Why is SPOG appealing a lawsuit against DivestSPD that it won?
Though it got an injunction against one request, the police guild aims to block OPA from revealing the names of cops accused of a broad range of serious misconduct
After winning a public records suit to block the city from revealing the name of an officer who was the subject of multiple unfounded complaints, the Seattle Police Officers Guild is appealing the King County Superior Court’s ruling. It hopes for a categorical injunction against releasing the names of any officers accused of “highly offensive” misconduct, including bias and dishonesty.
The suit is in response to a public records request filed by DivestSPD seeking documents of a disciplinary investigation into a robbery detective accused of being a “dirty cop” providing protection for drug cartels. In this case, the complaint was false and retaliatory. Using fictitious identities, a man the detective had previously arrested filed dozens of frivolous complaints as part of a harassment campaign.
When we filed the request, the Office of Police Accountability had already completed its investigation. If we take the information in the closed case summary at face value, the allegations were self-evidently baseless and not newsworthy, but we were curious about a few details.
Months later, we received an email from the police guild’s lawyers, who notified us that it was petitioning the court to block the records’ release. We agreed to voluntarily redact the detective’s name, which we already knew. Also, we obtained the full, unredacted copy of the report from Grant County, where the initial tip was sent. There was no information in the release that we didn’t have.
In her declaration, “Officer Doe” asserted that “any disclosure will appear on [the DivestSPD] website—regardless of their unsubstantiated nature.” If this were true, we would have published her name the moment OPA issued its findings or once we got the redacted documents attached to her declaration.
In fact, by identifying her as a woman in the robbery unit, her lawyers did more to compromise her anonymity than we ever did (there is only one woman in the unit).
Despite our consent to voluntary redactions, the case continued because it was never about protecting Officer Doe. SPOG wants to set a precedent and gain new legal tools to keep police misconduct out of the public eye, and this appeal proves it.
While the King County Superior Court found that withholding Officer Doe’s name was justified because the allegations were plainly false and “highly offensive,” it ruled against SPOG’s request for blanket exemptions for officers “cleared” of four other categories of misconduct.
The court argued that these categories are “too generic and could be taken broadly” and it would continue to decide these matters by adjudicating each case individually based on its merits. In her ruling, the judge explained that the court “does not recognize and adopt each of Plaintiffs’ characterizations of the unsubstantiated allegations and conclude that each would be highly offensive in different circumstances or standing alone.”
The sweeping categorical exemption SPOG wants would be problematic given the high standard of proof the Collective Bargaining Agreement imposes. As we’ve repeatedly demonstrated, the OPA has issued “not sustained” findings of well-evidenced dishonesty and bias because it supposedly could not meet its burden of proof.
For example, the OPA found Sgt. Joe Lam showed “planning and intentionality” when he falsified his time card but ultimately did not sustain dishonesty allegations against him because it could not prove the allegations to a “clear and convincing” level. In another case, the agency stopped short of sustaining bias allegations against Ofc. Andrew Marks for calling his Black coworker a “thug.”
While the name of a detective who was the target of an obvious smear campaign might not be of public interest, as defined by the court, the public has the right to know the names of cops who would be terminated or otherwise harshly disciplined based on a simple preponderance of evidence, which is the standard at three-fourths of departments.
It’s not enough that SPOG wields extraordinary influence over the disciplinary process—only guild members are allowed to investigate serious misconduct— they want to weaponize the courts to shroud it in secrecy, too.