper spray,” “struck the man on the arm with a baton,” and “administered between 14 to 18 punches.”
The DOJ investigation also revealed that out of 1,230 departmental use-of-force reports—which officers are required to fill out and submit to supervisors—only five were referred by supervisors for “further review” in a 27-month period ending on April 4, 2011.
In a best-case scenario, the City of Seattle could simply enter into a consent decree with the DOJ to straighten out the city’s act, as the report advises. But if negotiations drag on for too long or the DOJ doesn’t see the improvements it demands, federal prosecutors could sue the city for civil rights violations.
Sources speaking to The Stranger on the condition of anonymity fear such a lawsuit could collect millions of dollars from the city before forcing the police department to capitulate.
But SPOG president O’Neill said in his statement that he would “look forward” to negotiating reforms. (SPOG did not respond to a request for comment.)
“Right now, SPOG feels they have a lock on any proposed changes by forcing the city to buy our civil rights through a negotiated process,” says city council member Nick Licata. He says the potential for SPOG to delay the process is “big,” citing past disputes over officer discipline that took more than three years to resolve before labor boards.
“I don’t think improper use of force is a legitimate issue to be negotiated,” Licata adds. “Unless there is a change in the SPOG leadership, I expect this will be battled out through the court system.” 
Additional reporting by Cienna Madrid
Rich O’Neill is running the SPOG into the ground. He is rude in every interview. He is the face of the SPD not Diaz. When I think of obnoxious and rude, I think of Rich O’Neill. If he really cared about Seattle and the SPD, he would step down.
As much as I like Mayor McGinn, and I do like him and what he’s doing, he made a major mistake by appointing Diaz chief. It was the best opportunity to clean up the SPD and such an obvious one that I’m simply amazed it happened. It’s not even that Diaz is a bad cop (which he’s not), it’s just that we have a police force in serious need of reform and it’s rare that you can get someone who’s spent their entire career there to be that kind of change agent. Making it worse, Diaz is so entrenched in the culture of the SPD that he can’t even fathom the need for change.
I’m wondering if this DOJ report could be grounds to fire or even just demote Diaz and get someone who can force these changes from the top?
FIRE O’NEILL
FIRE DIAZ
End of story. They don’t like it, stiff bikkies, and the ‘union’ can kiss it! They’re refusing to acknowledge they even HAVE problems. The Seattle Shitty Clowncil seems to have nothing better to do than vote to ban, of all things, plastic bags. Confirms my resolve not to shop the downtown area EVER.
SPOG is notorious for filing more unfair labor practice complaints than any other city union.
You forgot to mention that SPOG keeps winning them – damn labor law.
Currently, our police officers operate under a contract that expired in 2010 because SPOG officials have repeatedly opposed reforms and deadlocked with the city on developing a new working agreement.
Actually, the city has failed to show up at the last 10 scheduled negotiation meetings
I know those 2 facts don’t support your anti-cop story, but why let facts get in the way of journalism
Cop-like typing detected.
@4 Oh, I’m sorry, I guess no one has the right to be upset about a culture of contempt for the public in the police department.
The city can do shitty things (re: your comment) but that doesn’t wash out the shitty things the cops are doing.
McGinn should sue SPOG to force them to comply with the federal recommendations. Individual officers who refuse to comply should be sacked on the spot and relieved of all retirement benefits.
And if the city has to pay out a penny to settle this with the Feds, the money should come from the police pension fund and from police salaries, not the general fund.
Why should the rest of us have to pay for the crimes of O’Neill’s thugs?
It does seem to me that if police officers commit crimes there should be a mechanism to hold them accountable, and that does seem to be missing in Seattle.
@ 6….. FUCK YOU!
Since when are civil rights optional? We need to clean-slate our police force… Once you get a tainted group of people who are burned out and resent the job, they ‘poison’ every new person that comes in. We need a force that is here to serve and protect more than their own self-interest and pocketbooks.
Your supposed to be worried about corrupt elections in Russia and those internet gurus China who keep stealing all our secrets.
Don’t any of you pay attention to the Secretary of State?
Police officers don’t have constitutional rights?
Without immunity from prosecution every use of force statement will be “I invoke the 5th Amendment.” How can it be otherwise?
This reads like an ‘Us and Them’ Twilight Zone episode from the 1960s!
@13- Police are civilians, and have every constitutional right that any other citizen has. In their line of work we, as a society, have given them permission to break some laws, under certain circumstances, in order to protect the population from bad actors. Those circumstances have to be spelled out very carefully, and oversight must be very rigorous. When that doesn’t happen you engender a lawless environment, where both police efficiency and effectiveness, as well as public respect for the law dwindles. I have lived and worked in places like that-it is no fun.
Seems the SPD wants more Christopher Montfort events . . . .
@4 Your attitude is at the base of what is wrong w/ SPD, and any police force anywhere: criticism of the police = anti-cop. If the cops are so emotionally immature that any desire to improve them is greeted w/ childish howls of “You all hate us!” then they do not have the emotional fortitude to do what they are hired to do.
@17 – My objection was with the biased reporting that was not fact based, but instead, inflamatory. But thanks for jumping to conclusions!
@18: Actually, I think you’re objection was that the facts covered were incomplete, presenting (what you see as) an inflammatory framing bias. Irrespective of the points you raised, there are clearly a bunch of SPD officers who are routinely using excessive force and not being held accountable. That’s a problem. The issues with resolving that problem may not be due solely to the actions of the union, but that really seems like something that should be a no-brainer for common ground between the union and the city, unless the union actively wants to protect the ability of officers to beat the shit out of suspected lawbreakers (innocent until proved guilty, after all).
Once again, personal safety for police officers is NEVER a justification for excessive force, and if there is any question about whether a degree of force counts as ‘reasonable’, officers should ALWAYS err on the side of less force. The suspect may, after all, be completely innocent and simply a victim of circumstance (including unconscious bigotry/prejudice on the part of any given officer); part of the job of police officers is to put themselves in harm’s way for the sake of the population at large. Aggression is never justifiable, and force should only be used in response to actual and direct threats posed by suspects.
Frustrating situation on all sides. Thank god for our public servants (police included), but shame on those who abuse their positions, erode trust, and jeopardize the reputations of their coworkers.
@20: Hear, hear!!
I’m generally in favor of unions, public ones included, with exception of police and corrections officers.
They’re not the Praetorian Guard. We let them loose on the streets with guns and they need to held accountable to people who sign their checks.
Simply getting stopped should not be an excuse to throw people around. The “training” they get is the root of the problem. They can do basically anything in the name of “officer safety” and since it’s “safer” for them to have their knee in your neck while they talk to you about speeding, they can get away with it.
Combine with it severe ego, roid rage, arrogance and a little bit of sadism and you get the current crop of turds.
This is maybe the only place where I’d join the “break the union” crowd. If the teachers keep a few bad apples in the mix, your kid doesn’t learn enough. If the cops keep a few bad apples your kid ends up dead or broken.
Well,
Is it possible they WANT the fed lawsuit?
Think what could be gained, and by whom…