DRAFT REPORT OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE USE ... - Samuel Walker

Mr. Earl F. Martin
RE: REPORT TO USE OF FORCE COMMISSION
December 3, 2012
Page 2
I do not personally prefer the use of himself/herself or other multi-gender references in
documents. Lexipol does this and I would suggest and prefer to use a gender neutral pronoun or
plural pronouns such as "they" or "themself" or to re-word the sentence so this type of wording is
avoided. So for example with regard to the definition of "Force" re-wording the second sentence to,"
It is not a use of force when an individual allows themself to be searched, ..."
Under 300.3.1 it may be that the this may actual language from the RCW statute reads this
way, and thus why it is stated this way in the Washington Update. I would suggest that he/she be
changed to "the individual" - again just semantics and personal preference on my part. The gender
pronoun issue continues throughout the policy - I will leave that issue to the SPD to consider for the
entirety of their policy - I just think it is a) unnecessary and b) distracts from substance.
Substantively I would suggest that it is important to hold the line with regard to the
distinction between "force which is reasonably necessary" and "force which reasonably appears to
be necessary." The former is an erroneous ultimate fact standard and the latter is an accurate
re-phrasing of the "objectively reasonable force" standard. Additionally, under section 300.3.3 the
"only apply those techniques for which they have completed department-approved training" seems
to contradict the fourth paragraph of section 300.3 that which allows an officer to improvise. Thus
the "only" portion of 300.3.3 should be deleted.
Under (g) of section 300.3.4 I would suggest that the documentation requirement also include
documentation of compliance with sections (d), (e) and (f) - and that the supervisor reviewing the
overall reports for an incident is responsible for confirming that compliance occurred and that the
reports document the compliance. Likewise, in any other portion of the policy where notifications
are required, such as 306.3. for example, the officer should be required to document compliance and
supervisors should be required to confirm both compliance and documentation of compliance. I
would suggest that a word search of the policy manual to deal with this issue would be efficient.
Likewise a word search for the words "shall", "must", "always" and "never" throughout the
entire policy manual would be prudent to determine if there are corresponding documentation
requirements for officers and for supervisors to be responsible for confirming compliance and
documentation of compliance. This will also identify other action items that may be overlooked
and/or problematic.
Under 300.4 I believe it should be made clear that the use of deadly force is also governed
by the objectively reasonable force standard and that all the provisions of 300.3, 300.3.2 specifically
apply to the use of deadly force. Thus the first sentence should read, " Use of deadly force like any
force used by an officer, must be objectively reasonable based on the totality of the facts and