The U.S. Justice Department announced this spring it would discontinue investigations of police departments, including Seattle’s, that were accused of civil rights violations and terminate the court orders, known as consent decrees, that followed the investigations.
While not all decrees are perfect, this blanket removal deprives leaders, communities and police of a powerful tool of reform. Our consent decree improved policing without an increase in crime or in officer injury. But, as the decree ends, the next, more urgent question is: How can communities and departments continue to improve policing and public safety?
We are some of the attorneys who, in 2012 on behalf of the DOJ, negotiated each paragraph of the decree with the city of Seattle. We know what the decree, overseen by Judge James Robart, was intended to accomplish. Our investigation found that SPD engaged in systemic excessive force — particularly against those in mental health or behavioral crisis — and identified concerns regarding biased policing. It was one of only 14 such decrees entered into nationwide during President Barack Obama’s two terms, although there are 18,000 law enforcement agencies in the U.S.
Seattle police, with community groups, led the massive operational changes required by the decree, which included:
● Mandating that officers — when safety permits — attempt to “de-escalate” volatile situations — one of the first departments nationally to do so;
● Conducting hundreds of hours of training;
● Launching robust reviews when force does occur;
● Collecting data enabling detection and correction of trends like racial disparities.
Importantly, the decree created the Community Police Commission to bridge the gaps between SPD and residents. Seattle exceeded the decree by making the commission permanent, broadening its authority and by creating the Office of Inspector General to examine the policing system as a whole. A companion agreement to the decree deputized the CPC to review officer discipline systems.
The results have been remarkable. The OIG found:
● By 2016, serious uses of force had dropped 60% compared to 2009. And from that point to 2021, uses of all force fell another 48%.
● How officers apply force changed, too. There were only two officer-involved shootings in 2023, the fewest since 2015; Taser use dropped 80% from 2009; and the use of the baton evaporated, alleviating our concern that officers too quickly resorted to that tool.
● The use of force against those in active crisis plummeted, from 70% of all force used in 2009 to 9.8% in 2019-20, even though SPD has 10,000 such incidents yearly.
● From 2022-23, there were no instances of officers applying the most serious force, including shootings, against people in active crisis.
As the federal monitor also has reported, there was no decline in public safety or increase in officer injury because of the decree.
But, the decree was crafted to address day-to-day policing, not force used at protests, which has been a concern in Seattle for over a quarter-century. In 2020, the difference between responding to a single person and to large protests was manifested. How a city responds to demonstrations is important and absorbed much of the last years of the decree. But, these were not promises made or left unfulfilled by the decree. Still, Judge Robart said a year ago that he remained “deeply concerned” about the city’s ongoing struggles with a policy governing crowd control.
As the decree sunsets, what lessons may we take forward? How does the city continue to address, for example, racial disparities, which have been found in every above-referenced report, despite efforts to eliminate them?
There is no need to wait for a consent decree. No need to wait for the federal government or a federal judge. The end of consent decrees is not the end of police reform. You need only seek alignment with interested community groups to forge a shared commitment to a common destination, to collaboration, to mutual respect, and to shared credit for the things that work — and honest recognition when things don’t.
So, yes, the consent decree in Seattle showed that the federal government and courts can play a role in improving policing. But it is not the only way.
While a consent decree can be a catalytic tool, and a judge can play an important role, here the court, SPD and the community were eventually rowing in the same direction with backing from the mayor, the City Council, the city attorney, the Justice Department in both Washingtons and the CPC. But it was also the 34 community groups that organized and advocated ceaselessly, the media that reported on and investigated police misconduct for generations, and reform-minded police leadership who set the course for what followed.
Durable progress requires a broad commitment to build something better together, to know it will sometimes fall short and to keep working when it does. Literally hundreds of people in the Seattle Police Department and our community chose to step into the boat, grab an oar and row hard. We are stronger for it.
