Senior Partner
Today, the Washington State Court of Appeals rejected the overly lenient “discipline” of excessive force by a Seattle Police Department (SPD) Police Officer, and in doing so recognized our laws’ explicit, well-defined, and dominant public policy against police use of excessive force.
In 2014, Seattle Police Department (SPD) Officer Adley Shepherd punched a handcuffed woman in the face hard enough that it fractured her eye socket. In response, then-Seattle Chief of Police Kathleen O’Toole terminated Officer Shepherd for violating SPD’s use-of-force policies.
At the request of the Seattle Police Officers’ Guild (SPOG) — Officer Shepherd’s union — the SPD’s Disciplinary Review Board (DRB) reviewed and overrode that termination, instituting in its place a 15-day suspension and duty modifications.
The Washington State Court of Appeals upheld the lower court’s rejection of that DRB decision. As succinctly explained by the Court:
The DRB’s decision reinstating Shepherd is so lenient it violates the explicit, well-defined, and dominant public policy against the excessive use of force in policing. Indeed, the DRB’s decision sends a message to officers that a violation of a clear and specific policy is not that serious if the officer is dealing with a difficult subject, losing patience, or passionate in believing that he or she did nothing wrong—however mistaken that belief may be. Such a message cannot be squared with the public policy against the excessive use of force in policing, which we hold imposes on the City an affirmative duty to sufficiently discipline officers.
Despite SPOG’s vociferous arguments against, the Court recognized that our laws against excessive force set forth an explicit, well-defined, and dominant public policy, and that this public policy necessitated the rejection of the DRB’s overly lenient “discipline” of Officer Shepherd.
This decision sends an important message — that our laws and society do not tolerate the inadequate discipline of excessive force committed by the police.