Director Kathryn Olson Office of Professional Accountability Assistant Chief Jim Pugel Investigation Bureau Review of incident 10-446082 DATE: 13 Dec 12



Sometime earlier this month you received a GO with the above referenced # from the City Attorney's office. You asked me to review it and determine if there appeared to be any misconduct or any other incident that should have risen to the attention of OP A. I have reviewed the material. In general it involves a two patrol officer car who is patrolling the parking lot of the shopping mall in SW Seattle. The patrol officer notices a car with the engine running and a window partially down. The officer notes that shoplifters often leave a car running to facilitate a quick escape from a shoplift. The officer stopped and ran the plate. While investigating the car a man comes running to the officer's direction and appears agitated. Because of his physical and verbal aggressiveness the officers told him to put his hands on the hood of the patrol car. He refused so he was physically contacted with what appears to be escort level force and the suspect then somewhat complies. While the officers are running the plate of the car and the name of the suspect the suspect continues to be physically and verbally defiant and aggressive. When running the person's name the officer noticed that the suspect had a 'caution' with 'assaultive to officers' notes, was a convicted felon and was noted to be 'Uncooperative and Hostile'. The running officer notified the other officers of the caution and information and asked the suspect about his felony conviction. The suspect became further enraged and pulled his hands off the patrol car, refusing to put them back. Based on the current behavior and the verified past behavior and the uncertain circumstances the officers decided to hand cuff the person until the investigatory stop was complete. The person refused to be cuffed and while using what is reported to be minimal force the officers force his hands behind his back and cuff him. During the cuffing process the suspect was physically resisting. It took four officers to restrain him and eventually cuff him and force him to the ground (unknown technique). While the suspect was resisting the cuffing process Officer Longley was trying to force the suspects head back to make him stop resisting. Officer Longlcy's small finger came to just belowl the suspects' nose. At this point the suspect raised his~head and Hit down on the ImgefT^Fhe biting action breached the protective gloves and two opposite side of the officers' finger, causing profuse bleeding.

Form 1.11 Rev. 2/07

Page 1 of 2

A supervisor responded as did SFD to treat the suspect and the officer. The suspect swore at the fire response folks and refuse treatment. When he was placed in the car the officers smelled dried marijuana. A search revealed 4.6 grams of dried product and money in various denominations. The suspect was booked into jail and his vehicle impounded. While being booked he became assaultive to jail staff and the physically restrained him as well. I have not reviewed the use offeree packet. I did note that the officers did interview a witness at the scene who appears to have confirmed their reporting. Based on my experience in teaching, using, reporting and reviewing hundreds of uses of force and based on what is available at this moment it appears to be to be a justifiable use offeree. The follow-up investigator reviewed and further investigated. The level of assault did not meet the King County felony filing standards so the detective refilled the case to SMC/City Attorney office. The requested charges were assault, resisting arrest and misdemeanor possession of marijuana. Within days it was learned that the injury to Office Langley required mush ore medical attention and the doctor opined that there could be a fracture because the finger was 'leaning to the left at the tip'. The detective reviewed the in car video and corroborates the actions reported by the officers and of the suspect, including the bite. The information was provided and the King County prosecutor again refused to file, suggesting it go to SMC/City Law. I do not know if any of the case was filed. Why this came to the city attorney's attention now is unknown. Perhaps the recent purge of all SMC marijuana possession cases may be one. Base on my review I offer the following: The officers observed something suspicious, they began investigating using non-intrusive means, the suspect approached and from the get go was verbally and physically un-cooperative and his actions could have been legitimately been interpreted as a threat. The suspects behavior combined with his past history led the officers to take a heighten security approach. This unfortunately escalated and each time the suspect increased his actions the officers responded accordingly. Let me know if you would like to discuss further including analyzing it from recently discussed points of decision. Rev. 2/07

Page 2 of 2

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful