They found that “[w]hen SPD officers use force, they do so in an unconstitutional manner nearly 20% of the time.”

Quoting U.S. Attorney Jenny Durkan’s December 16, 2011, letter to Seattle Mayor Mike McGinn (p4: Findings, section 1 “SPD’s Use of Force”):

We find that SPD engages in a pattern or practice of unnecessary or excessive force, in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Section 14141. We base our legal conclusion on numerous factual findings, including the following:

When SPD officers use force, they do so in an unconstitutional manner nearly 20% of the time. This finding (as well as the factual findings identified below) is not based on citizen reports or complaints. Rather, it is based on a review of a randomized, stratified, and statistically valid sample of SPD’s own internal use of force reports completed by officers and supervisors.

SPD officers too quickly resort to the use of impact weapons, such as batons and flashlights. Indeed, we find that, when SPD officers use batons, 57% of the time it is either unnecessary or excessive.

SPD officers escalate situations and use unnecessary or excessive force when arresting individuals for minor offenses. This trend is pronounced in encounters with persons with mental illnesses or those under the influence of alcohol or drugs. This is problematic because SPD estimates that 70% of use of force encounters involve these populations.

Multiple SPD officers at a time use unnecessary or excessive force together against a single subject. Of the excessive use of force incidents we identified, 61% of the cases involved more than one officer.

In any given year, a minority of officers account for a disproportionate number of use of force incidents. Over the more than two-year period reviewed, 11 officers used force 15 or more times, and 31 officers used force 10 or more times. In 2010, just 20 officers accounted for 18% of all force incidents. Yet, SPD has no effective supervisory techniques to better analyze why these officers use force more than other officers, whether their uses of force are necessary, or whether any of these officers would benefit from additional use of force training.  

This pattern or practice is also the product of inadequate policy, training and supervision. SPD fails: (1) to properly monitor or investigate the use of force; (2) to implement adequate policies on the proper use of various force weapons; and (3) to adequately train its officers on the use of force, particularly the appropriate use of various force weapons. The chain of command does not properly investigate, analyze, or demand accountability from its subordinate officers for their uses of force. In particular, we further find that the secondary review process is little more than a formality that provides no substantive oversight or accountability. Tellingly, of the approximately 1,230 internal use of force reports we received, covering the period between January 1, 2009 and April 4, 2011, only five were referred for “further review” at any level within SPD. Moreover, in our investigation, we found no case in which a first-line supervisor was held accountable for the inadequate investigation or review of a use of force incident.

I think you misread, Bob. Of those who use force (some presumably-large portion of about 1250 sworn staff), maybe 20% of them used force unlawfully every time they did so, maybe all of them used force unlawfully 20% of the time they did so, and maybe it’s somewhere in between.

If all 1250 use force on the job, then somewhere between 250 and 1250 of them violated the U.S. Constitution on the job. If only 500 of them use force on the job, then somewhere between 100 and 500 of them violated the U.S. Constitution on the job.

For each violation, there was almost certainly at least one witness, and there was a supervisor who reviewed the situation.

None of them has been held accountable.