2024 Recommendations

Number Recommendation PD Response Status
24-01 SPD should move the duty to intervene out of the use of force policy to remove confusion on its application and make it a standalone policy. We agree that removing the duty to intervene verbiage from policy 301 into its own policy will make it clearer that duty to intervene is not only related to use of force. Implemented (policy modification is in process)
24-02 The OPO recommends IA investigators include the IA Checklist in every case and require other members of IA to fill out a conflict-of-interest form if they participate in any interviews. Internal Affairs has implemented this recommendation. Implemented
24-03 The OPO recommends IA update its Standard Operating Procedures and Conflict of Interest Form to include whether an assigned investigator has knowledge or material information that would cause a conflict of interest. Internal Affairs has implemented this recommendation. Implemented
24-04 There appears to be a discrepancy between the ARP’s interpretation of what it means to keep personnel investigations confidential due to what item 8 in the R&R form says. IA should update the form to remove the conflicting statements so that the form complies with SPD Policy 1020.8.1’s confidentiality requirements. Internal Affairs is in the process of implementing this recommendation. Implemented
24-05 SPD should adopt a critical decision-making model or something similar regarding pursuits. The use of a decision-making model can assist officers and supervisors in deciding whether to initiate a pursuit, gathering and evaluating information during the pursuit, and deciding when to discontinue. SPD should also develop specialized training for other personnel (e.g., supervisors, communications personnel, incident commanders) who may play a role in a pursuit or pursuit review. The Spokane Police Department utilizes policy 314, Vehicle Pursuit Policy, as our decision making model. This policy outlines when to initiate a pursuit, prohibited actions, when to terminate, etc. This policy was revised in August 2024 and is more restrictive than RCWs. Spokane Police Department’s training unithas already begun additional training on our pursuit policy, to include group discussion and case studies on risk management and critical decision making on pursuits at the monthly supervisor’s training. We are required by CJTC to have EVOC training every other year. On the EVOC year we will conduct a minimum of one other pursuit training and on the off EVOC years, we will do a minimum of two pursuit related trainings. The additional trainings will be via Training Bulletin, in-service, or Field In-service Training. Implemented
24-06 In-service training on the vehicle pursuit policy should occur at least once per year and could include both in-service and roll call components. See R24-05 Implemented
24-07 SPD should consider purchasing, sharing, or leasing a driver simulator that can incorporate scenario-based and decision-making training to provide practical refresher training. The Spokane Police Department supports purchasing, share or leasing a driving simulator to incorporate scenario-based and decision-making training related to pursuits. Given our budget, this is not something we can currently afford. Not Implemented
24-08 SPD should use this incident to provide department-wide scenario-based training in pursuits, specifically reminding officers to maintain hyperawareness of their surroundings and in radio discipline during pursuits. This has been incorporated into recent pursuit training and will continue to be included in future pursuit related training. Implemented
24-09 SPD should ensure all supervisors who authorize pursuits write a report detailing their justification for the pursuit pursuant to SPD Policy 314.2.2. 314.2.2 applies to a situation when “reasonable suspicion exists to believe a crime was committed for which initiation of pursuit is authorized by RCW 10.116.060 but is not otherwise authorized under SPD Policy 314.2.1.” The paragraph concludes with “The authorization of the pursuit.” For pursuits that do not fall under that category, per 314.4.A “The field supervisor of the officer initiating the pursuit, or if unavailable, the nearest field necessary and/or Pursuit Review Report.” Implemented
24-10 SPD should update its canine policy to require all reasonable efforts to avoid unnecessary and unnecessarily injurious bites. When the location of the subject in hiding has been determined, handlers should not direct a direct apprehension if alternative tactics are available, safe, and feasible. TBD TBD
24-11 Supervisors should conduct separate tactical analysis for each function in which a canine is deployed. The factors that justify the use of a canine to search for an individual may differ from the factors in apprehending an individual. This would ensure that officers are exercising reasonable care and using the least amount of force necessary in apprehending subjects. TBD TBD
24-12 Uninvolved supervisors should respond to every incident of force involving a canine to conduct an administrative investigation. A standardized list of questions should be used including: the factors requiring the canine use, determination of force options available, de-escalation tactics employed, and interviewing the subject. TBD TBD
24-13 SPD should turn on audio during buffer mode of body worn camera recordings. TBD TBD
24-14 SPD should train officers to determine whether to charge an individual purely based on whether the elements of the law are met. The victim’s wishes should not be a determining factor. TBD TBD
24-15 SPD should include aggravation of pre-existing injuries as a type of reviewable force to have as much documentation of the incident in the event the subject decides to pursue litigation. TBD TBD
24-16 Review board members should receive specific guidance on force analysis and review board expectations. Greater emphasis should be placed on alternatives to force and de-escalation. The review boards should also provide an analysis of the supervisory review; and provide recommendations when supervisory reviews fall short. TBD TBD
24-17 The OPO recommends SPD safeguard the reputation of the Use of Force Review Board by only placing individuals who have a working knowledge of SPD policies and procedures on boards. Additionally, members of the review board should be individuals who are willing to critically analyze the different factors listed in SPD Policy 302.4. TBD TBD
24-18 The OPO recommends supervisors should clearly indicate in their reviews when a use of force is outside of policy should be considered exceptional. Exceptional techniques should be carefully reviewed to determine their necessity and appropriateness. Special care should be given to alternative and appropriate force options that were available at the time, if any. TBD TBD
24-19 SPD should amend its policy to evaluate the types of communication strategies that are more likely emphasize that the subject hears the order, understands it, and has enough time to respond prior to force being used. TBD TBD
24-20 SPD should consider a comprehensive de-escalation training program that is evidence-based with measurable outcomes to determine the effectiveness of the tactics and training taught. TBD TBD
24-21 Questions regarding uses of force should be investigated rather than reviewed. This is especially true in uses of force where an officer and the subject have conflicting recollections of the incident that create disputed facts that go to the heart of whether force was justified. TBD TBD

Contact Information

Office of Police Ombuds
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 Ombuds

Luvimae Omana
Deputy Ombuds

Christina Coty
Executive Assistant

Tim Szambelan
Police Ombuds Attorney