For SPD Officers
Officer Commendation
OPA Director Gino Betts, Jr., would like to highlight the good work of a third watch officer in the South Precinct who responded to a community member in crisis. The community member cursed, resisted assistance, and spat on officers, and this particular officer remained calm and encouraging throughout the incident.
OPA Case Analysis: Community Caretaking
On January 24, 2023, Seattle Police Department (SPD) officers responded to a community member in crisis, who was attempting to fall from her fourth-floor apartment window. from falling. Despite their best efforts to aid her from her unit and the unit below it, the community member fell. After the Seattle Fire Department (SFD) arrived to treat the community member, an SPD sergeant ordered officers to reenter her unit to search for drugs, alcohol, a note, or anything else relevant that would explain her behavior. This is known as an “invasive search.”
Generally, an officer is prohibited from performing a warrantless search. However, under community caretaking exigent circumstances, an officer may enter a residence without a warrant to render emergency assistance for injury or imminent danger of death or harm. Once that exigency ends, so does the officer’s ability to perform a warrantless search. A search must be necessary and strictly relevant to the community caretaking function, be unrelated to a criminal investigation, and end when the reasons for initiating the encounter are dispelled.
OPA investigated this case and concluded that officers’ warrantless entries into the third-floor and fourth-floor apartment units were permitted under community caretaking exigent circumstances when officers observed the community member hanging from her apartment window. Because the urgency of the situation required immediate action, officers entered those apartment units solely for the purpose of preventing imminent danger of death or harm. OPA also concluded that after the community member fell, officers were not permitted to reenter her unit to perform a warrantless search because, at that time, the exigency had already ended after the fall and medical treatment by SFD. This search would not have been necessary and strictly relevant to the community caretaking function. To reenter and perform a search of the community member’s unit, officers should have acquired her consent or secured a search warrant.
Management Action Recommendations Provided to Seattle Police Department for the following cases:
OPA Case # 2023OPA-0047/2023COMP-0004 [Taser Use] Offers guidance on how to prevent accidental taser discharges given the design of the Axon Taser X2. The Taser 10 will replace the X2 and help to remedy many of the issues, but the training recommendations will help ensure more effective use of the Taser as a policing tool.
OPA Case # 2022OPA-0254/2023COMP-0006 [Use of Force on Restrained Persons]
Addresses a policy gap at the time of an incident which did not allow for the use of force on restrained persons to prevent escape. The recommendation also suggests the acquisition of a supplemental prisoner adjustable restraint for cases where there is a disparity in size between a subject and officer to help limit the possibility of physical harm to both parties.
OPA Case # 2022OPA-0126/2023COMP-0005 [Un-handcuffing Screenings]
Recommends a sergeant’s screening process when removing handcuffs include the following: (1) Explaining the reasons for the detainment, why they were handcuffed and confirm their understanding. (2) Verifying the subject’s detention was consistent with SPD policy. (3) Asking whether the subject experienced pain or injury. (4) Documenting and photographing observable injuries.
|
