The Olympian carries an AP story by Michael J. Sniffen today on a newly-released Department of Justice survey of policy brutality claims lodged with large police forces nationwide. Eight percent of the investigations yield enough evidence to warrant discipline; 34 percent don't; another 23 percent result in full exoneration; 25 percent more are unfounded (non-factual, or reported incident didn't occur); and nine percent have other dispositions including withdrawal of complaint. The survey was based on 2002 data from state and local law enforcement agencies with 100 or more full time officers.
The big problem with cops in Seattle is that there aren't nearly enough of them, and that a vocal minority of the populace has redefined the top police issue as oversight. Police understaffing aggravates bipartisan concerns about violent gang crime in Seattle, neighborhood viability and priorities of government.
"Compared to other cities its size, the Seattle Police Department is drastically understaffed," says David Dillman, Vice President of Operations and Services for the Downtown Seattle Association, which represents 430 member companies. Federal data bear out his contention. According to the FBI's "Crime In the United States - 2004," cities of 250,000 or more have an average of 2.8 sworn police personnel (officers, and other, higher-ranking non-civilian staff such as detectives, sergeants, lieutenants, captains) per 1,000 residents. Seattle's ratio, based on the city's own 2006 authorized sworn personnel levels of 1,277, factored into the city's estimated population (572,600), is 2.23. If Seattle brought sworn staffing levels to the national average per 1,000 residents for cities of 250,000 or more, there would be 326 more sworn personnel deployed.
As Seattle police staffing languishes, crime flourishes. Data I crunched from tables in the FBI's doorstop-sized "Crime In The United States - 2004" show that Seattle's annual rate of property crimes (burglary, larceny/theft, motor vehicle theft) is 7432.4 per 100,000 residents, versus a national average, among towns of 250,000 population or greater, of 4963.6. The 2004 full-year FBI data also show Seattle's annual rate of motor vehicle theft (1606.9 per 100,000 residents versus an average of 873.5) is seventh highest among the larger cities, exceeded only by Oakland, Sacramento, Phoenix, Detroit, St. Louis and Newark.
Public safety is part of the template for electing actual adults to the Seattle City Council. Higher police pay is necessary to compete for a limited labor pool. Better working conditions for Seattle police must also include increased staffing to reduce stress and increase safety for officers, and more vocal community support for police. The road to real political change in Seattle starts with a switch to district elections for city council. Most recently, the district elections reform proposal missed by only 7.5 percent, in November 2003 - with a meager 36 percent overall turnout for city contests that election. If doorbelling a district exemplifies direct democracy for a certain King County Council seat covering part of Seattle, why should not the same principles apply for city council?
Posted by Matt Rosenberg at June 26, 2006 05:56 PM | Email ThisOr keep schools open..............
Time to vote the a-holes out.
Posted by: Chris on June 26, 2006 07:31 PMThe Spokesman-Review noted that in our area, the police agencies investigate either themselves or each other in a very closed system, and suggested the process has heavy union involvement.
According to the article, some years ago the police union filed lawsuits against the city charging unfair labor practices in that their contract did not permit "outsiders" to review police officers. I believe someone who had filed a complaint was also subject of a lawsuit. When the unions began filing lawsuits, citizen complaints dropped. The local citizen advisory committee stopped holding meetings, said the newspaper, apparently from fear of being sued by the police union.
This story was quite detailed in what it covered and painted a pretty ugly picture of a taxpayer funded, private club that is not accountable to those who pay their salaries.
We just got a new sheriff - and he's taken prompt action against the deputy who, off duty, exposed himself to a 23 year old woman at an Espresso stand. The off duty deputy was fired and pretty much told he embarrased the county and the department.
This sheriff, by the way, is the former president of the police union. Interesting. So the evidence cuts both ways - I'm glad to see him taking prompt action unlike some other local police agencies that investigate for months and then write letters of reprimand.
Posted by: Ed on June 26, 2006 07:39 PMSPD needs to be held accountable for how it uses its existing resources. It needs to stop doing things “the Seattle way” be it how it responds to Mardi Gras events or how it responds to car prowls (some of the worst per-capita in the nation when it comes to car prowls). But then again SPD always seems to have the resources to provide traffic and crowd control for each and every spur of the moment parade or “peaceful demonstration.”
SPD needs to show the public they protect and serve that they can do the job before anyone thinks of throwing money at them. An effective police department thrives on doing the right thing right regardless of hurdles – especially financial hurdles.
This is typical of the America hating, Cuban and other dictatorship loving left. They don't celebrate the possiblity that the SPD's officers are less out of control than the average, they assume that the only reason that the number of complaints against the SPD is because of lack of oversight.
Not surprising, considering that liberals hate America.
Posted by: Obi-Wan on June 26, 2006 10:47 PMThe events I refer to are not private venues whereat off-duty and retired PD/SO officers are hired by the promoter. Also construction sites for that matter. Events such as marches that close I-5 and continue onto the streets or events that clog Westlake are handled by on-duty police, and lots of them.
PS, please don't assume or infer I need "Someone with more knowledge." You don't know me nor do you know my, shall we say, work experience.
Posted by: SPD etc on June 26, 2006 11:51 PM1st, I didn't mean to insult you by abbreviating you posting name, I was too lazy to type the whole thing. 2nd, I didn't read your post correctly and see that you did indeed refer do public, not private events. 3rd, I didn't mean YOU needed someone with more knowledge to comment, _I_ needed someone with more knowledge than I to comment on how and by whom off-duty police officers are compensated for work at private events. I don't have first hand knowledge of how that works.
Finally, my second paragraph was not meant to imply that I think that you are a liberal that hates America, I was refering to the people and organizations in the original post by Matt. I agree with your comments about the SPD.
It was not my intent to offend you. Please accept my apology.
Posted by: Obi-Wan on June 27, 2006 08:43 AMThe only way to cure the problem (and the many others that Seattle suffers) is for people to move out (sure can’t vote them out!). When the city becomes a shell of its former self, while the entire region prospers, only then will it change for the better.
STEP 1
(sworn officer) $22.67 $3,944.58 $47,334.96
STEP 2
(6 months) $23.58 $4,102.92 $49,235.04
STEP 3
(18 months) $24.34 $4,235.16 $50,821.92
STEP 4
(30 months) $26.28 $4,572.72 $54,872.64
STEP 5
(42 months) $27.48 $4,781.52 $57,378.24
STEP 6
(54 months) $28.55 $4,967.70 $59,612.40
STEP 7
(66 months) $29.97 $5,214.78 $62,577.36
STEP 8
(72 months) $32.11 $5,587.14 $67,045.68
Throw in the benefits of a city job and the pay isn't the problem. The city needs to commit funds to hiring more police instead of pet projects that are not as important.
Posted by: Patrick H on June 27, 2006 12:12 PMAs long as the people doing the oversight have appropriate experience that will enable them to accurately assess and evaluate the complex psychological, tactical, practical, and social issues surronding the use of force.
Due to the afrementioned issues, and due to the difficulty of law enforcemnt in general as a job, and the constant danger, I would like to recommend the following credentials for anyone who will be in oversight over police officers:
1) Sucessful completion of the Washington State Criminal Justice Commission Law Enforcement Academy (or equivalent).
2) Sucessful completion of FTO (Field Training Officer) on the streets (or equivalent)
3) Minimum 2 years on the job experience, including, but not limited to: actually enforcing the law, dealing with verbally and/or physically agressive individauls, traffic stops on vehicles with tinted windows where you can't see inside at all, etc. (contact your local police department for a more complete list).
Posted by: MB on June 27, 2006 12:33 PMIs Seattle likely to be willing to do that? Why do I doubt it...
Posted by: JJ on June 28, 2006 09:26 AM"Higher police pay is necessary to compete for a limited labor pool."
Pay isn't the issue, and I agree with you that working conditions are very important. The way the police are treated by Seattle politicians and some of their own leadership is an embarrassment and certainly hurts retention.
Posted by: Patrick H on June 28, 2006 01:07 PM