11b. Attachment 2 - Final Policing Assessment Report
Agenda Item No. 11b, Attach 2
Meeting Date: September 14, 2021
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle
Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions September 2021
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION...............................................................................................1
II. SCOPE & APPROACH ......................................................................................3
A. Scope of the Assessment ............................................................................................. 3
B. Approach to this Assessment .................................................................................... 4
III. ABOUT THE POSPD .........................................................................................6
A. Organizational Chart .................................................................................................. 6
B. Jurisdictional Map ...................................................................................................... 7
C. Officer Activities .......................................................................................................... 8
D. Demographics of Department ................................................................................... 8
E. CALEA Accreditation .................................................................................................. 9
F. LEXIPOL ...................................................................................................................... 10
G. POSPD Transparency and Critical Self-Analysis .............................................. 12
Annual Biased Policing Reviews ..................................................................................................... 12
Annual Use of Force Reviews .......................................................................................................... 12
Communication with Port Community .......................................................................................... 13
IV. ENGAGEMENT ................................................................................................ 16
A. External Stakeholders .............................................................................................. 16
B. External Stakeholders Identified through the Port of Seattle Customer
Service Bureau ................................................................................................................... 18
C. External and Internal Stakeholders Working on Issues of Homelessness ... 22
D. Internal Stakeholder Engagement and Equity .................................................. 24
POSPD Engagement ....................................................................................................................... 24
E. Climate Survey ........................................................................................................... 29
Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 29
Demographic Information for Survey Respondents ...................................................................... 30
Respect for Individual Differences .................................................................................................. 31
Accountability .................................................................................................................................. 35
Supervision ...................................................................................................................................... 38
Work Climate ................................................................................................................................... 39
V. USE OF FORCE ............................................................................................... 41
A. Motion 2020-15 and the Use of Force Subcommittee ......................................... 41
B. Use of Force Subcommittee Members and Workflow ....................................... 42
C. Use of Force Case Review Methodology ............................................................... 43
Use of Force Case Review Findings ................................................................................................ 45
D. Use of Force Recommendations ............................................................................. 49
i
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
VI. MUTUAL AID ................................................................................................... 66
A. Motion 2020-15 and the Mutual Aid Subcommittee ........................................... 68
B. Subcommittee Workflow .......................................................................................... 69
C. Mutual Aid Recommendations ............................................................................... 70
VII.OVERSIGHT, ACCOUNTABILITY, RACIAL EQUITY & CIVIL RIGHTS73
A. Motion 2020-15 and Oversight, Accountability, Racial Equity & Civil Rights
........................................................................................................................................ 73
B. Oversight, Accountability, Racial Equity & Civil Rights Subcommittee
Members and Workflow .................................................................................................... 74
C. Oversight and Accountability Generally and at the Port of Seattle Police
Department ......................................................................................................................... 75
Misconduct Complaint Handling Process at POSPD .................................................................... 76
POS Police Code of Conduct Individual Complaints Workplace Responsibility .......................... 82
D. Oversight, Accountability, Equity and Civil Rights Subcommittee
Recommendations ............................................................................................................. 83
Relationship between POSPD Standards of Conduct and the Port's Code of Conduct, including
Avenues of Complaint ..................................................................................................................... 83
Complaint Intake and Classification .............................................................................................. 85
Timelines .......................................................................................................................................... 88
Conflicts of Interest ......................................................................................................................... 89
Alternative Dispute Resolution ...................................................................................................... 90
Access to the Police Department and Information on Filing Complaints .................................... 90
VIII. DIVERSITY IN HIRING AND RECRUITING............................................ 91
A. Motion 2020-15 and the Diversity in Recruitment and Hiring Subcommittee
........................................................................................................................................ 91
B. Diversity in Recruitment and Hiring Subcommittee Members and
Workflow .............................................................................................................................. 91
Overview of Recruitment and Hiring of Police Officers Generally and at the Port of Seattle
Police Department ........................................................................................................................... 92
POSPD Employee Demographics ................................................................................................... 95
Demographics for POSPD Hired 2018 2020 ................................................................................ 98
C. Diversity in Recruitment and Hiring Recommendations ................................ 99
Recommendations relating to Data Collection, Demographics and Self-Identification .............. 99
Advertising and Recruitment ........................................................................................................ 102
Recommendations Related to Advertising and Recruitment ...................................................... 103
Female Entry-Level and Lateral Applicants ............................................................................... 105
Oral Boards .................................................................................................................................... 105
Recommendations Related to Oral Boards .................................................................................. 106
Equity Issues ................................................................................................................................. 107
ii
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
IX. TRAINING AND DEVELOPMENT.............................................................. 108
A. Motion 2020-15 and the Diversity in Recruitment and Hiring Subcommittee
...................................................................................................................................... 108
B. Training and Development Subcommittee Members and Workflow .......... 108
Training .......................................................................................................................................... 109
Development .................................................................................................................................. 112
Engagement with Communities of Color ..................................................................................... 113
C. Training and Development Subcommittee Recommendations .................... 114
X. ADVOCACY..................................................................................................... 118
XI. BUDGET, ROLES, AND EQUIPMENT ....................................................... 123
A. Motion 2020-15 and Budget, Roles, and Equipment. ....................................... 123
B. Reducing the Police Role in Responding to Homelessness and Persons in
Crisis ................................................................................................................................... 123
C. Military Style Equipment ...................................................................................... 124
D. Body Cameras ........................................................................................................... 125
Table of Recommendations..................................................................................... i
iii
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
I. INTRODUCTION
Early in their support of the Port of Seattle Commission (Commission) Task Force on
Policing and Civil Rights (Task Force), 21CP Solution consultants (21CP) went for a
ride-along with two Port of Seattle Police Department (POSPD) sergeants to gain
perspective on the Port's geographical layout and to learn more about POSPD officers'
daily work. At one of the POSPD outstations, an officer commented, "I am glad you
are here. This is a great department and I think you will see that. I hope you don't
find anything broken; but I do hope you find things to fix."
Unlike many of 21CP's engagements, this assessment of the POSPD was not
precipitated by any seminal event or community outrage directly involving POSPD.
In fact, 21CP found that few outside the Port have much awareness of the POSPD,
what they do, or how they differ from the many other law enforcement agencies
including the U.S. Transportation Security Administration (TSA), US Customs and
Border Protection (CBP), Washington State Patrol (WSP), the Seattle Police
Department (SPD) and others that operate within and/or proximate to the Port's
jurisdiction. Instead, this review was inspired by the national moment of reflection
about policing, and the Commission's vision of a world-class police force that not only
sets a high standard for performance and community service, but also centers equity
and civil liberties as core values in its work.
After a thorough process that involved document review, listening sessions and
interviews with many internal and external stakeholders, engagement with the Task
Force and subcommittees, an internal POSPD climate study, engagement at training,
and review of use of force incidents and misconduct complaint investigations, 21CP
found ample evidence of a good department that can get even better with key changes.
On the positive side, POSPD regularly updates its policies and procedures to stay
current with promising practices, supports a robust training program, and has a clear
commitment to mission and goals. Use of force is infrequent and, with few exceptions,
reasonable, necessary, and proportional. The relatively few POSPD misconduct
complaints were investigated in a timely and objective manner. Forward thinking
appears typical of POSPD leadership and was observed in supervisors and officers
providing day-to-day policing services, the POSPD training program, and through
participation in the work of the Task Force. Notably, the POSPD has taken on a
regional leadership role in crafting new policies and procedures in response to recent
Washington State legislation to ensure that agencies are operating from the same set
of standards.
1
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
However, as with any organization, there is room for improvement. As such, this
report aims to provide specific guidance, and practical recommendations, for POSPD
and the Port based on its unique needs, values, and experiences, and drawing from
the vast experience of the many volunteers that donated their time and energy to
think through the questions posed to the Task Force. Overall, this report offers 52
discrete recommendations covering each of the nine areas of assessment outlined by
the Commission; a majority of the recommendations capture feedback specifically
provided by the members of the Task Force and subcommittees.
While this report provides many recommendations, some broad and some more
discrete, three priority areas stood out in our analysis:
1) the need for the POSPD to focus on internal procedural justice to address a
perception of inequity experienced by many, but particularly Non-White
employees,
2) how increased organizational transparency can improve perceptions about the
POSPD, and
3) supporting the POSPD's move away from a traditional police response on
homelessness.
The first two priority areas internal procedural justice and transparency were
highlighted during the subcommittee process and by the results of the climate survey
and officer interviews, in which 21CP heard frequent concerns, most often expressed
by employees of color, about fairness in departmental opportunities, even though
most did not specifically attribute the perceived unfairness to race, ethnicity, or
gender. In all, over 25% of 21CP's recommendations focus on increasing internal
procedural justice and fairness1. The third police response to homelessness is the
single most important step that will help reduce external disparities around uses of
force.
The Port is not alone in confronting significant issues and concerns surrounding the
role, actions, and performance of police in its community. 21CP has conducted similar
reviews for other jurisdictions addressing many of the same issues and challenges,
and in some cases offered similar recommendations to what is outlined here based on
1 See Recommendations 2, 7, 34 44, 49.
2
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
the same types of best and emerging, promising practices. Again, however, this set of
recommendations was strongly shaped by the input of the Task Force and the
subcommittees, as well as the unique nature of the POSPD, feedback from community
members and direction from the Port Commission.
II. SCOPE & APPROACH
A. Scope of the Assessment
The Port of Seattle ("the Port") engaged 21CP Solutions ("21CP") to assess the Port
of Seattle Police Department's ("POSPD" or "the Department") current "policies,
practices and oversight" to ensure alignment with the Port's Century Agenda goal to
"Become a Model for Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion." This engagement was framed
by the July 14, 2020, Port Commission ("the Commission") Motion to conduct a
comprehensive assessment of the POSPD's policies, protocols and procedures
impacting issues of diversity, equity, and civil rights (Motion 2020-15).
In Motion 2020-15, the Commission authorized the creation of a Task Force on Port
Policing and Civil Rights, with the scope of work comprising review of issues
including: Diversity in Recruitment and Hiring, Training and Development, Equity,
Use of Force, Oversight and Accountability, Police Union Participation, Budget,
Roles, and Equipment, Mutual Aid, and Advocacy. As the Task Force leadership
developed a structure and process for addressing issues identified in Motion 2020-15,
it determined that police union representatives would be included in each
subcommittee as a means to address the topic "Police Union Participation;" that the
topic "Equity" would be addressed in the Oversight, Accountability, Racial Equity,
and Civil Rights Subcommittee; and in conducting the assessment of all topics, each
subcommittee was "to consider impacts on diversity, equity and civil rights."
The overall assessment design was created by the Port and was divided into three
phases, with considerable overlap, consisting of an initial assessment of the
department; facilitation of the Task Force meetings and subcommittees; stakeholder
outreach (internal and external to the Port); drafting of interim reports, updates, and
this final assessment; and presentation to Port leadership, including the Commission
and Executives.
Process and roles for Task Force staff and 21CP were discussed at length, and it was
determined that 21CP would take the lead in suggesting areas of exploration to each
committee, with the goal of focusing on the most critical issues and ensuring that any
3
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
"mission creep" be intentional and transparent. The Task Force recognized that
inevitably, as this project progressed, there would be many areas that could be
included in the assessment, but that the priority would be on depth, not width, in
keeping with the areas outlined in Motion 2020-15 creating the Task Force.
To this end, 21CP worked in collaboration with subcommittee co-chairs to set the
substance for subcommittee agendas, facilitated the subcommittee meetings, and
created minutes reflecting the subcommittee work, while preserving the anonymity
of subcommittee members to encourage open dialogue. Placing this body of work on
21CP ensured visibility across subcommittees, allowing 21CP to help deconflict any
overlapping issues.
As is the case in most projects, the assessment required agility to explore additional
related areas of the department as issues emerged. In some cases, additional areas
for review were selected by the subcommittees; others were identified by 21CP or the
Task Force leadership. Modifications to the project included:
21CP was asked to conduct an internal "climate survey" of the department to
assess perceptions of equity and fairness.
The Advocacy Subcommittee and associated legislative work evolved
substantially during this project due to the large slate of police-related bills
passed in the Washington State Legislature's 2021 legislative session. As such,
the Advocacy Subcommittee work was replaced by implementation of a
"kitchen cabinet" of experts to provide Task Force support for the Port's
legislative engagement in real time.
The Budget Subcommittee was subsumed within the other subcommittees as
budgetary decisions regarding state law mandates from the 2020-2021
legislative session overlapped with 21CP recommendations. In short, it was
determined that triaging the costs of legislation and recommendations could
be done more efficiently outside a subcommittee structure.
B. Approach to this Assessment
21CP's assessment and recommendations are based on an analysis of three primary
sources of information or raw "data": paper, performance, and people.
4
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
First, 21CP requested and received an array of written materials and information
about and relating to POSPD's operations. This included policies, procedures,
protocols, training curricula, annual reports, and other similar materials. These were
evaluated in light of an array of emerging and best practices and national standards
and where relevant, presented to the subcommittees for consideration and discussion.
Second, 21CP endeavored to evaluate POSPD's performance in practice by examining
how use of force and complaints were processed at the case level. Similarly, 21CP
sought to understand the POSPD's performance in the aggregate and collected data
around officer activities to better understand the volume and type of work the
department engages in. 21CP also audited three days of training (one with the cochairs
of the Training and Development Subcommittee) to ensure that the training
presentations supported the values and information set forth in the training
curricula.
Third, and importantly, 21CP conducted conversations, focus groups, and interviews
with stakeholders, both internal and external to the Port. In total, 21CP spoke with
hundreds of people about the POSPD. At the heart of this engagement was the
subcommittee work, which included many stakeholders, internal and external to the
Port, who worked to deeply understand the complex issues in their assigned
subtopics. If the subcommittee work alone was the sum total of work accomplished in
this project, the project would still be valuable. Just the exchange of information and
the education of stakeholders especially those within the Port about their own police
department was important work. Reciprocally, the POSPD subcommittee members
were likewise exposed to a wide range of perspectives.
We also approach this report, as we endeavored to approach our work at the Port and
our interactions with stakeholders, with humility. Although we believe that our
review of Department policies and protocols, examination of aggregate and specific
types of POSPD performance, and engagement with community and Department
stakeholders provides a sufficient and accurate foundation for recommendations
grounded in best practices, the implementation of these recommendations will
undoubtedly be "flavored" by the Port and the POSPD. Because of the ongoing public
health situation, we were unable to spend the type of on-the-ground time with
stakeholders from which we have typically derived tremendous benefit. It is possible
that the limits of our approach, as with any approach of assessing the disparate
functions of this organization, mean that this report overlooks some details, misses
some nuance, or bypasses additional areas of importance.
5
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
III. ABOUT THE POSPD
The Port of Seattle Police Department is a general authority law enforcement agency
that provides specific policing services for the Port community and the communities
the Port touches, spanning several jurisdictions. At the time of this writing, there
were 151 POSPD employees (113 commissioned and 38 civilian).2
A. Organizational Chart
2 Note that for the demographic data, which is available as of April 2020, there were 123
commissioned and 44 noncommissioned employees.
6
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
B. Jurisdictional Map
The Port of Seattle jurisdictions are not contiguous and span a long corridor along
Puget Sound.
7
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
C. Officer Activities
Through Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) records and the Record Management
System, basic information about POSPD officer activities is available and which are
presented below.
Year Calls for Case Arrests Field Traffic
Service Reports Interview Stops
(CFS) Reports
(FIRs)
2018 90,098 3,147 712 1,200 4,618
2019 106,463 3,915 826 1,526 5,175
2020 92,186 2,257 454 683 1,652
D. Demographics of Department
Based on April 2020 data, there were 123 commissioned and 44 noncommissioned
POSPD employees.3 Of the commissioned officers, there were 103 males (84%) and 20
females (16%). Racial/ethnic demographics for commissioned employees in 2020 are
shown in the chart below.
POSPD 2020 COMMISSIONED
OFFICER DEMOGRAPHICS
Unknown 23
White 68
Two or More Races 6
Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander 2
Hispanic/Latino 1
Black/African American 5
Asian 6
American Indian/Alaska Native 1
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
3 Note that the current number of commissioned employees at POSPD is 113, or 10 fewer
than in 2020. Because officers have been hired while others retired or left POSPD for other
reasons, the officer demographics represented in the chart above will have changed.
8
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
E. CALEA Accreditation
POSPD has been accredited by the Commission on Accreditation for Law
Enforcement Agencies (CALEA) since 2011. The most recent published CALEA
report online is from 2018, however the POSPD underwent a CALEA re-accreditation
during the time period of this assessment. While CALEA is an excellent program for
ensuring that policies and protocols in critical areas are addressed, the work of the
Task Force and 21CP was focused on how those are areas are addressed, with
particular focus on national best practices and using an equity lens. In addition,
CALEA does not provide an agency with policies, procedures, or protocols instead,
it provides a mechanism for the Department to assess itself along many dimensions
and for CALEA representatives to verify compliance with standards. Many CALEA
standards relate to organizational, managerial, and administrative concerns like
"personnel administration," "detainee and court-related services," and "auxiliary and
technical services."4
Accreditation is not necessarily widespread across law enforcement. Departments
must initiate the process, and they pay to proceed through accreditation.
Consequently,
[o]nly 2 percent of police agencies across the country can claim
CALEA bragging rights, and only eight of 269 public safety agencies
in Washington have earned accreditation.5
While research studies have come to mixed conclusions about the benefits of CALEA6,
CALEA accreditation is important to POSPD, with the Department's Policy manual
including running references beside various policy sections to the relevant CALEA
4 Jim Burch, National Police Foundation, "CALEA Accreditation A Platform for Excellence
and Reform," https://www.policefoundation.org/calea-accreditation-a-platform-forexcellence-and-reform
/ (last visited Mar. 8, 2021).
5 "Should Tacoma Police Keep National Bragging Rights? You Have a Say In That," New
Tribune (June 16, 2020),
https://www.thenewstribune.com/opinion/editorials/article243566112.html.
6 See e.g., R.L. Snow, "Accreditation: A 21st Century Necessity?," 40 Law and Order 84, 84
(1992); Manuel P. Teodoro & Adam J. Hughes, "Socializer or Signal?: How Agency
Accreditation Affects Organizational Culture," 72 Public Administration Review 583, 583
(2012); Stephen A. Baker, Effects of Law Enforcement Accreditation: Officer Selection,
Promotion, and Education (1995); G.W. Cordner & G.L. Williams, "Community Policing and
Accreditation: A Content Analysis of CALEA," in Quantifying Quality in Policing (Larry T.
Hoover, ed.) (1996)).
9
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
standards that the Department believes that the section satisfies. POSPD's
takeaways from CALEA's mandates are significant and the values espoused are
commendable. Additionally, to the extent that the CALEA framework and
requirements help the Department focus and organize its operations, there is clear
significance.
Ultimately, however, "CALEA provides agencies with a blueprint for 'what, not how'"7
leaving police departments to determine for themselves the best ways for how to
precisely address issues for their communities. The body does not certify the
effectiveness of what a department like POSPD is doing to realize the outcomes that
its community wants. CALEA is a framework, not a prescription. A department's
assertion that something has been "CALEA-certified" does not necessarily mean that
it aligns with best practices; that it is effectively in realizing positive outcomes; or
that it aligns with the values and needs of the community.
As such, while the accreditation process adds value, it is not a ceiling for POSPD's
efforts to provide its community with just, fair effective, and equitable public safety
services. Therefore, this report looks to best practices, the promising experiences of
peer departments, research, evidence, data, and experiences in other communities,
rather than assuming CALEA accreditation provides all of the answers.
F. LEXIPOL
The POSPD and many of its neighboring departments8 use the Lexipol policy
subscription to keep current on changing mandates. Lexipol is a private subscription
company that provides " a full library of customizable, state-specific law
enforcement policies that are updated in response to new state and federal laws and
court decisions."9 The advantage to such a service is regular updates based on
changing laws at the state and federal level, which can help smaller jurisdictions
like the Port of Seattle keep current on policy. Lexipol has already started providing
provided its subscribers with policies updated based on the Washington 2020-2021
legislation; given some of the concerns raised by WASPC and other agencies, the
POSPD will need to examine the policies provided and refine them as needed. This
7 Jim Burch, National Police Foundation, "CALEA Accreditation A Platform for Excellence
and Reform," https://www.policefoundation.org/calea-accreditation-a-platform-forexcellence-and-reform
/ (last visited Mar. 8, 2021).
8 Kent, Federal Way, Auburn, Tukwila, Des Moines, and Renton Police Departments appear
to use Lexipol.
9 https://www.lexipol.com/industries/law-enforcement/
10
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
service, combined with the CALEA mandates, undoubtedly focuses the department
on developing and maintaining policies. Additionally, when other regional agencies
subscribe to the service, as is the case here, mutual aid engagements and
cooperation between agencies are improved due to the common operational polices.
In contrast, there are significant downsides to using Lexipol. Even though Lexipol
purports to provide policies that accord with best practices, there has been
developing scholarship identifying Lexipol as "a barrier to reform."10 Certainly, as
discussed below, the fact that Lexipol did not update the Use of Force policy to
include the concept of de-escalation until 2020 drives home the point that the
company is out of touch with modern policing practices. While an assessment of the
overall policy manual is beyond the scope of this project, as a general note, 21CP
finds Lexipol designed policies to be overly complex and technical, hard to
comprehend, disjointed, and poor at providing clear guidance to officers.
However, this is not an "either-or" situation and many of the potentially deficient
policies can be modified and the POSPD reports that 45% of their policies are
modified to incorporate more progressive policing practices.
Recommendation No. 1. POSPD should continue to scrutinize the
intent and language of every Lexipol policy and modify the policies to
ensure that they meet best practices and not just legal minimums.
Additionally, as POSPD modifies its policies, the department should ensure that
policies are clearly stated and easily accessible to the public, which will help to
maintain transparency.
10 Lexipol's Fight Against Police Reform, Ingrid V. Eagly and Joanna C. Schwartz,
FORTHCOMING, 96 IND. L.J. (2021)("Lexipol has refused to incorporate common reform
proposals into the policies it writes for its subscribers, including a use-of-force matrix, policies
requiring de-escalation, or bright-line rules prohibiting certain types of behaviorlike
chokeholds and shooting into cars. Lexipol has also taken an active advocacy role in
opposition to proposed reforms of police use-of-force standards, pushing, instead, for
departments to hew closely to Graham v. Connor's 'objectively reasonable' standard. Finally,
when use-of-force reforms have been enacted, Lexipol has attempted to minimize their
impact."); Lexipol, the Privatization of Police Policymaking, Eagly, Ingrid, Schwartz, Joanna
C., Texas Law Review Volume 96, Issue 5."
11
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
G. POSPD Transparency and Critical Self-Analysis
Annual Biased Policing Reviews
As noted in the 2020 Annual Biased Policing Review (dated April 5, 2021), the
POSPD:
operates within a unique population demographic in that most of the
population is transitory in naturecomprised of passengers arriving
or departing through the airport or those assisting in this endeavor.
However, the majority of our department's enforcement related
citizen contacts are with citizens who are not part of our traveling
public, but rather members of the local population that access our
airport facility for reasons other than travel.
In the Review, the Department analyzed field contacts, citations, and arrests in the
context of City of SeaTac and King County demographics, finding no evidence of
biased policing on the part of POSPD officers.
Recommendation No. 2. As the POSPD gathers more data on officer
activity, the department should continue to scrutinize that data for any
disparities in use of force and work to ensure that POSPD's deployment
strategies and approach to policing minimize those disparities.
Annual Use of Force Reviews
Similarly, in the 2018 Use of Force Review11, the POSPD grappled with the issue of
disparity in use of force applications. Noting that "42% of the subjects on which our
officers used force were black appears to be disproportionate when compared to our
State and County population demographics," "a 2012 King County study described
SeaTac as 'Among the county's most diverse cities, with 61% persons-of-color and 31%
foreign-born.'" Additionally, "[t]he 2010 census indicates that some neighborhoods
near the entrances of the airport consist of black populations ranging from 25% to
49%."12 This same information is repeated in the 2019 Use of Force Review; in 2020,
while racial characteristics were presented, there was no analysis.13
11 https://www.portseattle.org/documents?tid=191&primary=191
12 Id.
13 Id.
12
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
The struggle in finding meaning in a disparity between the police activity, in this case
use of force rates, and the representation of any group in the population is
widespread.14 As noted by the Center for Policing Equity:
Population benchmarks provide only a crude method for estimating
disproportionality. They allow for an inference that force is being used
in a manner that is disproportionate to presence in the general
population, but do not allow for a clear inference as to whether the
force is disproportionate to presence in any particular area or to
legitimately provocative behavior.15
Additionally, the POSPD sample is small, with approximately 30 uses of force
annually. As such, every use of force carries an outsized impact on the overall
percentages that can be compared to representation in the population. Looking at
2019, the department reports that 30% of its force was on Black subjects, 60% on
White subjects, and 10% Other. The department noted that the percentage of force
on Black subjects decreased from 42% in 2018 to 30% in 2019. However, the raw
numbers show that in 2018, force was used on 14 Black suspects; in 2019, force was
used on nine Black suspects. Each Black subject of force in both 2018 and 2019
counted for approximately three percent of the total.
The primary recommendation to reduce racial disparity in use of force is modifying
the approach to homelessness at the Port, which has already begun and is discussed
in more detail throughout this report.
Communication with Port Community
Motion 2020-15 required the POSPD to post their policies publicly and during this
process there have been requests for information and data relating to use of force,
bias, and general police activities from the Port Commission.
14 The Science of Justice: Race, Arrests, and Police Use of Force, The Center for Policing
Equity, 2016. ("Despite an elaborated literature on how to assess racial bias in police stops,
there has been relatively little research on the appropriate distribution of coercive force by
law enforcement (Bayley, 1994).") https://policingequity.org/images/pdfs-doc/CPE_SoJ_Race-
Arrests-UoF_2016-07-08-1130.pdf
15 Id. at 16-17.
13
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
As discussed throughout this report, the "community" of the POSPD is primarily the
Port itself. Many of the Port staff who participated in the subcommittee work
commented that they learned a lot about their Police Department and that previously
they had not really understood what the POSPD police did. Additionally, several
mentioned that they were able to gain a better understanding of policing generally
by hearing from the POSPD presenters.
Recommendation No. 3. The Port should consider creating a quarterly
Port Safety Committee to bring interested stakeholders together.
An internal Port Safety committee could serve as an idea generator, a backstop to vet
police innovations, and a forum for the POSPD to present reports and information
updates. It could also serve as an on-going forum to continue the work of crosseducating
Port employees on the work of the POSPD. Additionally, there are several
recommendations in this report suggesting that different aspects of the Port
collaborate with the POSPD to provide better service for example in the area of
homelessness and crisis and those interests could be accomplished here. 21CP is
not suggesting that a civilian oversight entity is needed or would be advantageous at
the Port. Rather, to capitalize on the work of Port employees over the past year as
they have learned about POSPD policing services and have become invested in the
POSPD's success, and to continue that effort with other Port employees, a Port Safety
Committee that is advisory in nature is recommended. While this recommendation
envisions an internal Port committee, if there are other stakeholders that wish to
participate such as homelessness advocates that should be welcomed. Finally, a
Port Safety Committee provides an opportunity to involve and educate
representatives of Port Employee Resource Groups (ERGs), facilitating the
identification of ERG representatives who would be interested in participating on
hiring or promotion oral boards or in other capacities when Port employee input is
sought.
Recommendation No. 4. The Port should conduct a study of the
internal organizational structure and communications involving the
POSPD to determine how to best accomplish the goal of enhancing POSPD
transparency through regular engagement with Port leadership.
As is discussed throughout this report, it is vital that POSPD leadership be proactive
and transparent in keeping the Commission, the Executive Leadership Team, the
Port community, and other key stakeholders informed about its activities. To this
end, the 2020 Annual Report includes a goal to increase POSPD transparency in 2021
14
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
and several steps are taking place towards that end, which is in line with other police
agencies recognizing the value of communicating more proactively with the public on
a more expansive set of issues.16
Fostering organizational transparency involves more than simply an increase in
public information, however. "Transparency refers to the degree to which decisions
are being made in a manner that is visible to those inside and outside the
organization. The focus is not simply on seeing the decision that was made but having
an understanding of the process by which it was reached and the rationale for that
choice. Transparency encompasses the extent to which decisions that have been made
are subject to scrutiny and review by others."17 This level of transparency develops
through on-going exchanges of information, a mutual appreciation of factors
important to decision-making, and relationship building which fosters trust. The
study that is recommended should consider how the Port organizational structure
and communication protocols foster or inhibit transparency between the POSPD and
Port leadership.
Given the many ways the role of policing at the Port has been elevated over the past
year including the Task Force process itself that involved so many individuals from
throughout the Port which has resulted in a Port community that is better educated
about policing and more committed to positive outcomes for the POSPD; the
complexity of police operations; the ever-present potential for a high-profile policing
event; and the commitment to support POSPD's efforts to continually improve in the
changing law enforcement environment it is recommended that a study be
conducted to determine what changes might foster greater transparency.
As recommendations growing out of the assessment are considered, it will be
important to have direct communication between the POSPD and Port leadership to
ensure that the POSPD incorporates the interests of other Port components and to
provide a forum for the POSPD to routinely share information on implementation.
Regular involvement with the Executive Leadership Team could facilitate
communications and decision making when significant events involving the POSPD
arise, though other changes to the reporting structure and communications might
serve similar purposes.
16 Chanin, J. & Espinosa, S. (2015). Examining the Determinants of Police Department Transparency: the
view of Police Executives. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 1-22, citing Chermak, S. & Weiss, A. (2005).
Maintaining Legitimacy Using External Communication Strategies: An Analysis of Police-media Relations.
Journal of Criminal Justice, 33, 501-512.
17 Id., at 133.
15
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
IV. ENGAGEMENT
Identifying and speaking with communities that come into contact with the POSPD
on a day-to-day basis was challenging. In fact, many of those that 21CP contacted
could not identify the POSPD, complained specifically and only about other law
enforcement agencies, or simply did not want to spend time meeting to discuss the
POSPD, presumably because they had no specific issues with the POSPD.
Additionally, the views of participants in community conversations may or may not
be reflective of the POSPD community as a whole.
Finally, this report cites, characterizes, and sometimes quotes stakeholder and
subcommittee participants. To ensure candid discussions and to preserve the
confidentiality of participants who sometimes shared sensitive experiences, 21CP did
not log the identities of who said what during the stakeholder engagement process
only their affiliations and the specific contents of what they said. Accordingly, this
report refers to particular stakeholders in generic ways such as "a POSPD officer,"
"a community member," or the like.
A. External Stakeholders
21CP appreciates the importance of getting input from the range of stakeholders who
have interactions with the Port Police and a potential interest in providing input to
the assessment. The Task Force structure itself was predicated on the value of
stakeholder inclusion, with Port employees, Police Department Officers, union
representatives, and subject matter experts involved in the work of the
subcommittees throughout the engagement. Because Port policing services are
provided in the airport, on the waterfront, and in cities surrounding these and other
Port properties through mutual aid agreements, seeking input from stakeholders
external to the Port was a priority goal of the Task Force and 21CP.
Task Force leaders introduced the 21CP consultants to the Port's Community
Engagement Department for help in identifying external community groups and
others who might have experience with the POSPD they could share. The Community
Engagement Team created an initial list of ten entities across all of the communities
where the Team is engaged that potentially had involvement with the Port Police
Department, and then refined that list to those groups most likely to have experiences
relevant to the assessment.
16
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
21CP conducted listening sessions with the following:
Drayage Truck Drivers: Drayage truck drivers are independent truck
owners who convey cargo to and from the Port of Seattle. To help facilitate
meetings with these truck drivers, a Community Engagement Team member
introduced 21CP to the African Chamber of Commerce President/CEO and a
regional operations manager who hires independent drayage drivers up and
down the west coast, who were instrumental in setting up these meetings. Two
meetings were held, with about eight drivers in each group. As the drivers
spoke, it became clear that their concerns were not with the Port Police so
much as with Port Terminal Security and the Washington State Patrol18.
Examples of complaints raised include:
o There is no scale to weigh trucks before leaving the terminal and drivers
incur a $500 fine if the truck is overweight. The problem could be
avoided with scales in Terminal 18 and 30 loading areas.
o Private security personnel at the Terminals are disrespectful, curse, and
need communications training. Fear of retaliation for complaining was
expressed, particularly for being banned from operating in the
Terminals.
o Rules, including those that could result in being banned if violated, are
not clearly articulated and there is no process to appeal.
o There are too many trucks at Terminals 18 and 30.
o In the one incident in which the Port of Seattle Police19 may have been
involved, a driver was in an accident with a longshoreman and felt that
the officer who responded sided with the Terminal.
Georgetown Open Space Committee: The Georgetown Open Space
Committee (GOSC) works to provide greenspace access for the Duwamish
Valley, including on Port property. One member commented that the Port
Police should have an outreach engagement plan and coordinate efforts. The
GOSC helped clear out a homeless encampment and would not want the Port
Police to do the clearing but would like help keeping it clear. While fencing has
been put up, it's not clear if it's to keep the area clear or for a construction
project. While the group noted the Port Police could help address drug dealing
18 Specifically, the drivers complained that the Commercial Vehicle Enforcement by the
Washington State Patrol was overzealous and that a policy of issuing violations, not tickets,
meant that there was no apparent due process to fight the violation.
19 The driver was not sure whether Seattle Police or Port of Seattle Police responded.
17
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
taking place near the Duwamish River and the Port, they did not want police
intervention for the prostitution activity also occurring. Finally, one person
said she'd been told that the police are responsive to fights in the South Park
area and de-escalate well.
Local Government Relations: Discussions took place with the Port of
Seattle's Government Relations Department and one of the four surrounding
cities where the Port has property SeaTac, Burien, Des Moines, and Auburn.
The two primary ways the Port Police interface with these four cities is in
mutual aid incidents (through the Valley SWAT or Valley Civil Disturbance
Unit) and around homelessness or other similar concerns. While King County
Sheriff's Office has contracts to provide policing services in many of these
South King County cities, a King County Charter amendment in 2020 was
predicted to potentially change local control in the contracting relationship. As
such, there also could be impacts when the Port engages in mutual aid on Port
property or elsewhere. For example, the City of SeaTac voted to end its King
County contract, and the Port pays a mitigation fee for using SeaTac property,
which funds seven Officers.
B. External Stakeholders Identified through the Port of Seattle Customer
Service Bureau
In exploring avenues for getting external stakeholder feedback about interactions
with the POSPD, 21CP contacted the airport's Customer Service Department, which
provided a demonstration of their Salesforce system (which they use to manage and
track contacts), including how matters are categorized, whether a potential threat is
involved, whether the incident was reported to the POSPD or other responder,
whether a complaint is involved, and the like. The chart below provides a summary
of contacts made with Customer Service in 2019, 2020, and through mid-April 2021.
These contacts received by Customer Service are categorized in a variety of ways and
21CP was provided a compilation of customer comments/questions that had a nexus
to the Department during the same time. There were 246 entries with an apparent
18
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
nexus to the POSPD, less than 1%, out of a total of 25,877 contacts.20 Comments and
questions originated in a variety of ways, such as by email, voicemail, or over social
media. The entries referenced a variety of topics, with some very general and others
more specific. Examples include:
Questions that might best be handled by POSPD, such as:
o Can a person fly to another state to take care of an outstanding warrant?
o How can someone get a copy of any security video footage in parking
area that might have recorded a break-in or car damage?
o How can someone get a copy of an incident report?
Requests for help that may or may not be something where the POSPD can
help, such as:
o Missing person last seen at airport or expected to arrive at airport
o Help enforcing custody agreement or protective order
o Lost/stolen items discovered after going through TSA security or from
shipped luggage
General complaints not involving an immediate incident, such as:
o Panhandling
o Homeless camping out
o Cell lot parking and shoulder parking
o Traffic enforcement, including that there was not enough enforcement
or too much enforcement
o People not wearing masks
o Police officers carrying rifles/AR-15s
o Not providing public information when part of the airport is closed for
security purposes
o Rowdy passengers returning from January 6 attack on the Capitol
o Too many dogs
o Bikes not a good idea in large crowds
Compliments about POSPD officers:
o Officers helping locate misplaced handbags
o Officers helping after car hit by bus on Airport Expressway
20 The relatively low number of Customer Service contacts with a nexus to the POSPD and
the even smaller number of complaints is consistent with customer satisfaction surveys done
on the POSPD. Respondents indicated an "Excellent" or "Above Average" experience as
follows: 89% in 2018, 92% in 2019, and 84% in 2020.
19
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
o Officer M.'s "extraordinary service"
o Traffic support: 6 compliments for Officer T.
o Returned lost cell phone
o Officers helped elderly person
Complaints about POSPD officers:
o Officers accused mother of having tracking device on phone that had
been stolen; they were rude and did not apologize
o Assault by someone in "parking department"
o 3 Officers and sergeant claimed narcotics in bags officers were
disrespectful, rude, searched bags in front of everyone
o Sexual assault by police
o Told to limit time in meditation room
o Discriminated against in traffic enforcement
o Harassment by traffic control
o Officer not informed about service animals, though acknowledge
trespassing and officers were respectful
o White officers profiling and harassing a black in Muslim gears (sic)
o Traffic enforcement officer did not make white people in nice cars move
but yelled at us
The data compilation provided to 21CP did not include information on how matters
were handled, and it's disconcerting to not have confirmation that the most serious
complaints, such as the claim of sexual assault or racial/religious profiling, were
handled appropriately. However, Customer Service staff indicated that they follow
up with the customer if more information is needed and will use Port resources to
check into relevant details. There are protocols staff follow when a safety threat is
involved or when other matters call for an immediate response from police, fire, or
others. On occasion, the Customer Service staff person will consult with the Sergeant
heading up the Office of Professional Accountability (OPA), to confer on a comment
or question received. But staff indicated that there was a lot of individual discretion
involved with their work and there are no written protocols about how to handle
complaints involving POSPD officers.
20
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
Recommendation No. 5. Customer Services and the POSPD should
develop or refine protocols on the handling of complaints and
compliments about Port Police officers.
After initially drafting this report, 21CP was provided a document titled, "Reporting
Practices for Customer Complaints," dated July 27, 2021, that may address some of
the concerns raised. As 21CP did not have capacity at that point to assess the
procedures captured in the document, the Task Force should be aware of the
document when it is considering implementation of recommendations.
Ultimately, the OPA Sergeant and others at the Department are in the best position
to judge whether a complaint should be fully investigated or can be resolved through
other means. Conducting intake assessment on complaints involving alleged police
misconduct can be complicated by factors such as the need to preserve perishable
evidence, and the OPA Sergeant has the expertise and resources to handle such cases.
Further, where an officer's name has not been provided in the message left for
Customer Services, the OPA Sergeant has the means to identify the person more
readily, provided enough other detail is available. Finally, the POSPD tracks all
commendations and complaints it receives, including non-meritorious misconduct
allegations. Regularly receiving information from Customer Service on contacts that
involve Port Police officers will promote department-wide accountability.
The best course of action would be to automatically and immediately refer all
complaints received by Customer Services to OPA. Regardless of the threshold used,
however, all information on compliments and complaints should regularly be shared
with the POSPD. This recommendation is included below in the discussion on the
need for developing protocols with Human Resources and Workplace Responsibility
on handling complaints involving the POSPD.
Finally, Customer Service has begun tagging terms associated with human
trafficking as part of the Port's anti-human trafficking initiative and there was a
discussion about the advantages of capturing whether a comment or question raises
a concern related to discrimination. Regardless of whether the contact involves the
POSPD, having the means to query how often comments or questions raise issues of
race or other discrimination would help in identifying potential problems of prejudice
or unfairness in Port operations, facilitate an intentional approach to tracking such
issues, and serve the Port's interest in promoting equity, diversity, and inclusion.
21
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
C. External and Internal Stakeholders Working on Issues of
Homelessness
Individuals who do not have airport business but are in the facility and appear to be
homeless are regularly reported to POSPD Officers, who make contact to clarify the
person's reason for being in a Port facility.21 If the Officer confirms that the person
does not have any legitimate airport business, the Officer provides information on
social services available and may or may not issue a Criminal Trespass
Admonishment, depending on the individual's willingness to leave voluntarily and
their history of prior contacts by the Port Police22. The resources compiled for the
Task Force were reviewed and prioritized by 21CP and listening sessions were
arranged with representatives of a Homelessness Coalition and a mental health
expert working with the homeless and training first responders on effective
interactions, including Port Police Officers.
The Homelessness Coalition representatives indicated that, during the pandemic,
more people sought shelter at the airport because libraries and other facilities had
closed and there was public transportation available for an easy trip to Sea-Tac. They
reported that POSPD Officers were not giving citations to these individuals and that
the airport had provided office space and was coordinating with the mobile crisis team
to provide alternative resources to those seeking shelter. It apparently is difficult to
discern a reliable estimate of the numbers of homeless persons at the airport or
seaport, though the mobile crisis team that responds on-site has had "very positive"
outcomes. From a racial equity in policing perspective, the Seattle waterfront is key,
because shelters have been closed and there is lack of public restrooms. However, the
Seattle Police Department is more likely to be involved on the waterfront, rather than
POSPD. Finally, the Homelessness Coalition representatives noted they were
impressed with a recent presentation on the POSPD response to homelessness issues
given by Acting Chief Villa and Commander Minnehan.
The licensed mental health professional who provided input to 21CP is someone who
has worked extensively with law enforcement around the Puget Sound area, both to
co-respond to people in crisis and to train police on appropriate and helpful ways to
interact during these incidents. She teaches at the Criminal Justice Training
Academy and does ride-alongs with officers to role model effective response
21 21CP was informed that the POSPD currently does not track whether individuals who are
contacted in these circumstances are "homeless," though are considering such tracking
moving forward.
22 As reported in the Use of Force review, 58% of POSPD uses of force are in trespass cases.
22
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
approaches. She has had POSPD members in her Training Academy classes and has
done presentations and been present on-site at the airport to observe officers'
interactions with the homeless. It is important to integrate classroom and online
training with field experience and she noted that POSPD Officers reliably know what
resources are available and how to transfer someone to the hospital if needed, and
that some POSPD Sergeants have good insight on the complexity of issues involved.
The mental health professional observed that individuals experiencing homelessness
often have mental health and substance abuse problems, and sometimes demonstrate
extreme psychological stress that also can turn volatile. In such situations,
handcuffing the individual might be necessary for the safety of everyone, even if they
are to be transported to a hospital. She noted that they demonstrate "incredible
survival skills" in finding shelter and other resources and believes that with proper
training, law enforcement can respond to some of the most challenging behaviors and
not use force.
Government Relations for the Port was involved in discussions with the
Homelessness Coalition representatives and researched the possibility of 21CP
meeting with individuals from the Lived Experience Coalition (LEC) to learn more
from those who personally had encountered homelessness and sought shelter at the
airport. However, because Sea-Tac has been piloting a coordinated effort to prevent
non-traveling visitors to the airport and 21CP could not identify a time when they
would likely encounter a person seeking shelter at Sea-Tac, meeting with someone
with lived experience of homelessness who had previous interactions with the Port
Police would have been very difficult to arrange.
Recommendation No. 6. Port leadership should support the POSPD by
developing first responder alternatives to incidents involving the
homeless that do not involve armed POSPD officers and increase access to
holistic resources.
POSPD launched a six-month pilot Crisis Coordinator position on August 1, 2021,
with an officer who has extensive training and experience in crisis response serving
in the unarmed role. The job description notes that the Crisis Coordinator will be the
point of contact internally and externally for issues relating to crisis, will be familiar
with outreach services, have an understanding of mental illness manifestations,
track crisis services and laws, build and maintain necessary relationships, and
generally serve as a focused resource on this issue.
23
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
Running a six-month trial of the Crisis Coordinator position is appropriate, allowing
the POSPD to assess whether the position as described meets the needs of the Port
and whether the Coordinator acting as the first responder in most instances will have
positive impacts, such as reducing the need for trespass citations and frequency of
use of force. Whether a permanent Crisis Coordinator or similar position ultimately
is recommended, homelessness should not be approached primarily as a policing
problem.
In addition, the SEA Cares Steering Committee composed of airport staff and other
stakeholders has been working to identify additional Port Resources or external
partners to supplement the Port's capacity to address homelessness. In discussions
with 21CP, the Committee identified the very real concerns around assigning
untrained, unprepared, and especially unwilling staff to handle interactions with
homeless people in the airport, especially given the potential for hostile or violent
encounters. Additionally, the committee is working with the developing King County
Regional Homelessness Authority and is attempting to identify available
homelessness resources in the South Sound Region.
Ultimately, the Committee identified the very same problems that other jurisdictions
are encountering despite the interest and the will to engage with alternative response
models - the lack of identified resources to address crisis and homelessness issues
presents a very real barrier. However, Port should not simply default to a police
response to homelessness and crisis interactions but bring together other aspects of
the Port to bear on the issue. That appears to be happening. And, as discussed
elsewhere, a Port Safety Committee could help support this effort.
D. Internal Stakeholder Engagement and Equity
POSPD Engagement
To get input on perspectives and concerns of those working at the POSPD, 21CP
spoke with POSPD employees and conducted a "climate survey" in the Department
to gather information anonymously. 21CP conducted listening sessions with over 25
commissioned and noncommissioned members of the POSPD, hearing from
individuals of all ranks, and a variety of positions and assignments. Sessions were
held both virtually and, as the state of the pandemic allowed, ultimately in-person.
The survey and listening sessions focused primarily on issues of equity whether
employees experienced themselves and observed for others a level playing field when
it came to assignments, promotions, and other workplace events. Highlights from the
24
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
survey are summarized below, including instances where similar themes were heard
in the listening sessions. However, before discussing these themes and to put the
survey and listening sessions in perspective, it is important to understand the various
ways that equity in policing has been approached.
Equity
While the term "racial equity" can be ascribed different meanings in the context of
policing, the term often focuses on whether police enforcement activities are fair,
impartial, and objective. The Center for Policing Equity exemplifies this approach,
with research scientists and others working with law enforcement organizations to
identify activities that produce inequity by collecting and analyzing operational
data.23 For example, traffic stops, arrests, use of force incidents, and other police
contacts might be analyzed to determine if there is evidence that Blacks or other
racial/ethnic groups are the subjects of police enforcement at a disproportionate rate
given their representation in the relevant population. Where activities resulting in
disproportionate impacts are identified, police agencies can adopt strategies to lessen
inequitable results, such as seen when New York City Police Department stop-andfrisk
practices were challenged as being unconstitutional.24
Although disparate impact and treatment may stem from explicit bias and racism,
not all disparities necessarily arise from intentional or conscious bias. Research has
increasingly confirmed that, even among individuals with an express commitment to
treating people equally, "attitudes or stereotypes . . . [may] affect our understanding,
actions, and decisions . . . involuntarily and without an individual's awareness or
intentional control." Indeed, everyone from lawyers and judges to physicians and
teachers appears to have implicit, or subconscious, biases to some extent because,
in the same way that the brain is hard-wired to identify patterns and associate
certain characteristics with certain phenomena. 25
Research into implicit bias, or our unconscious associations about groups of people
based on their culture, identity, and larger societal biases, has increased for law
enforcement and in many other arenas. However, while many police departments are
offering implicit bias training, evidence that it reduces biased behavior in police
activities with the public is lacking.26 Nonetheless, even those who criticize implicit
23 https://policingequity.org
24 https://ccrjustice.org/home/what-we-do/issues/discriminatory-policing
26 https://counciloncj.foleon.com/policing/assessing-the-evidence/vii-implicit-bias/
25
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
bias training conclude that if it helps law enforcement to begin thinking about the
role of bias, such training is still worthwhile.27 Also, it has been observed that implicit
bias training might pair well with duty to intervene and mandatory reporting
policies, both of which are required by recently enacted Washington State legislation
and help to address the underlying culture of policing.28
It may also be the case that some explanation for disparity with respect to law
enforcement activity is related to disparities across the criminal justice system and
broader social life. Systemic racism and enduring bias in education, housing,
employment, the courts, public health, and other foundational areas of American life
may be reflected in data on those with whom police departments interact, arrest, and
the like.
Regardless of the web of reasons for why there are disparities, police departments
occupy a singular place in helping to consider and implement solutions that might
address and affect disparate outcomes. A critical part of addressing disparities in law
enforcement is ensuring that a department has the policies, procedures, training, and
processes for critical self-analysis in place that can identify disparities and work with
the community to determine if it might adopt different approaches that would reduce
disparity.
Policing equity also is used by some to focus on aspects of the police-civilian
interaction that are tied up in social and cultural norms about authority, politeness,
and body language that guide how both the officer and the citizen should interact.29
Inequities can manifest in how officers communicate, which can undermine
community members' perceptions of procedural justice and police legitimacy.30 For
example, one study found that Blacks were more likely involved with stops where
officers communicated indifference, were dismissive, or showed an air of
superiority.31 Given the racial and ethnic diversity of many jurisdictions, the
challenge is for police officers to be "both professional with each community member
they encounter, 'blindfolded' like Lady Justice, and simultaneously to see every
27 https://www.npr.org/2020/09/10/909380525/nypd-study-implicit-bias-training-changesminds-not-necessarily-behavior
28 Id.
29 Charles M. Katz and Edward R. Maguire, editors, Transforming the Police Thirteen Key
Reforms (Waveland Press: 2020), p. 97 (citations omitted.
30 Id.
31 Travis L. Dixon, Terry L Schell, Howard Giles, and Kristin L. Drogos, "The Influence of
Race in Police-Civilian Interactions: A Content Analysis of Videotaped Interactions Taken
During Cincinnati Police Traffic Stops," Journal of Communication 58, no.3 (2008): 530-549.
26
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
person as an individual with clear, current cultural expectations of law
enforcement."32
In assessing matters of racial equity at the Port of Seattle Police Department, 21CP
reviewed POSPD contact and subject demographic data, reviewed the Department's
reports on biased policing complaints, and learned about POSPD's approach to
implicit bias and other training that is intended to reduce any unintended inequities.
21CP also facilitated discussions in each of the subcommittees on equity in the
context of the subcommittee's topic focus. In addition, equity in the Police
Department's workplace was assessed through employee listening sessions and a
climate survey of employees. Of the various approaches to assessing racial equity in
policing, the focus on internal stakeholder experiences yielded the greatest concerns
21CP has regarding equity and the POSPD.
Recommendation No. 7. The POSPD should commence a campaign of
internal procedural justice training for all levels of the department to help
address the broad-based sense of inequity, especially with employees of
color.
Procedural justice training can be effective in improving the attitudes and behaviors
of officers and may result in reductions in arrests and the use of force.33 The four
practices of procedural justice also cultivate legitimacy across cultures: treating
people in the intercultural environment with dignity and respect, listening and giving
voice to subjects of enforcement activities, displaying transparency in decisionmaking
, and conveying trustworthiness in motives.34
While much of the procedural justice focus has been on the officer/civilian interaction,
researchers also have looked at the internal climate and culture of police departments
to assess the degree of transparency and equity within an agency as perceived by its
32 Marcus Paxton and Robert Strauss, "Cultural Diversity and Cultural Competency for
Law Enforcement," Police Chief Magazine, https://www.policechiefmagazine.org/culturaldiversity-and-competency
/
33 CCJ Task Force on Policing. Procedural Justice Training. Policy Assessment (March 2021),
https://counciloncj.foleon.com/policing/assessing-the-evidence/vi-procedural-justice-training/
34 Captain Marcus Paxton and Robert Strauss, PhD. Cultural Diversity and Cultural
Competency for Law Enforcement. Police Chief Magazine,
https://www.policechiefmagazine.org/cultural-diversity-and-competency/
27
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
officers, using the term "internal procedural justice."35 Studies have found a close
relationship between officer perceptions of organizational justice and their
commitment to their department, compliance with departmental policies, and
adherence to community policing principles.36 "Internal procedural justice refers to
officers' perceptions that their colleagues' actions particularly those of their
supervisors are fair and understandable, which demonstrates a key level of
respect.officers who feel respected by their supervisors are more likely to
understand why decisions were made; more likely to accept, support, and voluntarily
comply with those decisions, including departmental policies; and less likely to
challenge the decisions."37
As discussed in detail throughout the next section, drawing clear conclusions based
on the climate survey to "prove" or "disprove" bias at the department proved difficult
due to insufficient data and conflicting narratives. Importantly, the survey data
shows that in all measured categories, Non-White respondents were generally less
satisfied - they felt less valued,38 said they had less access to opportunities39, felt less
heard40, and were more concerned about fairness at the department.41 On the other
hand, when narrative survey responses identified inequities and unfairness, all but
one respondent explained their concerns as being based on cronyism42 or being part
of an "in-group," rather than pointing to race, ethnicity, or gender as the root case.
This is the same theme we heard throughout our interviews with employees while
the so-called "in-group" was predominantly white, most employees essentially said
that racial disparity is the effect of the cronyism but stopped short of saying that
racial bias was the cause.
35 See, e.g., R. Trinkner, T.R. Tyler, & P.A. Goff. Justice from Within: The Relations Between
a Procedurally Just Organizational Climate and Police Organizational Efficiency,
Endorsement of Democratic Policing, and Officer Well-Being. Psychology, Public Policy, and
Law, 22(2), 158 (2016).
36 See Footnote 12, p. 3 (citations omitted).
37 Organizational Change through Decision Making and Policy: A New Procedural Justice
Course for Managers and Supervisors. The E-Newsletter of the COPS Office, Vol. 8, Issue 4,
April 2015, p. 1-2, citing, Nicole Haas, Maarten Van Craen, Wesley, Skogan, and Diego
Fleitas. Explaining Officer Compliance: The Importance of Procedural Justice and Trust
Inside a Police Organization. Criminology and Criminal Justice (January 2015).
38 8/23 Non-White vs. 6/63 White Respondents.
39 11/23 Non-White vs. 8/63 White Respondents.
40 10/24 Non-White vs. 6/63 White Respondents.
41 8/23 Non-White vs. 2/63 White Respondents.
42 We note that allegations of cronyism and favoritism are not unique to the POSPD.
28
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
What is clear, however, is that there are a significant number of employees and
especially employees of color who perceive unfairness in opportunities and outcomes
at the POSPD. POSPD needs to respond to both employee perceptions of inequity,
whatever the root cause, and all ways disparity is manifested. This is likely best
accomplished globally through comprehensive procedural justice training.
Additionally, a quarter of all recommendations in this report are designed to address
fairness and equity both real and perceived in a variety of targeted areas.
E. Climate Survey
Introduction
An organization's capacity to evolve depends in large part on the "health" of the
organization as reflected in the perspectives of its most important assets its
personnel. "Climate surveys" are tools frequently used to measure the range of
employees' experiences, attitudes, and concerns in order to better understand the
workplace culture and identify any areas for leadership to focus attention in working
towards change. As part of its overall assessment of the Port of Seattle Police
Department, 21CP Solutions was asked to conduct a climate survey of POSPD
employees, highlighting perceptions of equity in the department.
The survey instrument was designed in collaboration with the Task Force and was
reviewed by members of the Port executive and legal departments and POSPD
command staff. The questions were designed to explore fairness and procedural
justice as experienced by POSPD employees and to identify additional steps that the
POSPD might take to maximize equity and inclusion at the POSPD.
First, as we attempt analysis by race/ethnicity in the report, we are limited by not
knowing the complete demographics of our sample. Thirty percent of respondents did
not provide demographic information. This gap in information is compounded by the
25 percent of POSPD employees that did not identify race in human resources
records. This means that any percentages presented are a percentage of the known
sample, not the total samples. As such, we are careful to present the number of
responses and the "N," or sample size to provide context. Furthermore, as the number
of respondents in some categories is very low, comparing percentages for those
categories against the overall results to test for disparities is challenging and we only
use percentages sparingly and intentionally.
29
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
Similarly, while 21CP identifies and discusses potential disparities at a higher level
of generality White vs. Non-White; Male v. Female/Other; Supervisor v. Non-
Supervisor they are provided for purposes of noting areas for additional study,
rather than suggesting calculated findings supported by any level of statistical
confidence. That being said, this limitation should in no way serve to undermine the
importance of these observations.
Second, this survey tested perceptions of equity during a complicated time in the
POSPD's history. There are several publicly known Equal Employment Opportunity
(EEO) processes currently underway that challenge issues of equity that were
explored in the survey.43 Additionally, the full-time Chief has been on administrative
leave for over a year, which undoubtedly influences employee perceptions of fairness
and equity. Many employees commented during listening sessions and in the survey
that they did not understand how Chief Covey could be on leave for such a long time
without any explanation or expected timeline from Port leadership.44 While the actual
impact of these issues is unknown, they are important to note as part of the
atmosphere in which this survey and listening sessions were conducted and in the
overall context of this report.
Last, there is no current data to clarify whether these results are unique to the
POSPD or reflect instead a microcosm of the overall Port culture. Additional work is
underway to conduct a comprehensive climate survey of the Port, in whole, which
may provide further insight on this point.
Demographic Information for Survey Respondents
To account for the low number of respondents who identified within several of the
racial/ethnic categories and the difficulty in providing meaningful comparison
between very different sample sizes, respondents are grouped as either White or Nonwhite
for purposes of many analyses in this report. After controlling for the
duplication of multiple responses (i.e., the double count that would result when
43 POSPD employees have filed nine EEO complaints since 2017 based on allegations of race
discrimination, disability discrimination, retaliation, and employee ethics, as outlined in
Section VII, and it is unclear which of these employees participated in the survey or listening
sessions and the impact of a substantiated or unsubstantiated finding on their current
experiences in the department also is unknown.
44 21CP did not have any access to the investigation into the Chief or the results that
recently have been the focus of media attention. As such, none of the information relating to
that investigation could be incorporated into this analysis.
30
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
respondents selected more than one race), there were 27 respondents that identified
as Non-white. Sixty-eight respondents identified as White; the remainder were
"Other" or did not respond.
The identified gender breakdown of respondents was 63 male, 28 female, and three
Other.
Seventy-three respondents were commissioned employees; twenty-five were noncommissioned.
This breakdown is almost precisely representative of the department
as a whole.
Seventy-two respondents were non-supervisory and 24 holding a supervisory position
up to and including the command or executive level.
Respect for Individual Differences
Twelve of the survey questions were designed to examine the culture of respect
around individual employee differences. These questions were intended to elicit
perceptions of fairness, respect, the extent to which employees feel valued as
individuals, and the department's overall commitment to diversity, equity, and
inclusion. In addition to the low number of responses on some questions making it
difficult to draw firm conclusions, there also were competing narratives throughout,
with examples provided from open-ended responses to the survey and listening
sessions with POSPD employees.
Consistent with the Task Force focus on equity, we frame the survey results as best
we can from the perspective of Non-White respondents first as compared to the
majority. Fundamentally, across every category, Non-White employees had more
concerns and these disparities call for further exploration by the Port and the POSPD.
Additionally, while we do provide some results about gender, commission and
supervisory status that help to provide context, those categories did not drive
recommendations in the same way as racial differences in perception.45
45 One employee expressed direct criticism of the survey instrument and the survey itself:
If the intent of this survey is, in fact, to learn more about the experiences and
perspectives of those working at this department, it is poorly constructed. This
survey is filled with leading questions designed to illicit a particular response
from participants which will serve the apparent personal agendas of those
leading this task force.
31
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
Non-White employees had far more concerns about fairness, but survey
narratives and interviews did not consistently attribute these issues to race.
Eleven percent of the survey participants (10 respondents) indicated a concern about
racial fairness and equity inside the POSPD. Of those 10 respondents, eight identified
as Non-White. Perhaps more importantly, eight of all 27 Non-White respondents
identified concerns as opposed to 2/63 of the total White respondents.
However, while ten respondents indicated there is unfairness related to race, their
written comments in the survey provided a different narrative. For example, one
employee stated: "There does seem to be special treatment within our walls but not
what may you thinkcronyism runs deep. This cronyism is not race or gender related
but is all about picking your buddy." This sentiment was echoed by another employee,
who said: "[t]here is an inequity issue. Can't say that the inequity is based on race,
gender, sexual orientation, etc., but it exists." This narrative that fairness is an
issue but is not necessarily driven by racial or other bias - is consistent with what
officers said during the employee interviews. For example, an employee told us that
"some people can do and say what they want, and others get in troublemight not be
race or gender, but it's still an equity issue."
Half (11/22) of Non-White respondents reported not feeling valued as an
individual by the Department.
Of the sixteen respondents who indicated they did not believe the department valued
them as an individual, 11 were Non-White. Importantly, half of all Non-White
respondents (11/22) reported not feeling valued by the department.
There were no comments in the survey related directly to "feeling valued," although
some of the comments regarding fairness and opportunity likely relate. During
listening sessions, comments regarding alleged mistreatment in other areas, such as
training, might also tie into whether employees felt valued or not.
While we clearly do not share the perspective that the survey was biased or leading, this
criticism misses the point of the work 21CP was asked to do. Of course, there were questions
in a climate survey directed at determining perceptions based on race and gender that is
an important part of ascertaining climate. Additionally, as should be apparent, we take great
pains to explain the limits of the data and the conflicting narratives to help prevent an overfocus
on apparent disparities that we do not fully understand.
32
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
Of the 13 respondents that that did not feel treated with respect by
Command Staff, the majority were Non-White.
Fifteen percent (13/88) of respondents reported that the treatment of employees with
respect by command staff is a problem. Of the thirteen who expressed concerns with
respectful treatment by command staff, eight identified as Non-White and six as
White. Another way to consider responses to this question is that 8 Non-White
respondents out of a total of 27 said they did not feel treated with respect by
Command Staff. Of the 13 total Non-White and White respondents indicating
concern, three quarters were male, with one quarter female/other.
One respondent claimed direct retaliation by the Chief and command staff; another
noted that "under Chiefs Covey and Villa, I can honestly say our agency has never
been healthier." Some respondents complained about double standards or, as one
respondent noted, that some "commanders can do and say whatever they want."
Several spoke of cronyism, including command staff "holding vacant spots in their
special teams for their like-minded friends."
The issue of special teams assignments also came up during listening sessions with
some commissioned employees and this issue is addressed in detail below in the
Training and Development section.
Ninety-three percent of the department did not identify concern with the
system for hiring new employees.
Seven percent (6 respondents) expressed concern with the system for hiring new
employees. Of the six respondents who expressed concern, four were Non-White.
One respondent noted a fairness issue related to hiring lateral officers in particular:
"[t]his department is focused on hiring lateral officers from other agencies. Instead of
hiring lateral officers, internal [Port] employees should be given the opportunity to
get hired as an Entry-level." While not contradictory to the previous statement, others
spoke highly of the hiring standards: "[t]he Port of Seattle Police Department has the
highest background standards I have seen in the area and is committed to recruiting
officers who have a shared commitment to its core values, regardless of their
background and experience" and "[i]n my experience we also have one of the most
difficult background checks in law enforcement. I believe this high standard has
protected the department from troubles that other departments have experienced."
33
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
Hiring issues are discussed in more detail in the section on Diversity in Recruitment
and Hiring.
More than half of respondents (8/15) that indicated concerns with the
promotions process were employees of color.
Seventeen percent (15/88) of respondents indicated concerns with the promotions
process. Of the 15 concerned employees, eight were Non-White and seven were white.
Twelve were commissioned employees and only one respondent was a supervisor.
While no comments were directed specifically at promotions, as discussed elsewhere,
a few spoke to cronyism in the selection of special teams, and the lack of opportunity
in joining special teams. One noted: "certain people are allowed to stay in highly
regarded and prestigious specialty assignments (SWAT, K9, BDU, Detectives) for 20
years or more, hoarding specialty training, assignments, schedules, and incentives
like pay and days off." Others said that the selection process for special teams was
not fair as: "[w]e do the assessment and rank the applicants and then pick from a
'pool'. I've personally heard Command Staff say I don't like (fill in the blank) and pick
another person."
Again, almost half (11/23) of Non-White respondents indicated that they did
not have the opportunity to grow and develop as much as their peers.
Those that said that they did not have the opportunity to grow and develop as much
as their peers included 11/23 Non-White employees and 8/63 White employees.
Fourteen commissioned employees and four non-commissioned employees saw this
as an issue. Additionally, some supervisors (4) and non-supervisors (14) said there
was a problem with growth and development. These results would seem to fit with
the perception discussed above that there is unfairness, though it's difficult to say if
it's based on race, gender, or "being part of the in-crowd."
Ninety-one percent of respondents said the department has a strong
commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion, although that perception is
less strong among Non-White employees.
The vast majority of respondents (91%) reported that they believe POSPD has a
strong commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion, including 17/24 Non-White
respondents and 61/63 White respondents. This perspective was consistent across
gender categories.
34
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
In contrast, however, twenty-three respondents felt the department places too much
emphasis on diversity, equity, and inclusion.
Of those indicating that the POSPD places too much emphasis on diversity, equity,
and inclusion, 17/62 were White, 6/23 were Non-White, and all were commissioned.
There were few comments in the survey about this topic, but one respondent
expressed concern for favoritism of protected classes: "[a]t POSPD and the port of
Seattle as a whole, more favoritism is reserved for non-white, female, and/or LGBT
employees. It creates an environment where it seems like the value of white male
employees is less." While this perception was expressed and is reported here, it does
not seem to coincide with any other data.
In officer interviews, we did hear allegations that more progressive Human Resources
policies, such as not allowing discipline for officers being late because it wasn't
"culturally accommodating," was undermining the department's ability to maintain
order in the ranks. We do not know whether these perceptions help explain the
number of people who are concerned with too much emphasis in this area, but it
seems plausible.
Accountability
A separate set of questions focused on issues relating to accountability and whether
employees knew how to file a complaint, believed that complaints were taken
seriously, or feared retaliation when making complaints about race discrimination,
gender discrimination, filing union grievances, or taking job-protected leave.
Additionally, the survey and listening sessions with employees explored perceptions
of fairness in the disciplinary system and consistency at the supervisory level. White
and Non-White employees alike expressed concern about uneven accountability,
though some indicated they thought people of color were targeted for discipline more
often.
As discussed below in Section VII., a sample of misconduct complaints filed against
POSPD officers were reviewed to determine if investigations appeared to be handled
in an objective, thorough, and timely manner. However, it was beyond the scope of
this assessment to examine whether these complaints and any discipline that
resulted demonstrated uneven treatment between officers for the same behavior.
Further, the complaints reviewed did not necessarily capture all incidents of
counseling, training, or other less formal interventions by supervisors with officers,
35
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
nor all the specifics involved with EEO complaints that have been filed regarding
alleged unequal treatment. Rather, the survey and listening session feedback noted
below speaks to perceptions of uneven accountability.
The vast majority ninety-five percent of respondents say they know their
options with respect to bringing complaints about working conditions, but
half of all Non-White respondents (11/23) indicated concern that those
complaints were not treated seriously.
Respondents overall indicated they were knowledgeable about complaint filing
options. However, fourteen respondents out of a total of 87, with the majority (11)
being Non-White, said complaints about working conditions were not treated
seriously. Thus, considering all Non-White respondents, 11/23 had concerns in this
area. Nearly all White and Non-White respondents who expressed concern about
whether working condition complaints were treated seriously were Commissioned
employees. Perhaps unsurprisingly, all supervisors believed that complaints are
taken seriously.
Respondents overall were most fearful of retaliation for filing a union
grievance, with half of those concerned identified as Non-White, and Non-
Whites also expressed more concern for retaliation following a race or sex
discrimination complaint.
Respondents (27/87) were most concerned with potential retaliation for filing a union
grievance. Of the 27 who feared retaliation for filing a union grievance, half were
Non-White (13), which also represents about half of total Non-White respondents.
Men (21/58) were far more concerned than women (3/26), with the majority of
respondents indicating a concern being commissioned.
Overall, 14 out of sixty-six (14/66) respondents (all but one being commissioned)
reported fears about retaliation in response to a complaint of race discrimination.
Nine of the fourteen with these concerns were Non-White, representing over a third
(9/23) of all Non-White respondents. No supervisors reported concern about fear of
retaliation for filing a race discrimination complaint.46
Only five respondents said fear of retaliation for filing a complaint about sex
discrimination was a concern, though no respondent indicated this concern was
46 As noted previously, one respondent complained vigorously about retaliation and
victimization by the command staff and supervisors.
36
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
strongly felt. Of the five, three identified as male and two as female, while four out of
the five were Non-White.
More Non-White respondents (7/24) than White respondents (4/63) feared
retaliation for taking job-protected leave; all were commissioned personnel.
Overall, fourteen percent of all respondents (11/87) did not trust that they would not
encounter retaliation from higher ups in the department if they took job-protected
leave for any reason. Again, the majority of those concerned (7/11) were respondents
of color.
Over a quarter (22/85) of all respondents and well over a half of Non-White
respondents (13/23) did not believe discipline was applied fairly.
A significant number of all respondents, regardless of whether White or Non-White,
indicated they did not believe discipline was applied fairly. Looking just at Non-White
respondents, over half (13/23) expressed concern. Men were more likely to perceive
discipline as unfair (17/58) than women/other (4/25).
As with matters of equity discussed above, during listening sessions, some employees
thought Non-Whites were targeted for discipline more than Whites, while most
indicated nepotism or being part of a favored group was most significant in discipline
matters.
Some supervisors expressed fear of having a retaliation complaint filed against them
for imposing discipline, while others thought Human Resources was interfering with
their ability to correct performance issues. For example, one respondent indicated
that this perceived unfairness was not at the department level, but at the Port level:
"I chose "disagree" on the question if a misconduct complaint results
in discipline is it applied fairly. This is because the Port HR will not
allow the department to discipline officers who are lazy, don't handle
their calls appropriately, fail to qualify or who have substandard work
performance."
As is seen in other jurisdictions where the Human Resources function is
located outside the police department, misunderstandings related to roles
and process between the department and Human Resources can arise. A
recommendation for clarifying protocols between the POSPD, Human
37
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
Resources, and other components involved in complaint processing is
included below in Section VII.
Over a third of all respondents (30/83) indicated that some supervisors in
the department do not handle employee complaints according to policy
expectations, while 19 respondents said supervisors were not consistent in
enforcing POSPD standards of conduct.
Over a third of respondents (30/83) said that some supervisors in the department do
not handle employee complaints according to policy expectations. Of those, equal
proportions of White respondents (22/59) and Non-White (7/23) had concerns. All who
reported such concern were commissioned employees. Nineteen out of 83 respondents
indicated supervisors are not consistent in enforcing standards of conduct, with 11
Non-Whites in that group, representing nearly half (11/23) of all Non-White
respondents.
One respondent noted: "[o]ne set of rules apply to the majority of the department,
while for a small group of 'people', those rules don't apply. Those 'people' are
protected. When things are brought up to the chain of command, things are not
addressed and appear to be swept under the rug." Another said, "Accountability is
selective and does not seem to go above a certain level."
Another respondent placed concern at the Port level: "certain individuals are allowed
to break policy or safety procedures time and time again because their speed dial
connects to HR."
Supervision
The supervision questions in the survey were designed to explore perceptions of
supervision and leadership by asking about integrity, relationships, support, and
performance evaluations. Overwhelmingly, respondents reported high praise for
supervisors and mostly for supervision as a whole. This is clearly very encouraging
and empirically rare in any organization. Still, the slight dissatisfaction in this area
was primarily with respondents of color.
Regarding supervisors:
All respondents reported that their supervisor treats them with respect and
treats them fairly.
38
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
All but one respondent (White) said their supervisor has personal integrity.
All but one respondent (Non-White) said they have a good relationship with
their supervisor.
Most (81/86) respondents said their performance evaluations accurately
reflect their performance.
Of these five, two were White and two Non-White; three were commissioned and two
non-commissioned; all were non-supervisory. With a sample this small, there is little
to discern here, but, unlike other organizations in our experience, this does not seem
to be a significant issue at the POSPD.
Only three respondents indicated that their supervisor does not help them
be successful in their job, but all were Non-White.
Despite the disparity, the concerns are still very few.
Only one respondent (Non-White) reported that their supervisor does not
encourage them to take initiative in performing their job duties.
One employee disagreed; no one strongly disagreed.
Work Climate
The last section of the survey was designed to query the overall work climate,
including how employees work collaboratively, whether there is a culture of
excellence at POSPD, whether there is departmental pride, and how internal
communications are perceived.
Opinions about co-workers were remarkably positive.
Ninety-eight percent of respondents liked the people they work with and reported
that the people with whom they work most closely are committed to producing top
quality work; out of all respondents, only one White male and one Non-White male
disagreed.
Eight percent of respondents (7) said their co-workers do not consistently strive to
perform their jobs well; three were White and four Non-White.
39
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
Ninety-four percent of respondents agreed that they are encouraged to work together
to solve problems. Three Non-White and three White employees disagreed.
More than half of Non-White respondents (12/23) and a third of respondents
overall did not agree there is a climate of trust in the department.
Twenty-six respondents, 12 of whom were Non-White, did not feel that there is a
climate of trust47. The concern over trust was almost exclusively expressed by
commissioned employees.
Of the sixteen respondents that said their perspective is not heard and
considered, ten were respondents of color.
Eighteen percent of respondents (16) did not feel that their perspective is heard and
considered. Of those, 10 were Non-White employees and, perhaps more importantly,
10/23 (almost half of Non-White respondents) did not feel their perspective was heard
and considered.
A quarter of respondents expressed concern about communication within
the department.
Twenty-three percent of the department disagreed with the proposition that there is
good communication within the department. This included eight Non-White
employees and 10 White employees.
Eighty-nine percent of the department agreed that they received the information they
need from the department in a timely way. There was no appreciable difference
between employees' opinions on this. Therefore, while a quarter of respondents had
concerns about overall communication, most felt they were provided the information
that they need to do their jobs.
Departmental Pride
Ninety-four percent of respondents reported they were proud of their department.
Only three Non-White and two White respondents did not agree.
One respondent summarized pride in the department very well:
47 Climate of trust was not defined in the survey and, as such, may have different meanings
to different people.
40
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
We are police officers. Some say we hold the most powerful position
in society, because we have a gun and a badge. We must keep the
standard high. We can't afford to abuse that power the people have
given us. Public trust is everything. Initially, I was upset with this
entire process. I felt the Port of Seattle was on a witch hunt. But then
I realized we have nothing to hide. We do good work. We have good
people. I think once people look closer, they'll agree. I know people are
mad about what happened to George Floyd. I am too. But there
wasn't a Port of Seattle Police Officer there. If there had been
no one would know George Floyd's name and he would still be
alive.
Only one employee said that compared to other law enforcement agencies, POSPD is
not a good place to work. The rest of the department believed that it was.
The pride in the POSPD that employees expressed through the survey and in
listening sessions will provide an excellent foundation for exploring ways to enhance
internal procedural justice. Efforts to improve communication, give voice to all
employees, consistently demonstrate dignity and respect for employees, and
increased transparency in decision-making will enhance feelings of trust among
POSPD employees and help address other concerns noted here, particularly among
Non-White employees. While the data raises as many questions as it answers, an
approach involving employees in better understanding the complexities and problem
solving will help POSPD provide an experience of equity for all employees.48
V. USE OF FORCE
A. Motion 2020-15 and the Use of Force Subcommittee
Motion 2020-15 directed the assessment of Use of Force to include a review of policy,
specifically whether changes are needed to policies, practices, or protocols regarding
the use of weapons and tactics used to manage and disperse crowds, lethal
force/restraint, and crisis situations. Additionally, the assessment was tasked to
48 Tanya Meisenholder and Monica Brooker, "Fostering an Inclusive Work
Environment," Police Chief (August 2021), provides an overview of an approach taken in
the New York Police Department (NYPD) to facilitate discussions about racial identify and
race relations in the workplace, along with lessons learned during NYPD's experience.
41
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
examine current training and opportunities to improve training to provide officers
with alternative options to the use of force across contexts.
B. Use of Force Subcommittee Members and Workflow
The Use of Force Subcommittee was Co-Chaired by Sam Pailca, former Director of
the Seattle Police Department Office of Professional Accountability, former board
member of National Association for Civilian Oversight of Police and current board
member of the ACLU and Veronica Valdez, a Commission staff member and former
U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) employee, which provided a strong background for
analysis of use of force issues. During the Task Force timeline, Veronica left the Port
to return to the DoD, and was replaced by Eric Schinfeld, another Port staff member.
Subcommittee C Use of Force
Chairs: Sam Pailca and Veronica Valdez (Eric Schinfeld)
Name Organization
Sam Pailca External Subject Matter Expert
Port of Seattle Federal and International Government
Eric Schinfeld
Relations
Veronica Valdez Port of Seattle Commission Office
Corey Guilmette External Subject Matter Expert
Sgt. Tygh
Port of Seattle Police Department
Hollinger
Monisha Harrell External Subject Matter Expert
Port of Seattle, Employee Resource Group,
Kenny Lyles
Blacks In Government
Isaac Ruiz External Subject Matter Expert
Jess Sanford Port of Seattle Subject Matter Expert
Anita Simmons Port of Seattle Diversity and Development Council
Michelle Woodrow Union representative
The subcommittee met five times between 10/15/2020 and 1/21/21, covering a wide
range of issues, including de-escalation, crowd management, crisis response, and
force review. To bring the subcommittee up to speed on the law, and emerging
practices in use of force policies, and the current state of POSPD policy, 21CP
provided an introduction and overview. This was supported by many presentations
from POSPD to inform the subcommittee about current practices, each of which led
to spirited debate and discussion. Sgt. Bram Urbauer presented on Use of Force/Deescalation
training. Commander Jeff Selleg presented on the department's efforts in
42
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
crisis intervention and briefly on the Lateral Vascular Neck Restraint (LVNR), but
the subcommittee declined to revisit the Port Commission's decision to prohibit all
forms of chokeholds and carotid restraints49. Sgt. Jason Coke presented on Use of
Force in crowd management situations, which necessarily overlapped with the work
of the Mutual Aid subcommittee. 21CP also reported out on the review of Use of Force
cases as they emerged and observations on use of force and de-escalation training.
C. Use of Force Case Review Methodology
The use of force case review was designed to serve as a backstop to the policy review
and work of the Use of Force subcommittee exploring use of force generally. 21CP
was not contracted to complete a comprehensive review of force; however, the
infrequency of use of force by the POSPD lent itself to a deeper dive than was
originally contemplated and this expansion of scope was important to understand
how the policies and training play out in practice. 21CP reported out to the Use of
Force Subcommittee on these review findings.
For most assessments, 21CP requests a random, statistically significant sample of a
department's uses of force over a material time period to ensure that, at a 95%
confidence level, the use of force cases reviewed would fairly represent the overall
population of use of force. However, as the POSPD has relatively few uses of force,
21CP requested all cases for 2018-2020, which included all of 2018 and 2019, and the
year to date for 2020 cases. In all, 21CP was provided 90 cases, all of which were
reviewed. Typically, these cases included officer reports, a sergeant's review, a case
disposition, and a Chief's letter back to the officer(s) about the results of the internal
review.
No files included video, audio, or other material, although many cases indicated that
the force was captured on video through airport or seaport security cameras. 21CP
elected not to include a video assessment of these cases because (1) the time and effort
49 During these discussions, the POSPD did not advocate for the return of the LVNR to an
intermediate use of force but inquired whether there was any place in policy for reviewing
the LVNR as a use of deadly force. The Port Motion prohibited all forms of neck and carotid
holds; recent state law is unclear whether LVNR could be permitted in deadly force
situations. Compare Section 3 (3) of Chapter 324, Laws of 2021 ("A peace officer may not use
any force tactics prohibited by applicable departmental policy, this chapter, or otherwise by
law, except to protect against his or her life or the life of another person from an imminent
threat.") with Section 2 of Chapter 320, Laws of 2021 ("A peace officer may not use a
chokehold or neck restraint on another person in the course of his or her duties as a peace
officer.").
43
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
it would take to do a comprehensive independent review of video was beyond the scope
of this engagement and (2) because security cameras do not capture sound, which is
needed for any real insight into tone and demeanor of both officers and subjects, such
review would not likely have been sufficiently helpful. As discussed in other sections,
if the Department decides to develop a body-worn camera program, the audio and
video captured from those cameras would be critically important for future force
reviews.
Additionally, many departments conduct interviews for high level uses of force,
rather than having officers create written reports. While this is true for the POSPD
for investigations into in-custody deaths by the Valley Independent Investigative
Team (IIT), there does not appear to be an internal process for interviewing officers
in high level uses of force that do not result in death. However, 21CP did not identify
any high level uses of force that would generally qualify for such interviews.
The lack of video, audio, or other evidence means that 21CP's reviewers could only
evaluate cases based on the representations of POSPD officers in reports and official
materials. 21CP could not look "behind the curtain" or compare independent evidence
against the officer statements. Consequently, the resulting analysis is, in some
regards, only as deep as the reporting was accurate.
Although the POSPD provided 90 case files, 21CP identified some cases that involved
more than one incident of force (when, for example, there were multiple subjects). As
such, 21CP uses incidents, rather than cases, for this review. Additionally, 11 cases
(with many incidents) in 2020 occurred on May 30 and May 31, 2020, were
attributable to mutual aid engagements in Seattle or Tukwila as part of the
demonstrations around the Derek Chauvin murder of George Floyd in Minneapolis.
Analyzing the use of force in this context, which included the use of pepper spray
(OC), tear gas (CS), and less-lethal launcher deployments, would require a much
deeper investigation and is well beyond the scope of this assessment. As such, those
11 cases have been excluded from the use of force assessment, and the
recommendations relating to such mutual aid crowd control events are contained in
the Mutual Aid recommendations section.
Finally, for the following sections, there were some cases in which information was
not readily discernable. Therefore, while there were 80 incidents within the review,
some questions have a lower "n" due to missing information. The total number of
incidents are provided with sufficient information within each section for context.
44
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
Use of Force Case Review Findings
Three-quarters (75%) of uses of force occurred at the airport facility, with an
additional four percent occurring at seaport facilities and ten percent on other Port
properties. The remaining 11 percent of incidents occurred on non-port properties,
often in the context of assisting other agencies.
POSPD officers routinely used de-escalation strategies. There were only five
incidents that involved solo officers using force. As discussed in the section on deescalation
, summoning appropriate resources, whether additional officers, medical
personnel, or crisis response personnel is a key part of reducing the need to use force
in any given situation. There were several cases where port police appropriately
called additional units initially but reduced the number of officers on-scene once the
scene had been assessed. This shows good use of personnel and excellent modulation
of police presence, which can be perceived as overwhelming when too many officers
are present. In two-thirds of incidents that eventually resulted in a use of force, two
or three officers responded.
The racial breakdown of subjects on whom force was used is as follows; the vast
majority (91%) of subjects were male.
Value Percent Count
White 50.7% 37
Black/AA 37.0% 27
Hispanic 2.7% 2
Asian 2.7% 2
Other 6.8% 5
Totals 73
As discussed above in detail, methodologies to determine whether there exists a
disparity of use of force in relation to representation in the population are generally
unsatisfactory. Here, for the POSPD, when the subjects of force are predominantly
local and not members of the travelling public, it becomes even more difficult to
determine an appropriate denominator for determining disparity.
45
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
Regardless, it makes more sense to simply accept the disparity and just take steps to
decrease the disparity.
To that end, looking at cases in response to cases that ended as a trespass or an
involuntary commitment, the percentage of Black suspects increased to 45%, and
subjects of color overall became the majority. This suggests, within the available data,
that finding alternatives to respond to addiction, mental illness, and homelessnessdriven
concerns would go a long way not only in reducing force overall but reducing
the disparity in the use of force on people of color within those populations.
It is also worth noting that, in the 12 cases where it was possible to identify that the
subjects of force were members of the traveling public, 11 (or 92%) of those uses of
force were on White subjects, either intoxicated, in crisis, or both, who were either
removed from planes or in conflict with airline or airport staff.
By far, hands-on engagement and controlled takedowns to the ground for the purpose
of forcible handcuffing were the most common uses of force. Less lethal tools were
rarely used.
The five Taser deployments were used on an actively aggressive suspect who stole
water and gum from Hudson News; on a suicidal person threatening to jump from
the Light Rail platform; against a violently resisting subject with a warrant; on a
female subject with a knife in her hand; and against a man who threw a metal
stanchion at officers and assumed a fighting stance. 21CP's reviews found all these
Taser applications to be reasonable, necessary, and proportional.
Value Percent Count
Hands on 84.8% 67
Takedown 83.5% 66
Strikes (kicks/punches) 6.3% 5
Pepper Spray 1.3% 1
Taser 6.3% 5
Firearm pointing 7.6% 6
Other (add to description) 20.3% 16
Totals 166
46
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
There were 12 uses of the Lateral Vascular Neck Restraint (LVNR) in the reviewed
cases, six of which 21CP found to be either unreasonable, not necessary, or not
proportional. To be clear, at the time these uses of the LVNR were in accordance with
POSPD policy, which permitted the use of LVNR as an intermediate use of force. This
was not uncommon in Washington State prior to the passage of E2HB 1054
prohibiting the technique altogether. National best practices, however, increasingly
either abolish the LVNR and all neck holds completely or allow an exception when
deadly force is required,50 and 21CP cannot support the use of the technique at any
lower level of threat. As such, the elimination of this technique by the Port and
subsequently by Washington State should resolve this issue.
Thirty-nine percent of cases resulted in identifiable subject injury; in contrast,
medical assistance was requested for subjects in fifty-three percent of cases, due to
either behavioral crisis needs or pre-existing medical needs.
Value Percent Count
Yes 39.0% 30
No 61.0% 47
Totals 77
Determining whether a subject was in crisis defined as an episode of mental and/or
emotional distress in a person that is creating significant or repeated disturbances
and is considered disruptive by the community, friends, family or the person
themselves or intoxicated is not an exact science, especially because medical reports
are often not provided to law enforcement. As such, reviewers attempted to categorize
persons in crisis and intoxicated individuals based on the known information in the
reports. Thirty-nine percent of individuals were clearly in behavioral crisis and
thirty-two percent of people were intoxicated. There is significant overlap between
these two categories.
Officer injury occurred in 22 percent of cases, the most serious of which appeared to
be a fractured nose and a bite to the hand, but mostly injuries were contusions or
abrasions. Again, the review was limited to the information contained in the use of
50 See e.g., International Association of Chiefs of Police, "National Consensus Policy and
Discussion Paper on Use of Force," October 2017,
https://www.theiacp.org/resources/document/national-consensus-discussion-paper-on-use-offorce-
and-consensus-policy;
47
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
force reporting; 21CP did not review any additional officer injury reports that might
provide more detail.
Reviewers were able to identify de-escalation efforts in two-thirds of cases, based on
what was documented by the officer. The remaining one-third predominantly
involved circumstances where de-escalation was not feasible because the subject
became assaultive. The de-escalation efforts frequently included communication,
trying to explain the officer's purpose, slowing the incident down, requesting
additional officers or resources, or trying to help the subject figure out a way home.
In one case, an officer was dispatched to a suicidal subject at the light rail station
who was threatening to jump from the platform. While a Taser ultimately became
necessary in order to the take the individual into custody, the officer's de-escalation
tactics were successful in bringing the subject to a less precarious position where the
Taser could be used without subjecting the person to the very fall officers were trying
to prevent.).
In another case, officers spent a substantial amount of time engaging with a person
in mild crisis to identify family members or a case worker but took no enforcement
action as the person was not a threat to themselves or others (predicate criteria for
involuntary commitment). Officers continued to monitor the person, who continued
to behave in irrational, but lawful, behaviors. Officers ultimately were required to
take her into custody when she entered the roadway, presenting a danger to herself
and others, which resulted in a low-level use of force.
In 90 percent of cases, the reported use of force was found to be reasonable, necessary,
and proportional. In eight cases, 21CP identified issues with the use of force. Six of
these cases involved the LVNR in circumstances that did not call for a use of deadly
force; again, although within policy at that time, these applications were flagged by
our reviewers for the reasons discussed above. Two other instances involved cases in
which subjects were prevented from voluntarily leaving the airport premises and
force was used to take them into custody. In both of these cases, had the subjects
simply been allowed to leave, no force would have been required. We recognize that
POSPD officers are asked to manage trespass cases with homeless individuals or
persons in crisis, many of whom they know to have previously been given trespass
warnings or arrested for trespass. We acknowledge very real policy considerations at
play in these circumstances: a person has been warned and/or arrested previously
and knows they are not supposed to be in the airport terminal, at what point should
an officer take enforcement action as opposed to simply prompting them to leave? As
48
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
discussed throughout this report, bringing additional resources to bear on the
homeless and mentally ill population at the airport terminal would greatly alleviate
these conflicts.
Misconduct was only identified by the department's review (and 21CP's review) in
one case. However, counseling and mandated training was also appropriately
required in several cases. In two cases, officers were counseled for taking law
enforcement action without backup, which either increased the severity of the use of
force or put the officer and subject at increased risk of harm. In another case, an
officer was properly counseled for simply pointing a firearm but not otherwise taking
any proactive action to stop an assault in progress. Because the officer chose to rely
on a firearm, he was unable to physically intervene because he was holding a gun,
which limited his options.
D. Use of Force Recommendations
Policies that guide the consistent and accountable application of force, including deescalation
and the use of alternatives to force, advance equity and fairness by
bringing clarity to expectations. When officers know what, when, and how to use and
report force, any disparities in application are more easily analyzed. As such, the
recommendations below, although in large part technical, will better promote
principles of equity around the use of force.
At the outset, the POSPD use of force polices have several elements that many
departments fail to include and are often the subject of recommendations by 21CP.
The POSPD policy properly sets forth:
That force may only be used for a lawful purpose. 300.2.2.
Clear and comprehensive criteria to determine reasonableness of force that
goes beyond the objectively reasonable language of Graham v. Connor. 300.3.2
That all neck holds are prohibited. 300.3.4
Restrictions on shooting at a moving vehicle. 300.4.1
Requirement that Tasers are mandatory equipment. 308.3
Weapon-specific prohibitions for Taser, OC, Batons, and Pepper ball launchers
308.5 et seq.
Recommendation No. 8. The department should consider
restructuring the Use of Force policies into a unified policy.
49
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
Use of Force policies are distributed across several chapters that are nonsequential
and thus difficult to follow. They include:
POSPD 300 Use of Force
POSPD 302 Use of Force Review Boards
POSPD 306 Handcuffing and Restraints
POSPD 308 - Control Devices and Techniques
POSPD 309 TASER Device Guidelines
POSPD 310 Officer-Involved Shootings and Deaths
POSPD 312 Firearms
POSPD 313 Edged Weapons
POSPD 314 Vehicle pursuits
POSPD 318 - Canines
POSPD 431 Patrol Rifles
As such, the department should consider restructuring the Use of Force policies into
a unified policy, and the POSPD should take the time to develop a public-facing
explanation of its policies around the use of force, not only to aid the public's
understanding of POSPD tactics and procedures but which could serve as an internal
handbook for officers as well.
Recommendation No. 9. The Mission and Vision Statements in the
policy manual should more clearly indicate the Department's commitment,
in all of its activities, to valuing and upholding equity and fairness, deescalation
, the sanctity of human life, and achieving the best possible
outcome for all involved.
In addition to the Mission and Vision Statement, there are other areas of the manual,
including the Law Enforcement Code of Ethics, the Oath of Office, the Canons of
Police Ethics, and the Use of Force Policy itself, that should be reconciled. Overall,
manual appears to patch together too many competing sets of values that in some
instances are inconsistent and, thus, potentially confusing.
Importantly, current POSPD policy is clear in its value statement:
The department recognizes and respects the value of all human life
and dignity without prejudice to anyone. Vesting officers with the
authority to use reasonable force and to protect the public welfare
50
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
requires monitoring, evaluation and a careful balancing of all
interests."51
Policy language that follows, however, can be read as undercutting that commitment:
"Although the ultimate objective of every law enforcement encounter is to avoid or
minimize injury, nothing in this policy requires an officer to retreat or be exposed to
possible physical injury before applying reasonable force."52 While this is likely an
appropriate statement, any "possible physical injury" is insufficiently precise. Best
practices could connect the two concepts:
Police Officers have the responsibility to use force, when necessary, to
protect life and safety, to effect an arrest and/or keep the peace. It is
the policy of the Port of Seattle Police Department to value and
preserve human life when using lawful authority to use force.
Therefore, officers of the Port of Seattle Police Department shall use
only the amount of necessary and proportional force that the
objectively reasonable officer would use in light of the circumstances
to effectively bring an incident or person under control, while
protecting the lives of the member or others. Members are advised
that this Department places restrictions on officer use of force that go
beyond the restrictions set forth under the Constitution or state law.53
Recommendation No. 10. The De-Escalation Policy should be updated
to make de-escalation attempts mandatory, when possible to do so, and to
add de-escalation tactics.
The totality of the guidance on de-escalation in the policy reads:
When circumstances reasonably permit, officers should use nonviolent
strategies and techniques to decrease the intensity of a
situation, improve decision-making, improve communication, reduce
the need for force, and increase voluntary compliance (e.g.,
summoning additional resources, formulating a plan, attempting
verbal persuasion).
51 POSPD 300.2.
52 POSPD 300.3.
53 Derived from a combination of the New Orleans and Las Vegas Metropolitan Police
Department Use of Force policies.
51
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
The term "should" is permissive the policy should unequivocally require deescalation
"will" or "shall." While there are certainly times when de-escalation is
not possible, the phrase "when circumstances reasonably permit" does not provide
clear guidance. The policy should use "when possible54" instead.
This recommendation is consistent with:
IACP National Consensus Policy on Use of Force "An officer shall use
de-escalation techniques and other alternatives to higher levels of force
consistent with his or her training wherever possible and appropriate before
resorting to force and to reduce the need for force."55
American Law Institute Principles on Use of Force. "Agencies should
require, through written policy, that officers actively seek to avoid using force
whenever possible and appropriate by employing techniques such as deescalation."56
Seattle Police Department "When safe, feasible, and without
compromising law enforcement priorities, officers shall use de-escalation
tactics in order to reduce the need for force."57
New Orleans Police Department "When feasible based on the
circumstances, officers will use de-escalation techniques, disengagement; area
containment; surveillance; waiting out a subject; summoning reinforcements;
and/or calling in specialized units such as mental health and crisis resources,
in order to reduce the need for force, and increase officer and civilian safety.
Moreover, the officers shall de-escalate the amount of force used as the
resistance decreases."58
54 Although many departments use "when safe and feasible," Chapter 324, Laws of 2021 (SB
1310) mandates that "When possible, exhaust available and appropriate de-escalation tactics
prior to using any physical force."
55 IACP Consensus Policy at 3.
56 Principles of the Law: Policing 5.04 (Am. Law. Inst. Revised Tentative Draft No. 1, 2017),
available at https://www.ali.org/media/filer_public/f2/80/f2804962-6431-4535-9649-
34c5f872140e/policing-uof-online.pdf.
57 Seattle Police Department Manual, Section 8.100: Using Force (rev. Sep. 15, 2019),
https://www.seattle.gov/police-manual/title-8---use-of-force/8100---de-escalation.
58 New Orleans Police Department Use of Force Policy, at 5, available at
https://www.nola.gov/getattachment/NOPD/NOPD-Consent-Decree/Chapter-1-3-Use-of-
Force.pdf/.
52
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
Additionally, while the POSPD policy suggests a few tactics, E2SHB 1310 requires
de-escalation considerations "such as: creating physical distance by employing
tactical repositioning and repositioning as often as necessary to maintain the benefit
of time, distance, and cover; when there are multiple officers, designating one officer
to communicate in order to avoid competing commands; calling for additional
resources such as a crisis intervention team or mental health professional when
possible; calling for back-up officers when encountering resistance; taking as much
time as necessary, without using physical force or weapons; and leaving the area if
there is no threat of imminent harm and no crime has been committed, is being
committed, or is about to be committed."
The internally developed de-escalation training, which supports this policy, is
discussed in the Training and Development Section below. However, briefly, that
training properly instructs officers to use time, distance, shielding, and
communication, which are the hallmarks of es-escalation. After the passage of
E2SHB 1310, new recruits should also be receiving de-escalation training supporting
the mandates of the new law.
These concepts should be provided to officers in policy along with the requirements
of SB1310 ser forth above they are not just training considerations.
53
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
Recommendation No. 11. The Use of Force Policy should expressly
require that any use of force be objectively Reasonable, Necessary, and
Proportional.
POSPD 300.3 states that "Officers shall use only that amount of force that reasonably
appears necessary given the facts and circumstances perceived by the officer at the
time of the event to accomplish a legitimate law enforcement purpose." The policy
does not appear to define necessary, though RCW 9A.16.010 provides the following
definition: "'Necessary' means that no reasonably effective alternative to the use of
force appeared to exist and that the amount of force used was reasonable to effect the
lawful purpose intended." This definition is also used in POSPD department
training59. As the language in RCW 9A.16.010 already incorporates the "no
reasonably effective alternative to the use of force language," it appears that
"reasonably necessary" is likely redundant.
Many departments' force policies specifically require that the nature or severity of
the force that an officer uses be proportional to, or consistent with, the nature of the
threat posed by the subject. As such, the best force policies expressly require that all
force must be reasonable, necessary, and proportional.
"Proportionality requires that any use of force correspond to the risk of harm the
officer encounters, as well as to the seriousness of the legitimate law-enforcement
objective that is being served by its used."60 The "requirement of proportionality
operates in addition to the requirement of necessity" and "means that even when force
is necessary to achieve a legitimate law-enforcement end, its use may be
impermissible if the harm it would cause is disproportionate to the end that officers
seek to achieve."61
The POSPD added "proportionality" during this assessment, based on a Lexipol policy
update, however the concept is easily overlooked. The policy begins clearly with a
59 Chapter 324, Laws of 2021 (SB 1310) provides a different definition in the deadly force
context: "Necessary" means that, under the totality of the circumstances, a reasonably
effective alternative to the use of deadly force does not exist, and that the amount of force
used was a reasonable and proportional response to the threat posed to the officer and others.
60 Principles of the Law: Policing 5.05 cmt. a (Am. Law. Inst. Revised Tentative Draft No. 1,
2017), available at https://www.ali.org/media/filer_public/f2/80/f2804962-6431-4535-9649-
34c5f872140e/policing-uof-online.pdf.
61 Principles of the Law: Policing 5.05 cmt. a (Am. Law. Inst. Revised Tentative Draft No. 1,
2017), available at https://www.ali.org/media/filer_public/f2/80/f2804962-6431-4535-9649-
34c5f872140e/policing-uof-online.pdf.
54
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
directive: "Officers shall use only that amount of force that reasonably appears
necessary given the facts and circumstances perceived by the officer at the time of
the event to accomplish a legitimate law enforcement purpose."62 Then the policy
discusses how reasonableness will be judged and then states: "Given no policy can
realistically predict every possible situation an officer might encounter, officers are
entrusted to use well-reasoned discretion in determining the appropriate, and
proportional, use of force in each incident."63 This policy does not equivocally state
that officers should only use reasonable, necessary, and proportional force, which is
best practice.
A 2017 survey found that over half of the country's fifty largest police departments
have a proportionality requirement.64 Some policies specifically use the term
"proportional"; others describe the concept in different ways.
Seattle Police Department "Officers shall use only the degree of force that is
objectively reasonable, necessary under the circumstances, and proportional to
the threat or resistance of a subject . . .. The level of force applied must reflect
the totality of circumstances surrounding the situation, including the presence
of imminent danger to officers or others . . . The more immediate the threat
and the more likely that the threat will result in death or serious physical
injury, the greater the level of force that may be objectively reasonable and
necessary to counter it."65
New York Police Department "Only the amount of force necessary to
overcome resistance will be used to effect an arrest or take a mentally ill or
emotionally disturbed person into custody . . .. All members of the service at
the scene of a police incident must . . . use minimum necessary force."66
62 POSPD 300.3
63 Id.
64 Brandon L. Garrett & Seth W. Stoughton, "A Tactical Fourth Amendment," 103 V. L. Rev.
211 (2017).
65 Seattle Police Department Manual, Section 8.000: Use of Force Core Principles, available
at https://www.seattle.gov/police-manual/title-8---use-of-force/8000---use-of-force-coreprinciples.
66 New York Police Department, General Regulations, Procedure No. 203-11: Use of Force at
1 (Aug. 1, 2013),
http://www.nyc.gov/html/oignypd/assets/downloads/pdf/oig_nypd_use_of_force_report_-
_oct_1_2015.pdf.
55
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
Recommendation No. 12. The Use of Force Policy should require
officers to provide a warning, when safe and feasible, before using any
force.
The United States Supreme Court has predicated the use of deadly force against
felony suspects fleeing escape on, "where feasible, some warning ha[ving] been given"
by the officer.67 This is consistent with United Nations Basic Principles on the Use of
Force and Firearms and its provision that "when law enforcement is faced with an
imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury, officers must," among other things,
"give a clear warning" unless doing so "would unduly place the law enforcement
officers at risk," would create a risk of death or serious harm to others, or would be
"clearly inappropriate or pointless in the circumstances."68
21CP observes here that some organizations and departments focus exclusively on
the provision of warnings before the use of deadly force.69 The importance and
reasoning behind this requirement easily extends, however, to the application of all
types of force especially considering that the use of less-lethal force will typically
correspond to less-severe threats and circumstances in which an officer has more time
and ability to provide a warning and to determine whether the subject is complying
with the warning before applying force. In other words, the feasibility of providing a
warning may be substantially greater or more likely in situations involving lesssignificant
applications of force than circumstances involving deadly force.
Consequently, a more general rule that requires officers to issue a warning, whenever
feasible, before using any force provides simpler and more straightforward guidance
to officers and, ultimately, allows for such warnings to become more automatic in
practice.
67 Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1, 11-12 (1985).
68 Amnesty International, "Deadly Force: Police Use of Lethal Force in the United States" at
23 (2015) (summarizing UN Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law
Enforcement Officials, Eighth United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the
Treatment of Offenders, Havana, 27 August to 7 September 1990, U.N. Doc.
A/CONF.144/28/Rev.1 at 112 (1990)).
69 See, e.g., Campaign Zero, Model Use of Force Policy, Section II,
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/56996151cbced68b170389f4/t/5defffb38594a9745b936
b64/1576009651688/Campaign+Zero+Model+Use+of+Force+Policy.pdf (last accessed Jan.
13, 2021) (offering warnings as an alternative to physical force and requiring verbal warnings
before deadly force but not expressly mandating warnings before the use of non-deadly force);
Lexipol, Police Use of Force: Safer Communities Through Sound Policies,
https://useofforce.lexipol.com/law-enforcement/ (last visited Jan. 13, 2021) (noting a July
2020 amendment to Lexipol model policies seeking "to clarify that warnings should be used
whenever reasonable before deploying deadly force").
56
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
Indeed, a number of police departments require a warning before any force is used,
whether that force is lethal or less-lethal, severe, or comparatively less severe:
Cleveland Division of Police "Where feasible, and to do so would not
increase the danger to officers or others, officers shall issue a verbal warning
to submit to their authority prior to the use of force."70
Northampton (Mass.) Police Department "When feasible, an officer will
allow the subject an opportunity to comply with the officer's verbal commands.
A verbal warning is not required in circumstances where the officer has to
make a split-second decision, or if the officer reasonably believes that issuing
the warning would place the safety of the officer or others in jeopardy."71
Even where departments do not have a blanket requirement to provide a warning
before any use of force, warnings are typically required before the use of less-lethal
instruments like Tasers and OC spray:
Philadelphia Police Department "A verbal warning shall be given to a
person prior to activating the ECW unless to do so would place any other
person at risk."72
Sonoma County Sheriff's Office "A verbal warning of the intended use of
the Taser should precede its application, unless it would otherwise endanger
the safety of Deputies or when it is not practicable due to the circumstances."73
70 Cleveland Division of Police, Use of Force: General, available at
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5651f9b5e4b08f0af890bd13/t/582c54ac59cc685797341
239/1479300270095/Dkt.+83--Use+of+Force+Policies+with+Exhibits.pdf.
71 Northampton (MA) Police Department, AOM Chapter 0-101.
72 Philadelphia Police Department, Directive 10.3: Use of Lethal Force: The Electronic
Control Weapon (ECW), available at https://www.phillypolice.com/assets/directives/PPD-
Directive-10.3.pdf.
73 Sonoma County Sheriff's Office, Office-Wide Policy and Procedure Manual, Taser Use,
available at
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/542ec317e4b0d41ade8801fb/t/590a3284be6594e6a30b
bd23/1493840516709/Taser+Use.pdf.
57
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
Seattle Police Department "Officers shall issue a verbal warning to the
subject, fellow officers and other individuals present prior to using OC spray."74
Recommendation No. 13. The Use of Force Policy should require
officers to provide medical care within the scope of their training and
immediately summon medical aid to the scene.
POSPD 300.6 requires: "Prior to booking or release, medical assistance shall be
obtained for any person who exhibits signs of physical distress, who has sustained
visible injury, expresses a complaint of injury or continuing pain, or who was
rendered unconscious." Similarly, the updated draft Lexipol policy states "Once it is
reasonably safe to do so, medical assistance shall be obtained for any person who
exhibits signs of physical distress, has sustained visible injury, expresses a complaint
of injury or continuing pain, or was rendered unconscious." Other policies, such as
POSPD 309.7 (Taser) and 308.6.2 (OC Spray), provide additional guidance for
medical treatment following deployment of these tools.
In contrast, POSPD 466, which is not included as part of the Use of Force policies,
provides that "[w]henever practicable, members should take appropriate steps to
provide initial medical aid (e.g., first aid, CPR, and use of an automated external
defibrillator (AED) in accordance with their training and current certification levels."
As such, one section of policy imposes upon officers a general duty to provide medical
treatment, but that duty is confused by conflicting guidance in the Use of Force policy
that limits the requirement to summoning aid. The language in POSPD 466 is exactly
the language that should be considered for incorporation into the use of force policy
(or cross-referenced). Again, this may be another example where the department
policy when read in full context addresses necessary points but loses clarity in the
complexity and incongruity of the manual overall. Aligning the language of POSPD
466 in the use of force policies would, additionally, meet the requirement of the Valley
IIT interlocal agreement concerning the provision or facilitation of medical care.
74 Seattle Police Department Manual, Section 8.300: Use of Force Tools, available at
https://www.seattle.gov/police-manual/title-8---use-of-force/8300---use-of-force-tools (also
requiring verbal warning before deployment of beanbag shotgun, canine, taser, and firearm
deployment).
58
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
Recommendation No. 14. Policy should be revised to require officers to
report and document all force they use and/or witness.
As noted above, the policy requires officers to "articulate the factors perceived and
why they believed the use of force was reasonable under the circumstances." In
concert with the above recommendation, the policy should provide clarity on what
information should be documented and by whom and ensure that the department
continues to gather and track demographic information. The policy does not tell
officer how to document force or require officers to document force used by other
officers. In practice, officers do this more times than not, and often fill out separate
witness statements if they did not use force. Therefore, the policy should reflect
practice and mandate that all officers report force used, and force witnessed. While
this policy should be tailored for POSPD, a good example for consideration is:
New Orleans Police Department "Depending on the level of
reportable use of force, as set forth below, an Involved Officer (IO) and/or
Witness Officer (WO) may be required to prepare a Force Statement. The
officer shall independently prepare his or her Force Statement and
include facts known to the officer, to include:
(a) A detailed account of the force incident from the officer's
perspective;
(b) The reason for the initial police presence, e.g.: response to (nature
of) call,
on-view suspicious activity (describe the suspicious activity), flagged by
a
citizen (nature of citizen's concern), shots fired, or screams heard, etc.;
(c) A specific description of the acts that led to the use of force;
(d) The specific description of resistance encountered;
(e) A description of every type of force used or observed;
(f) Names of all assisting officers and supervisors participating in the
actions
leading up to the use of force;
(g) The name of the supervisor the involved officer notified, and the
time of the
notification;
(h) The name of the supervisor who responded to the scene;
(i) Names, if known, of any civilian witnesses;
59
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
(j) A description of any injuries suffered by the officer, subject, or
witnesses;
(k) Whether a body-worn camera was activated and its identifiable file
location;
(l) Whether a vehicle camera was activated and its identifiable file
location;
and
(m) Whether a CEW activation occurred, even if the CEW was not
discharged."
Recommendation No. 15. The Use of Force Reporting policy should
require that a supervisor respond to all applications of reportable force,
not just those that result in "visible injury."
Current POSPD requires that "A supervisor should respond to a reported application
of force resulting in visible injury, if reasonably available."75 Given the relatively few
uses of force annually and the current actual practice in every use of force case that
was reviewed, a supervisor responded to the scene the policy should be changed to
require a supervisor to respond to the scene of every use of force to investigate as set
forth in POSPD 300.7.
Recommendation No. 16. The POSPD should consider having officers
enter use of force reports directly into BlueTeam, rather than having a
supervisor gather and present facts. The supervisor's investigation and all
supporting materials should be consolidated in BlueTeam and routed to
the chain of command through the system.
Current POSPD policy instructs officers that "[a]ny use of force by a member of this
department shall be documented promptly, completely and accurately in the
applicable case report. The officer should articulate the factors perceived and why
they believed the use of force was reasonable under the circumstances."76 This open
question format does not mandate the collection of necessary information, which
apparently falls to the supervisor.
Once the officer completes the case report, a supervisor completes a Blue Team entry
(Blue Team/IA Pro is a relatively rudimentary but standard, widely used
administrative investigation tracking database) when the officer uses reportable
75 POSPD 300.7
76 POSPD 300.5
60
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
force. Having the supervisor complete data entry on behalf of the officer requires a
game of "telephone" rather than having the officer, with first-hand information,
document the required information.
Additionally, E2SSB 5259 creates an advisory group that will make implementation
recommendations on reporting, collecting, and publishing of use of force data reports,
as well as "traffic stops, pedestrian stops, calls for services, arrests, vehicle pursuits,
and disciplinary actions, as well as demographic information including race,
ethnicity, and gender of a crime victim or victims."
While the final requirements have not been developed, the law sets forth significant
data collection requirements, including, at a minimum:
The date and time of the incident The location of the incident
The agency or agencies employing The type of force used by the law
the law enforcement officers enforcement officer
The type of injury to the person The type of injury to the law
against whom force was used, if any enforcement officer, if any
Whether the person against whom The type of weapon the person
force was used was armed or against whom force was used was
unarmed armed with, if any
Whether the person against whom The age, gender, race, and
force was used was believed to be ethnicity of the person against
armed whom force was used, if known
The tribal affiliation of the person Whether the person against whom
against whom force was used, if force was used exhibited any signs
applicable and known associated with a potential mental
health condition or use of a
controlled substance or alcohol
based on the observation of the
law enforcement officer
The name, age, gender, race, and The law enforcement officer's
ethnicity of the law enforcement years of service
officer, if known
The reason for the initial contact Whether any minors were present
between the person against whom at the scene of the incident, if
force was used and the law known
enforcement officer
Whether dashboard or body worn The number of officers who were
camera footage was recorded for an present when force was used
incident
61
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
The number of suspects who were
present when force was used
The upcoming state requirements and the Port's interest in more comprehensive
metrics around use of force require that uses of force be documented in a more
systematic manner, rather than open narratives. It may be that the state develops a
Use of Force data collection portal similar to the SECTOR system used for traffic
ticketing, but in the meantime the POSPD should use Blue Team/IA Pro to its fullest.
This is best accomplished by adding data fields to Blue Team and having the officer
directly enter the information.
Recommendation No. 17. The POSPD should maximize its
transparency by publishing data and reports on its website and regularly
reporting the information to the Commission.
As the POSPD increases its data gathering, it should strive to increase its
transparency by putting out more granular data on officer activity, to include use of
force and crisis contacts. This is an increasingly common practice nationally.77
Additionally, as the department publishes Annual Reports, Use of Force Annual
Reports, Bias Policing Reviews, and reviews of misconduct complaint trends, the
POSPD should continue to ensure those are communicated formally to the
Commission and publicly available on its website.78
Recommendation No. 18. Video evidence should be downloaded and
included in BlueTeam or linked within the system.
While 21CP did not have direct access to BlueTeam/IA Pro, we were informed that
video evidence such as airport security and civilian cell-phone video is not
routinely linked in the system. Especially if the POSPD implements a BWC program,
all relevant evidence should be linked in the electronic case file for easy access for
reviewers.
77 See e.g., New Orleans Police Department https://nola.gov/nopd/data/; Baltimore Police
Department, https://www.baltimorepolice.org/transparency/overview; Seattle Police
Department, https://www.seattle.gov/police/information-and-data/use-of-force-data/use-offorce-dashboard
https://www.seattle.gov/police/information-and-data/crisis-contacts/crisis-contact-dashboard
78 https://www.portseattle.org/documents?tid=191&primary=191
62
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
Recommendation No. 19. POSPD should create a standing Use of Force
review committee, to include a training officer, the IA officer, and
Command Staff, exclusive of the Chief, and tasked with reviewing every
use of force.
Ultimately, any use of force review process should entail a comprehensive, 360-degree
inquiry one that looks squarely at whether the force was consistent with the
Department's policy but also at the extent to which the force, regardless of whether
consistent with policy, suggests any tactical, training, policy, or other issues.
Currently, the POSPD reviews every use of force as follows:
"Each completed Blue Team entry and accompanying reports shall be
forwarded to the commander of the involved officer(s). The affected
commander shall review all documentation and, if needed, cause
additional investigation or documentation to be completed. The
commander shall also ensure the appropriate Blue Team entries are
made and have been submitted. Once the commander has ensured all
needed information has been compiled, the commander shall brief the
applicable deputy chief or present the Command Team with the facts
of the incident for further review and discussion.
The Professional Development Sergeant, along with an appropriate
department trainer (dependent on the type of force used), may also
participate in this discussion to provide subject matter guidance,
answer questions and address concerns. Final dispositions will be
determined by a member of the Executive Team."
While the process only calls for a briefing to the deputy chief or presentation to the
Command Team, in practice the command staff reviews every use of force, but
without the input of Internal Affairs or training unless requested. Also, currently the
Chief is part of this review, which could compromise the Chief's ability to be the final
arbiter of discipline should the Chief approve a use of force that later results in a
disciplinary complaint.
Additionally, policy calls for convening a Review Board "when the use of force by a
member results in very serious injury or death to another" or at the discretion of the
Chief of Police.79
79 POSPD 302.4.
63
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
The POSPD is already working on implementing this recommendation, which was
included in previous status reports. The draft policy divides force into "lower
threshold" and "upper threshold" force but also appears to preserve the prior Review
Board process for serious injury or death. This structure approximates the Type (or
Level) I, II, III distinctions drawn by many departments, and there is no apparent
need for the POSPD to draft this policy from scratch.
Cleveland Division of Police
Level 1 Use of Force: Force that is reasonably likely to cause only
transient pain and/or disorientation during its application as a means
of gaining compliance, including pressure point compliance and joint
manipulation techniques, but that is not reasonably expected to cause
injury, does not result in an actual injury and does not result in a
complaint of injury. It does not include escorting, touching, or
handcuffing a subject with no or minimal resistance. Un-holstering a
firearm and pointing it at a subject is reportable as a Level 1 use of
force.
Level 2 Use of Force: Force that causes an injury, could reasonably be
expected to cause an injury, or results in a complaint of an injury, but
does not rise to the level of a Level 3 use of force. Level 2 includes the
use of a CEW, including where a CEW is fired at a subject but misses;
OC Spray application; weaponless defense techniques (e.g., elbow or
closed-fist strikes, kicks, leg sweeps, and takedowns); use of an impact
weapon, except for a strike to the head, neck or face with an impact
weapon; and any canine apprehension that involves contact.
Level 3 Use of Force: Force that includes uses of deadly force; uses of
force resulting in death or serious physical harm; uses of force
resulting in hospital admission due to a use of force injury; all neck
holds; uses of force resulting in a loss of consciousness; canine bite;
more than three applications of a CEW on an individual during a
single interaction, regardless of the mode or duration of the
application, and regardless of whether the applications are by the
same or different officers; a CEW application for longer than 15
seconds, whether continuous or consecutive; and any Level 2 use of
force against a handcuffed subject.
64
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
Baltimore Police Department
Level 1 Use of Force Includes:
Using techniques that cause Temporary Pain or disorientation as a
means of gaining
compliance, hand control or escort techniques (e.g., elbow grip, wrist
grip, or shoulder grip), and pressure point compliance techniques.
Force under this category is not reasonably expected to cause injury,
Pointing a firearm, Less-Lethal Launcher, or CEW at a person,
"Displaying the arc" with a CEW as a form of warning, and
Forcible takedowns that do not result in actual injury or complaint of
injury.
Level 2 Use of Force Includes:
Force that causes or could reasonably be expected to cause an injury
greater than Temporary Pain or the use of weapons or techniques
listed below provided they do not otherwise rise to a Level 3 Use of
Force:
Discharge of a CEW in Drive-Stun or Probes Deployment, in the
direction of a person, including where a CEW is fired at a person but
misses,
Use of OC spray or other Chemical Agents,
Weaponless defense techniques including, but not limited to, elbow or
closed fist strikes, open hand strikes, and kicks,
Discharge of a Less-Lethal Launcher/Munitions in the direction of a
person,
Canine-inflicted injuries that do not rise to a Level 3 Use of Force,
Non-weapon strikes to the head, neck, sternum, spine, groin, or kidney
area, and
Striking of a person or a vehicle with a vehicle that does not rise to
Level 3 Use of Force.
Level 3 Use of Force Includes:
Strikes to the head, neck, sternum, spine, groin, or kidney area with
an impact weapon,
Firearm discharges by a BPD member,
Applications of more than three (3) CEW cycles in a single encounter,
regardless of the mode or duration of the application, and regardless of
whether the applications are by the same or different members,
CEW application for longer than 15 seconds whether the application is
a single continuous application or from multiple applications,
65
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
Uses of Force resulting in death, Serious Physical Injury, loss of
consciousness, or requiring hospitalization, and
Uses of Deadly Force/Lethal Force.
Additionally, given that POSPD averages only 30 uses of force per year, there does
not seem to be a need to bifurcate the review of cases. POSPD should simply review
every use of force holistically.
VI. MUTUAL AID
The term "mutual aid" generally refers to assistance under RCW 10.93, the
Washington Mutual Aid Peace Officers Powers Act and agreements defined by RCW
39.34, the Interlocal Cooperation Act. 21CP has reviewed POSPD policies and
agreements governing cooperation with other law enforcement agencies. However,
the subcommittee was also interested in understanding the "ad hoc" engagements
where POSPD provided backup or assistance to other jurisdictions.
Law enforcement has long understood that multi-agency cooperation can benefit
efforts to address activities which cross jurisdictional boundaries. It is also widely
acknowledged that a single police department cannot staff, prepare for, or respond to
large-scale natural or human-initiated emergencies which may occur in their
jurisdiction. For these reasons, public safety agencies enter into mutual aid
agreements with other agencies to obtain support and resources when such
emergencies occur. The idea is straightforward, but many agencies have learned
through some difficulties that successful mutual aid requires careful, advance
attention to the details of management, command and control, planning and joint
training.80
A Mutual Aid Agreement is the first step in a successful mutual aid arrangement.
The Agreement should govern the nature of the support, conditions under which the
support is provided, and roles and responsibilities of agencies and their personnel.
The purposes of Mutual Aid agreements include:
Coordination of planning;
Multiplying the response resources available to any one jurisdiction;
Ensuring timely arrival of aid;
Arranging for specialized resources; and
80 International Association of Chiefs of Police, Mutual Aid: Concepts and Issues Paper (2008)
66
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
Minimizing administrative conflict and litigation post-response.81
Mutual Aid Agreements are formal agreements, entered into under authorization of
state and (often) local law, that require a formal request for assistance. Such
agreements generally cover a larger geographic area than generic, blanket aid
agreements. Agreements may be with neighboring jurisdictions, regional, statewide,
or even inter-state partners. Regardless of the level, current best practice calls for
arrangements to be memorialized in a written document signed by all participating
parties, supplemented by a deployment-specific operational plan that covers the
specific resources, tasks, personnel, asset allocations, roles, responsibilities,
integration, and actions that mutual aid participants execute respective to their
assignments.82
POSPD has granted all general authority law enforcement agencies the authority to
operate within Port jurisdictions, and has been granted reciprocal authority in most,
if not all, other jurisdictions.83 POSPD is a party to three formal interlocal
agreements under RCW 10.93 and RCW 39.34:
1. The Interlocal Cooperative Agreement Valley Special Response Team
(Valley SWAT), which includes with the cities of Auburn, Kent, Renton, and
Tukwila, and makes available "enhanced use of personnel, equipment,
budgeted funds, and training" to respond to high-risk incidents such as
"civil disobedience, barricaded subjects, hostage situations, gang member
arrests, high risk felony arrests, and narcotic/high risk search warrants;"84
2. The Valley Independent Investigative Team, which includes the cities of
Auburn, Des Moines, Federal Way, Kent, Renton, and Tukwila and serves
to "independently, thoroughly and objectively investigate the most serious
incidents involving police officers," including but not limited to:
Officer-involved uses of deadly force that result in death, substantial
bodily harm, or great bodily harm;
In-custody deaths or life-threatening injuries;
81 Federal Emergency Management Agency, Best Practices: Mutual Aid Agreements Types
of Agreements, Lessons Learned Information Sharing,
https://www.hsdl.org/?view&did=765559 (last accessed June 30, 2021)
82 N.C.G.S 160-A-288.
83 https://www.waspc.org/police-officers-powers-act
84 Interlocal Cooperative Agreement Valley Special Response Team.
67
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
Death or life-threatening injuries of a police employee;
Other matters as directed by the Executive Board"85; and
3. The Valley Civil Disturbance Unit, which includes the cities of Auburn,
Federal Way, Kent, Renton, and Tukwila, and provides "South King County
Cities with well-trained and equipped police response for effective crowd
control and quelling civil disturbances."86
A. Motion 2020-15 and the Mutual Aid Subcommittee
The motion required the assessment to include an exploration of how and when
POSPD engage in mutual aid, the protocols for that engagement to ensure alignment
with Port values and policing policies, and the formal agreements in place to ensure
compliance with Port standards when engaged in mutual aid. This assessment was
also tasked to examine whether and how the Port and partner agencies review these
mutual aid agreements on a regular basis, as well as the risks and benefits of mutual
aid in the various scenarios in which it is provided. Similarly, the Task Force was
asked to review the scenarios in which the Port calls for mutual aid from other
jurisdictions, what accountability measures are in place during those mutual aid
situations, and how POSPD protocols are enforced during those instances.
85 Valley Special Response Team Operational Agreement.
86 The Valley Civil Disturbance Unit (VCDU) Tactical Standard Operating Procedures.
68
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
B. Subcommittee Workflow
Subcommittee F Mutual Aid
Chairs: Milton Ellis and Captain John Hayes
Name Organization
Captain John Hayes (Ret.) Seattle Police Department
Milton Ellis Port of Seattle, Labor/Represented Employees
Loren Armstrong Port of Seattle, Legal
Port of Seattle, Diversity and Development
Lukas Crippen
Council
Sergeant Ryan Leavengood Union Representative
Efrain Lopez Port of Seattle, Employee Resource Group
Marco Milanese Port of Seattle, Community Relations
Keri Pravitz Port of Seattle, External Affairs
Aaron Pritchard Port of Seattle, Commission Office
Jim Pugel External Subject Matter Expert
Mian Rice Port of Seattle, Employee Resource Group
Commander Jeff Selleg Port of Seattle Police Department
Amy Tsai External Subject Matter Expert
Shaunie Wheeler Union Representative
The MA subcommittee met four times between 10/14/20 and 2/12/21 to discuss the
types of MA engagement by the POSPD, the coordination of MA in the areas of SWAT,
crowd management, and ad hoc engagements. The Mutual Aid Subcommittee focused
on understanding the operational agreements with jurisdictions contiguous to Port
properties and with the three primary task forces of which POSPD is a member
(Valley SWAT, Valley IIT, and the Valley Civil Disturbance Unit). The subcommittee
considered state law and POSPD policy concerning mutual aid and defined the scope
of mutual aid for purposes of this review. The group also reviewed pro-immigration
demonstrations in late January 2017 that involved mutual aid from other
jurisdictions and the after-action review by POSPD related to the event.
A substantial portion of subcommittee discussion concerned nuances of crowd
management, especially in light of the demonstrations of 2020 related to the murder
of George Floyd. Members distinguished between noticed events which are often
permitted and allow for engagement organizers and planning and non-noticed,
spontaneous events, which require a quick response.
69
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
C. Mutual Aid Recommendations
Recommendation No. 20. The POSPD should continue to take the lead
on updating current Mutual Aid agreements to drive best practices
regionally and align with the new state policing laws.
Based on FEMA guidelines, a Mutual Aid agreement should contain key elements
like purpose, benefits, authorities, definitions, governance structure and operations
oversight, licensure and certifications, interoperable communications, tort liability
and indemnification, insurance, worker's compensation, deployment notification,
reciprocity and reimbursement, termination, dispute resolution, modification and
amendment management, operational plan and procedures requirements, and
supplemental information.87 Additionally, based on discussions in the subcommittee
and on 21CP's experience in other jurisdictions, the POSPD should ensure that all
agreements provide:
Pre-emption by home agency policies POSPD personnel remain bound by
the Port's policies while engaging in Mutual Aid.
Use of Force
o Required de-escalation
o Permitted less-lethal tools and use
o Required provision of medical care within training
Prohibition on immigration enforcement
Consistent with Washington law, prohibition of pre-text stops when working
with federal law enforcement.
During this assessment, the POSPD (and specifically Acting Chief Villa) has shown
strong leadership in response to the 2020-2021 legislative session, which passed
many new laws concerning law enforcement. The POSPD funded legal support for
meetings of the Valley Chiefs (and other regional departments) to begin coordination
on policy development incorporating new law and discussion of any implementation
concerns. 21CP attended a meeting in Kent, WA, that was well-attended and
observed the regional departments working collaboratively to consider the mandates
of recent legislation.
At that meeting, several Chiefs suggested that there was already common ground as
most of the departments were Lexipol agencies and therefore crafting updates to
87 Federal Emergency Management Agency, National Incident Management System
Guideline for Mutual Aid (2017).
70
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
policy especially Use of Force policies would be relatively easy and would benefit
all of the agencies. However, some said that the laws are unclear and translating the
mandates of the legislation into clear policy could be difficult. At a follow-up meeting
in Renton, different Valley departments were considering different responses to the
recent legislation, but the POSPD took the lead on drafting revisions to the Use of
Force policy to hopefully drive towards consensus. And again, by providing legal
support to the group, the POSPD is helping to intelligently frame the response.
Recommendation No. 21. After engaging in mutual aid deployments, at
the Port or in other jurisdictions, POSPD should actively engage in afteraction
assessments and track all resulting recommendations.
Specifically, POSPD should:
Participate fully in after-action assessments with involved agencies
Independently assess each engagement
Track recommendations to ensure they are addressed (for example,
recommendations can be tracked in IA Pro).
While POSPD is already fully participating in after-action discussions regarding
specific incidents, the drafting of any report is left to the primary agency and reports
are not always provided (or kept in a retrievable manner). As such, this
recommendation would not only support inter-agency after-action dialogue but would
also require POSPD to examine any mutual aid engagements against its own policies.
Any lessons learned from either process should be triaged and tracked to ensure those
lessons are not lost and that feasible changes are implemented in practice.
Recommendation No. 22. The POSPD should develop its own Crowd
Management policy outlining the POSPD terms of engagement, facilitation
of First Amendment activities, and which specifically sets forth the
POSPD engagement strategy with demonstration leadership.
Although the Valley Civil Disturbance Unit (CDU) has a policy manual addressing
command structures, use of force principles, permitted equipment, training, event
planning, deployment, mass arrests, and record keeping, as well as standard
operating procedures that support that policy manual, the POSPD does not have its
own Crowd Management policy that would apply to those situations where the
POSPD staffs demonstrations that do not require mutual aid. POSPD reports that
they follow the same protocols as Valley CDU, but that is not documented anywhere.
As such, the POSPD should craft its own policy, which will serve two important
71
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
purposes: (1) to provide policy support for how POSPD engages in Crowd
Management and (2) the process of crafting such a policy can inform potential
changes to the Valley CDU policy manual and standard operating procedures as
recommended above.
Recommendation No. 23. The Port should add specific approval
criteria and processes required before deploying resources for Mutual Aid.
This two-part recommendation addresses both the approval process chain of
command and considerations for the chain of command in evaluating mutual aid
requests. In subcommittee presentations, POSPD explained that requests for mutual
aid from external agencies are vetted at the Deputy Chief level and on occasion
elevated to the Chief. The primary consideration for approval hinges on whether
there remain sufficient resources to cover Port jurisdictions in other words, the
POSPD apparently defaults to "yes" to requests for mutual aid unless it would be left
with insufficient resources.
Instead, 21CP suggests that the approval level be assigned based on the urgency of
the deployment and the potential for liability or reputational damage to the POSPD
or Port, and suggest the following:
Any Valley CDU involvement should be approved by the Chief.
Any Valley SWAT engagement should be approved by the SWAT
commander w/notification to the Chief.
Any Valley IIT engagement should require notification to the Chief.
For any event, including crowd management, POSPD should specifically
consider:
Any impact on Port operations
The values of the Port on whether Mutual Aid support should be
provided for any particular event
Whether there has been sufficient planning and engagement (when
feasible) to support POSPD involvement
72
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
VII. OVERSIGHT, ACCOUNTABILITY, RACIAL EQUITY & CIVIL
RIGHTS
A. Motion 2020-15 and Oversight, Accountability, Racial Equity & Civil
Rights
The Motion included a significant number of directives related to these topics. First,
it directed the assessment to look at how complaints by members of the public or
other Port employees are handled; in particular, the assessment is required looking
at how civilians are able to submit complaints, and how those complaint mechanisms
are publicized. The assessment should also include a review of internal reporting
mechanisms for police officers who want to report alleged misconduct of other officers
including racially-motivated misconduct without fear of reprisal or retaliation.
In addition, the assessment should review when additional Commission, Port
leadership and/or external oversight is needed to facilitate accountability and
transparency to the community, including any recommendations for ongoing
reporting of progress toward approved metrics and notifications to Commission and
Executive leadership of relevant complaints and reports.
Finally, the Task Force should review the Port Police disciplinary process and how
civil lawsuits brought against a Port Police officer are considered during that process.
The Task Force should consider how the Port Commission and Executive Director are
made aware of such civil lawsuits, particularly where "qualified immunity" is
invoked. The assessment should identify what protocols and oversight are in place to
ensure all officers in particular, Black officers, other officers of color and other
underrepresented demographics in the police force are treated respectfully, equally,
and equitably. The assessment should determine what protocols are in place for police
employees to identify and report any mistreatment experienced or observed that are
contrary to the Port's high standards expected of law enforcement, without fear of
retaliation or reprisal. In conducting the assessment, consider impacts on diversity,
equity, and civil rights.
73
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
B. Oversight, Accountability, Racial Equity & Civil Rights Subcommittee
Members and Workflow
Subcommittee D Oversight, Accountability, Racial Equity & Civil Rights
Chairs: Anne Levinson and Marin Burnett
Name Organization
Marin Burnett Port of Seattle, Strategic Initiatives
Judge Anne Levinson (Ret.) External Subject Matter Expert
Deborah Ahrens External Subject Matter Expert
Cynthia Alvarez Port of Seattle, Human Resources
Port of Seattle Police Department/Union
Officer Arman Barros
Representative
Nate Caminos Port of Seattle, External Affairs
Port of Seattle Office of Equity, Diversity and
Jay Doran
Inclusion
Oris Dunham Port of Seattle Police Civil Service Commission
Glenn Fernandes Port of Seattle, Audit
Officer Herb Gonzales Union Representative
Duane Hill Port of Seattle, Employee Resource Group
Mikel O'Brien Port of Seattle, Labor Relations
LeeAnne Schirato Port of Seattle Commission Office
Sgt. Kyle Yoshimura Port of Seattle Police Department
Michelle Woodrow Union representative
The Oversight, Accountability, Equity, and Civil Rights (Oversight) Subcommittee
met five times between October 9, 2020, and January 26, 2021. 21CP worked closely
with Co-chairs Judge Anne Levinson (Ret.) and Marin Burnett to refine and adjust
the proposed workplan as the subcommittee moved through different aspects of the
Police Department's misconduct complaint handling process. Anne Levinson provided
her expertise on oversight and accountability best practices and Marin Burnett
provided insight on the role of various Port components that can be involved in the
complaint processing system. Subcommittee members offered their own perspectives
and experiences to, contributing to robust discussions and useful input to the final
recommendations outlined below.
Note that the topic of protocols to ensure officers are treated respectfully, equally,
and equitably are addressed below, but are covered more thoroughly in the discussion
74
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
above on officers' perceptions on equity and the need to enhance the experience of
internal procedural justice. The issue of "qualified immunity" is addressed below in
Section X. Advocacy.
C. Oversight and Accountability Generally and at the Port of Seattle
Police Department
Law enforcement officers must follow high ethical standards and a code of conduct
established by federal and state law and delineated in an agency's policy manual,
directives, and other governing documents which embody an agency's values and
mission. The goal is that police officers have a clear understanding of agency conduct
expectations, both on and off duty.
To ensure that police services meet the high standards of integrity community
members expect and that law and policy demand, there must be a means to identify
and investigate allegations of police misconduct, with discipline or retraining meted
out as appropriate and recognition for officers who meet conduct expectations. For
the majority of medium or large police departments, this complaint handling function
resides in Internal Affairs or an Office of Professional Standards (or a similarly
named departmental unit). Sometimes this function is external to the agency or
shared with civilian oversight entities. Regardless of where the misconduct complaint
handling function resides, to be considered legitimate in the eyes of complainants and
officers, the process must be timely, thorough, and objective, and include appropriate
documentation and regular communication with the individuals involved. Allegations
of misconduct are investigated against agency conduct expectations as detailed in
relevant agency policy and protocols.
With input from the subcommittee, 21CP considered the POSPD's misconduct
complaint handling system, guided by the goals of understanding and enhancing:
Accountability who investigates and how is that decision made, who reviews
the investigation, how are complaints and investigations tracked, what
internal and external mechanisms exist to provide oversight or checks and
balances
Transparency is there ready access to the process by stakeholders
The following charts and tables provide an overview of the complaint intake process,
how complaints are classified, and alternative disposition outcomes. The number and
classification of complaints received at the POSPD 2015 2020 and the disposition
75
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
of complaints 2017 2020 are also summarized, along with a brief description of the
allegations involved and discipline imposed for cases that were sustained 2017
2020.
Misconduct Complaint Handling Process at POSPD
Complaint Intake
76
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
Complaint Classification
Moderate or
Minor
Inquiry Major
Complaint
Complaint
Allegation, if
Moderate - more
true, does not Minor violation.
serious violation.
violate policy.
Discipline:
Major - criminal
Supervisor verbal warning
act or critical
handles. or oral
policy violation.
reprimand.
Excessive force,
Supervisor biased policing,
investigates. civil rights
violation,
discrimination.
Commander/
Discipline:
manager reviews.
suspension,
demotion,
termination. .
Supervisor takes
written
statement,
witness info, etc.
OPA assigns or
investigates.
77
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
Six Year Overview of Complaint Intake and Classification
Complaint Dispositions
78
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
Four Year Overview of Complaint Disposition
Discipline Process and Appeals
79
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
Allegations and Discipline for Sustained Cases
Port of Seattle Police Department
Moderate/Major Complaint Investigations
Allegations and Discipline for Sustained Cases
Year Allegations and Discipline
2017
Moderate/Major 2 Sustained:
(1) Letter of Reprimand for Job Performance
(2) Termination for Criminal Act/Conduct Unbecoming
Minor 1 Sustained:
Letter of Reprimand for Conduct Unbecoming
2018
Moderate/Major 1 Sustained:
Termination for Criminal Act/Conduct Unbecoming
Minor 1 Sustained:
Letter of Reprimand for Disrespect Toward Citizen and Failure
to Follow Supervisory Direction
2019
Moderate/Major 2 Sustained:
(1) Dismissal from K9 and Last Chance Agreement for Conduct
Unbecoming, Unethical Conduct, Disrespect Toward Employee,
Threatening Behavior, Disparaging Remarks Against a
Supervisor
(2) Letter of Reprimand for Conduct Unbecoming
Minor -------------------
2020
Moderate/Major 2 Sustained:
(1) Letter of Reprimand for Insubordination with Supervisor
(2) Termination for Conduct Unbecoming, Prohibited Speech, and
Insubordination
Minor ---------------------
In addition to considering four years of summary information on complaint intake,
categorization, and disposition, 21CP was provided the files underlying inquiry and
complaint investigations. An initial check was conducted to verify the various steps
involved with misconduct complaint handling by the POSPD, from intake through
80
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
disposition and discipline, as appropriate. 21CP then reviewed a random selection of
the investigation files more closely, to determine if complaint receipt and other steps
were properly documented, whether witnesses were interviewed and relevant
evidence was gathered, if appropriate notices and letters to the complainant and
named officer were sent, and whether the analysis and disposition were well founded.
It was evident from the cases that were reviewed that the POSPD has a process in
place to treat misconduct complaints objectively, thoroughly, and in a timely manner.
While 21CP, like any reviewer, could almost always find something they would have
handled differently regarding the underlying incident or the complaint investigation,
there appeared to be a consistent effort to investigate and document what occurred
and to explain to the complainant in person and in writing the reasoning behind
POSPD's disposition.
Furthermore, 21CP was informed that if a complaint is sustained and discipline is
under consideration, prior misconduct allegations against the officer are reviewed,
whether sustained or not, and any related litigation comes to light during that
process. Depending on the seriousness of the discipline involved, Human Resources
and Legal Counsel will be consulted, regardless of a specific concern about related
lawsuits. However, litigation involving POSPD officers related to alleged misconduct
is infrequent, as seen in the discussion below on qualified immunity.
Where officers receive follow-up counseling related to a complaint, sergeants provided
a memorandum with an overview of the incident and what was said to the officer by
way of counseling. Even where a complaint lacked merit, one situation reviewed
pointed to the need for training more broadly in the Department, which was
documented. Identifying and following up on policy and training recommendations
regardless of the outcome of a related complaint reflects best practices in this area.
All of these elements serve the goals of enhanced accountability and transparency,
which contributes to complainants, officers, witnesses, and others perceiving the
overall complaint handling system at the POSPD as legitimate. As with other
internal and external aspects of policing that have been discussed, to the extent that
those involved in complaints perceive that the process is fair, they are given an
opportunity to be heard, there is transparency during the process and with outcomes,
and the final disposition is determined on an objective basis, they will experience a
sense of procedural justice and trust in the complaint handling system.
81
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
While 21CP did not review complaint investigations involving EEO concerns and
handled through Human Resources or Workplace Responsibility, data concerning
these complaints was provided as seen below.
POS Police Code of Conduct Individual Complaints Workplace
Responsibility88
2017 1 Complaint
1. Race Discrimination - Unsubstantiated
2018 No Complaints
2019 3 Complaints
1. Race Discrimination -Unsubstantiated/Retaliation - Substantiated
2. Disability Discrimination - Unsubstantiated
3. Retaliation Unsubstantiated
2020 4 Complaints
1. Race Discrimination /Retaliation Open
2. Race Discrimination/Retaliation Unsubstantiated
3. Retaliation Unsubstantiated
4. Employee Ethics/Conflicts of Interest Closed for Police Department Internal
Affairs Investigation
2021 1 Complaint
1. Race Discrimination - Open
POSPD employees expressed concern about the amount of time involved with
complaints investigated by Human Resources or Workplace Responsibility. Staff
indicated that efforts were being made to complete investigations more expeditiously.
88 Human Resources staff indicated that this information was up to date as of April 13,
2021.
82
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
D. Oversight, Accountability, Equity and Civil Rights Subcommittee
Recommendations
Relationship between POSPD Standards of Conduct and the Port's Code of
Conduct, including Avenues of Complaint
As with some other policies, POSPD Policy 340/Standards of Conduct is confusing to
read, internally disorganized, and does not consistently serve the goal of articulating
conduct standards in a way that promotes clear understanding by employees. In
contrast, the Port of Seattle Code of Conduct is plainly written and well organized,
clearly stating the Port's values that employees:
Conduct business with the highest of standards
Honor their commitments to one another, the community, and the Port's
customers
Recognize that employees are capable, high performing people who appreciate
the privilege of public service
Encourage employees to embrace the richness of a diverse workplace and
support employee development.
These values are then individually delineated without unnecessary repetition and
with clear guidance on where to direct questions concerning the conduct standards
and the complaint investigation process when the conduct code is allegedly breached.
However, while the Port's Code of Conduct offers easily understood guidance for
employee conduct expectations, it is still necessary that the POSPD have a set of
standards complimenting the Port's, but one that incorporates the unique values and
ethics associated with police services.
Recommendation No. 24. POSPD should adopt the Port of Seattle Code
of Conduct into policy.
To promote a shared understanding of conduct expectations among all Police
Department commissioned and non-commissioned staff and to further align the
Department with the Port organization, POSPD should adopt the Port of Seattle Code
of Conduct, including the clear guidance provided on where to direct questions and
the complaint investigation process, and then revise the current set of conduct
standards in the Policy Manual so that it complements the Port's, but incorporates
the unique values and ethics associated with police service.
83
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
This policy should also articulate how its unique standards of conduct relate to the
Port's Code of Conduct, collective bargaining agreements, MOUs, and other relevant
governing documents.
Recommendation No. 25. POSPD policy should make explicit the types
of complaints that should be pursued internally verses those that should be
handled through Port of Seattle Human Resources, Workplace
Responsibility, or other avenues of complaint, with explicit protocols
between components developed, including timelines for completing
investigations of employee complaints.
To understand conduct expectations for Police Department officers and rules related
to misconduct investigations, discipline, and appeals, reference must be made to
applicable sections of the POSPD Policy Manual, the applicable collective bargaining
agreement, the Police Officers' Bill of Rights and Code of Conduct/Workplace
Responsibility Handbook appendices attached to some collective bargaining
agreements, Port of Seattle Police Civil Service Rules, and the Port of Seattle Code of
Ethics & Workplace Conduct. With new Washington State legislation enacted in 2021
that creates additional conduct expectations e.g., the duty to intervene reference
will need to be made to the legislation and Department training bulletins, as policy
on point is developed.89
While the survey results indicate that the vast majority of survey respondents know
their options for filing complaints, the alternatives are not clearly stated in POSPD
policy and can require reference to a number of documents. The OPA Sergeant
indicated that Human Resources is consulted as needed when it is not clear whether
a matter should be handled internally or referred to Human Resources or Workplace
Responsibility. While it is very helpful to have an established relationship that
facilitates such a discussion, more clarity in policy could obviate the need to consult
with Human Resources. The types of complaints to be handled by POSPD (and OPA),
Human Resources, and Workplace Responsibility should be made explicit, as should
the protocols for referring matters between entities, the timelines set for each entity
to complete an investigation, the types of issues requiring input from higher level
authority in each entity, and the types of information that can be shared between
entities, with the parties involved, and with others. Discussions with representatives
from POSPD/OPA, Human Resources, and Workplace Responsibility that occurred
89 See, e.g., POSPD Departmental Directives 03-2021 (Duty to Intervene and Report
Unreasonable Force) and 04-2021 (Duty to Report External Agency Wrongdoing).
84
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
during subcommittee meetings pointed to the need for explicit protocols and interest
was expressed in working towards clarification.
While the focus above is on complaints that come to the attention of the POSPD,
Human Resources, or Workplace Responsibility, there also was discussion earlier
about complaints against POSPD officers received by Customer Services and the need
to establish protocols about referring such complaints to the POSPD. As previously
recommended, it would be useful to set up a working committee involving
representatives from the POSPD, Human Resources, Workplace Responsibility, and
Customer Services to review the issues raised here and to develop a responsive set of
preferred protocols to make the process more transparent and accountable.90
Complaint Intake and Classification
Recommendation No. 26. The complaint classification scheme (inquiry
and minor, moderate. or major complaint) should be revised as it is
unnecessarily technical, the terms used are not consistently well defined,
and use of a methodology to assist in complaint classification will promote
objectivity and consistency.
POSPD classifies complaints alleging policy violations as either a Minor, Moderate,
or Major Complaint. A complaint, even if proven true, that would not establish a
policy violation is called an Inquiry.91 The scheme of categorizing complaints as
Minor, Moderate, or Major appears unnecessarily technical, given the relatively few
complaints handled by the POSPD. If the primary distinction is between relatively
minor complaints that can be handled by a supervisor and those alleging serious
misconduct or involve more complex facts should be investigated by OPA, then a twotiered
approach might be all that is needed.
The definitions used in the classification scheme do not always explain the technical
distinctions intended. For example, note the circular nature of the definition used for
"Minor Complaints":
Complaints involving allegations against department members when
the actions or behavior of the employee constitutes violations of
90 As noted previously, Customer Services provided 21CP with a set of protocols dated July
27, 2021, after the report had been drafted and too late in the assessment process to
evaluate and provide feedback. Regardless, working with other Port components on similar
concerns regarding the handling of complaints would be beneficial.
91 POSPD 1020.3.
85
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
department policy that are minor in nature. Discipline resulting from
a sustained finding involving minor complaints will generally not
result in any property loss... (i.e. suspension, demotion, termination,
etc.). Minor complaint allegations may include...[complaints about
courtesy, minor service issues, minor traffic violations], and
complaints of actions committed by a department member deemed to
be minor policy violations."
Defining a "minor complaint" as one that involves a minor policy violation does not
provide helpful guidance to POSPD officers, supervisors, and other staff, or for other
Port employees and public stakeholders, and thus does not serve the goal of
transparency and undercuts accountability.
A complaint classification scheme should be easy to understand and administer and
usually only two or three options what the POSPD calls "inquiry," or low-level
allegations that might not implicate a POSPD policy or are not likely to result in
discipline and more serious allegations involving more complex facts and potential
discipline requiring a formal investigation with procedural safeguards. A third option
could involve referral to another agency, ADR, or some other mode of resolution. It is
not unusual for lower-level complaints to be handled by a supervisor, but they should
be thoroughly documented and reviewed, as is the case for such complaints reviewed
by 21CP.
Given limited resources and competing demands on time, complaints are typically
triaged to ensure that the most serious allegations are prioritized for investigation
and that potentially perishable evidence is collected as early as possible. It is helpful
to set up triaging protocols, such as providing that all complaints involving misuse of
force or biased policing be referred for a formal investigation. The rationale is that, if
shown to have merit, these complaints can have serious consequences for the involved
officer, can negatively impact the community's view of the Department, and elevating
such allegations can communicate respect to the complainant and help build trust in
investigation outcomes.
POSPD policy sets up a complaint intake scheme that provides for different processes
depending on whether a complaint is submitted in writing or made in person or over
the phone. Accountability is served by the requirement that both avenues result in
Blue Team documentation.
86
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
POSPD provides that complaints are, at least initially, processed differently
depending on whether they are in writing or oral.92 Written inquiries and complaints
are first forwarded to the administrative specialist of the Chief of Police, who confirms
receipt with the complainant and then refers the matter to OPA for classification and
assignment. In-person or telephoned complaints are forwarded to an on-duty
supervisor for intake, and then the supervisor determines how to classify the
complaint. It appears that the on-duty supervisor either handles or refers to the firstline
supervisor any investigation of complaints deemed to be minor. If a moderate or
major complaint is involved, they are to be referred to "the affected commander" for
review, who then forwards it to OPA for assignment.
While an approach that sets up different processes based on whether a complaint is
made in writing, in-person, or over the telephone presumably encourages thorough
information gathering while a complainant is more immediately available and
provides for up-front feedback to a complainant submitting a written complaint, the
system appears unnecessarily complicated and confusing, given the relatively few
complaints involved. While inquiries and complaints are entered and tracked through
BlueTeam by the OPA Sergeant, a regular review, such as every quarter or
biannually, of intake and classification decisions will help ensure accountability and
consistency in the process.
Recommendation No. 27. When an on-duty supervisor handles
complaint intake and the investigation of an inquiry or minor complaint,
their investigation memo should indicate the rationale behind the
classification decision, the complaint classification should be explicitly
approved by the Commander, and complaint classification decisions should
be regularly audited to check for consistency in application of policy and
other classification guidance.
As noted above, when there is an in-person or telephoned complaint, it is referred to
the Sergeant serving as the on-duty supervisor who determines how to classify the
complaint, after gathering information relevant to the allegations involved. If the
matter is classified as an inquiry or minor complaint and investigated by the on-duty
supervisor or referred to a line supervisor, the rationale behind the classification
decision should be made explicit in the investigation memo that details the complaint,
evidence, analysis, and outcome, and the classification should be considered and
approved during review by the Commander. This will help ensure that supervising
Sergeants and Commanders are using the same classification criteria and allows for
92 1020.4.
87
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
learning opportunities and discussion where there might have been a close call about
a classification decision, or the complaint presented issues that might have benefited
from review by OPA or a Commander prior to classification and investigation.
Timelines
Recommendation No. 28. Though there was no evidence of missed
timelines for completing investigations, best practice would be to set
timelines for each step in the process, from complaint intake through a final
disposition, including notice to the named officer and complainant, and the
timelines should be reflected in an updated complaint intake flowchart, and
policy should be clarified as to acceptable reasons for extending timelines,
identify who has authority to grant an extension, and note any limits on the
length of an extension.
POSPD policy states that administrative investigations should not extend over ninety
(90) calendar days, which can be extended if needed, with notice to the subject
employee.93 The policy does not address reasons for extending timelines, does not
identify who has authority to grant an extension, and does not set any limits on the
length of an extension. Department policy does not appear to set other timelines for
completing the various steps involved with complaint intake, investigation, and
disposition, which is a surprising omission. The team was referred to the POSPD
Police Officers' collective bargaining agreement for deadlines related to complaint
processing. Though the 21CP team has by no means assimilated the entire collective
bargaining agreement, the only complaint related timeline evident was a
requirement in Appendix B, Police Officer Bill of Rights, that an employee be notified
within five (5) days if they are subject to an investigation by the Internal
Investigations Section (presumably OPA). Other governing documents may reference
specific timeline requirements such as seen regarding appeals and hearings under
the Police Civil Service Rules.
The subcommittee was provided a copy of the "Complaint Intake Flowchart" used by
the POSPD. The OPA Sergeant acknowledged that it was not up to date, as reference
is made to "Internal Affairs" and there is no Internal Affairs unit or function outside
of OPA. Other issues identified with the flowchart are discussed above, such as the
lack of review of the initial complaint classification and the absence of other quality
control checks during complaint handling. The flowchart should be revised to bring
it up to date, should include all applicable timelines for steps throughout the process,
93 1020.6.4.
88
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
and should build in review of decisions made between complaint intake and a final
determination on the allegations made.
Conflicts of Interest
Recommendation No. 29. The POSPD should develop policy that
identifies potential conflicts of interest and protocols to address actual or
perceived conflicts related to misconduct complaint handling and
discipline matters.
Because officers handling police misconduct complaints internally, through an
Internal Affairs Unit or POSPD's Office of Professional Accountability, naturally will
have worked with and have relationships with officers who are named in complaints,
it is easy for real or perceived conflicts of interest to arise. The POSPD policy that
sets out guidelines for reporting and investigating misconduct complaints does not
include a provision addressing such potential conflicts. 21CP was told of one potential
conflict that was elevated for review, but with no policy on point, it might not be
obvious to some how to handle such matters. POSPD does have a policy on Nepotism
and Conflicting Relationships, with the purpose defined as, "to ensure equal
opportunity and effective employment practices by avoiding actual or perceived
favoritism, discrimination, or actual or perceived conflicts of interest by or between
members of this department."94 The policy includes "discipline" among the list of
employment practices that are covered. However, there is no explanation in this
policy or elsewhere concerning the identification of and protocols to address specific
conflict of interest concerns in the complaint handling or discipline processes.
In all departments where sworn members are tasked with investigating complaints
against other members in the same organization, unique issues of perceived or actual
conflict of interest can crop up. Furthermore, since even those who have engaged in
criminal activity should have an avenue to complain about officer misconduct, those
engaged in investigating complaints cannot be swayed by any underlying alleged
criminal behavior by the complainant. The goal is to ensure that everyone involved
in the investigation and review process is capable of being objective, fair, and
unbiased with regards to the subject officer, complainant, witnesses, and issues
raised. Where there are questions of perceived or actual conflict of interest, the policy
should explicitly state the steps to be taken to resolve any concerns.
94 POSPD 1050.1.
89
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
Alternative Dispute Resolution
Recommendation No. 30. The Port should explore alternative dispute
resolution (ADR) options for resolving some complaints, whether or not
they involve the Police Department, as ADR does not appear to be an option
for case processing in the POSPD, Human Resources, or Workplace
Responsibility.
While the number of complaints filed against POSPD officers might not justify the
time and expense of setting up an alternative dispute resolution (ADR) program, if
Human Resources and Workplace Responsibility were interested in offering ADR
options, it would be useful to consider dispute resolution programs that could be
available regardless of where a complaint is lodged or where in the Port organization
the named employee works.
Access to the Police Department and Information on Filing Complaints
Clearly communicating to all stakeholders that the POSPD takes complaints
seriously and offering a user-friendly complaint filing system with regular status
updates to the involved parties provides transparency and will help build trust by
complainants and officers alike that disputes will be handled objectively, thoroughly,
and in a timely manner.
Recommendation No. 31. There are a number of ways to make the
POSPD and complaint filing system more accessible to stakeholders,
including modifying the complaint form, changing the on-line search
system, and identifying police facilities on Sea-Tac airport maps.
The form available on the POSPD webpage refers to "inquiry, commendation,
complaint, suggestions, and area of concern," is unnecessarily specific and
should be limited to "concern or complaint."
The online complaint form should provide directions, including for third party
complaints, information on what to expect for next steps, an overview of the
investigation process, and how a complainant can follow up (i.e., provide a
tracking number or contact information for investigator), along with providing
confirmation once the complaint is received by the Department.
A search for "police complaint" on the Port of Seattle website should take the
searcher directly to the complaint form page.
The location of POSPD headquarters and the substation should be more clearly
identified on Sea-Tac airport maps.
90
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
VIII. DIVERSITY IN HIRING AND RECRUITING
A. Motion 2020-15 and the Diversity in Recruitment and Hiring
Subcommittee
Motion 2020-15 provided that the assessment of the POSPD was to include a review
of how potential officers are vetted during the testing and hiring process, including
how an officer's background is reviewed and evaluated as well as how an applicant's
physical, mental, and emotional fitness for the duty is assessed. Building on the
Executive Director's executive action that would "disqualify applicants based on
substantiated instances of excessive use of force or racial discrimination," the motion
provided that the assessment should more clearly define how such instances would
be identified and the types of misconduct that would be prohibited. The assessment
also required assessment the diversity of the POSPD in terms of demographics and
other aspects, such as languages spoken, and identify what additional efforts could
be made to increase diversity in those areas. The assessment was to include areas
such as increased outreach during the recruitment process, internships and youth
training opportunities, community-focused hiring programs or incentives, changes to
the use of lateral postings for frontline officers, hiring panel diversity, and removal
of disqualifications that disproportionately impact people of color. Consistent with
the focus on equity to be applied to this assessment in full, 21CP was asked to
consider in this section impacts on diversity, equity, and civil rights.
B. Diversity in Recruitment and Hiring Subcommittee Members and
Workflow
Subcommittee A Diversity in Recruitment and Hiring
Chairs: Jessica Sullivan & Ericka Singh (Derek Bender)
Name Organization
Derek Bender Port of Seattle, Human Resources
Ericka Singh Port of Seattle, Human Resources
Jessica Sullivan External Subject Matter Expert
Ilays Aden Port of Seattle, Community Relations
Sgt. Darrin Benko Port of Seattle Police Department
Sgt. Molly Kerns Port of Seattle Police Department
Efrain Lopez Port of Seattle, Diversity & Development Council
Luis Navarro Port of Seattle, Office of Equity, Diversity & Inclusion
Bessie Scott External Subject Matter Expert
91
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
Michelle Woodrow Union Representative (Proxy: LeLand Allen)
The Diversity in Recruitment and Hiring Subcommittee met six times between
February 26 and May 21, 2021. Port of Seattle Human Resources Talent Acquisition
Manager/Co-chair Erika Singh and Talent Acquisition Lead/Substitute Co-chair
Derek Bender were instrumental in gathering information relevant to the work of the
subcommittee, along with Sgt. Molly Kerns and Sgt. Darrin Benko from the POSPD,
who helped provide perspective and context on current recruitment and hiring
practices. Co-chair Jessica Sullivan, a former King County Sheriff's Office Captain
and currently the Director of REI Corporate Security, provided insight on best
practices, along with her knowledge of successful approaches to recruitment and
hiring being used by local law enforcement agencies. Members of the subcommittee
actively participated during meetings, asking questions of the presenters, sharing
observations about the material reviewed, and requesting more information, as
needed. The recommendations below were developed with significant input from the
DRH Subcommittee.
Overview of Recruitment and Hiring of Police Officers Generally and at the
Port of Seattle Police Department
A survey of 411 police departments conducted by the Police Executive Research
Forum (PERF) found that 63% experienced a reduction in the number of applicants
in 2019.95 Police recruitment continues to be challenging in 2021 after a year of
widespread racial justice protests and calls for police reform, along with a much
higher than usual rate of retirements and resignations that some attribute to officers'
low morale.96 Applicant shortages are occurring in departments of all sizes and all
regions of the country. At the same time, agencies are working to meet their goals of
building a workforce that reflects the diversity of the communities they serve.
However, recruitment for applicants of color face additional challenges, including a
long history of discrimination in the profession, high levels of mistrust of the police
in underrepresented communities, lack of awareness of career opportunities in law
enforcement, and difficulties in passing background and credit checks.97 "Whereas
departments have had historical difficulties recruiting women and minority
95 Police Executive Research Forum.2019. "The Workforce Crisis and What Police Agencies
Are Doing About It." Washington, DC: Police Executive Research Forum.
96 See, e.g., https://www.axios.com/police-morale-suffers-recruiting-down-fb25f81e-b423-
41fe-9d5f-242d43ebf337.html and https://www.npr.org/2021/06/24/1009578809/cops-say-lowmorale-and-department-scrutiny-are-driving-them-away-from-the-job
97 CCJ Task Force on Policing, "Recruitment, Diversity, and Retention," Policy Assessment,
May 2021 (citations omitted).
92
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
applicants, their inability to grapple with generational differences has shown the
profession to be underprepared for the rapidly changing and uncertain economic and
social landscape."98
There are relatively few rigorous studies on effective recruitment strategies. The
studies done have focused on making it easier to apply or making the position more
attractive to desired candidates, such as sending reminder emails and texts and
postcards with messages about "being up for the challenge" of serving and
emphasizing career opportunities in the profession.99 A recent guidebook out of the
U.S. Department of Justice COPS Office provides a useful overview of existing
resources for promoting workforce diversity, intended to "highlight publications that
are unique, particularly insightful, or considered foundational."100
Against this backdrop, the Diversity in Recruitment and Hiring (DRH) Subcommittee
considered POSPD's approach to hiring new officers, recruitment strategies, and data
available to assess where minority and female candidates fall out during the
application process. Port of Seattle Police officers are hired through three pathways
as an entry officer, lateral officer, or internal entry officer with overlapping and
distinct steps in the application and testing process for each. Officers hired from all
three pathways must meet the minimum requirements of being at least 21 years of
age, a U.S. citizen or a lawful permanent resident with the ability to read and write
in the English language, hold a high school diploma or GED certificate, have or obtain
a WA State driver's license prior to hire, and successfully pass a background
investigation that includes a complete criminal records check, a polygraph
examination, a medical examination, and a psychological examination. Also,
regardless of the pathway used in applying to the Port Police Department, there are
factors that will automatically disqualify an applicant, including:
Drug use prohibitions
Criminal activity, including any adult felony conviction, conviction of any
offense classified as a felony under WA State law while employed in any
capacity at a law enforcement agency, admission of having committed any act
98 Jeremy M. Wilson, "Strategies for Police Recruitment: A Review of Trends, Contemporary
Issues, and Existing Approaches," Law Enforcement Executive Forum, 2014, 14(1), p. 79.
99 Id.
100 Recruitment and Retention for Workforce Diversity Resource Guidebook 2021; CRI-TAC
Spotlight, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services;
https://cops.usdoj.gov/RIC/Publications/cops-w0962-pub.pdf
93
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
amounting to a felony under WA State law, as an adult, within five years prior
to application or while employed as a peace officer (including military police
officers), any conviction under a domestic violence statute, and unlawful sexual
misconduct
Certain driving related offenses
Employment related experiences including dishonorable discharge from armed
forces, lying during any stage of the hiring process, falsification of application
or related forms, previous revocation or denial of any certified status, any
substantiated finding of the use of excessive force or a substantiated finding of
racial discrimination or corrupt acts against another employee or member of
the public.
Additionally, financial issues, such as poor credit history, including excessive credit
card debt or unresolved accounts in collections, are thoroughly assessed and may be
grounds for disqualification.101 Applicants are required to sign a waiver allowing
backgrounders to see applicants' personnel files, misconduct investigations, and all
other relevant documents. Information regarding minimum requirements and
automatic disqualifiers are posted on the Port Police Careers webpage.102
For those who meet the minimum qualifications and are not automatically
disqualified based on the factors noted above, the application process is dependent on
the hiring pathway being followed. Though the Port is currently using a strategy
focused on hiring experienced officers applying through the lateral pathway and is
not accepting applications for entry-level officers, the subcommittee reviewed the
steps involved for each of the hiring pathways. Entry-level applicants must pass
written and physical ability tests administered by Public Safety Testing and an oral
board interview to then be merged onto a Civil Service Eligibility list, with the highest
candidates moving to background investigations if there are entry-level officer
openings. Lateral applicants must pass a physical ability test administered by the
Exercise Science Center. After passing the physical fitness examination, a lateral
101 Under E2SSB 5051, as a condition of continued employment, peace officers must obtain
and maintain CJTC certification, which includes release of their personnel files, termination
papers, criminal investigation files, and other material. The new legislation sets out the
grounds for certification denial or revocation, which includes factors not currently listed as
disqualifying by the Port Police Department, though might have had a disqualifying impact
as more information about an applicant was discovered during the background check and
otherwise. The legislation also sets out additional backgrounding requirements that must be
complied with.
102 https://www.portseattle.org/page/port-seattle-police-department-careers
94
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
candidate must complete a written exercise and an oral board interview, followed by
the background investigation, polygraph examination, potentially be interviewed by
the Chief of Police, and must pass psychological and physical exams. Finally, the
internal entry-level pathway is open exclusively to Port of Seattle employees who
must follow the steps outlined for entry-level applicants, though the physical ability
test is administered by Port staff. Concerns about some aspects of the application
process are reflected in the recommendations below.
POSPD Employee Demographics
Note that the information provided on POSPD employee demographics was sourced
from different data sets compiled at different points in time, and thus, the total
number of employees or number within a subgroup may differ between charts and
tables.
2020 Affirmative Action Utilization & Availability Chart
POSPD Commissioned Employees
EEO JOB TOTAL FEMALE MINORITY
GROUP
Utilization Avail.103 D Utilization Avail. D
104
Commissioned 89 1 12.35 1 15.96 -3 14 15.73 18 20. -
Police 1 4 11 4
Commissioned 26 4 15.38 3 13.20 + 7 26.92 4 16. +
Police - 1 34 3
Command
103 Availability is an aggregation of external candidates with requisite skills and internal
employees who can move between jobs.
104 D = Difference between Utilization and Availability
95
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
Gender Identification for Commissioned/Non-Commissioned Employees
Job Group Description Gender # %105
Commissioned Police Command106 Male 19 79%
Commissioned Police Command Female 5 21%
Commissioned Police Male 79 90%
Commissioned Police Female 9 10%
Total Commissioned Police - Male 98 88%
Total Commissioned Police - Female 14 12%
Non-Commissioned Protected Services Male 3 14%
Non-Commissioned Protected Services Female 19 86%
Race/Ethnicity Identification for Commissioned Employees
Job Group Race/Ethnicity # %
Description
Commissioned Police American Indian/Alaska 0 0%
Command Native
Asian 2 8%
Black/African American 2 8%
Hispanic/Latino 0 0%
Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific 0 0%
Islander
Two or More Races 1 4%
White 17 71%
Unknown 2 8%
Commissioned Police - American Indian/Alaska 1 1%
Officers Native
Asian 4 5%
Black/African American 3 3%
Hispanic/Latino 1 1%
Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific 2 2%
Islander
105 Percentages rounded off.
106 Commissioned Police Command includes Sergeants
96
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
Two or More Races 5 6%
White 51 58%
Unknown 21 24%
Commissioned Command Demographics
Gender Ethnicity
90 80
70
80 60
50
70
40
60 30
20
50 10
0
40
30 Asian White Blank
20 American Indian/Alaska Native Black/African American Hispanic/Latino Two or More Races
10
0 Native Hawaiian/Oth Pac Island
Male Female Percentage
9
Commissioned Patrol Demographics
Gender Ethnicity
100 70
60
90
50
80
40
70 30
20
60
10
50
0
40 Asian White Blank
30
20 Hispanic/Latino Two or More Races
10 American Indian/Alaska Native Black/African American
0 Native Hawaiian/Oth Pac Island
Male Female Percentage
10
97
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
Demographics for POSPD Hired 2018 2020
Of a total of 35 POSPD officers hired during the years 2018 - 2020, 80% (28) were
lateral and 20% (7) were entry-level. In addition to three officers hired from the
Honolulu Police Department and one from the Washington State Patrol, lateral hires
represented police agencies in the following Washington State cities:
Seattle (10)
Tukwila (4)
Gig Harbor (2)
Auburn (1)
Federal Way (1)
Issaquah (1)
Kent (1)
Mercer Island (1)
Pacific (1)
Redmond (1)
Renton (1)
Entry vs Lateral Hires
Ethnicity
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
African American / American Indian / Asian Hispanic / Latino Hawaiian or Pacific White / Caucasian Two or more races Unknown
Black Alaskan Native Islander
2018 Entry 2018 Lateral 2019 Entry 2019 Lateral 2020 Entry 2020 Lateral
7
Of the 35 officers hired since 2018, 23 laterals were male, 5 laterals were female, and
all seven entry-level hires were male.
98
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
Demographic information for lateral and entry-level applicants was provided by the
Port's Human Resources Office and an effort made to analyze the application process
to better understand the points at which women and minorities fell out. However,
due to subcommittee time constraints and data that was not immediately available,
it was difficult to reach insights on this front.
The Department has relied heavily on lateral hires the past few years because
laterals can be assessed on their actual performance as police officers, it is less
expensive to on-board lateral hires (estimated as $55,816.40, as compared to the
$87,717.80 estimated cost of entry level hires), and, because lateral hires do not need
to repeat academy training they have previously completed, they are available for
patrol assignment much more quickly. An entry-level officer typically requires 45
weeks of training before handling calls solo (six weeks of pre-academy training, 18
weeks for the academy, six weeks post-academy, and 15 weeks of field training) as
compared to a lateral officer who on average needs 18 weeks of training before being
assigned to patrol (six weeks of pre-field training and 12 weeks of field training).
C. Diversity in Recruitment and Hiring Recommendations
Recommendations relating to Data Collection, Demographics and Self-
Identification
While representatives from the Port's Office of Human Resources and Police
Department provided information summarizing a range of data points relevant to
consideration of officer recruitment and hiring trends at the POSPD, there were
limitations to the information immediately available using internal and external data
sources. For example, with entry-level hires, the Port must rely on Public Safety
Testing's willingness and availability to provide certain categories of data that would
be useful in analyzing the pass/fail data points for these candidates. For different
types of analyses, the Port uses different benchmarks, which may look to the entire
population of an area or specifically to the population of qualified law enforcement
applicants.
A significant proportion of POSPD commissioned officers do not self-identify when
asked about their race/ethnicity affiliation. While this information is usually provided
during the application phase, once hired, 20-25% of officers do not provide
racial/ethnic information in the personnel system. This reluctance to self-identify is
found Port-wide at similar levels and severely limits analysis of trends in recruitment
and hiring from the perspective of meeting race/ethnic hiring goals.
99
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
Recommendation No. 32. The Port should coordinate with the Police
Department, Human Resources, and other Port components to consolidate
data sources with the goal of developing a robust data collection and
analytic approach to better understand the recruitment and hiring of Police
Department personnel, including at which stage women and/or applicants
of diverse ethnic and racial backgrounds have high fail rates, and identify
opportunities for improvement.
Individuals from the Port's Human Resources Office and the POSPD provided an
abundance of information on the recruitment and hiring process for police officers.
When the DRH Subcommittee asked for even more data, they worked internally and
with IT and external sources to pull as much information as possible in a short
amount of time. While more analysis would be useful, as discussed below, it is
important that data sources be consolidated or coordinated to allow for a robust data
set and more sophisticated data analytics. The subcommittee was told that efforts are
being made towards this end.
Recommendation No. 33. The Port should develop clear guidance on the
benchmarks to be used in assessing the availability and utilization of
persons identifying with different ethnic and racial groups, including the
rationale for using census data from specific areas.
In analyzing POSPD recruitment and hiring data, the EEO job groupings used for
federal affirmative action reporting purposes grouped commissioned employees into
either commanders or officers, with sergeants included with commanders. As the role
of sergeants who supervise falls between command staff and officers and differs
significantly from a commander's role, it is confusing to include them with
commanders and it's important to consider the demographics of supervisors as a
separate group.
Affirmative action utilization and availability information also did not always clearly
identify the benchmarks being used, which can impact outcomes. For example, in
considering the availability and utilization of African American/Blacks, looking to
African American/Black police officer applicants for the POSPD verses the percentage
of applicants in the Pacific Northwest or as compared to King County or Washington
State census data yields different results, though the percentage of African
American/Black police officer applicants seeking a position at the POSPD is higher
than all three other metrics. In considering Hispanic/Latino applicants, the
percentage of Hispanic/Latino officers applying to the POSPD is less than half of the
average percentage of the three comparators, indicating that the Port is having
100
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
difficulty attracting Hispanic/Latino police officer applicants. The impact is reflected
in the race/ethnic identification data presented above, showing only one POSPD office
identifies as Hispanic/Latino, with the significance of the gap dependent on the
specific benchmark used.
Police Officer Applicants January 2019 July 2020107
Pacific Port of King State of
Northwest Seattle County Washington
Police Police 2019 US 2019 US
Applicants Applicants Census Census
1/1/2020 to 1/1/2019 to
2/28/2021 7/16/2020
African
American/Black 6.2% 10.6% 7.0% 4.4%
Hispanic/Latino 10.8% 5.4% 9.9% 13.0%
Clearly identifying benchmarks is vital for setting recruitment and hiring goals and
for measuring the Port's success rate in meeting those goals.
Recommendation No. 34. The Port should explore the reasoning behind
the significant percentage (20-25%) of employees who do not report their
race/ethnicity and consider the impact of this missing demographic
information on employee demographic data analysis for identifying and
addressing any disparities in hiring and other employment opportunities.
During subcommittee discussions, many assumed that POSPD employees who do not
report their race/ethnicity are likely White and fear identifying their race will impact
their employment opportunities in the face of diversity goals. It is also possible that
some believe that since race is a social construct, it is not productive to perpetuate
the idea that any distinction is meaningful.108 Staff from Human Resources suggested
that it is simply an oversight made by employees who are asked to complete a variety
of forms when initially hired, including those asking for race/ethnicity data, and that
employees have no incentive to correct or complete the information when Port-wide
107 This data was taken from a Public Safety Testing chart dated April 8, 2021, that was
included in a slide deck presented to the subcommittee titled, "Recruiting and Hiring Data,
Pt. 2, Police Task Force Subcommittee, 5/7/2021. The full chart includes similar comparison
points for other race/ethnic groups and for females.
108 https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/race-is-a-social-construct-scientists-argue/
101
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
or department-wide requests are made to update personnel files. Whatever the
explanation for the high rate of employees who do not identify their race/ethnicity,
the lack of complete data makes it very difficult to assess the POSPD's diversity
progress.
Recommendation No. 35. The Port and Police Department should
consider using non-binary gender designations.
Given the increasing numbers of individuals identifying as non-binary or genderfluid
, it is important to consider the limitations inherent in only using binary gender
identification options when collecting demographic information from applicants and
employees and should consider how to incorporate non-binary gender options into all
practices and systems.109
Advertising and Recruitment
As was noted during the work of this subcommittee, it is important to separate out
advertising from recruitment, as the latter requires a more strategic approach. The
Port advertises police officer hiring opportunities through a variety of means,
including:
LinkedIn
Indeed
PoliceOne
National Association of Black Law Enforcement Officers (NOBLE)
Multiple Diversity/Military outlets
The Port is instituting a new system to more readily analyze which advertising sites
lead individuals to apply to the POSPD and, of those sites, which are most productive.
Information from the system will be useful in considering whether which advertising
avenues should continue to be used and where new audiences should be sought.
109 In June 2021, Attorney Generals from 20 states, including Washington, joined together to
urge the FBI to create the gender category of "X" for nonbinary individuals in the Uniform
Crime Reporting system, which is used to study, analyze, and react to crime. See, e.g.,
https://www.nj.com/politics/2021/06/nj-asks-fbi-to-add-x-gender-to-represent-nonbinaryresidents-in-crime-stats.html.
Also, the American Medical Association now recommends
removing sex labels entirely from birth certificates, as explained in this Opinion piece in the
Seattle Times. https://www.seattletimes.com/opinion/listen-to-the-ama-and-remove-sexlabels-from-birth-certificates-in-washington-state
/
102
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
As for recruitment efforts, the POSPD developed a series of thoughtful, engaging
recruitment videos that are posted on its Port Police Careers webpage, featuring
officers of different genders and ethnic/racial backgrounds talking about why they
came to the POSPD and ways in which police work at the Port is unique. The videos
are diverse and engaging and seem to be a useful tool for visitors to the website and
in reaching out to various community and professional groups.
Recommendations Related to Advertising and Recruitment
Recommendation No. 36. Develop a recruitment plan aimed at
increasing the number of Hispanic/Latino individuals applying to be a
police officer at the POSPD.
The Port is acquiring a software program that will allow it to more closely analyze
where applicants learn about POSPD police officer hiring opportunities, to maximize
advertising approaches that yield the best outcomes and to identify where efforts
might need to be increased. While more robust data and clear benchmarks are
needed, as discussed above, information that is available shows that the number of
Hispanic/Latino police officer applicants and hires at the POSPD falls well below
what is expected. A recruitment plan aimed at increasing the number of
Hispanic/Latino individuals applying to the POSPD is recommended. One step to
consider towards this end is to consult with the Port's Hispanic/Latino Employee
Resource Group for input on effective ways to reach out to the broader
Hispanic/Latino community. It also might be helpful to evaluate whether to seek
funding for advertising with the National Latino Peace Officers Association and
similar groups.110
An idea suggested by a subcommittee member for increasing interest in policing,
particularly among Hispanics/Latinos and those who are bilingual, was to advertise
openings inside the airport at baggage claim and other places where international
travelers, some of whom are bilingual, will be exposed to the information and might
110 While there are problems with the data related to the number of female applicants and
hires that make it difficult to determine if the POSPD meets expectations regarding
employment of female officers, advertising through the National Association of Women in
Law Enforcement and similar law enforcement and non-law enforcement organizations
might be useful.
103
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
develop an interest in pursuing a policing career, such as baggage carousels for flights
arriving from Mexico City. It was also suggested that information be sought from
current Hispanic/Latino officers to better understand their interest in the POSPD for
use in recruiting others.
Recommendation No. 37. Consider a variety of recruitment suggestions
made by the Diversity in Recruitment and Hiring Subcommittee to gather
information and to reach out to youth and other communities to garner
interest in policing and in the POSPD.
The DRH Subcommittee offered a variety of suggestions aimed at learning more
about what attracts individuals to want to work as a police officer at the POSPD and
to garner interest in policing and the POSPD among youth and other community
groups. These suggestions include:
Seek more information from current lateral hires to determine if there is a
typical point in their career they sought to transfer and whether that informs
how the Port approaches recruitment and hires with this demographic.
Consider encouraging POSPD Officers representing diversity in the
Department to spend time serving as ambassadors to minority communities,
to develop relationships and interest in law enforcement.
Use internships at the POSPD to encourage youth interest in law enforcement
generally and the POSPD in particular.
Collaborate with other law enforcement agencies throughout Washington to
develop strategies for encouraging youth to pursue a career in policing, such
as bringing together difference groups of current and former Latino, African
American, and female Chiefs of Police to record them talking about their
backgrounds and journey into policing for televised programs to be aired in
select communities. Look for financial support for the project from
organizations such as the Latino Civic Alliance, which might be particularly
interested if other police departments experience a low rate of applications
from Hispanic/Latino like that seen at the POSPD.
Explore the idea of identifying "Community Ambassadors" who can work in
communities to help identify people with an interest in law enforcement
careers, educate them about preparation and opportunities, and facilitate
104
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
connections with the POSPD, the Washington State Criminal Justice Training
Commission, and similar resources.
A final recommendation included in the list of recruitment suggestions was to explore
a collaboration with police departments in other communities to partner on
Community Policing Academies and Explorer Programs, reducing time and resources
required by any one agency. DRH Subcommittee Co-chair Jessica Sullivan was in
touch with the Burien Police Department Chief while this idea was being discussed
in the subcommittee and the Chief was open to the idea of collaborating.
Female Entry-Level and Lateral Applicants
Recommendation No. 38. Follow-up with Public Safety Testing to
explore why female applicants to the Port of Seattle Police Department fail
the written test at a higher level than male applicants and whether the Port
is receiving all data analytics needed to assess applicant and hiring patterns
and give follow-up consideration as to why there have been no female entrylevel
hires in the past three years.
As part of the application process, entry-level applicants are required to take a
written test administered by Public Safety Testing (PST), which is not required of
lateral applicants. Females fail the written test at a higher rate than males; for
example, in 2019, the failure rate on the written test for female applicants was 7%,
as compared to 5% for males. While 26% of entry-level POSPD applicants failed the
physical test administered by PST, only 9.1% (all male) of lateral applicants failed
the physical test administered by the Exercise Science Center (ESC) since 2018. The
different pass rates could be a function of the type of physical test involved in each
setting, or a reflection of the fact that at least in-state lateral candidates must have
already completed the PST test to have been certified to work as an officer in
Washington State. Since no female lateral candidates failed the ESC physical test,
the test eliminated disparate impact for females, an important equity consideration.
Also, the pool of female lateral applicants was slightly larger than that for entry-level
female applicants 14.9% lateral versus 12.2% entry-level. However, because data
on failure rates by gender available through PST was limited, it is not clear why
POSPD has not hired any female entry-level applicants in the past three years.
Oral Boards
Oral board interviews are required of all officer applicants. Entry-level applicants are
called in order (top down) of their written scores. Lateral candidates are contacted to
105
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
participate in an oral board in the order of completion of all pre-oral board
requirements. All Internal Entry-level applicants are interviewed if qualified and
pass the physical agility test. Oral board questions differ for lateral versus entry-level
applicants, with a copy of each set of questions provided to the DRH Subcommittee.
While it was beyond the subcommittee's capacity to review all the questions used,
and confidentiality requirements prohibit any detailed discussion of the questions,
some observations were made as noted below.
Recommendations Related to Oral Boards
Recommendation No. 39. Increase the number of civilians, pulling from
diverse employee groups such as Employee Resource Groups (ERGs), to be
trained and available to serve on oral boards, so that they can rotate in
when available to assist with this step of the hiring process and consider
ways to assess whether the training provided to minimize the impact of
implicit bias has positive impacts.
Each oral board is made up of a diverse group of individuals, with a goal to have a
demographic mix in terms of gender and race, along with a mix of commissioned and
noncommissioned employees, and civilians outside of the POSPD. There was a sense
among some that there are a handful of oral board regulars, those who are more likely
to be available to assist when needed. However, the subcommittee did not analyze
oral boards over time to determine the demographics of those who served. Without a
basis for determining if there's an issue with the make-up of oral boards, it is
nonetheless advantageous to consider ways to expand the number and diversity of
individuals in the pool used to appoint oral boards and to develop a strategy for
assessing oral board participation in the future.
Recommendation No. 40. Review oral board questions to determine if
they are eliciting responses that address the subject area behind each
question, such as assessing character, and consider whether the oral board
should include questions directly asking applicants about involvement in
extremist groups111, about an encounter with someone of a different race,
sexual orientation, etc., whether they have ever been the subject of
discrimination themselves, or the community groups they belong to.
As previously noted, it was beyond the capacity of the DRH Subcommittee to conduct
an in-depth analysis of oral board questions. However, a review of the questions and
responses in light of the underlying value at issue would be worthwhile. Also, POSPD
111 E2SHB 5051 now requires inquiry into involvement in extremist organizations as part of the backgrounding
process.
106
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
should consider adding or substituting more direct questions to explore an
interviewee's biases.
Recommendation No. 41. Consider whether some limited follow-up
questions by oral board members should be permitted.
While it is understandable that Human Resources wants to ensure the integrity of
the oral board process by prohibiting any deviation, there is potential for
miscommunication or misunderstanding when no follow-up questions are permitted.
The Port should consider whether vital information might be lost in the process and
if there are ways to allow for limited follow-up without sacrificing standardization in
the process.
Equity Issues
As the DRH Subcommittee used an equity lens in assessing recruitment and hiring
efforts for the POSPD, ideas intended to enhance equity are incorporated throughout
these recommendations. However, a few suggestions were aimed very specifically at
enhancing police equity in recruitment and hiring.
For example, because the background check includes a review of economic factors,
there was a concern that some economically disadvantaged applicants would be
excluded, despite the fact that they might not impose an integrity risk if hired. The
subcommittee was assured that where it is apparent that an applicant fell into
financial difficulty but is working to pull out of the situation, that experience alone
would not exclude them from consideration.
Recommendation No. 42. Bring representatives of all ERGs into the
recruitment and hiring process at all steps, not just for oral boards, so that
a variety of perspectives and ideas are shared with the Police Department
and the Port throughout the process.
Recommendation No. 43. While points can be added to an applicant's
score if they speak a second language, consider a pay incentive or hiring
preference for the ability to speak more than one language, encouraging
multilingualism for applicants and current employees.112
112 Given the wide range of languages spoken by people traveling through SeaTac, having
officers who can speak more than one language serves the Port's broader interests in being
able to respond to customer needs.
107
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
Finally, a suggestion to make POSPD demographics more transparent by regularly
reporting the information to the Commission was realized in the POSPD Annual
Report for 2020, which included demographics and presumably will continue to
include such information, and which was presented to the Commission and is
available on the POSPD web page.
IX. TRAINING AND DEVELOPMENT
A. Motion 2020-15 and the Diversity in Recruitment and Hiring
Subcommittee
Motion 2020-15 stated that the assessment should include a comprehensive review of
the police training curriculum, including whether existing training promotes a
"guardian mentality" approach to policing as well as what training is provided to
officers as alternative or intermediate approaches to avoid excessive use of force. In
addition, the assessment should review whether officers are developed and advanced
throughout the organization in a way that ensures equitable outcomes for officers of
color; the assessment should identify whether barriers to advancement exist for
officers of color and recommend ways to overcome those barriers. The assessment
should also review current community engagement activities by the Port of Seattle
Police Department in communities of color and economically distressed zip codes.
B. Training and Development Subcommittee Members and Workflow
Subcommittee B Training and Development
Chairs: Deborah Jacobs & Tracy Patterson
Name Organization
Tracy Patterson Port of Seattle, Human Resources
Deborah Jacobs External Subject Matter Expert
Milton Ellis Port of Seattle, Labor/Represented Employees
Detective Steve Ivey Port of Seattle Police Department
Anika Klix Port of Seattle, Diversity and Development Council
Port of Seattle, Aviation division; Rep of Blacks in
Patricia Ly
Government
Sgt. Bram Urbauer Port of Seattle Police Department
Shaunie Wheeler Union Representative
108
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
Port of Seattle, Maritime division; Rep of Blacks in
Jo Woods
Government
Jerrell Wills External Subject Matter Expert
Neil Woodruff External Subject Matter Expert
Janice Zahn Port of Seattle, Priority Hire
The Training and Development Subcommittee met three times in the Spring. The
subcommittee primarily examined training including, but not limited to, use of
force, de-escalation, crisis intervention, and professional development, including
barriers to advancement for people of color. All aspects of this assessment were
viewed through an equity lens.
Training
The Co-Chairs of the Training and Development subcommittee joined 21CP in
attending the 2021 use of force training for POSPD. Additionally, 21CP attended the
2020 de-escalation training and legal in-service updates, including 40mm Less
Lethal, Taser, ground control, and search and seizure training.
The subcommittee began with an explanation of the current training program by the
POSPD. The Training Section includes a commander, a sergeant, and an officer. They
are responsible for all in-service training. Due to the demands of the cruise ship
season and redeployment of resources, the POSPD training year is October April,
which limits the available months to deliver trainings to the department.
The State of Washington, through the Criminal Justice Training Commission (CJTC),
requires 24 hours of annual in-service training for every officer; the POSPD union
contract sets a minimum of 40 hours. In reality, training hours are over 60 for most
officers and specialty units have even more.
New recruits receive the 720-hour Basic Law Enforcement Academy (BLEA) through
CJTC. The Port provides a pre-BLEA (a mini-police academy) to "set them up for
success." Following BLEA, the Port has another six weeks of training before the
Patrol Training Officer (PTO) program. Members of the subcommittee discussed the
primary distinctions between Field Training Officer (FTO) programs (focused on
checking off practical skills) as opposed to PTO programs (which are problem-solving
based, and train more thoughtful approaches to policing). As noted in the Final
Report of President Obama's Task Force on 21st Century Policing, the "Reno Model,"
developed in collaboration with the United States Department of Justice's
109
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
Community Oriented Policing Services ("COPS") Office and the Police Executive
Research Forum ("PERF"), "use[s] adult learning theory and problem solving tools to
encourage new officers to think with a proactive mindset, enabling the identification
of and solution to problems within their communities."113 The Reno Model established
the foundation of the PTO model114.
Lateral hires (from other agencies) receive 13 weeks of training.
The POSPD developed a five-year training plan and maintains training files to ensure
the department knows what has been trained and who has received the training.
113 Final Report of the President's Task Force on 21st Century Policing 60 (2015).
114 Hoover Group of Reno, History of Field Training (Reno Model PTO Program) (2006); see
also Community Oriented Policing Services, United States Department of Justice, A
Problem-Based Learning Manual for Training and Evaluating Police Trainees,
https://www.policeforum.org/assets/docs/Free_Online_Documents/FTO/trainee%20manual.p
df (last accessed Mar. 2, 2021)
110
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
Five Year Training Plan
111
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
The overall training is driven by state law, the administrative code, and policy.
Additionally, the Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies
(CALEA) training requirements prioritize training delivery in order to meet the
accreditation standards. The following courses are mandated by the CALEA
certification process:
CALEA training requirements:
o 1.1.2 Code of Ethics
o 1.2.9 Bias Policing
o 4.1.2 Use of Deadly Force
o 4.3.3: Annual/Biennial Proficiency Training
o 33.1.5: Remedial Training
o 33.1.6: Employee Training Record Maintenance
o 33.4.1: Recruit Training Required
o 33.4.2: Recruit Training Program
o 33.4.3: Field Training Program
o 33.5.1: Annual In-Service Training Program
o 33.5.3: Accreditation Training
o 33.6.2: Tactical Team Training Program
o 33.8.2: Skill Development Training Upon Promotion
o 41.2.2: Pursuit of Motor Vehicles
o 41.2.7: Mental Health Issues
o 46.1.9: All Hazards Plan Training
o 46.3.2: Hazardous Awareness Training
o 71.2.1: Training of Personnel
o 72.1.1: Training User Personnel
The State mandates eight hours of crisis intervention training for officers but offers
a 40-hour certification. Approximately 50% of officers have had the 40-hour course;
only four have not received the eight-hour course, but they are slated for training
according to POSPD.
Development
The subcommittee also received POSPD briefings about the evaluation system at
POSPD and opportunities for development. Evaluation forms (WPR or work
performance review) are completed by supervisors and are approved up the chain of
command. Supervisors also have access to a data dashboard of officer activity, which
is viewable by officer or squad.
112
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
Promotional processes, like the hiring processes, occur in partnership with Public
Safety Testing. The third-party vendor mechanisms are supposed to help prevent bias
in promotions. The overall promotional process at POSPD was described by Port HR
as "the most focused of any Port promotional process." The design stage for a
promotional exam includes surveying the people doing the work and collecting the
competencies they believe are most valuable. Some of the previously identified
competencies include oral communication, written, interpersonal insight, problem
solving, judgment, planning and organizing, delegation/sphere of control. This design
attempts to control for trends and influences and consciously attempts to avoid
creating a process that puts a disadvantage on officers that have never been in a
leadership role.
The design is then assessed by a committee of managers (civilian airport duty,
emergency preparedness facility manager) and numerous external law enforcement
professionals in an effort to reduce bias and the influence of established relationships
in assessment process.
Some subcommittee members noted that under the current civil service rules, the
Chief has a lot of leeway in final decisions. Additionally, the subcommittee discussed
that if the test questions are drawn from current institution, there is potential to
simply perpetuate the current thought system.
POSPD reported that the WPR is the most important promotional element, as current
department leadership philosophy is to promote not solely the best test takers, but
rather balance the test day with performance evaluations over the last few years.
Engagement with Communities of Color
The subcommittee discussed the value of community outreach as part of training in
order for officers to find out about the people they serve. While POSPD currently does
annual night out events (particularly at Shilshole Marina), coffee with a cop, and
have engagements with the Puget Sound Center and in high schools, there are no
community engagement programs identified that directly connect officers with
communities of color.
113
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
C. Training and Development Subcommittee Recommendations
Recommendation No. 44. The POSPD should consider ranking
applicants for Special Team assignments to increase transparency in those
processes.
As discussed elsewhere, 21CP consistently heard concerns about the fairness of
assignments to specialty units, such as K9, SWAT, Hostage negotiation, Dive Team,
Boat Team, PTO, Bomb Disposal, Honor Guard, Peer Support, and the Crowd
Management Unit. The current process involves testing, but applicants are not
ranked by test scores. Instead, applicants qualify for the unit based on their testing
and the Chief or head of the relevant unit select the people they want for the unit.
While Command Staff reports that in actuality, people are selected by test score in
almost every case, the inherent discretion in choosing from a pool creates the
perception of inequities.
Additionally, while 21CP was not provided any data about who has applied for Special
Teams in the past and not selected, the end demographics of Special Teams raise
concerns. SWAT is all white, and all male.115 The Boat Team and Dive Team are all
white and male. The Bomb Disposal Unit and PTO include one female each but are
all white. K9 includes one female, two Asian, and one African American officer.
Hostage Negotiation includes one female officer, one Asian, and one Pacific Islander.
Honor Guard is all white, but evenly split between men and women. Peer Support
has two females and one Pacific Islander. Finally, the Crowd Management Unit, with
20 officers, is all male and has one Asian and one American Indian officer. The lack
of apparent diversity in these teams can only reinforce skepticism about the fairness
of the process, especially as applied to race. Because special assignments, depending
on type, are either considered permanent or can be extended where a time limitation
is set, many perceive this as further limiting participation opportunities. Again, 21CP
does not have a way of determining whether the process has been fair, but the
perception of unfairness alone is problematic.116
115 Recent budget decisions resulted in the one female SWAT officer being removed; the
department hopes to reinstate her when budgets allow.
116 To the extent testing emphasizes work experience and knowledge, the POSPD might
consider emphasizing skill sets and ability to learn instead. This can help level the playing
field and increase diversity. See, e.g., https://hbr.org/2021/06/you-need-a-skills-basedapproach-to-hiring-and-developing-talent
116 Melissa Bradley, Katherine Holihen, and Charlene Moe. Procedural Justice. Office of
Community Oriented Policing Services. (2015).
114
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
Given these perceptions of inequity expressed by commissioned personnel from
different corners of the POSPD, it is important that leadership create the conditions
necessary to build a sense of internal procedural justice. "[P]rocedural justice
implementation must begin with an internal structural commitment from executive
leadership and an understanding among supervisors who carry out processes,
policies, and procedures within the department."117 Procedural justice "speaks to four
principles, often referred to as the four pillars: fairness in the processes, transparency
in actions, opportunities for voice, and impartiality in decision making."118 POSPD
leadership can build a sense of internal procedural justice as they "demonstrate that
assignments, training, promotions and discipline are fairly awarded based on merit,
qualifications and need"119 Operating primarily from a relational leadership
approach that fosters and facilitates relationships up and down and across the
Department, POSPD leadership can enhance internal procedural justice with a focus
on developing collaborative decision-making, team-building, employee inclusivity and
empowerment, transparency, and effective internal communication. As the
Department considers implementation of this recommendation (and others),
involving POSPD members in the process to better understand their concerns and
get input on setting priorities and problem solving, such as with alternative
approaches for Special Teams assignments, will itself demonstrate a commitment to
procedural justice.120
Recommendation No. 45. The POSPD should continue to train deescalation
as a core engagement philosophy.
As the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) has observed, "[t]he term
de-escalation can be viewed as both an overarching philosophy that encourages
officers to constantly reassess each situation to determine what options are available
to effectively respond, as well as the grouping of techniques designed to achieve this
117 Melissa Bradley, Katherine Holihen, and Charlene Moe. Procedural Justice. Office of
Community Oriented Policing Services. (2015).
118 Id.
119 Brian N. O'Donnell. How Internal Procedural Justice Impacts External Behaviors: The
Implications Officer Perception of Leadership and Leadership Behaviors Have for
Organizational Culture. Police 1 (2021), citing M. Kool and D. Van Dierendonck. Servant
Leadership and Commitment to Change, the Mediating Role of Justice and Optimism.
Journal of Organizational Change Management (2012), 25(3), 422-433.
120 Note that the Accelerating Reform: Transforming Police Culture training that some
POSPD members have attended ties procedural justice concepts into its leadership training.
If other POSPD members will be attending the training, a capstone project focused on
building internal procedural justice might provide further structure for moving forward on
this recommendation.
115
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
goal."121 Generally, de-escalation and de-escalation philosophy is well-integrated into
POSPD trainings.
The core principles of time (pace), distance, shielding, and communication resurfaced
in all use of force related trainings. The department trains that "De-escalation
requires not only effective patrol tactics to decrease the intensity of an event, but also
knowledge about mental illness, communication techniques, and available resources
and tools," with the goal of "control[ling] the pace of the event whenever possible by
using sound patrol tactics."
POSPD also includes specific instruction on communication, including "tactical,
investigative, conversational techniques." Additionally, the training stresses
emotional intelligence, including:
Self-Awareness- Recognize one's own emotions as they are occurring
to help guide your decision making.
Self-Management- The ability to control and manage your emotions
in the moment and adapt to rapidly changing circumstances (selfcontrol
).
Social Awareness The ability to recognize emotions in others
(empathy, "seeing through the eyes of another").
Relationship Management The ability to inspire, influence,
connect, and contribute to healthy conflict resolution (rapport
building).
These concepts are well-developed and POSPD trainers should continue to seek out
new methods for delivering this material.122
Recommendation No. 46. The POSPD should continue to stress a
"guardian mentality" in its trainings.
As set forth by the Criminal Justice Training Commission and quoted by the POSPD,
"The Heart and Mind of the Guardian is a career long education process designed to
ensure the development of a highly evolved police officer who is prepared at any
moment to reflect the best of what policing demands. POSPD fosters a culture of
121 International Association of Chiefs of Police, National Consensus Policy and Discussion
Paper on Use of Force 6 (Oct. 2017),
http://www.theiacp.org/Portals/0/documents/pdfs/National_Consensus_Policy_On_Use_Of_F
orce.pdf [hereinafter "IACP Consensus Policy"].
122 See e.g., https://www.policeforum.org/icat-training-guide
116
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
leadership, character, and service in the spirit of what democratic policing promises
its citizenry. It is a process aimed at developing the right: Heartset, Mindset, Skillset
and Toolset, enabling officers to meet the demands of modern policing."
All of the recent training included discussion of the value of the guardian mindset,
which necessarily incorporates readiness to take action in order to "guard," but
deemphasizes militaristic attitudes.123 The concept was specifically stressed in the
2021 Use of Force in-service training.
However, all trainings prior to 2020 contained some form of admonition similar to the
below, suggesting that the concept is still developing at POSPD.
Recommendation No. 47. The POSPD should provide positive examples
to reinforce good police tactics rather than stressing poor outcomes in
training.
Although the POSPD trainings stressed the positive outcomes that can be achieved
through more thoughtful police engagements, the video examples presented to the
classes were almost exclusively violent and lessons in what "not to do." POSPD should
seek out the success stories in which officers successfully de-escalated or
communicated with subjects to set positive examples of what "to do."124
Recommendation No. 48. The POSPD should continue to utilize
national and local leadership development opportunities, but with
transparent selection criteria.
In the past, leadership development programs, such as West Point Leadership, the
Senior Management Institute for Police, the FBI National Academy, and Leadership
in Police Organizations, a three-month program, have been successful options for
POSPD. Additionally, the Port's Leadership Tomorrow program was cited as an
excellent development opportunity, especially with its focus on "understanding race
123 Kyle McLean, Scott E. Wolfe, Jeff Rojek, Geoffrey P. Alpert & Michael R.
Smith (2020) Police Officers as Warriors or Guardians: Empirical Reality or Intriguing
Rhetoric?, Justice Quarterly, 37:6, 1096-1118, DOI: 10.1080/07418825.2018.1533031
124 https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2015/05/police-shootings-the-grim-videos-cops-watchof-their-colleagues-being-killed-in-the-line-of-duty.html
117
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
and racism in this country." However, there are no established internal selection
criteria and some officers complained that selection was not transparent, often based
on connections, and sometimes wasted on officers late in their career when the
leadership knowledge could not benefit the department before that officer's
retirement. In 21CP's experience, these types of programs impart meaningful skills
and techniques for emerging Departmental leaders and, critically, allow officers to
gain a national perspective on policing and on best and emerging practices in the
profession. Graduates of these programs often return to their agencies with broader
perspectives and new ideas that help to reinvigorate their departments' everyday
cultures.
Recommendation No. 49. The POSPD should consider incorporating
existing community engagement opportunities as part of training to better
understand cultural differences.
Jurisdictions the size of POSPD do not always have the bandwidth to recreate
external community engagements focused on the many diverse communities with
whom the departments interact. However, several noted existing opportunities, such
as engagement with the NW Immigrants' Rights Project and the Seattle Police
Demographic Advisory Councils, such as the African American Police Advisory
Council.125 As these entities are already established, providing the encouragement
and support for POSPD officers to attend would help develop the department's overall
cultural competency.
X. ADVOCACY
A. Motion 2020-15 and Advocacy
The Motion indicated that the Task Force assessment should include a review of
potential state and federal legislation and reforms, such as changes to federal
"qualified immunity" provisions or the creation of state or federal misconduct
tracking databases, for the Port to include in its advocacy efforts.
This work was redesigned mid-project to allow members of the Task Force and 21CP
to engage in real time with the Port's legislative efforts around police reform during
the Washington State Legislature's 2021 legislative session. This "kitchen cabinet" of
Port and external advisors helped to evaluate state legislation and inform the Port's
125 https://www.seattle.gov/police/community-policing/demographic-advisorycouncils
/african-american-community-advisory-council
118
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
advocacy strategy. At the heart of these discussions was the work of the relevant
subcommittee, which helped provide a better understanding of POSPD operations
and policy.
B. Qualified Immunity
While Motion 2020-15 specifically references Qualified Immunity, this is a
policy/legal matter and 21CP is not providing legal advice on what the Port should do
vis a vis Qualified Immunity.
Qualified Immunity is at the forefront of national debates on how to improve
policing126 but is apparently poorly understood both in concept and in practice. It is
also one of the most contentious parts of the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act that,
at the time of this writing, is stalled in the United States Senate after being passed
by the House of Representatives. Qualified Immunity is a limited defense for
government officials not only police127 who are sued in their individual capacity
in civil lawsuits under Title 42 U.S.C. for money damages for allegations of violations
of federal law, primarily the United States Constitution. It does not apply in criminal
cases, in disciplinary matters, in lawsuits seeking to require changes to how policing
is done (also called injunctive relief), in lawsuits against the Port itself, or in
negligence cases brought under state law.
42 U.S.C. 1983 was enacted in 1871 as part of the Ku Klux Klan Act and provides
civil remedies for Constitutional deprivations by a "person" acting under "color of
law." State and local officials must be sued in their individual capacity, not in their
official capacity. Will v. Michigan Department of State Police, 491 U.S. 58 (1989).
Therefore, police officers sued under 1983 are individually liable, not the Port of
Seattle.
Qualified Immunity is a doctrine designed to temper this individual liability by
protecting "all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law."
Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335, 341 (1986). "[T]he protection of qualified immunity
applies regardless of whether the government official's error is 'a mistake of law, a
mistake of fact, or a mistake based on mixed questions of law and fact.'" Pearson v.
Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 231 (2009).
126 https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/08/us/supreme-court-qualified-immunity.html
127 The Port of Seattle asserted Qualified Immunity in King County Superior Court Cause
No. 20-2-10720-4 SEA, which is currently pending, and involves non-police Port employees.
119
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
The doctrine asks two questions. The first question (also called a First Prong
Analysis) is whether there was a Constitutional violation. If the Court finds there
was no violation, then the case is dismissed on the merits. However, if the Court
cannot make that finding (or simply chooses not to address the First Prong), the Court
considers whether the Constitutional right was clearly established such "that every
reasonable officer" would know that the conduct was unlawful. Ashcroft v. al-Kidd,
563 U.S. 731 (2011). This does "not require a case directly on point, but existing
precedent must have placed the statutory or constitutional question beyond debate."
Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335, 341 (1986).
It is this Second Prong analysis that causes concern about Qualified Immunity as
there have been a host of Court decisions stretching the analysis to the point of
absurdity128. However, a 2017 national study found that qualified immunity was only
granted in 3.9% of the cases during 2011-2012, across five federal circuits, in which
the defense could have been raised129 and concluded, therefore, that the doctrine does
not have a major impact on the outcome of civil litigation. In contrast, Federal District
Court Judge Carlton W. Reeves, Southern District of Mississippi, recently authored
a scathing indictment of the doctrine of Qualified Immunity, complete with its
historical context in law.130
21CP requested "Section 1983 lawsuits filed against the Port/Port employees for the
last five years and any information on whether Qualified Immunity
was raised and if so, whether it was successful" from the Port. Additionally, 21CP
undertook a docket search of the Western District of Washington for "Port of Seattle
Police Department," which revealed some earlier cases. Noting that this may not
encompass all litigation brought against the Port of Seattle for actions of its police
officers, two points stand out. First, litigation alleging constitutional violations by
128 See Jamison v. McClendon, 16-CV-595-CWR*31 (Southern District of Mississippi
2020)("Our courts have shielded a police officer who shot a child while the officer was
attempting to shoot the family dog; prison guards who forced a prisoner to sleep in cells
"covered in feces" for days; police officers who stole over $225,000 worth of property; a deputy
who body- slammed a woman after she simply "ignored [the deputy's] command and walked
away"; an officer who seriously burned a woman after detonating a "flashbang" device in the
bedroom where she was sleeping; an officer who deployed a dog against a suspect who
"claim[ed] that he surrendered by raising his hands in the air"; and an officer who shot an
unarmed woman eight times after she threw a knife and glass at a police dog that was
attacking her brother.")(citations omitted).
129 https://www.yalelawjournal.org/article/how-qualified-immunity-fails
130 https://cdn.cnn.com/cnn/2020/images/08/04/jamison-v-mcclendon.pdf
120
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
Port of Seattle Police Officers is empirically rare and the defense of these cases very
successful. Second, 21CP did not identify any case that was dismissed based on the
Second Prong of Qualified Immunity.
Cause Number Allegation Resolution
17-1873-MJP Port of Seattle Police Officers Dismissed by Court on
present during secondary Summary Judgment finding
TSA screening no Constitutional violation;
not based on Qualified
Immunity
16-cv-00483-JCC Port of Seattle Officers Settled; not resolved on
falsely arrested plaintiff and Qualified Immunity
used excessive force during
the arrest.
12-0966 RSM Port of Seattle Officers Dismissed by Court on
falsely arrested plaintiff and Summary Judgment finding
failed to provide him with his probable cause for arrest and
anti-seizure medications. that officers properly called
EMTs to administer
medication; not based on
Qualified Immunity131
13-1708-JCC Port of Seattle Detective Dismissed by Court on
negligently investigated her Summary Judgment finding
allegations of sexual assault no Constitutional violation;
by TSA. not based on Qualified
Immunity
15-0038-RSM Port of Seattle Officer Dismissed by Court on
stopped plaintiff's vehicle Summary Judgment finding
twice and subjected him to no Constitutional violation as
arrest without probable officer had reasonable
cause. suspicion to stop and probable
cause to arrest; not based on
Qualified Immunity
131 This order is somewhat confusing as it does analyze both claims under the Qualified
Immunity standards. However, because the Court found probable cause and that the officers
properly managed plaintiff's need for medication, the case was dismissed because there was
no Constitutional violation (First prong of Qualified Immunity) and the Court never reached
whether the law was clearly established, which is the controversial aspect of Qualified
Immunity.
121
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
C. Ongoing Legislative Efforts
Recommendation No. 50. POSPD should continue to incorporate the
new legislative requirements into policy and reinforce those changes
through training.
As discussed throughout this report, the 2021 legislative session introduced many
significant and sweeping changes to the landscape of policing. These laws address a
wide range of topics including, use of force, mandatory de-escalation, duty to
intervene, Brady reporting, requirements to record Miranda warning given to
juveniles, certification (and de-certification) changes, background investigation
requirements, and how use of deadly force will be investigated, Many of the new
legislative requirements were already part of the POSPD policy manual, but there is
much work to be done to ensure complete alignment of policy and law and then to
train officers on those changes. POSPD has taken a regional leadership role in
advancing new policies that may be adopted by other agencies and is currently
working to update its operations. POSPD should continue on that path.
Recommendation No. 51. The Port should continue to engage with key
stakeholders and elected officials on emerging State and Federal
legislation.
The 2020 - 2021 legislative session was comprehensive, but some reform approaches
did not make it into law. Bills that did not pass this session addressed subjects such
as granting authority to the Attorney General to prosecute officer deadly force cases,
making community oversight boards mandatory, new methods of suing individual
officers that would bypass federal qualified immunity, and restrictions on the powers
of police unions. As these state bills are reintroduced in a similar or different form,
other state police reform legislation is advanced, or as federal legislation is proposed,
such as the George Floyd in Policing Act, the Port should remain proactive in
understanding the significance of changes under consideration and determine
whether particular provisions are right for the Port, its employees, and its
community. The Port should share its unique perspectives to help shape those pieces
of legislation that are particularly relevant.
122
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
XI. BUDGET, ROLES, AND EQUIPMENT
A. Motion 2020-15 and Budget, Roles, and Equipment.
The Motion states that the assessment should examine whether certain nonemergency
situations could be better responded to by the deployment of nonuniformed
officers, and whether investments in community-focused programs could
decrease the prevalence of such situations. In addition, the assessment should review
Port Police equipment and supplies used to conduct routine police work, including
mass events and crowd management, and determine if any are excessive or
unnecessary; in particular, the assessment should look at how military-grade
equipment is procured and used, as well as the role of body cameras as a potential
accountability measure for Port policing.
Similar to the Advocacy Committee, and in part due to emerging state law, the Task
Force agreed that this portion of the assessment was better addressed with technical
advice from 21CP on specific topics, along with identification of budget consequences
for the recommendations in this report.
B. Reducing the Police Role in Responding to Homelessness and Persons
in Crisis
As previously raised in the Use of Force section, the Port's response to homelessness
and persons in crisis would be well-served by reducing the role of police and switching
to an unarmed, service-oriented approach. A lack of mental health services coupled
with the often-co-occurring conditions of substance use disorder, homelessness, and
other conditions of despair has led to jurisdictions nationwide increasingly relying
on police officers to serve as first responders to incidents of behavioral crisis. In
nearby Seattle, a December 2018 report found that nearly 3 percent of all calls to
police some approximately 15,000 over an 18-month period involved an individual
in behavioral or emotional crisis.132 Some studies suggest that as many as ten percent
of officer-public contacts overall involve a person in a serious mental health crisis.133
132 Seattle Police Department, Use of Force in Crisis-Involved Incidents (Dec. 2018),
https://www.seattle.gov/Documents/Departments/Police/Publications/Crisis_UoF%20Report
%20SPD
%20Final.pdf.
133 Martha W. Deane, "Emerging Partnerships Between Mental Health and Law
Enforcement," 50
Psychiatric Services 99 (1999).
123
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
As discussed above, while the POSPD does not track crisis calls or responses to people
experiencing homelessness, 58% of uses of force are in trespass cases, which appear
to be a reasonable proxy for homelessness cases.
The POSPD has taken the lead at directing resources towards this issue by drafting
a job description for a Crisis Coordinator to be the point of contact internally and
externally for issues relating to crisis. The Coordinator would be familiar with
outreach services, have an understanding of mental illness manifestations, track
crisis services and laws, build and maintain necessary relationships, and generally
serve as a focused resource on this issue.
C. Military Style Equipment
Regarding military equipment, HB1054, Chapter 320, Laws of 2021, Sec. 5, states
that "A law enforcement agency may not acquire or use any military equipment. Any
law enforcement agency in possession of military equipment as of the effective date
of this section shall return the equipment to the federal agency from which it was
acquired, if applicable, or destroy the equipment by December 31, 2022." This
prohibition applies to "firearms and ammunition of .50 caliber or greater, machine
guns, armed helicopters, armed or armored drones, armed vessels, armed vehicles,
armed aircraft, tanks, long range acoustic hailing devices, rockets, rocket launchers,
bayonets, grenades, missiles, directed energy systems, and electromagnetic spectrum
weapons." In response, the Port of Seattle Police identified that two .50 caliber rifles
meet this restriction and are taking appropriate action to dispose of those weapons134.
The concern of the Port Commission in this area appears to have been resolved based
on this legislation.
134 This change is mandated by law and therefore we do not debate the wisdom of disposing
of these weapons. POSPD reported that they were obtained as an option for shooting through
plane windows in the event of a hijacking, which seems different in kind than the need most
departments would have for a weapon of this caliber. Additionally, some departments have
raised concerns over HB 1054, which on its face would prohibit 40mm Less Lethal Launchers
as they are technically greater than .50 caliber, we understand that the POSPD has elected
to keep those less lethal force options, which the bill drafter has indicated was the original
intent. See https://www.q13fox.com/news/local-law-enforcement-has-concerns-over-newpolice-reform-laws-going-into-effect.
124
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
D. Body Cameras
The use of body-worn cameras has dramatically accelerated across the policing
profession in recent years. By the end of 2018, "about 10,500 agencies, or 58 percent
of all law enforcement departments in the U.S., used body cameras."135
Body-worn cameras have been associated with a number of benefits. First, a number
of jurisdictions that deploy them have experienced decreases in officer use of force,
officer misconduct, and civilian complaints about officer conduct.136 Body-worn
cameras may result in better transparency and accountability and thus may improve
law enforcement legitimacy."137 Indeed, cameras "may lead to a faster resolution of
citizen complaints and lawsuits" by resolving issues and factual disputes effectively
and efficiently.138 Of course, "[f]ootage captured may be used as evidence in arrests
or prosecutions."139 At the same time, body-worn camera footage also provides
opportunities for the department to better learn from actual officer performance.140
Finally, "[b]ody-worn cameras may also result in higher rates of citizen compliance
to officer commands during encounters," with civilians and police officers alike
changing their behavior when they know that they are being recorded.141
Others remain skeptical about whether body worn cameras improve policecommunity
relationships in any meaningful way. One study in Baltimore found that:
Black residents are unimpressed by body-worn camera initiatives;
can be traumatized by the constant violent reminders that the footage
often brings; and feel like they are in a "special kind of hell" when
135 Ben Miller, "Just How Common Are Body Cameras in Police Departments?," Government
Technology (June 28, 2019), https://www.govtech.com/data/Just-How-Common-Are-Body-
Cameras-in-Police-Departments.html
136 See, e.g., Michael D. White, Office of Justice Programs Diagnostic Center, U.S. Dept. of
Justice, Police Officer Body-Worn Cameras: Assessing the Evidence 21 (2014); Brett
Chapman, "Body-Worn Cameras: What the Evidence Tells Us," 280 NIJ Journal 3 (Jan.
2019), https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/252035.pdf.
137 Brett Chapman, "Body-Worn Cameras: What the Evidence Tells Us," 280 NIJ Journal 2
(Jan. 2019), https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/252035.pdf.
138 Id.
139 Id.
140 Id.
141 Id.
125
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
faced with the perceived inaction following even the most damning of
camera footage evidence.142
Most calls for the adoption of BWC programs stem from concerns about use of force
and resolution of complaints143. Given 21CP's review of the POSPD's use of force
policies (ninety use of force cases from 2018-2020), the work of the Use of Force
Subcommittee (which unanimously agreed not to recommend development of a BWC
program given the relatively infrequent use of force and costs involved with BWCs),
the work of the Oversight Subcommittee and 21CP's review of the relatively few
complaints about POSPD activities, 21CP was not intending to issue a
recommendation that POSPD develop a BWC program. The POSPD use force
approximately 30 times per year, two-thirds of which occur in the airport facility,
which has an extensive network of security cameras. In 21CP's case review, video
evidence was easily available in 57 percent of cases but that number is likely even
higher. Given the infrequency of use of force and the already available video evidence,
body-cameras did not rise as a priority, especially given the high costs. Most police
departments in Washington State do not have BWC programs, primarily due "to the
long-term costs of managing, storing and releasing body-worn camera and dashcamera
video to the public."144
However, the landscape was changed by Substitute House Bill 1223, which passed
into the Session Law of 2021 in Chapter 329, and which requires (subject to
exceptions) that:
a custodial interrogation, including the giving of any required
warning, advice of the rights of the individual being questioned, and
the waiver of any rights by the individual, must be recorded
electronically in its entirety if the interrogation subject is a juvenile
or if the interrogation relates to a felony crime.
142 Erin M. Kerrison, Jennifer Cobbina & Kimberly Bender (2018) Stop-gaps, lip service, and
the perceived futility of body-worn police officer cameras in Baltimore City, Journal of Ethnic
& Cultural Diversity in Social Work, 27:3, 271-288, DOI: 10.1080/15313204.2018.1479912
143 U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services,
Implementing a Body-Worn Camera Program: Recommendations and Lessons Learned 34
(2014) (noting use of cost-benefit analysis "when exploring whether to implement body-worn
camera" technology); Police Executive Research Forum, Citizen Perceptions of Body-Worn
Cameras: A Randomized Controlled Trial (2017).
144 https://www.king5.com/article/news/investigations/police-body-cameras-not-a-priorityfor-washington-lawmakers-in-2021-session
/281-f189f3ce-f565-4b8c-955a-308f67c0e01e
126
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
Based on these requirements and the infeasibility of recording and tracking such
electronic records outside of a BWC program, the POSPD has begun implementing
body-worn cameras.
Recommendation No. 52. As a body worn camera program is developed,
the POSPD should consider policy choices around when cameras should
be activated, what are acceptable uses for BWC footage, when officers may
view footage, and how the BWC program can support overall
transparency.
1. When should the cameras be activated?
Most departments require BWCs to be activated when "law enforcement action is
taken." Typically, this occurs when officers are dispatched to a call or take proactive
enforcement action based on reasonable suspicion or probable cause. Communities in
many jurisdictions throughout the nation have raised concerns about the privacy
implications of police deploying body camera technology. Unlike other types of
surveillance cameras or in-car video systems, body-worn cameras can "give officers
the ability to record inside private homes and to film sensitive situations that might
emerge during calls for service."145 However, there are very real privacy
considerations in First Amendment contexts, in hospitals or other care facilities, in
sexual assault cases146, and when entering a home. Given the body of work POSPD
officers engage in, some of these circumstances will arise less frequently than in other
municipal departments. Nonetheless, clarity for officers on what discretion they have
when activating cameras is critically important nothing damages the legitimacy of
a BWC program then officers not turning on the cameras when required.147
145 Police Executive Research Forum/Community Oriented Policing Services, U.S.
Department of Justice, Implementing a Body-Worn Camera Program: Recommendations and
Lessons Learned 11 (2014).
146 See National Sexual Violence Resource Center, SART Toolkit Section 5.6,
https://www.nsvrc.org/sarts/toolkit/5-6 (last visited June 30, 2021); Pennsylvania Coalition
Against Rape, The Use of Body-Worn Cameras with Victims of Sexual Violence (2017),
https://pcar.org/sites/default/files/resource- pdfs/body_worn_cameras_factsheet.pdf; Mary D.
Fan, "Privacy, Public Disclosure, Police Body Cameras: Policy Splits," 68 Alabama L. Rev.
395 (2016),
https://digitalcommons.law.uw.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1059&context=facultyarticles
147 https://www.policingequity.org/newsroom/blog/police-body-cameras-are-pointless-unlesscops-use-them-correctly
127
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
But discretion is not a bad thing, when backed by clear policy and accountability. For
example, the Salt Lake City Police Department allows officers to suspend recording
in particular instances, including "during a conversation with a sensitive victim of a
crime, a witness of a crime, or an individual who wishes to report or discuss criminal
activity" if certain conditions are met, as well as "during a significant period of
inactivity."148 When video is discontinued, "[t]he officer shall also document the
reason for placing the body cameras into Privacy Mode in a written report."149
Similarly, the Seattle Police Department allows discretion in recording in sensitive
areas ("jails and the interiors of medical, mental health, counseling, or therapeutic
facilities unless for a direct law enforcement purpose"), residences and private areas,
to protect privacy and dignity ("natural death scenes, death notifications, child or
sexual assault victim interviews, cultural or religious objections to being recorded,
and when the use of BWV would impede or limit the cooperation of a victim or
witness"), as long as "[e]mployees who stop recording during an event will state on
the recording their intention to stop recording and explain the basis for that decision.
Employees will also document the reason(s) in the Report and/or CAD update."150
2. What are the acceptable uses for body-worn cameras within the
department?
A BWC program policy should set out the purposes of the video within department,
who may access the video, and under what circumstances. May video be used for
training purposes? What happens if policy violations are discovered when reviewing
video? Again, clarity is paramount.
3. When may officers view their BWC evidence before writing a report?
One highly debated issue is when officers may view video prior to writing a report.
According to many police executives, the primary benefit to officer
review is that it allows officers to recall events more clearly, which
helps get to the truth of what really happened. Some police executives,
on the other hand, said that it is better for an officer's statement to
148 Police Executive Research Forum, Executive Guidebook: Practical Approaches for
Strengthening Law Enforcement's Response to Sexual Assault 6970 (May 2018).
149 Id. at 70.
150 https://www.seattle.gov/police-manual/title-16---patrol-operations/16090---in-car-andbody-worn-video
128
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
reflect what he or she perceived during the event, rather than what
the camera footage revealed.151
However, both police reform advocates and some police defense attorneys argue that
capturing a perceptual statement before an officer views any evidence, including
video, is best practice. For example, in the Seattle Federal Consent Decree, the
Federal Court-approved policy allows officers to view video prior to writing criminal
or low-level use of force reports, but prohibits review prior to being interviewed in
serious use of force cases, thereby striking a balance between efficiency and accuracy
in reporting and the benefits of capturing an officer's "perception of what
occurred."152 However, the Court expressly recognized that "there will inevitably be
inconsistencies between reports written before and after review of BWV due to the
inherent limits of human perception and memory."153 As such, any policy restricting
officer's ability to review BWC evidence should include a clear statement that
inconsistencies are expected and that not all discrepancies between video and officer
recall and reporting implies dishonesty.
4. How can the program support transparency?
Nationally, there is a movement towards greater and timely transparency at the state
level. California requires release of body worn camera recordings within 45 days of
the incident154. Governor Lamont of Connecticut issued an executive order requiring
release of state police body worn camera evidence within four days155. Colorado
requires video evidence to be released within 21 days156. Municipalities and police
departments have also moved towards greater transparency with video evidence. As
examples, the D.C. Metro Police release video evidence within five days of the
151 Police Executive Research Forum/Community Oriented Policing Services, U.S.
Department of Justice, Implementing a Body-Worn Camera Program: Recommendations and
Lessons Learned 29 (2014).
152 12-cv-1282 (JLR), Dkt. No. 390.
153 Id. at 7.
154 Cal. A.B. 748 (2018),
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180AB748.
155 Press Release, Governor Ned Lamont, Governor Lamont Signs Executive Order
Modernizing Police Strategies and Programs (June 15, 2020), https://portal.ct.gov/Office-ofthe-Governor
/News/Press-Releases/2020/06-2020/Governor-Lamont-Signs-Executive-Order-
Modernizing-Police-Strategies-and-Programs
156 Colo. S.B. 20-217, https://leg.colorado.gov/sites/default/files/2020a_217_signed.pdf.
129
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
incident157; the Seattle Police Department requires release of objective evidence
within 72 hours158.
There are many logistical concerns and the specific information release policy that
applies to any jurisdiction must be specifically tailored, but what is important is that
the protocols are developed ahead of time and not during a crisis. In 21CP's
experience, the increased legitimacy and trust that occurs with transparency far
outweighs any logistical concerns of releasing objective evidence in matters of public
concern as soon as possible. Providing objective evidence fills the speculative gaps for
members of the public and can help alleviate social unrest around critical incidents.
To be fair, POSPD has relatively few "critical events" and does not spend much time
defending its actions in the press. That being said, a clear media policy stating what
will be released and when is critical to the development of a BWC program, including:
Specific timing of release of information, regardless of whether the objective
evidence appears favorable or dis-favorable to the department or the Port;
Clear parameters for any statements by any member of the department to
ensure that the statements are factual and do not pre-judge the incident159;
A prohibition on releasing the criminal background of the subject of the critical
incident, except as specifically relevant to the incident itself; and
A commitment to regularly update the public on developments in the
investigation.
157 D.C. Act 23-336 (2020), https://lims.dccouncil.us/downloads/LIMS/45307/Signed_Act/B23-
0825-Signed_Act.pdf.
158 https://www.seattle.gov/police-manual/title-1---department-administration/1115---media-
release-officer-involved-shooting
159 https://deborahjacobs.medium.com/stop-police-false-narratives-about-officer-involveddeaths-d34cb539ee25
(Article by Training & Development Co-Chair, Deborah Jacobs).
130
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
Table of Recommendations
General Recommendations
RECOMMENDATION NO. 1. POSPD SHOULD CONTINUE TO SCRUTINIZE THE
INTENT AND LANGUAGE OF EVERY LEXIPOL POLICY AND MODIFY THE
POLICIES TO ENSURE THAT THEY MEET BEST PRACTICES AND NOT JUST
LEGAL MINIMUMS. 11
RECOMMENDATION NO. 2. AS THE POSPD GATHERS MORE DATA ON OFFICER
ACTIVITY, THE DEPARTMENT SHOULD CONTINUE TO SCRUTINIZE THAT
DATA FOR ANY DISPARITIES IN USE OF FORCE AND WORK TO ENSURE THAT
POSPD'S DEPLOYMENT STRATEGIES AND APPROACH TO POLICING
MINIMIZE THOSE DISPARITIES. 12
RECOMMENDATION NO. 3. THE PORT SHOULD CONSIDER CREATING A
QUARTERLY PORT SAFETY COMMITTEE TO BRING INTERESTED
STAKEHOLDERS TOGETHER. 14
RECOMMENDATION NO. 4. THE PORT SHOULD CONDUCT A STUDY OF THE
INTERNAL ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE AND COMMUNICATIONS
INVOLVING THE POSPD TO DETERMINE HOW TO BEST ACCOMPLISH THE
GOAL OF ENHANCING POSPD TRANSPARENCY THROUGH REGULAR
ENGAGEMENT WITH PORT LEADERSHIP. 14
RECOMMENDATION NO. 5. CUSTOMER SERVICES AND THE POSPD SHOULD
DEVELOP OR REFINE PROTOCOLS ON THE HANDLING OF COMPLAINTS AND
COMPLIMENTS ABOUT PORT POLICE OFFICERS. 21
RECOMMENDATION NO. 6. PORT LEADERSHIP SHOULD SUPPORT THE POSPD BY
DEVELOPING FIRST RESPONDER ALTERNATIVES TO INCIDENTS INVOLVING
THE HOMELESS THAT DO NOT INVOLVE ARMED POSPD OFFICERS AND
INCREASE ACCESS TO HOLISTIC RESOURCES. 23
RECOMMENDATION NO. 7. THE POSPD SHOULD COMMENCE A CAMPAIGN OF
INTERNAL PROCEDURAL JUSTICE TRAINING FOR ALL LEVELS OF THE
DEPARTMENT TO HELP ADDRESS THE BROAD-BASED SENSE OF INEQUITY,
ESPECIALLY WITH EMPLOYEES OF COLOR. 27
Use of Force Recommendations
RECOMMENDATION NO. 8. THE DEPARTMENT SHOULD CONSIDER
RESTRUCTURING THE USE OF FORCE POLICIES INTO A UNIFIED POLICY. 49
RECOMMENDATION NO. 9. THE MISSION AND VISION STATEMENTS IN THE
POLICY MANUAL SHOULD MORE CLEARLY INDICATE THE DEPARTMENT'S
COMMITMENT, IN ALL OF ITS ACTIVITIES, TO VALUING AND UPHOLDING
i
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
EQUITY AND FAIRNESS, DE-ESCALATION, THE SANCTITY OF HUMAN LIFE,
AND ACHIEVING THE BEST POSSIBLE OUTCOME FOR ALL INVOLVED. 50
RECOMMENDATION NO. 10. THE DE-ESCALATION POLICY SHOULD BE UPDATED
TO MAKE DE-ESCALATION ATTEMPTS MANDATORY, WHEN POSSIBLE TO DO
SO, AND TO ADD DE-ESCALATION TACTICS. 51
RECOMMENDATION NO. 11. THE USE OF FORCE POLICY SHOULD EXPRESSLY
REQUIRE THAT ANY USE OF FORCE BE OBJECTIVELY REASONABLE,
NECESSARY, AND PROPORTIONAL. 54
RECOMMENDATION NO. 12. THE USE OF FORCE POLICY SHOULD REQUIRE
OFFICERS TO PROVIDE A WARNING, WHEN SAFE AND FEASIBLE, BEFORE
USING ANY FORCE. 56
RECOMMENDATION NO. 13. THE USE OF FORCE POLICY SHOULD REQUIRE
OFFICERS TO PROVIDE MEDICAL CARE WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THEIR
TRAINING AND IMMEDIATELY SUMMON MEDICAL AID TO THE SCENE. 58
RECOMMENDATION NO. 14. POLICY SHOULD BE REVISED TO REQUIRE OFFICERS
TO REPORT AND DOCUMENT ALL FORCE THEY USE AND/OR WITNESS. 59
RECOMMENDATION NO. 15. THE USE OF FORCE REPORTING POLICY SHOULD
REQUIRE THAT A SUPERVISOR RESPOND TO ALL APPLICATIONS OF
REPORTABLE FORCE, NOT JUST THOSE THAT RESULT IN "VISIBLE INJURY."
60
RECOMMENDATION NO. 16. THE POSPD SHOULD CONSIDER HAVING OFFICERS
ENTER USE OF FORCE REPORTS DIRECTLY INTO BLUETEAM, RATHER THAN
HAVING A SUPERVISOR GATHER AND PRESENT FACTS. THE SUPERVISOR'S
INVESTIGATION AND ALL SUPPORTING MATERIALS SHOULD BE
CONSOLIDATED IN BLUETEAM AND ROUTED TO THE CHAIN OF COMMAND
THROUGH THE SYSTEM. 60
RECOMMENDATION NO. 17. THE POSPD SHOULD MAXIMIZE ITS TRANSPARENCY
BY PUBLISHING DATA AND REPORTS ON ITS WEBSITE AND REGULARLY
REPORTING THE INFORMATION TO THE COMMISSION. 62
RECOMMENDATION NO. 18. VIDEO EVIDENCE SHOULD BE DOWNLOADED AND
INCLUDED IN BLUETEAM OR LINKED WITHIN THE SYSTEM. 62
RECOMMENDATION NO. 19. POSPD SHOULD CREATE A STANDING USE OF FORCE
REVIEW COMMITTEE, TO INCLUDE A TRAINING OFFICER, THE IA OFFICER,
AND COMMAND STAFF, EXCLUSIVE OF THE CHIEF, AND TASKED WITH
REVIEWING EVERY USE OF FORCE. 63
ii
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
Mutual Aid Recommendations
RECOMMENDATION NO. 20. THE POSPD SHOULD CONTINUE TO TAKE THE LEAD
ON UPDATING CURRENT MUTUAL AID AGREEMENTS TO DRIVE BEST
PRACTICES REGIONALLY AND ALIGN WITH THE NEW STATE POLICING
LAWS. 70
RECOMMENDATION NO. 21. AFTER ENGAGING IN MUTUAL AID DEPLOYMENTS,
AT THE PORT OR IN OTHER JURISDICTIONS, POSPD SHOULD ACTIVELY
ENGAGE IN AFTER-ACTION ASSESSMENTS AND TRACK ALL RESULTING
RECOMMENDATIONS. 71
RECOMMENDATION NO. 22. THE POSPD SHOULD DEVELOP ITS OWN CROWD
MANAGEMENT POLICY OUTLINING THE POSPD TERMS OF ENGAGEMENT,
FACILITATION OF FIRST AMENDMENT ACTIVITIES, AND WHICH
SPECIFICALLY SETS FORTH THE POSPD ENGAGEMENT STRATEGY WITH
DEMONSTRATION LEADERSHIP. 71
RECOMMENDATION NO. 23. THE PORT SHOULD ADD SPECIFIC APPROVAL
CRITERIA AND PROCESSES REQUIRED BEFORE DEPLOYING RESOURCES
FOR MUTUAL AID. 72
Oversight, Accountability, Equity and Civil Rights Recommendations
RECOMMENDATION NO. 24. POSPD SHOULD ADOPT THE PORT OF SEATTLE CODE
OF CONDUCT INTO POLICY. 83
RECOMMENDATION NO. 25. POSPD POLICY SHOULD MAKE EXPLICIT THE TYPES
OF COMPLAINTS THAT SHOULD BE PURSUED INTERNALLY VERSES THOSE
THAT SHOULD BE HANDLED THROUGH PORT OF SEATTLE HUMAN
RESOURCES, WORKPLACE RESPONSIBILITY, OR OTHER AVENUES OF
COMPLAINT, WITH EXPLICIT PROTOCOLS BETWEEN COMPONENTS
DEVELOPED, INCLUDING TIMELINES FOR COMPLETING INVESTIGATIONS
OF EMPLOYEE COMPLAINTS. 84
RECOMMENDATION NO. 26. THE COMPLAINT CLASSIFICATION SCHEME
(INQUIRY AND MINOR, MODERATE. OR MAJOR COMPLAINT) SHOULD BE
REVISED AS IT IS UNNECESSARILY TECHNICAL, THE TERMS USED ARE NOT
CONSISTENTLY WELL DEFINED, AND USE OF A METHODOLOGY TO ASSIST
IN COMPLAINT CLASSIFICATION WILL PROMOTE OBJECTIVITY AND
CONSISTENCY. 85
RECOMMENDATION NO. 27. WHEN AN ON-DUTY SUPERVISOR HANDLES
COMPLAINT INTAKE AND THE INVESTIGATION OF AN INQUIRY OR MINOR
COMPLAINT, THEIR INVESTIGATION MEMO SHOULD INDICATE THE
RATIONALE BEHIND THE CLASSIFICATION DECISION, THE COMPLAINT
CLASSIFICATION SHOULD BE EXPLICITLY APPROVED BY THE COMMANDER,
iii
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
AND COMPLAINT CLASSIFICATION DECISIONS SHOULD BE REGULARLY
AUDITED TO CHECK FOR CONSISTENCY IN APPLICATION OF POLICY AND
OTHER CLASSIFICATION GUIDANCE. 87
RECOMMENDATION NO. 28. THOUGH THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE OF MISSED
TIMELINES FOR COMPLETING INVESTIGATIONS, BEST PRACTICE WOULD BE
TO SET TIMELINES FOR EACH STEP IN THE PROCESS, FROM COMPLAINT
INTAKE THROUGH A FINAL DISPOSITION, INCLUDING NOTICE TO THE
NAMED OFFICER AND COMPLAINANT, AND THE TIMELINES SHOULD BE
REFLECTED IN AN UPDATED COMPLAINT INTAKE FLOWCHART, AND POLICY
SHOULD BE CLARIFIED AS TO ACCEPTABLE REASONS FOR EXTENDING
TIMELINES, IDENTIFY WHO HAS AUTHORITY TO GRANT AN EXTENSION,
AND NOTE ANY LIMITS ON THE LENGTH OF AN EXTENSION. 88
RECOMMENDATION NO. 29. THE POSPD SHOULD DEVELOP POLICY THAT
IDENTIFIES POTENTIAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST AND PROTOCOLS TO
ADDRESS ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED CONFLICTS RELATED TO MISCONDUCT
COMPLAINT HANDLING AND DISCIPLINE MATTERS. 89
RECOMMENDATION NO. 30.THE PORT SHOULD EXPLORE ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE
RESOLUTION (ADR) OPTIONS FOR RESOLVING SOME COMPLAINTS,
WHETHER OR NOT THEY INVOLVE THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, AS ADR DOES
NOT APPEAR TO BE AN OPTION FOR CASE PROCESSING IN THE POSPD,
HUMAN RESOURCES, OR WORKPLACE RESPONSIBILITY. 90
RECOMMENDATION NO. 31. THERE ARE A NUMBER OF WAYS TO MAKE THE
POSPD AND COMPLAINT FILING SYSTEM MORE ACCESSIBLE TO
STAKEHOLDERS, INCLUDING MODIFYING THE COMPLAINT FORM,
CHANGING THE ON-LINE SEARCH SYSTEM, AND IDENTIFYING POLICE
FACILITIES ON SEA-TAC AIRPORT MAPS. 90
Diversity in Recruitment and Hiring Recommendations
RECOMMENDATION NO. 32. THE PORT SHOULD COORDINATE WITH THE POLICE
DEPARTMENT, HUMAN RESOURCES, AND OTHER PORT COMPONENTS TO
CONSOLIDATE DATA SOURCES WITH THE GOAL OF DEVELOPING A ROBUST
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYTIC APPROACH TO BETTER UNDERSTAND
THE RECRUITMENT AND HIRING OF POLICE DEPARTMENT PERSONNEL,
INCLUDING AT WHICH STAGE WOMEN AND/OR APPLICANTS OF DIVERSE
ETHNIC AND RACIAL BACKGROUNDS HAVE HIGH FAIL RATES, AND
IDENTIFY OPPORTUNITIES FOR IMPROVEMENT. 100
RECOMMENDATION NO. 33. THE PORT SHOULD DEVELOP CLEAR GUIDANCE ON
THE BENCHMARKS TO BE USED IN ASSESSING THE AVAILABILITY AND
UTILIZATION OF PERSONS IDENTIFYING WITH DIFFERENT ETHNIC AND
RACIAL GROUPS, INCLUDING THE RATIONALE FOR USING CENSUS DATA
FROM SPECIFIC AREAS. 100
iv
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
RECOMMENDATION NO. 34. THE PORT SHOULD EXPLORE THE REASONING
BEHIND THE SIGNIFICANT PERCENTAGE (20-25%) OF EMPLOYEES WHO DO
NOT REPORT THEIR RACE/ETHNICITY AND CONSIDER THE IMPACT OF THIS
MISSING DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION ON EMPLOYEE DEMOGRAPHIC
DATA ANALYSIS FOR IDENTIFYING AND ADDRESSING ANY DISPARITIES IN
HIRING AND OTHER EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES. 101
RECOMMENDATION NO. 35. THE PORT AND POLICE DEPARTMENT SHOULD
CONSIDER USING NON-BINARY GENDER DESIGNATIONS. 102
RECOMMENDATION NO. 36. DEVELOP A RECRUITMENT PLAN AIMED AT
INCREASING THE NUMBER OF HISPANIC/LATINO INDIVIDUALS APPLYING
TO BE A POLICE OFFICER AT THE POSPD. 103
RECOMMENDATION NO. 37. CONSIDER A VARIETY OF RECRUITMENT
SUGGESTIONS MADE BY THE DIVERSITY IN RECRUITMENT AND HIRING
SUBCOMMITTEE TO GATHER INFORMATION AND TO REACH OUT TO YOUTH
AND OTHER COMMUNITIES TO GARNER INTEREST IN POLICING AND IN THE
POSPD. 104
RECOMMENDATION NO. 38. FOLLOW-UP WITH PUBLIC SAFETY TESTING TO
EXPLORE WHY FEMALE APPLICANTS TO THE PORT OF SEATTLE POLICE
DEPARTMENT FAIL THE WRITTEN TEST AT A HIGHER LEVEL THAN MALE
APPLICANTS AND WHETHER THE PORT IS RECEIVING ALL DATA ANALYTICS
NEEDED TO ASSESS APPLICANT AND HIRING PATTERNS AND GIVE FOLLOWUP
CONSIDERATION AS TO WHY THERE HAVE BEEN NO FEMALE ENTRYLEVEL
HIRES IN THE PAST THREE YEARS. 105
RECOMMENDATION NO. 39. INCREASE THE NUMBER OF CIVILIANS, PULLING
FROM DIVERSE EMPLOYEE GROUPS SUCH AS EMPLOYEE RESOURCE
GROUPS (ERGS), TO BE TRAINED AND AVAILABLE TO SERVE ON ORAL
BOARDS, SO THAT THEY CAN ROTATE IN WHEN AVAILABLE TO ASSIST WITH
THIS STEP OF THE HIRING PROCESS AND CONSIDER WAYS TO ASSESS
WHETHER THE TRAINING PROVIDED TO MINIMIZE THE IMPACT OF
IMPLICIT BIAS HAS POSITIVE IMPACTS. 106
RECOMMENDATION NO. 40. REVIEW ORAL BOARD QUESTIONS TO DETERMINE IF
THEY ARE ELICITING RESPONSES THAT ADDRESS THE SUBJECT AREA
BEHIND EACH QUESTION, SUCH AS ASSESSING CHARACTER, AND
CONSIDER WHETHER THE ORAL BOARD SHOULD INCLUDE QUESTIONS
DIRECTLY ASKING APPLICANTS ABOUT INVOLVEMENT IN EXTREMIST
GROUPS, ABOUT AN ENCOUNTER WITH SOMEONE OF A DIFFERENT RACE,
SEXUAL ORIENTATION, ETC., WHETHER THEY HAVE EVER BEEN THE
SUBJECT OF DISCRIMINATION THEMSELVES, OR THE COMMUNITY GROUPS
THEY BELONG TO. 106
RECOMMENDATION NO. 41. CONSIDER WHETHER SOME LIMITED FOLLOW-UP
QUESTIONS BY ORAL BOARD MEMBERS SHOULD BE PERMITTED. 107
v
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
RECOMMENDATION NO. 42. BRING REPRESENTATIVES OF ALL ERGS INTO THE
RECRUITMENT AND HIRING PROCESS AT ALL STEPS, NOT JUST FOR ORAL
BOARDS, SO THAT A VARIETY OF PERSPECTIVES AND IDEAS ARE SHARED
WITH THE POLICE DEPARTMENT AND THE PORT THROUGHOUT THE
PROCESS. 107
RECOMMENDATION NO. 43. WHILE POINTS CAN BE ADDED TO AN APPLICANT'S
SCORE IF THEY SPEAK A SECOND LANGUAGE, CONSIDER A PAY INCENTIVE
OR HIRING PREFERENCE FOR THE ABILITY TO SPEAK MORE THAN ONE
LANGUAGE, ENCOURAGING MULTILINGUALISM FOR APPLICANTS AND
CURRENT EMPLOYEES. 107
Training and Development Recommendations
RECOMMENDATION NO. 44. THE POSPD SHOULD CONSIDER RANKING
APPLICANTS FOR SPECIAL TEAM ASSIGNMENTS TO INCREASE
TRANSPARENCY IN THOSE PROCESSES. 114
RECOMMENDATION NO. 45. THE POSPD SHOULD CONTINUE TO TRAIN DEESCALATION
AS A CORE ENGAGEMENT PHILOSOPHY. 115
RECOMMENDATION NO. 46. THE POSPD SHOULD CONTINUE TO STRESS A
"GUARDIAN MENTALITY" IN ITS TRAININGS. 116
RECOMMENDATION NO. 47. THE POSPD SHOULD PROVIDE POSITIVE EXAMPLES
TO REINFORCE GOOD POLICE TACTICS RATHER THAN STRESSING POOR
OUTCOMES IN TRAINING. 117
RECOMMENDATION NO. 48. THE POSPD SHOULD CONTINUE TO UTILIZE
NATIONAL AND LOCAL LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES, BUT
WITH TRANSPARENT SELECTION CRITERIA. 117
RECOMMENDATION NO. 49. THE POSPD SHOULD CONSIDER INCORPORATING
EXISTING COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT OPPORTUNITIES AS PART OF
TRAINING TO BETTER UNDERSTAND CULTURAL DIFFERENCES. 118
Advocacy Recommendations
RECOMMENDATION NO. 50. POSPD SHOULD CONTINUE TO INCORPORATE THE
NEW LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS INTO POLICY AND REINFORCE THOSE
CHANGES THROUGH TRAINING. 122
RECOMMENDATION NO. 51. THE PORT SHOULD CONTINUE TO ENGAGE WITH
KEY STAKEHOLDERS AND ELECTED OFFICIALS ON EMERGING STATE AND
FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 122
vi
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
Budget, Roles, and Equipment Recommendation
RECOMMENDATION NO. 52. AS BODY WORN CAMERA PROGRAM IS DEVELOPED,
THE POSPD SHOULD CONSIDER POLICY CHOICES AROUND WHEN CAMERAS
SHOULD BE ACTIVATED, WHAT ARE ACCEPTABLE USES FOR BWC FOOTAGE,
WHEN OFFICERS MAY VIEW FOOTAGE, AND HOW THE BWC PROGRAM CAN
SUPPORT OVERALL TRANSPARENCY. 127
vii
Brian Maxey
Kathryn Olson
Project Leads
Matthew Barge
Ganesha Martin
Kathleen O'Toole
Charles H. Ramsey
Sean Smoot
Project Team
21CP Solutions
Limitations of Translatable Documents
PDF files are created with text and images are placed at an exact position on a page of a fixed size.
Web pages are fluid in nature, and the exact positioning of PDF text creates presentation problems.
PDFs that are full page graphics, or scanned pages are generally unable to be made accessible, In these cases, viewing whatever plain text could be extracted is the only alternative.