Judge tosses lawsuit by Seattle police officers

Seattle Police DepartmentNWCN – by Gene Johnson

SEATTLE – A federal judge has thrown out a lawsuit brought by more than 100 Seattle police officers who said new guidelines on using force jeopardized their safety.

The officers’ arguments were unsupported by the Constitution or case law, Chief U.S. District Judge Marsha Pechman said in an opinion issued Monday.  

The Seattle Police Department adopted a new policy concerning the use of force under a 2012 settlement agreement with the U.S. Justice Department, which found that Seattle police routinely used excessive force, especially in low-level situations that might otherwise have been defused.

“It would be at least surprising if allegations of such a pattern or practice did not lead to the adoption of stricter standards for use of force by officers,” Pechman wrote.

The policy lists guidelines for every weapon used and requires the most serious uses of force to be investigated by a special team. It spells out when force is appropriate, stresses alternatives to force and requires that officers carry at least one less-lethal tool such as a Taser.

The officers who signed on to the lawsuit, without the support of the police guild, objected, saying the policy elevates the rights of criminal suspects over those of police. They argued that Merrick Bobb, the court-appointed monitor overseeing the reforms, refused input from the police department in the drafting of the new policy, and that it violates their constitutional right to defend themselves.

Pechman took a dim view of those claims. Even if Bobb did ignore the input of officers, “he used his court-endowed discretion to reach a result Plaintiffs do not agree with,” she wrote. At any rate, Bobb is immune from lawsuits in his capacity as a quasi-judicial officer, she said.

The judge also dismissed the officers’ constitutional arguments, saying that while the Second Amendment ensures the right to keep and bear arms, it doesn’t protect the right to use the weapons.

Nor did she agree with the officers’ insistence that the policy violated a “right of self-defense as embedded in the Fourth Amendment,” which protects against unreasonable search and seizures. Pechman said the argument grossly misconstrued Fourth Amendment law.

She dismissed the case with prejudice, meaning the officers cannot amend or refile their claims.

Athan Tramountanas, a lawyer for the officers, did not immediately return a message seeking comment.

“Judge Pechman’s dismissal of the suit today confirms that SPD’s use-of-force policy is both practical and constitutional,” Mayor Ed Murray said in a written statement. “Today we move forward with police reform and move past internal divisions over policy. The City and the officers who filed the lawsuit share the same objectives: safety for the public, and safe working conditions for the officers who provide for the public’s safety.”

Justice Department officials said all along the lawsuit was without merit, and stressed that the consent decree requires evaluation of new policies on using force, bias-free policing and responding to people having mental or drug-related issues to make sure they’re working. To that end, the Seattle U.S. Attorney’s Office sent a letter to the city last month seeking data on uses of force between April 1 and Sept. 30, along with any administrative data showing how much time officers spent filling out paperwork on those incidents.

http://www.nwcn.com/story/news/local/seattle/2014/10/20/judge-tosses-spd-use-of-force-lawsuit/17619821/

2 thoughts on “Judge tosses lawsuit by Seattle police officers

  1. “A federal judge has thrown out a lawsuit brought by more than 100 Seattle police officers who said new guidelines on using force jeopardized their safety.”

    Awww….THEIR safety, NOT We the People’s safety. Too friggin bad. Let’s all have a pity party for those psychotic bastards. Piss on them! 😡

    “The officers’ arguments were unsupported by the Constitution or case law, Chief U.S. District Judge Marsha Pechman said in an opinion issued Monday.”

    That’s because none of them know the Constitution or case law. They only know penal code law because they are retarded.

    “The officers who signed on to the lawsuit, without the support of the police guild, objected, saying the policy elevates the rights of criminal suspects over those of police.”

    Criminals? Once again, I thought the police WERE the criminals. So how is this bad? Oh that’s right! Bad for THEM who are the REAL criminals.

  2. It would just be so much easier on them if they could just kill anyone for anything so they could ensure their safety. The safety of the sheep is moot because they are only good for lamb chops and to pay taxes fees and fines anyway!

Join the Conversation

Your email address will not be published.


*