| Number | Recommendation | PD Response | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| 23-01 | When a use of force is discovered as undocumented, enter the case into Blue Team for proper routing, tracking, reporting, and evaluation purposes in addition to filing an internal complaint for the policy violation. | If a use of force is discovered during an investigation or is undocumented, a BlueTeam needs to be done and an internal complaint needs to be done when appropriate. | Implemented |
| 23-02 | I (Ombudsman) recommend the ARP always include in their memo the applicable policies and document their analysis of an officer’s tactical conduct prior to providing findings. The ARP should base their analysis on what the officer knew at the time. When there are simultaneous or consecutive uses of force, the ARP should closely evaluate and document the necessity of each additional use of force. | ARP’s currently include the applicable policies related to an internal investigation in their review. Every application of force should be analyzed under the Graham vs. Connor analysis and that analysis for each application of force should be documented in the ARP’s review. | Implemented |
| 23-03 | I (Ombudsman) recommend any new allegations of misconduct found during a chain of command review be forwarded to IA for investigation. This will ensure due process for employees and maintain a consistent standard within the department. | Allegations of minor policy violations, found during a chain of command review (use of force, pursuit, or collision reviews), are handled at the lowest level and are addressed through appropriate sanctions via the Administrative Review. If the policy violation found during a chain of command review is egregious (any violations if proven true would lead to suspension, demotion, or termination), an Internal Complaint will be generated. If the policy violation is a repeat behavior that requires a higher level of progressive discipline, there is a need for additional information or to have interviews to gather additional information, an Internal Complaint may be initiated. Administrative Reviews are done on minor policy violations when there is sufficient evidence to show that the act occurred and there is no need for further investigation.
Using the Administrative Review allows for minor policy violations to be addressed through the chain of command review. Administrative Reviews allow us to track these violations and to document the violation/s for each officer as appropriate. The purpose of discipline is to correct behavior, to hold the officer accountable and to document the policy violation/s to be used, when appropriate, for progressive discipline. Any findings of policy violations through the Administrative Review process are recorded in the officer’s Internal Affairs file. |
Not implemented |
| 23-04 | I (Ombudsman) recommend any a/legations of misconduct currently being labeled as “Administrative Review” be properly classified as a personnel complaint and forwarded to IA for investigation. | Allegations of misconduct, when minor policy violations, found during a chain of command review (use of force, pursuit, or collision reviews), are handled at the lowest level and are addressed through appropriate sanctions via the Administrative Review. If the policy violation found during a chain of command review is egregious (any violations if proven true would lead to suspension, demotion, or termination), an Internal Complaint will be generated. If the policy violation is a repeat behavior that requires a higher level of progressive discipline, there is a need for additional information or to have interviews to gather additional information, an Internal Complaint may be initiated. Administrative Reviews are done on policy violations when there is sufficient evidence to show that the act occurred and there is no need for further investigation.
Using the Administrative Review allows for minor policy violations to be addressed through ttie chain of command review. Administrative Reviews allow us to track these violations and to document the violation/s for each officer as appropriate. The purpose of discipline is to correct behavior, to hold the officer accountable and to document the policy violation/s to be used, when appropriate, for progressive discipline. Any findings of policy violations through the Administrative Review process are recorded in the officer’s Internal Affairs file. |
Not implemented |
| 23-05 | I (Ombudsman) recommend that Administrative Reviews be clearly addressed in policy, when they apply, and what the procedures are for them. | The Administrative Review has been added to the BlueTeam Procedural Guide, to the IA SOP and policy 1020. | Implemented |
| 23-06 | In addition to establishing a tracking system which accounts for all uses of force as previously recommended in OPO Recommendation 19-03, I recommend that the Spokane Police Department change its current terminology of non-reportable force to nonreviewable force which would reinforce that all force, regardless of severity, is required to be reported on which only a subsection of that force receives automatic chain of command and subsequent reviews. | Our response to the first portion of this recommendation is the same as the response to OPO Recommendation 19-03. SPD is willing to work with your office to determine a method to accurately track reportable uses of force, in addition to reviewable uses force which are already tracked; however we are currently limited by our technology. We hope to have the requisite technology to do this by the fourth quarter of 2024, pending funding and approval for updated software.
The Spokane Police Department is constantly updating our policy manual to ensure we stay current with case law and best practices. The policy manual update on October 14, 2019, does require that fill uses of force be documented, either via a Blue Team review, in a police incident report, or Computer Aided Dispatch entry. Additionally SPD did update its policy on October 14, 2019 to reflect the definitions of “Reportable Force” and “Reviewable Force”, as well as which process will be utilized based on the circumstances of the applied force. |
Not implemented (pending funding for updated software) / Implemented |
| 23-07 | I recommend that the Spokane Police Department ensures that parameters regarding the use of approved police techniques and equipment be clearly placed into policy or standard operating procedures to ensure that the uses follow Washington state laws governing force, compliance, and de-escalation. | The parameters regarding the use of approved police techniques and equipment by the Spokane Police Department follow Washington state laws governing force, compliance and de-escalation. The Spokane Police Department utilizes Lexipol as its foundation for policy development and compliance. Lexipol describes the programs they offer to law enforcement as, “170+ state-specific policies written by industry experts and kept up to date as legislation and best practices change, with an accompanying procedure guide and framework.” The product offered to Washington state law enforcement agencies is compliant and kept up to date with legislative and case law updates.
The recommendation from the OPO appears to be conflating tactics with techniques. Tactics are not necessarily synonymous with techniques. Tactics are closely aligned with ·strategy (such as those used to safely approach a suspect or to gain entry to a premises), whereas techniques relate to control techniques which are employed in the application of physical force. Techniques are discussed in detail in SPD Policy 301 (“Use of Force”), Policy 302 (“Deadly Force”), and Policy 308 (“Control Devices and Techniques”). Additionally, Policy 300 (“De-escalation”) provides guidance on strategies (de-escalation when available and appropriate) to avoid having to use force (techniques) or minimize the force necessary. Additionally, SPD relies heavily on the 1989 U.S. Supreme Court case Graham versus Connor, which reads in part: Determining whether the force used to effect a particular seizure is “reasonable” under the Fourth Amendment requires a careful balancing of “‘the nature and quality of the intrusion on the individual’s Fourth Amendment interests’” against the countervailing governmental interests at stake. Id., at 8, quoting United States v. Place, 462 U.S. 696, 703 (1983). Our Fourth Amendment jurisprudence has long recognized that the right to make an arrest or investigatory stop necessarily carries with it the right to use some degree of physical coercion or threat thereof to effect it. See Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S., at 22 -27. Because “[t]he test of reasonableness under the Fourth Amendment is not capable of precise definition or mechanical application,” Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 559 (1979), however, its proper application requires careful attention to the facts and circumstances of each particular case, including the severity of the crime at issue, whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others, and whether he is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight. See Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S., at 8 -9 (the question is “whether the totality of the circumstances justifie[s] a particular sort of .. . seizure”). The “reasonableness” of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight. See Terry v. Ohio, supra, at 20-22. With respect to a claim of excessive force, the same standard of reasonableness at the moment applies: “Not every push or shove, even if it may later seem unnecessary in the peace of a judge’s chambers,” violates the Fourth Amendment. The calculus of reasonableness must embody [490 U.S. 386, 397] allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second judgments - in circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving - about the amount of force that is necessary in a particular situation. |
Implemented |
| 23-08 | I recommend that the use of force review board provide formal feedback to supervisors on departmental guidance when significant differences in critical evaluations occur. | When the Use for Force Review Board identifies that there is a significant variance in a finding on a Blue Team from the finding recommendations through the Chain of Command, they will identify it and the BlueTeam will be discussed and analyzed at Sergeant’s Training and/or Senior Staff. | Implemented |
| 23-09 | The OPO recommends SPD implement a formal tracking system that alerts the UOFRB, training academy, or appropriate persons when a recommendation for training is made during a chain of command review. This will ensure that when a need for a training opportunity is identified, the recommendation can be tracked through implementation. | Ms. Armstrong reviews all Blue Teams (complaints, uses of force, collisions, pursuits) once they are concluded. Through this review, she tracks when a need for training is identified and ensures that the training has been done. This information is used to compile annual reports that are shared with the Chief.
Going forward, Ms. Armstrong will formally track this process and ensure that the documentation of the training is added to the Blue Team report as well as the officer’s file. On an annual basis, Ms. Armstrong will forward the spreadsheet to the Director of Strategic Initiatives, the Academy Lieutenant, the Academy Training Sergeant, Majors, Assistant Chief and the Chief for information and appropriate follow-up if necessary. |
Implemented |
| 23-10 | The OPO recommends SPD update is use of force policy, 301.14.3, language from “misconduct” to “policy violation” when making referrals to Internal Affairs, “if force could rise to the level of a policy violation, or the supervisor sees conduct that could rise to the level of a policy violation, the supervisor shall initiate an Internal Affairs complaint in Blue Team. | Policy violations that rise to the level of misconduct, discovered during a BlueTeam review, are addressed within the review if the violation is determined to be a minor policy violation. Any sustained policy violations are administered appropriate sanctions and attached to the officer’s Internal Affairs file for tracking and accountability purposes.
Policy violations of a minor nature are handled within the Blue Team review. Per our response to R23-03: Allegations of misconduct, when minor policy violations, found during a chain of command review (use of force, pursuit, or collision reviews), are handled at the lowest level and are addressed through appropriate sanctions via the Administrative Review. If the policy violation found during a chain of command review is egregious, an Internal Affairs Complaint will be generated. Additionally, if the policy violation is repeat behavior by the officer that requires a higher level of progressive discipline, or if there is a need for additional information to determine if a policy violation occurred, or further interviews are necessary, an Internal Complaint may be initiated. Using the Administrative Review process allows for minor policy violations to be addressed through the chain of command review. Administrative Reviews allows SPD to track these violations and to document the misconduct for each officer as appropriate. The purpose of discipline is to correct behavior, to hold officers accountable, and to document the misconduct. To be clear, any behavior determined to be a policy violation, whether through a BlueTeam chain of command review or a separate Internal Affairs complaint, is documented and attached to the officer’s Internal Affairs file, including sanctions associated with the violation. SPD takes the actions of its officers with great seriousness, while also acknowledging best practices encourage minor violations to be handled at the lowest reasonable level while ensuring accountability is maintained. |
Not implemented |
| 23-11 | The OPO recommends SPD update is policy manual to ensure proper determinations in reviews. The chain of command reviews should be limited to determinations of “in policy” or “out of policy.” If any supervisor during a review believes an officer’s conduct is potentially out of policy, then they must send the case to Internal Affairs for investigation. | In addition to ensuring policies have been followed, BlueTeam reviews allow each supervisory level of SPD to review the incident and provide feedback related to the incident and the officer(s) response. Documenting the reasoning for the supervisor’s findings is an integral part of that review, as it allows the supervisor to explain their findings, bring forth other issues discovered during the review, and generate conversations related to the circumstances surrounding the incident. Robust discussions surrounding sensitive topics such as applications of force should be encouraged, not stifled. We as an agency can only grow through these discussions, considering all opinions and input, while the Chiefs Office or designee has the final say regarding compliance or non-compliance.
The second portion of this recommendation garners the same response as noted in R23-10. |
Not implemented |
| 23-12 | The OPO recommends SPD clearly define the limits of a training failure. When SPD identifies a series of training failures, then it must take the appropriate steps to ensure it is investing the time to properly train its officers. Alternatively, if it is the individual officer struggling, SPD must identify what steps are required to help an officer understand the training. | A training failure is identified when the chain of command identifies behavior that shows the officer did not understand current policy, procedures, or case law and it is a minor policy violation. There are factors taken into consideration, such as the experience of the officer, their assignment, decision making or thought process of the officer, specific circumstances, or if it is a low frequency incident, for example. The objective when a training failure is identified is to correct the behavior.
The steps required to help the officer are identified by the Chain of Command during their review. Once the Blue Team is concluded, the Blue Team goes to the Academy for the appropriate training to be provided to the officer. Officers considered subject matter experts or training cadre typically provide the training, and the training plan is attached to the Blue Team for documentation. (see R23-09) The Use of Force board is utilized to determine if there is a trend in training failures and if so, to incorporate the training into department-wide training. |
Implemented |
| 23-13 | The OPO recommends that SPD create metrics to ensure that supervisory and review board evaluations and determinations are tracked and evaluated per reviewer to ensure supervisors and reviewers are upholding policy and high standards in their review of police conduct. | Supervisory and review board evaluations and determinations are tracked, through the BlueTeam process and what can be extrapolated utilizing the database, through the Minutes of the review boards, as well as through the use of a spreadsheet (see R23-09). Once the chain of command review is done, a use of force is reviewed by the Use of Force Review Board to evaluate the incident for training, equipment needs and policy and standard operating procedures in place or practiced department-wide. (Policy 302) | Implemented |
Office of Police Ombudsman
1st Floor, City Hall
808 W. Spokane Falls Blvd.
Spokane, WA 99201
Phone: 509.625.6742
Fax: 509.625.6748
Regular Office Hours: 8:00 a.m. - 4:30 p.m.
Monday through Friday
opo@spokanecity.org
Bart Logue
Police Ombudsman
Luvimae Omana
Deputy Ombudsman
Christina Coty
Administrative Specialist
Tim Szambelan
Police Ombudsman Attorney
