Late last month almost 120 Seattle police officers saw their lawsuit challenging the department’s new use-of-force policy thrown out by U.S. District Court.
Now they’re back—89 of them, at least—asking the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to reverse the decision.
This is just the latest scene in the very lengthy production that has the feds, SPD, the city, officers, and citizens battling over just how we will be policed.
It all started with a 2011 investigation by the U.S Department of Justice that uncovered a pattern of excessive force by Seattle cops. Since then, the Seattle Police Department has been under the watchful eye of the federal government as it has worked to fix the problem. A major step was taken earlier this year when a new use of force policy, agreed on by SPD and DOJ, went into effect.
The officers represented in the suit were not happy with that, claiming that they were left out of the process and that the rules, which require them to consider numerous factors when determining use of force, endanger both them and the public.
The officers’ suit—directed at U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, Mayor Ed Murray, court-appointed monitor Merrick Bobb, current and former Chiefs of Police, City Attorney Pete Holmes, and the City of Seattle—argued that the new rules infringe on their Second and Fourth amendment rights, as well as the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.
To this, U.S. District Judge Marsha Pechman said, essentially, “Whatever.” In the court order filed on October 17, she stated that the officers “grossly misconstrue Fourth Amendment law,” that the “scenario has no relation to the Second Amendment guarantees for individuals,” and that they “fail to make even the most rudimentary showing in an equal protection claim.”
OK, then.
Regarding the officers’ additional claim that they were not provided due process in the agreement between SPD and DOJ, Pechman noted that “Executive action such as the Policy violates substantive due process only when it is arbitrary, that is, when it ‘shocks the conscience.’”
Lawyer Athan Tramountanas reiterated the officers claims today while announcing the appeal.
“These officers feel the policy is cumbersome and will ultimately compromise the safety of officers and the public,” he said in a prepared statement, adding that “these officers are not anti-reform and are not opposed to a reasonable use of force policy. They are a decorated and diverse group that represent a significant number of patrol officers and officers that are responsible for training patrol officers.”
The appeal winnows the list of defendents to focus on the City of Seattle. “The goal of the officers is to change the policy,” reads the press release issued by the representing law firm Short Cressman & Burgess PLLC. “They can achieve that goal by continuing solely against the City,” Tramountanas is quoted as saying.
mbaumgarten@seattleweekly.com
