Since there are one heck of a lot of Women Marching today, apparently out of fear that Women’s Issues might fall under the radar of our new President, I thought I would update a previous story.

http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2017/jan/21/thousands-more-than-expected-turn-out-for-womens-m/

 

I think we must remember that issues that adversely affect Women aren’t limited to Republicans, and that both Parties have their own problems in addressing them. In the case of Democrats, US Attorney General Loretta Lynch, and appointed local AG Michael Ormsby, they have their own problems resulting from this case I reported on earlier.

 

https://examplepro.me/2015/10/21/female-ex-federal-prosecutor-files-gender-discrimination-lawsuit/

https://examplepro.me/2016/05/24/local-case-national-implicationsor-not-part-one/

https://examplepro.me/2016/05/26/local-case-national-implicationsor-not-part-two/

 

As an update, yesterday new documents were filed in the case that if true don’t look to good for Women in the local office of the US Attorney.

 

I know most of my readers don’t have access to Court Records like I do so at this point I’m just going to provide you with an opportunity to read the documents filed in US District Court yesterday for free, and I will come back to the case later. These are a long read but at least in my view quite interesting.

 

 

https://files.acrobat.com/a/preview/2cdcea5b-02bb-46c5-ab4c-ee867810a09b

https://files.acrobat.com/a/preview/b4f15e16-9091-41b7-b81c-b0ccd9824a63

https://files.acrobat.com/a/preview/1e6e7472-b345-472d-970d-0ec5d45b090a

 

 

I REPORT YOU DECIDE!!!

Here is a little update to this story!

 

https://examplepro.me/2016/12/30/disorganized-organization-or-organized-disorganization/

 

It seems that Ms. Pfister, or more likely someone above, decided that maybe it would be a good idea to reopen my Public Records Request that she had closed.

 

So here we are:

 

 

On another important update regarding this story I have not yet received the required five-day response from Ms. Pfister, but I expect it sometime next week.

 

https://examplepro.me/2017/01/13/big-story-update/

 

Sources tell me that SPD and the City are having a difficult time trying to figure out once again how to deal with another Buffalo Breen PRR, since the IA case involves deplorable conduct on the part of Officer Mc McMurtrey toward a Minority suspect which the SPD “Suspended” … instead of Facing up and Fessing up it is understandable they wouldn’t want the public to know. It might take some time, and perhaps another court battle but I’m willing to go there.

 

I REPORT YOU DECIDE!!!

A common strategy employed by law enforcement agencies is the F & F Strategy, which basically amounts to agencies relying on adverse press fading away and being forgotten by Reporters and the Public. It works, so despite being what one former Spokesman Review Reporter somewhat accurately described me as being, “a vintage Muckraker,” with emphasis on the “vintage”, I’m doing my best not to fall for the good ole F & F Strategy and here are updates to some old stories.

Readers may remember that the COPS/DOJ Review of SPD recommended a Patrol Staffing Analysis be done to see whether SPD was using our Cops efficiently, and getting the best bang for our buck. Well as is usually the case getting to the facts and detail was a struggle.

https://examplepro.me/2015/10/25/more-about-spd-staffing/

https://examplepro.me/2016/06/22/spd-staffing-analysisbe-on-the-lookout/

https://examplepro.me/2016/04/18/a-conversation-with-interim-chief-meidl-and-major-justin-lundgrenpart-five/

Of course, as I pointed out below it would have been nice for the Mayor and City Council to have the infamous Staffing Analysis prior to making SPD Budget Decisions.

https://examplepro.me/2016/12/14/it-isnt-their-money/

On December 1^st, 2016 prior to writing the above story I reached out to the City Council, to get more information. One Councilmember responded by stating; “My understanding is that the final product has not been delivered yet”, another graciously provided me a copy of the original contract signed by Craig Meidl on March 30^th, 2016 and explained that they were not briefed on the analysis.

When I learned that the Staffing Analysis wasn’t going to be completed on or about December 31^st ,2016 as the original contract called for I tried to figure out where the heck all OUR 311 Cops are assigned. What I found out was SPD doesn’t keep any records documenting where Officers are assigned, and they even had to update and old out of date Seniority List to give to me.

https://examplepro.me/2016/12/30/disorganized-organization-or-organized-disorganization/

As it stands now it looks like we must wait until at least June 30^th, 2017 before we have any idea where our Officers are assigned and what they do.

I can’t help but wonder whether the contract extension was necessary because no one knew where all the Troops were assigned and what they were doing.

I REPORT YOU DECIDE!!!

 

This story in the Inlander regarding the recent SPD OIS brings up some interesting topics for discussion:

http://www.inlander.com/Bloglander/archives/2017/01/16/few-details-yet-in-fatal-spokane-police-shooting

 

Other media of course have covered the story but there are aspects in the Mitch Ryals story which interest me. I am not as fortunate as many of the Citizens who have been commenting on the shooting and have drawn own conclusions about whether the OIS was justified or not. Apparently, many of them have somehow gained access to all the reports and body camera footage regarding the OIS, something I have not been able to accomplish.

 

What I found interesting regarding Craig Meidl’s press conference is what he threw in after he was asked by a reporter if he had anything else he could tell them. It was at that point he threw in that the Officer involved was acting proactively in a “Hot Spot” to bring down crime but when asked by a reporter why the officer confronted the deceased he specifically stated that he didn’t know because the officer hadn’t been interviewed yet.

Many of you know that one of my pet peeves in cases like this as an old Homicide Investigator is that Law Enforcement Brass always say too damn much to the press before they know the facts.

http://www.khq.com/story/34264425/spokane-officer-shoots-kills-man-overnight

 

You certainly can draw your own conclusions as to why he threw that in, but from my perspective it wasn’t helpful in the least and possibly hurtful later down the road for the Officer depending upon the circumstances.

 

There is an awful lot of misunderstanding in the public about when an Officer can and cannot legally DETAIN an individual walking down the street, and the Courts have dealt with it repeatedly since SCOTUS ruled in 1968 in the case of Terry vs Ohio. Terry vs Ohio was originally just a search and seizure case but as many SCOTUS cases do it has become far more than simply a search and seizure case and has now morphed into the foundation for all the “Stop and Frisk” issues and how it relates to Community Oriented Policing Models.

 

Probably the first thing to understand and Officers learn this in the Academy is that a Terry stop is a seizure under the Fourth Amendment, but not an arrest and Officers do in fact have a right to legally seize a person under certain circumstances. The Terry detention is a seizure for investigative purposes.

So, how does an Officer have to justify stopping and detaining someone under the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution and Article 1, Section 7 of the Washington State Constitution?

The Officer to justify a Terry Stop must be able to point to specific and articulable facts which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant the Terry Stop.

The Officer must be able to articulate a sufficient number of factors which lead him/her to believe a substantial probability that criminal conduct has occurred or is about to occur.

I used to try and explain the above back in the day to Academy Classes this way.

“You can’t stop and jam anyone “Bebopping” (Old Person Term) down the street because you don’t like their looks. You damn well better give me facts in your report that justify why you jammed the person.”

 

The same is true today even with all the case law established since Terry vs Ohio in 1968. Stopping someone simply because they look Latino and might be illegal, or are Black in a predominantly White residential area, are wearing an Oakland Raiders Jacket, etcetera doesn’t cut it.

 

The case law is clear that an individual’s mere presence in a “Hot Spot” or High Crime Area does not in and of itself justify a Terry Stop, so why Chief Meidl threw the “Hot Spot” remark in doesn’t make a lot of sense to me. Especially when you consider that if that is one of the factors leading up to the Officer’s Terry Stop there is a strong possibility, especially in an OIS case where Civil Litigation is a possibility undoubtedly someone will check to see if in the area in question was a “Hot Spot” or “High Crime Area.”

 

http://communitycrimemap.com/?address=Spokane,WA&zoom=11

 

Here is a somewhat simplistic Checklist Available to Washington State Police Officers which may help in understanding some of what I have discussed.

 

 

HOW DOES TERRY vs OHIO RELATE TO THE “BROKEN WINDOWS THEORY?

 

I think this pretty well explains it and interestingly John Q Wilson was one of the people we interacted with when we were establishing the SPD Community Oriented Policing Model…back in the day.

 

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/08/broken-windows-theory-poor-policing-ferguson-kelling-121268

 

As far as “Terry Stops” and differentiating between “Social Contacts” which are the key to good Community Oriented Policing there is no “Bright Line” Washington State cases that help to establish the difference, however there are several restrictions that Officers must be careful not to ignore so that a bad case doesn’t end up making bad law.

 

 

I REPORT YOU DECIDE!!!