Public Safety & Human Services Committee 12/8/20

Good morning and welcome.

The December 8, 2020 meeting of the Public Safety and Human Services Committee will come into order.

It is 9.33 AM.

I'm Lisa Herbold, chair of the committee.

Will the clerk please call the roll?

Council President Gonzalez?

Here.

Council Member Lewis?

Present.

Council Member Morales?

Here.

Council Member Peterson?

Here.

And Council Member Herbold?

Here.

So the council rules are silent on allowing remote meetings and electronic participation at council committee meetings to allow this committee to conduct business remotely.

The council rules will need to be suspended.

If there is no objection, the council rules will be suspended to allow today's Public Safety and Human Services Committee meeting to meet remotely and participate electronically.

Hearing no objection, the council rules are suspended and the committee will continue with this remote meeting.

On today's agenda, we will be hearing the 2020 semi-annual Police Accountability Report.

We'll be hearing Council Bill 119974, granting a process to the OPA and the OIG, the Office of Police Accountability and the Office of the Inspector General, a process for them to use their subpoena power.

And finally, we'll be continuing our conversation that was started during the budget process and have a discussion on the proposal for a misdemeanor basic needs defense.

We will not be voting or taking action on any of these items today.

We'll now approve our agenda for our committee meeting.

If there's no objection, today's agenda will be adopted.

Hearing no objection, today's agenda is adopted.

At this time, we'll move into public comment.

Before we open up the public comment period, I ask that everyone be patient as I learn to moderate this system.

I will moderate the public comment period in the following manner.

Each speaker will be given two minutes to speak.

I will call on each speaker by name and in the order in which they registered on the council's website.

If you do not yet, if you are not yet registered to speak but would like to do so, you can sign up before the end of the public comment period by going on to the council's website.

Once I call a speaker's name, you'll hear a prompt.

And once you've heard that prompt, you'll need to press star six to unmute yourself.

Please begin by stating your name and the item which you are addressing on the agenda.

Speakers will hear a chime when 10 seconds are left of the allotted time.

Once the speaker hears the chime, we ask that you begin to wrap up your public comments.

If speakers do not end their comments at the end of the allotted time, the speaker's mic will be muted after 10 seconds to allow us to call on the next speaker.

Once you've completed your public comment, we ask that you disconnect from the line.

If you plan to continue to follow this meeting, please do so via the Seattle channel or on the listening options listed on the agenda.

There are nearly 40 people signed up for public comment.

So in order to allow as many speakers to speak as possible, after what I intend to do is after the first 15 minutes as listed on the agenda for public comment, if there are no objections, I will amend the agenda to allow additional minutes of public comment.

I'll determine that once we get a little further down the public comment list.

And those speakers, after I amend the agenda to allow for more time for public comment, that last batch of speakers, the time will be reduced from two minutes to one minute of public testimony so that we can allow for more people to speak.

So with that, I'm going to move on to public comment, and we'll start with the first speaker.

The first speaker is Tiffany McCoy.

Good morning, council members.

My name is Tiffany McCoy, and I'm the lead organizer for Real Change.

Thank you to Council Member Herbold for broaching this necessary discussion on the criminalization of poverty.

Second, chances shouldn't be confined to people who can afford lawyers.

According to the Center for American Progress, as many as one in three people in the US have a criminal record.

People of color, those living in poverty, and other marginalized groups experience disproportionate negative impacts related to the criminal legal system.

These disparities reflect discriminatory policies that fuel systemic inequities which burden families for generations and perpetuate a cycle of poverty.

City Attorney Pete Holmes, in a recent memo to the City Council, said that, quote, several provisions in this bill codify what my office already practices, unquote.

So when the opposition to this bill make sweeping, emotionally charged claims that the sky is going to fall or that this is a get-out-of-jail-free card, we know that this is simply fear-mongering.

We strongly appreciate the city attorney's current position, but he will not be in office forever.

The fate of low-level offenders shouldn't depend on the moral convictions of one individual.

The idea of this ordinance is still being formulated, and the early attacks against it are rooted in anti-poverty bias.

We welcome this discussion and look forward to advocating for this proposal.

Thank you.

Thank you, Tiffany.

Our next speaker is Howard Gale.

Hi.

Good morning.

Good morning.

Howard Gale, District 7, commenting on police reform and accountability.

In 2016, the Seton Law Review published a comprehensive review of civilian oversight of the 50 largest police departments in the U.S.

They concluded, A weak Civilian Review Board is worse than no Civilian Review Board because it gives the illusion of independent accountability that actually provides little to no accountability.

A weak Civilian Review Board can lead to an increase in community resentment." This morning's discussion about police accountability in 2020 should not, should only have in this meeting folks who have been beaten and abused by the SPD this year and the families of people like Barry Kaber recently murdered by the SPD. Instead this morning you will present an absurd and antiseptic and heartless display from the accountability department. Nothing more than gaslighting the public. Seattle's police accountability partners are going to waste your time in a charade this morning that avoids asking the only question that's really before us at the end of 2020. If police reform has been working so well in Seattle How did seven years of reform efforts produce a police force that has meted out such death and abuse over the last year? Seven years of training, policy, and accountability, but nothing to prevent the most egregious abuses seen in decades. In reviewing this past year, ask the CPC why they prohibited public comment. Ask the CPC why they failed to take note of Terry Kaver's brutal murder by the police in May. Ask the OPA how and why they negotiated a time extension with Spog. for investigating kerry capers murder i think it's fairly clear that it's a convenient for both the police union and for the opa to push this into the future so that it avoids public scrutiny ask all these agencies how is it possible in six months there's only been one short hearing in august on the rampant police abuse please get real about police accountability thank you

Thank you, Howard.

Our next speaker is Don Blakeney.

Good morning, Councilmembers.

My name is Don Blakeney and I live on Capitol Hill in District 3 and work for the Downtown Seattle Association which represents areas of Council District 7, 3, and 2. Today I'm here to speak with you about public safety and the heightened concerns that we are hearing from our neighbors and stakeholders in downtown who see rising criminal activity in broad daylight against the tragic backdrop of hundreds of small businesses closing their doors permanently.

Last year, in partnership with communities across the city, we took a deep look at the failures of the criminal justice and public health systems.

We brought our concerns to you about how these systems do not serve our city or the people who are cycled through them.

The proposal to develop new defenses for misdemeanor crimes could make sense if there was a system or alternative set of interventions and programs to address the underlying issues facing prolific criminal offenders.

But there isn't such a system in place or a proposal to create one.

This is, there has been no analysis of the impact that these crimes continue to have on members of our community and no discussion of how often defense like this could be used without a meaningful intervention.

The idea is premature and needs to be considered in the context of a larger system reform that considers the impacts and damages that have been brought to our community.

Thank you for that, for letting me speak today.

Thank you, Don.

Our next speaker is Steve Horvath.

Steve Horvath?

Good morning, this is Steve Horvath.

I live...

Good morning, this is Steve Horvath.

I live and work in Belltown in District 7. CM Herbold, you brought forward a proposal for misdemeanor basic needs defense.

In response to its original form as a council budget amendment, our city attorney, Peter Holmes, wrote a letter to the council personally attesting to the direction of prosecution since he took office in 2010. stating that, quote, I work to move the city attorney's office away from prosecuting property crimes that appear to be committed out of survival necessity.

For example, no city prosecutor is interested in sending an impoverished new parent to jail for stealing baby food, unquote.

Unfortunately for residents and business owners in Seattle, the over 7000 instances of shoplifting that have been reported since the beginning of 2019 are not largely representative of mothers stealing baby food.

The City of Seattle has a long history of failing to provide adequate resources to assist persons suffering from mental and or behavioral health challenges and to provide for the basic needs of our population.

Codifying additional affirmative defenses for criminal behavior is not a solution to address those inadequacies.

To the contrary, justifying criminal behavior increases opportunities for abuse by repeat offenders and appears to potentially reward perpetrators while denying their victims any form of restitution.

2020 has seen our urban centers upended by crime and the ongoing crisis for thousands facing lack of shelter, mental and or behavioral health challenges juxtaposed with the sudden abolishment of our community police and navigation teams and significant loss of precinct level detectives charged with investigating crime.

To quote SCC Insight, broadly dismissing misdemeanor cases without any consequences for the offenders or restitution for the victims could create a host of other problems for the community that the council is not prepared to address.

We want our elected officials to support us by focusing on proactive safety and security while providing for the needs for our population.

Thank you for considering my comments this morning.

Thank you, Steve.

Our next speaker is Peter Shileto.

Good morning.

My name is Peter Shileto.

I'm a scientist living in Wallingford, District 4, and I use he, him pronouns.

I'm calling today in support of changing the duress and de minimis law to curb the prosecution of poverty and mental health struggles.

The criminal punishment system is not providing justice.

It is perpetuating racist structures that criminalize poverty and result in a disproportionate number of poor and black people being jailed and prosecuted.

The city spends $20 million a year incarcerating people.

With COVID-19, jailing can be a death sentence.

If people do make it out, they're often in worse shape than when they went in.

We need as many legal tools as possible to stop this deadly unjust system.

That is why I support changing this law.

I yield my time.

Thank you.

Thank you, Peter.

Our next speaker is Angie Gerard, please.

Thank you.

Hi, my name is Angie Gerard and I'm calling from Ballard in District 6. Last week in broad daylight a good friend of mine was randomly punched and followed while jogging up the stairs above Golden Gardens Park.

He called 9-1-1 afterward concerned that the drunk or high camper was going to harass other people but no officers were available so no supportive intervention occurred.

No crime report logged.

Despite having a high concentration of low barrier services and some of the slowest police response times in the city we have no framework for local public safety coordination or accountability.

No navigation team and no community police team.

Nobody knows who are the anonymous outreach workers and diversion workers.

How do we pass along critical neighborhood details to service providers or judges and prosecutors.

Harm reduction and de-policing have meant a constant stream of missed opportunities and negative community impacts because no one is championing coordination or accountability.

Public safety coordination has an unexplainable gap between block watches which are very sparse and the North Precinct Advisory Council, which attempts to represent 40% of the city's population, yet have no city support for meeting space, online technology, or neighborhood-specific feedback or work groups.

Last month, dozens of local businesses wrote a letter to City Council about greatly increased crime, and they are still waiting for a response.

As City Council forges ahead with criminal justice and policing reform, who is accountable at the local level, and how do we participate?

Thank you.

Thank you, Angie.

Our next speaker is Camilla Walter, please.

Camilla Walter.

If you're with us, we do need you to hit star six to unmute yourself.

Hi, my name is Camilla Walter and I'm calling in support of the misdemeanor basic need defense agenda item.

I'm a D6 resident.

I work at Real Change and I do outreach in Ballard Camp.

We must curb prosecution of poverty and mental health struggles.

The work of divesting from police remains undone until we also address our city's prosecution and incarceration systems.

It has been alarming to see how much organized opposition there is to this idea, even though there is no concrete language drafted yet.

This scaremongering is therefore without basis and meant to protect the racist and classist status quo, which keeps our prisons and jails full of people.

We have extreme income inequality in Seattle.

Doing camp outreach in Ballard, I meet people sleeping in tents in this cold winter weather with no bathroom, next to million-dollar single-family homes.

Poverty is unchecked here, and we need to recognize and respond to the real conditions in this city.

Until we can respond to the basic needs of our community, we cannot respond to poverty with punishment.

I fully support legislation that would recognize the inequity in this system and work to remove further barriers and traumas for people experiencing poverty.

The city spends $20 million a year incarcerating people, many of whom are poor or unhoused.

Leaving incarceration with a record, it can be harder to find jobs, housing, and stability, which, as we know, creates cycles of incarceration that does much to victimize people already suffering and little to nothing to protect the public.

Thank you, Council Member Herbold, for opening this necessary discussion.

We very much look forward to supporting this effort along the way.

Thank you, Camilla.

Our next speaker is Mark Crawford.

Good morning.

My name is Mark Crawford.

I'm the Interim Executive Director for the U District Partnership in District 4. I wish to address the proposal for misdemeanor basic need defense, and I note four initial issues.

Number one, we urge the council to remain true to its desire to comprehensively reimagine public safety.

Your piecemeal approach leads to flawed overall public policy, and it will have negative associated consequences.

Number two, we urge a more transparent and inclusive process.

No effort has been made to reach out and engage with the neighborhood groups representing residents and businesses in creating this proposal.

Please engage with your constituents.

Number three, there is nothing in this proposal that deals with repeat offenders.

You are providing a defense mechanism without any resources necessary to break the cycle of criminal behavior.

It is a hollow step to real reform.

Number four, you ignore the victims of the crimes.

If you genuinely believe that moving the perpetrators out of the criminal justice system is the path forward, fine.

But put your money where your principles are.

establish a funding mechanism to make victims whole again, victims suffering both property loss and damage, and victims suffering personal injury, and establish a robust office of victim advocacy to guide them through the process to become whole again.

Thank you for considering my comments.

Thank you, Mark.

Our next speaker is Angelica Chisara.

Anahelica, if you're with us, press star six to unmute yourself.

All right.

Not hearing from Anahelica and coming up on our 15 minute timeframe for public comment.

If there is no objection, I would like to extend the public comment period another 15 minutes.

And speakers that will follow, the next 15 or so speakers ask that you reduce your speaking time to one minute so we can hear from as many people as possible who have signed up this morning.

And with that I'll do another call out for Angelica.

Angelica Chizaro.

And not hearing from Angelica we'll move down to Sabrina.

Oh yes.

Councilmember.

I'm so sorry.

Hello.

Yes.

Good morning.

All right.

My name is Angelica Chizaro.

I'm a resident of District 2 and a member of Decriminalize Seattle.

Like many of the callers this morning and people who have flooded your inbox, I am afraid.

I'm afraid to live in a city where a person could take a winter coat from Goodwill or a baby formula from Target and face prosecution and conviction for trying to stay warm while poor or for feeding a baby while poor, both actual cases that ended up in our city's municipal court.

I'm afraid to live in a city where we're more comfortable cycling poor people through municipal court than we are giving them a fighting chance to have a judge and jury hear about the circumstances that brought them there.

This summer, we began a serious reckoning with the role of police in our city.

Council members agreed that for too long, police have been asked to deal with social issues, including poverty and mental health struggles that they're badly equipped to handle.

We're asking you to support amending the municipal code so that the people arrested by police for the very issues you agree may not belong in the realm of policing can also make the case to a judge and jury that their struggles do not belong in the criminal system.

Thank you.

Thank you, Angelica.

Our next speaker is Sabrina Villanueva.

Hi, good morning.

My name is Sabrina Villanueva, and I am here speaking on the misdemeanor proposal on behalf of small businesses and employees that work in downtown Seattle.

The last time I gave public comment was on the heels of the deadly shooting on Third Avenue.

I shared the negative experiences my tenants were struggling with on a daily basis, including theft, burglary, harassment, assault, and property damage.

At that time, the community was asking for more police officers and a plan to increase public safety.

They were asking for people to be held accountable for their actions and crimes.

You can imagine the frustration that now a proposal is being made to decriminalize crime and further take away protections for people that laws are created for.

Decriminalization of crime is not a solution to crime.

Please do not pass this legislation.

Instead, focus on and come up with a plan to stop repeat offenders who are committing most of the crimes.

Thank you.

Thank you, Sabrina.

Our next speaker is Noah Masia.

Hello, my name is Noah Masia.

I am a resident of District 3. I'm speaking on behalf of Hunter's Capital Real Estate, which has been a property and business owner in Capitol Hill for over 40 years.

Capitol, like all neighborhoods, has been hit by the economic impact of COVID.

Many businesses have gone under while others are hanging on by a thread.

And our neighborhood in particular has been subject to repeated theft, assault, and vandalism, which at this point is doing nothing but harming the overall community.

While we are in full support of getting proper aid to those who need it, the proposal for misdemeanor basic need defense does nothing to actually help those in crisis.

Instead of working with our neighborhood business district to address the underlying causes of these issues, Councilmember Herbold is spending time and resources on how crimes can be excused.

The proposal puts our already struggling businesses in further economic and physical harm.

The proposal is effectively turning its back on the businesses that have helped build and support this neighborhood.

We hope for the sake of progress and healing in Seattle that this proposal does not move forward.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Amijah Smith.

Emijah Smith, please.

Hello, can you hear me?

Yes.

Hello, can you hear me?

Yes, we can.

Thank you.

Hello, my name is Emijah Smith.

I live in South Seattle in Council Member Morales' district.

I'm calling in support of less prosecution on people who are in poverty.

Our history with crimes and convictions and over sentencing happened primarily on black community.

And I would like to see if there's any type of legislation or something that is passed that it is passed in a way that is across the board so that certain crimes do not still play out in a racial inequitable way where If this was to happen, only people of privilege or white folks get a pass of not being prosecuted while the description still falls onto the black community and other people of color.

That is my testimony.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Megan Cruz, please.

Megan Cruz?

Hello, I'm Megan Cruz, a resident in the Third and Pike neighborhoods, speaking on the misdemeanor needs defense.

Our neighborhood is troubled by high levels of drug-related theft, burglary, and assault that has no dedicated outreach team.

Instead of working to excuse these acts, I agree with our city attorney who wrote to the council saying, more important than any legislation you or he could recommend, resources must be provided to assist individuals with the underlying issues that led them to commit the crime.

This one-sided proposal doesn't even mention public safety, 90% of misdemeanors are committed by people experiencing poverty.

Does the council know how many of the city's 12,000 misdemeanors last year might actually qualify under this new defense?

Before the council takes criminal code into its own hands, engage with SPD and the municipal court and find this out.

Then please refocus your efforts and find intervention.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Jake Carton.

Jake, are you with us?

Hi, my name is Jake Carton.

I am in District 4, Wallingford section of the city, and I'm calling to support Councilmember Sawant's proposal for a true civilian oversight body on police accountability.

My concern is that we currently have a community-based police accountability system that doesn't really act independently of the police.

I acknowledge that the city council has taken steps to shift resources to help mental health, people struggling with mental health, but we have a problem with police showing up to mental health situations and of firing weapons that we pay for and killing people.

And we have done nothing yet as a city to address that issue.

Thank you, Jake.

Our next speaker is Ahmed Hussain.

Hi, good morning.

My name is Ahmed Hussain with Beijing Cultural Gaps.

I'm calling today in support of the change in the duress and the Minimus Law to curb the persecution of poverty and mental health struggles.

The work of divesting from police remains undone until we address our city's persecution and incarceration systems.

I support this change in the law because the current system is actually expensive and harmful.

Not only is it harmless to incarcerate people for behavior stemming from deep poverty, mental health struggles, it's also expensive and harmful.

The city spent $20 million last year incarcerating people, many of whom are poor, homeless, and experiencing mental health struggles.

When they are released, they are often in worse shape.

There is nothing more wasteful than prosecuting people for minor offenses that are symptoms of poverty, drug use, mental health issues.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Andrea Nassarro.

Hello my name is Andrea Nasro and I live in District 7 representing our voices from I Heart downtown Seattle.

Our team members include the unsheltered the addicted those living in poverty and with behavioral health issues.

We speak on their voices here today.

I'm speaking on the basic need defense proposal.

As Councilman Lewis knows having attended one we have recruited hundreds of citizens to downtown streets and parks to pick up litter and use drug needles.

With daily boots on the ground and streets and parks have a unique eyewitness to how lack of law enforcing has impacted our most marginalized neighbors.

Meet Derek who suffers from PTSD living at Bell Tower being a foster child and prior homeless person needs a safer stable Seattle.

Meet Eve who is handicapped using a stroller having to avoid areas of Bell Street Park due to open drug use and dealing encampments blocking her sidewalk.

Meet Tim a minimum wage worker food delivery who cannot use his bike safely in parks or charge it.

He has been accosted in parks.

Meet Josh, an addict who tells me the only way you can help me is to arrest me and have me sweated out.

Thank you, Andrea.

Our next speaker is Sean Johnson.

Hi, yes, my name is Sean Johnson.

I work for Carter Volkswagen, Subaru and Ballard.

We are in District 6. We pay a significant amount of property tax, and sadly, that tax no longer provides the police protection it historically has.

Since August of 2020, we have been paying over $21,000 a month for off-duty armed law enforcement to provide our customers and employees some sense of protection.

We initially hired a non-armed security company, but that security guard was physically assaulted on his first day by a homeless person who was subsequently not held accountable for the assault.

Reducing a person's accountability for criminal conduct is synonymous with condoning that criminal conduct.

If you base what you believe from what you observe and measure, you would have to conclude your policies related to dealing with the criminal activity endemic with the homeless population in the Ballard area is a problem and not making it better.

In closing, I would urge the council to not condone criminal conduct by redefining it to be a disability and get.

Thank you, Sean.

Our next speaker is Michael Chan.

Yes, I'm here.

My name is Michael Chan, and I am a Seattle business owner, property owner, and proud longtime member of the Seattle Chinatown community.

My father opened the first chiropractic office in Chinatown 31 years ago.

My mother, Nora, chanced to live in Chinatown and started the Seniors in Action Foundation, a foundation that looks after, educates, and advocates for the rights of thousands of senior citizens living in Chinatown.

The reason I signed up to comment here today is to voice my opinion on Councilwoman Herbold's proposal for misdemeanor basic need defense.

I believe it to be reckless to make substance abuse, disorder, poverty, or mental illness new defenses in most misdemeanor crimes.

As I noted earlier, my father opened the first chiropractic clinic in Chinatown, This, in June of this year, our building burned to the ground, leaving our business and many others without a place to live, to make a living.

Many of us believe that the fire was part of a long string of arsons that plagued the city of Seattle during a two-week stretch.

The night before our building burned down, the apartment was set on fire.

The day after, there was another that was set on fire.

These are not isolated instances.

This is what everyday life looks like in Chinatown.

I believe that we do need to

Thank you, Michael.

Our next speaker is Mike Stewart.

Good morning.

My name is Mike Stewart.

I'm Executive Director of the Ballard Alliance, representing hundreds of businesses and thousands of residents.

I'm here to speak out against the misdemeanor defense proposal.

The Alliance recently conducted a survey of 88 business owners in Ballard to identify the impacts of criminal activity for businesses struggling to survive the pandemic.

Seventy-five percent of business owners indicated an increase in crime over the last six months.

Our businesses reported 7,000 instances of crime or criminal activity.

That's 40 crimes per day experienced by just 88 businesses.

The losses total more than a half a million dollars.

We share this information with city leaders on November 17th, and three weeks later, we have yet to see a response.

Our businesses are fighting to survive the pandemic, and the increase of repeat criminal activity only worsens the problem.

I encourage this committee and all Seattle elected leaders to allocate time and resources to start working now on meaningful public safety solutions, not on proposals that represent a dangerous abdication of city responsibility.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mike.

Our next speaker is Valerie Shuldret.

Hi.

Hi my name is Valerie Schleret.

I live in Beacon Hill and I've been following Seattle policing for 10 years.

I've seen that our accountability system isn't achieving significant changes in police behavior or culture.

There are still many cases of unnecessary police shootings of people in mental health crisis and many outrageous acts of police violence in protests over the summer showed STD acting as if it governs the city and works for itself.

Whatever the intentions of the individuals working in it our present accountability system is not transparent or answerable to the public and doesn't provide real consequences for bad policing and misuse of power.

It's past time to devise a new effective entirely civilian accountability system.

Please support Councilmember Sawant's proposal.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Hossam Al-Matawa.

Good morning.

My name is Hossam.

I'm a lifelong resident of the area and advocate with Bridging Cultural Gaps.

I'm calling you this morning to voice my support of expanding the duress defense and de minimis ordinance, stopping the prosecution of those struggling with poverty, addiction, mental health, or housing issues.

We the residents of Seattle applaud your efforts in supporting divesting funds from the police department.

However, the system of policing includes the institution of incarceration as well.

I support this change because I am intimately familiar with the challenges that every person in these situations are faced with.

A person should not be jailed for attempting to feed themselves when no other options are available.

A person should not be jailed for stealing a blanket to stay warm while sleeping under the Yesler Bridge.

These are results of bigger systemic issues which are well known in our city.

With one in nine Seattle residents living below the poverty line, we need to understand that people are just trying to meet their needs.

By jailing those who are forced to make incredibly difficult decisions, you exacerbate the issue by distancing that person even further from the help they need by creating even more obstacles to overcome.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Rebecca Marquez.

Hi there.

Hi there.

My name is Rebecca Marquez and I use she her pronoun.

I moved to Seattle in 2012 and have been a renter in District 3 4 and currently District 6. I have worked in public education home health care and most recently in youth homelessness.

In every sector I have been struck by the growing wealth inequality in our region and the lengths that my fellow community members must go in order to simply survive.

Living in poverty should not be treated as an inherently criminal act which is why I'm calling today in support of changing duress in the minimus law to curb prosecution of poverty and mental health struggles.

Prosecuting crimes of poverty does not create community safety or prevent future crimes.

Right now, Seattle Municipal Court primarily criminalizes poor people.

Public defenders handle over 90% of Seattle Municipal Court cases because the overwhelming majority of individuals prosecuted in the Seattle Municipal Court are poor.

What's more, the system disproportionately punishes Black people.

This legislation is responsive to the crisis facing our city.

I urge all of you, especially my council member, Dan Strauss, to support this move to divest from SPD.

Thank you so much.

It is now 10.09 a.m.

and we will conclude public comment.

My apologies to the folks who signed up and my appreciation that they've done so.

This is the beginning.

of the conversation around this particular policy, and look forward to hearing from more people at a later date.

With that, we're going to move into items on the agenda.

Alex, can you read item number one into the record place?

Item number one, 2020 semi-annual accountability report.

Thank you.

Just some quick opening remarks.

This presentation is a requirement of the accountability legislation adopted by the Council in 2017, sponsored by Council President Gonzalez.

This is the year, the mid-year report, which has been delayed due to the Council meeting principally in Budget Committee since June.

All three accountability bodies are with us at the table, along with the Seattle Police Department.

the accountability legislation calls for the inspector general and the community police commission to present a midyear report to the public safety committee and for SPD to be at the table.

I really appreciate that the office of police accountability is here with us as well.

And with that, I will turn it over to our accountability partners, not sure who is planning on kicking us off, but I hand it over to you.

Good morning, Madam Chair.

This is Amy Tsai with the Office of Inspector General.

So I'm going to begin with some brief introductory remarks, and we are going to, between the three accountability entities, split the introduction section up, and then each of the offices will take turns to talk about their work product that has been going on this year.

And Shailene is going to be sharing our PowerPoint.

So thank you very much, Shailene, for navigating that.

I'm giving it a minute because I don't yet see the slides on the screen.

Okay, can you see them now?

We should be able to.

Okay.

Thank you.

You're welcome.

So if we can just go ahead and advance to the next slide.

So I think this picture really just conveys what we're dealing with at this moment in time.

We have two transformational defining events of 2020 that have challenged all of our assumptions about what's normal.

So to put this presentation in context, we appreciate that this time is both extremely challenging for all of us personally, professionally, And it's also an opportunity.

And so that makes this an exceptionally difficult report to present at this time in this year.

But for the oversight entities, you're going to hear about the work that's been done in Olympia and also the projects and work that we're undertaking at home.

And most of these and many of these have been driven by the mass police protests.

So just to give a framework for this, that the work would be challenging under the best of circumstances, and we have a global health crisis on top of it.

So we're in a climate where it is straining all of our physical and emotional resources.

And so just putting that out there to recognize realities that we're all dealing with.

So moving on to the next slide.

Each year, this is an annual requirement as chair hobbled, as you noted, and this slide identifies the general requirements of the mid year report.

And so it's really an opportunity to highlight the issues, the recommendations that the accountability entities have had for both SPD.

and OPA as part of that accountability function.

The media report also is called upon to highlight any issues related to the budget, the state ledge agenda and collective bargaining agendas.

And so we will be touching on those as well.

very briefly on the budget.

Because we have just recently concluded the budget, this is going to be a brief comment that there's been a significant heavy lift for the work that has been done to date.

You see the movement of 9-1-1 and the parking enforcement office out of SPD.

And so those changes and more to come obviously create new bodies of work in areas and ways that we need to examine how we are going to provide effective oversight in light of these changes.

And also, of course, the consent decree is an ongoing process that is still in the works, and that creates dynamics related to the budget as well.

So this is just a note to state that There's been a heavy lift on the budget so far and we expect that that work is going to already be kicking into high gear early next year for 2022. And I would just like to take a moment also to thank the council in particular for your support during the budget for the OIG Sentinel event review process.

You're going to be hearing more about that later, but we certainly appreciate.

your support there and our funding needs to ensure that we have adequate support for the community-centered effort that is being undertaken there.

With that brief introduction, I'm going to turn the presentation over to Shailene.

Thank you, Amy.

Good morning, everyone.

My name is Shailene Morris.

I'm the Policy Director for the Community Police Commission, stepping in for Executive Director Brandy Grant and the co-chairs.

So I'd like to go through several slides.

We have quite a few and then we'll turn it over to OIG again, OP and SPD in the end.

So at the top, we'd like to talk a little bit about the state legislative agenda and recognize some highlights, some top priorities that all of the accountability partners agree on.

talking about the reform of the police certification and decertification process, establishing a special prosecutor to look at those police misconduct cases, and also establishing a statewide investigative entity for serious and deadly use of force.

Some other highlights that we'd like to mention that were mentioned by the partners individually or collectively was creating a duty to intervene when officers witnessed police misconduct.

This is also known as ABLE training that Washington is going through right now.

Also creating a clearinghouse database for use of force data.

That'd be statewide, obviously.

Removing accountability elements from the collective bargaining process and also removing barriers to civilian, I'm sorry, removing barriers to allow civilian personnel to take on more roles that are traditionally given over to sworn officers.

Also including the governor's task force.

This is ongoing and we are awaiting the results of that For independent investigations, please use the force.

We'd like to note that 17% of that task force is made up by CPC members.

And also there's a percentage from OPA and the rest of it, as you can see, are others that make up that task force.

So just to kind of hone in a little bit on CPC's activities, when we talk about our advocacy and our legislative work, we do identify and advocate for reforms to state laws that will enhance public trust.

and confidence in policing in the criminal justice system.

And I say all that because I'd like to focus a little bit on what CPC has put forth to OIR that went forward to council, especially yesterday during that vote.

We wanna show where we are aligned and potentially where we disagree and where changes could be made.

So we are aligned and we're very pleased to see that we're aligned on removing police accountability from the collective bargaining process, something that we asked for.

Repairing Washington's broken decertification system, instituting truly independent investigations.

strengthening requirements for when officers intervene when they witness police misconduct, i.e., duty to intervene type legislation, also removing arbitration as a route for appeal for police misconduct, and ensuring that community has a strong voice and is represented on the Washington State Criminal Justice Training Commission.

Those are the areas that we are aligned, so we are very pleased for that.

The one that we did ask for within our recommendations to OIR was to have a statewide ban on tear gas.

That is not demonstrated within what was put forth.

There is some language where we think you could interpret that in some way, but it is not clear delineated within that.

We just wanted to point that out.

Some exciting news that some people are aware of, we'd like to highlight here is that for the first time, we will have a technical advisor at the bargaining table as an advisor to the city and the council and mayor's office.

They will serve in an advisory capacity, and bargaining is starting to commence.

So this is huge.

It's the first time in history this is happening, that we have had advisors at the table, and this is great.

And I will turn it over to OPA for just a moment.

Good morning.

My name is Anne Bettersworth.

I'm the Deputy Director of Public Affairs at the Office of Police Accountability.

And I wanted to share this slide on how the three accountability agencies have collaborated, been collaborating in 2020. We actually collaborate quite a bit on a variety of topics, but the ones that we wanted to highlight for you today are the fact that one, it's called for in the ordinance, in the police accountability ordinance, but we meet quarterly and discuss all policy issues on the table and any other topics that need discussion.

We also this year met repeatedly to create an officer-involved shooting protocol that calls on and requires more care towards community in those situations and being aware of a variety of the stakeholders and partners and how we can be more thoughtful in the protocol when there is an officer-involved shooting.

As Shailene mentioned and Amy, the state legislative agenda has been a collaboration, and we've also each contributed to the crowd control weapons ordinance recommendations.

All three partners met repeatedly about this and then submitted individual reports.

The OIG is conducting a Sentinel event review, which Amy will discuss more shortly, and we have been collaborating on that.

And then finally, there have been some innovations in effective interviewing training.

This is a partnership that we're undertaking to change the way the interviews are done with regard to investigations.

So that's just a quick note on collaborations.

Thank you, Shaleen.

Thanks, Anne.

Okay, so I'm going to jump into CPC-specific work and then hand it over to our partners as well.

So just at the top, just a few things that we have completed this year as far as publications and reports.

Earlier in the year, we had the response to the 21st century policing assessment of police accountability.

We also had the crowd control weapons ban back in August that Ann was just speaking of.

State legislative agenda recommendations.

We also sent a letter to the city attorney's office in an attempt to end the subpoena against journalists that was highlighted in the news.

Also, we had recommendations on the next steps for police accountability.

These were all public-facing publications and reports that were sent out to their respective intended targets, and they're also available publicly on our website.

Some of the challenges that we are facing, want to take a minute to highlight this, but also while there are challenges, that means these are also areas of opportunity for partnership and growth with CPC, our partners, and SPD more importantly.

So a couple of items.

There has been, we've noticed a lack of recommendation, implementation, when it comes to anything that has come forward to SPD from our office.

We have yet to see the implementation of those recommendations, but we hope to continue to partner with them and see what those challenges and barriers are and how we can get past them.

In addition, there have been some unfulfilled information and data requests that were sent out specifically again to SPD.

We recognize during this time of COVID, there are some great barriers and some time constraints And so we are aware and cognizant of that.

So again, we look forward to partnering with our accountability partners and with SPD to see where we can move past those barriers and how we can have any workarounds and resetting our targets and priorities so we can have the most up-to-date information for the community.

One of the largest items that we do as the Community Police Commission is community engagement and events.

So this happens in a number of ways with our community engagement team with commissioners.

We have a Demonstration Management Committee as we were working through those recommendations in July and August over the summer.

We had a webinar series, Cultivating Resilience in the Time of Coronavirus, we did this earlier in the year, right on the onset to try and give people access to information and things that they could do.

We are now reengaging with the community engagement work group with coronavirus and with protests that were happening.

I think everyone kind of felt the strain and time crunch.

We have reinvigorated this work group and we are working diligently with commissioners in the community to get back up and running.

We have also reengaged the community engagement system partners group.

We are in support of the Youth Rights Ordinance, which was something that commissioners talked about publicly and released a letter.

Then also we have the completion of the arts partnership with Creative Justice, and you will see some of that within our annual report.

Another big news that we have been talking about with our partners and a little bit with the public is the CPC recommendation tracker.

As most of you know, the CPC is the owner of the recommendation tracker, that tracks the recommendations that they can only private partners put forth to SPD and OPA as far as reforms and oversight.

So what does it look like?

So internally, it's a SharePoint document.

I have a screenshot here at the bottom for you.

It's about 20 columns with the recommendations, their status.

supporting documentation if they were implemented or partially implemented.

How did that look?

What did they do?

And then also just background so people have a good understanding of what we're talking about.

So the next steps, because that is an internal document, is to make this public facing.

Put it on CPC's website so that the public has access can look at the data at any time, and it will be updated on a weekly, monthly, and largely a quarterly basis.

Right now, we are in the process of updating the tracker as we had our quarterly meeting that Anne was speaking to.

We are now gathering everyone's status updates of the recommendations that were issued.

We will clean that data, track the responses, take action taken, and we will continue to eye out the process with the partners when it comes to releasing this information publicly.

our team has decided to use Tableau.

So the policy team is right now, as we even speak, building this tracker public-facing dashboard via Tableau with visualizations.

We intend to launch this end of this year, top of the next year, so very soon.

Shailene, you mentioned earlier that there was an accumulation of recommendations not acted upon.

Would that information be contained in this tracker?

Yes, it will.

So this tracker will serve as a few purposes, if you'd indulge me to explain.

So one, it's where we are not siloing information or just the keeper of it.

While we are the keeper of updating it and holding that, we want everyone to be able to see this.

So that includes our partners, but it also includes the public and mayor's office, city council, anytime you could go on here and see what's going on.

All of the recommendations will be listed.

You can toggle through them by date, by recommendation, by agency, what's the issue or the receiver of that.

And then it'll also show you the status of that recommendation, whether it was implemented, partially implemented, or has not been addressed.

And if there have been steps taken or complete steps taken, We hope to embed documentation or some wording that lets people know, yes, SPD said they have completed this task, and here's how they did that.

So then vice versa, you would also see where they have not taken any action.

It would all be there.

A good accountability measure for us, and it keeps everyone just transparent and honest.

So if I wanted to get more information about what items you were referencing a couple slides back, I could go to this now and find out what those things are?

The SharePoint, this, once it's launched, yes, absolutely.

We are building it now in order to launch it, so it would be available to you.

If you wanted to see some of the items that we are discussing, what hasn't been implemented, that is something Council Member Herbold, we are happy to send to your office, if you would like, before this is launched.

Thank you.

I would like that information, considering that it sounds like we're not quite ready for public launching of this, in addition to the requests for information that are pending.

Sure, happy to speak more on that as well.

Okay, now with the consent decree compliance.

So right now, the city remains out of compliance on accountability.

So just a few of the steps of what's been going on, the city was found out of compliance in May of 2019. And then the city was then ordered to work with the DOJ and the monitor and the CPC to create a plan to come back into compliance for August 2019. That has not been completed and was pointed out multiple times in CPC court filings that we have filed throughout this past year.

So also the CPC has also posed city and DOJ motion to discharge the substantive commitments of the consent decree.

And the city withdrew that motion in June after the protests began.

So this is still ongoing, but still out of compliance.

And lastly, some of our other priorities, just so everyone is aware of what the Community Police Commission is working on.

We are still within, of course, community engagement.

That includes a district liaison program, youth engagement, and also looking at how we can virtually engage with the community during the pandemic and as it will be ongoing for some time.

Within our police practices work group and with commissioners that are doing this work, we are also reviewing arbitration and the PSCSE.

surveillance, the CSO program, public disclosure, 911 dispatch, crisis intervention, officer wellness.

And then the last two kind of collectively, we were looking at training broadly where it comes to academy de-escalation training, how they're working, if they are effective, things of those nature we'd like to pick up.

Similar to what Anne was talking about some sides back of collaboration, we are working together with the partners when it comes to police contract negotiations.

We're also, again, very excited to have an advisor at the table representing the CPC.

Also looking at SPD Ruses, and that will be coming out shortly before we are hoping before the year is out.

Also the Recommendation Tracking Database that I just spoke on, in-service training for SPU officers, and also a project that we hope to partner with OPA and OIG concerning officer professionalism, and we will talk more about that on a later date, something that we are all very excited about and hope to look more into the future.

Internal business for the CPC just so everyone knows what we are doing if you don't attend our public meetings on that happen on Wednesdays every other Wednesday, we are in the process of searching for a new permanent executive directors that searches underway.

We are going through some new Commissioner onboarding and bringing on new Commissioners.

And as you see, looking at my face, and I've spoken on it, we have a new policy team.

I'm the policy director.

And then we have two others, a senior policy advisor and a policy analyst.

And we have been hitting the ground running and doing a lot of work and partnering with our organization and our partners to ensure that policy implementation is happening and that the community is aware and able to access that.

That's the primary part of our job.

And so I believe that's it for us.

And I will turn it over to OIG.

Thank you, Shailene.

Thank you.

Good morning, Madam Chair, Council President, Council Members.

This is Lisa Judge, Inspector General for Public Safety.

I apologize.

I'm having some significant technical issues this morning, so you can't see me.

But after I talk here for a few minutes, I'm going to try to switch devices and see if I can get my face in front of everybody.

But just picking up some of the work that I'd like to talk about.

I'm going to talk about all of the various projects that we've got ongoing and that we've completed this year.

But I wanted to start by just highlighting OIG's work in terms of SPD's protest response over the summer that's largely consumed a lot of our resources and staff time.

So I just wanted to highlight a couple of things in terms of work we're doing there.

At really the very beginning of this summer, One of the first products that we produced for Council was a summary of the types of weapons used by SPD during the protest response and some descriptions about just generally how those weapons were used and how they were used in some instances by SPD.

And then we were asked, along with our other partner entities, to provide recommendations to Council relating to the Council's crowd control weapons ordinance that was passed this summer.

That involves some significant audit resources and policy work to put that together.

Aside from that, we've been working to build a fairly robust review process that involves community and stakeholder involvement and input that we call a Sentinel Event Review.

It's a way that we're trying to really look at negative outcomes and try to find the systemic root causes of those things so that we can fix them and keep bad things from happening in the future.

So it was work, as many of you know, that was inspired by processes that were used by my former agency back in Tucson to bring community into the room to review uses of force and have a voice at the table in deciding what happened with force events and how to correct or for any deficiencies in the future.

So we've been working a lot with community, doing a lot of engagement around this process and building, not just a process that takes into community account and is built with community, but also trying to identify critical voices to have at the review panel table.

And so we're very pleased with the progress we're making there.

We hope to convene our first panel in early January.

with experts, community representatives, and other partner stakeholders at the table.

We still have our comments.

line open on our OIG website if folks want to learn more about the process and contribute in whatever way they want to.

The website address is sentineleventatseattle.gov if folks want to go on there and make comments.

And then if you take a look at our OIG website, there's information about our process and the development of it at this point.

So I Deputy Inspector General Amy Sy would like me to give photo credit for this particular slide to Council Member Strauss.

So thank you very much for that.

Shailene, if you would move along, unless anybody has any questions or comments about SentinelNet.

All right, so in terms of our audit and assessment work in 2020, we produced a report of an audit of a canine unit back in late spring.

We also produced a report that was about some police case management system vulnerability issues that actually came to light with OIG personnel.

And we're able to work with Seattle Department of IT, OPA, and SPD to resolve that vulnerability in a really nice collaborative way.

So that was that consumes resources early in the year.

We've got two other audits that are just about to be published.

They're in the final editing stages.

That's one relating to the destruction of some DNA samples in 2019 by SPD, some mistaken destruction, and an audit that we did of secure firearm storage in police training and police facilities.

So those are either already published or about to be published in the next week or two.

Some of the work that we have that's ongoing are Chapter 1418 surveillance audits and Chapter 1412 compliance audits.

So that's just ongoing work and you can look forward to seeing some products from OIG in the not too distant future.

We have an audit ongoing that relates to mutual aid.

and how other agencies work with SPD and what SPD operations look like when they're out working with other partner agencies.

So we're hoping to wrap that one up in Q1.

And we kicked off an audit of the effectiveness of the discipline and appeals system for SPD.

And that was supposed to be one of our first audits kicking off in 2020, but a lot of our work largely got derailed by having to focus on the SPD protest response.

So this was one of the projects we were hoping would help to inform efforts with the consent decree and questions that the court had about the effectiveness of the discipline and appeals system.

So we're hoping that that will be for the city and our other stakeholders.

Inspector General Judge, that last item, the effectiveness of the disciplinary appeals process, that was to build off of a previous year's body of work, which was to map the disciplinary appeals process.

Is my recollection correct?

Yes, Madam Chair, that's exactly correct.

We had first undertaken to try to really understand the discipline appeals process because it's pretty elaborate and has a lot of aspects to it, a lot of connection points with various stakeholders and participants in it.

So we mapped it completely, got a good understanding of it, and now we're going to try to get an understanding of how effective it is.

Thank you, and are there other 2020 work program items not represented on this slide that you either haven't gotten to, that you intend to get to, or that you're going to have to reassess whether or not it's a priority to do that work?

Yes, there were a number of items from our 2020 work plan that some have been deferred and will be started in 2021. Some have been replaced by other priorities.

I think.

There's some consensus among folks who provide us feedback on our work plans and our own office about the need to embark on some disparity work.

I know there's a lot of interest in taking a look at the 9-1-1 system.

And I think we're going to have to be thoughtful about that as it moves out of SPD, about how that work is done and how it's resourced.

But yeah, there are some carryover projects and some new work.

Thank you.

Alright, if you would advance the slide.

Thank you very much.

So just a little bit of an overview of our work doing reviews of OTAs classifications and investigations.

We do regular review of all of OTAs classification decisions to make sure that they're appropriate.

When OPA has completed an investigation, we do a thorough review of that investigation and certify it to make sure that it's thorough, biased, and timely.

Or I'm sorry, unbiased.

I got a big slip there.

We make sure that it's unbiased and that it's meeting time requirements.

requirements that are necessary under the contract.

Some other areas of OTA oversight are programs that OTA has been developing, and as they do, we've been developing and implementing appropriate oversight of those.

Those are unsubstantiated misconduct reviews, bias reviews, some work around mediation work to resolve OTA complaints, and a rapid adjudication program.

So I think that OPA will probably discuss these in some detail, but I'm certainly willing to talk about the work that we are doing in that area.

And Council Member, we have a meeting with you that I think we're gonna talk about the bias review issue.

So we're prepared with some information to break you a little bit further on that this week.

We also have started producing quarterly reports of our work around OPA reviews.

We started that in May, and we put our quarterly reviews up on the website, as well as an aggregation of that and some additional work in the annual report that will be produced in Q1 of 2021. All right.

move past it.

Some other really interesting work that we've been doing this year are some special projects.

One was mentioned earlier by Ms. Bettsworth, and that's a project that we've been working with an expert from the UK on improving SPD's interviewing protocols for suspects, witnesses, and victims.

And it's really developed around, many people know about the peace model.

So we're working with our stakeholders and with this expert to develop a comprehensive program of policy and training and a train-the-trainer program so that SPD can have its own internal robust means of training its officers and investigators on how to best talk to people and get information without having it be tainted, without any risk of false confessions, and really in a manner that gets the best, most reliable information out So that's really exciting.

And COVID was not our friend with trying to kick this off.

We were scheduled to start training back in the spring, but we've had to get creative and we're just about to launch our first online training to get this program going next week.

So I'm really excited about that.

I guess that's it for me.

So I'm going to turn it over to Okay.

Thank you.

All right.

Can we go to the next slide, please, Shailene?

Thank you.

So we wanted to talk a little bit about OPA policy recommendations, and these come in the form of what we call a management action recommendation, and that is a finding that the director can issue after an individual investigation of a complaint of misconduct.

So he issues a management action recommendation or just a policy recommendation when there's basically, it's basically a tool for correcting a gap or an ambiguity or an issue with SPD policy.

So in 2020 so far, we have issued 13 of these policy recommendations, including two that were just issued last week.

SPD has fully implemented, it says here on the slide two, But we just got word yesterday, I believe, that they've implemented four more.

So they've actually implemented, or they've completed six of the policy recommendations.

And I know that they're close to completing many others.

They've had a tough year, as Shailene mentioned, in terms of COVID and protest and staffing issues.

And we've chatted with them and been collaborating.

They're just unable to get many of these moving as quickly as normal.

So while they're still outstanding, they will be completed at some point.

They can either partially implement them, fully implement them, or decline action.

And a lot of them are still active.

On the next slide, we give you a screenshot of what the OPA website looks like, where it shows all of these different management action recommendations.

An OPA and SPD meet quarterly to discuss each of these recommendations and to make sure that they're still continuing moving along and that we're on the same page about what each recommendation means and whether or not it has been fully implemented or partially implemented.

Can you go to the next slide, please, Shailene?

Thank you.

So here is a screenshot of what our page looks on our OPA website of our Management Action Recommendations.

The date issued is in the left column.

So that shows the 13 that have been issued in 2020 this year.

And then the topic is listed in the third column.

And that is kind of a general overview of what the topic is.

And then it says the status.

And you can click on both the topic and the status to see the letter that OPA transmitted to SPD to discuss the issue and the underlying investigation in case.

And then you can click on the link in the OPA status to see how OPA, I'm sorry, how SPD responded and which pieces they either implemented or why they declined action or partially implemented.

So feel free to go onto OPA's website and look at these policy recommendations in more detail if you like.

Thank you, Anne.

It occurs to me that we actually do have SPD represented here at the table with us today, I think just for exactly this purpose of engaging with SPD about topics just like this.

And I'm wondering, Rebecca, if you have a few words maybe to say about the status of the 2020 recommendations, whether or not you believe additional recommendations will be implemented this year.

And then I would ask whether or not there is a similar procedure in place as described by Anne for the OPA if there is a similar procedure in place for the CPC as relates to their open and unimplemented recommendations.

Good morning.

Yes.

Thank you for the opportunity.

So we meet quarterly with OPA, OIG, and CPC to go over the recommendations, not all of which are aligned.

So there's often a fair amount of discussion that needs to take place around what the next course of action is.

There are some recommendations that would require operational changes.

And so we need to make sure that we're bringing the operational folks to the table to have these discussions as well.

Like so many things, it's a matter of bandwidth, and it's a matter of prioritization.

So we are plowing through these.

There are some recommendations that are pretty easy lifts.

They're policy tweaks that we agree with.

And we move forward with those as expeditiously as we can through our audit policy and research section.

There are others that just simply require more conversation, you know, whether it's with the law department, whether it's with all three accountability partners together.

So we do continue to work through all of the management actions we receive from OPA as well as the recommendations we receive from CPC and then certainly the audit recommendations that follow from the OIG.

Thank you for that.

I'm wondering, what is the thinking about having different dashboards for different accountability partners?

Might it make sense to sort of merge the dashboard with a different you know, drop-down menu for who's making the recommendation so that people have one place to go and see the outstanding recommendations from all three accountability members.

That's one question I have.

And then the other question, I think it would be helpful on the page where it lists either active or implemented If there, if there is an indication of items that.

that we shouldn't expect SPD to implement because they disagree, they're not aligned, so that we could look at that, understand it, and decide whether or not that's acceptable or whether or not there needs to be more conversation to seek that alignment.

But I think without, I'm just thinking of the city auditor and they do an annual report, and they indicate in their, and so it's an annual report of all the recommendations that they make on all topics over the past years, and they do a sort of a red, yellow, green indicator to tell the public what the status is, and the red indicator is an indicator that says that we should not, the public should not expect further work on that item because there is typically a lack of an alignment with the department of whether or not that recommendation should be implemented.

So I just think it is part of the transparency that I think we're all seeking that should be evident in the recommendation status.

Thank you for those comments, Council Member Herbold.

We actually do note when their action has been declined, so that would indicate a disagreement.

They just happen to be active right now, and we haven't received a letter that says declined action.

But when they do decline action, that usually indicates a disagreement or a lack of alignment on the issue, and SPD will write a letter and explain why, and then you'll be able to see that.

So if you go to maybe a past year, like 2019, it may show action declined and you'll be able to see an example.

So you should be able to see that in the future.

It's just these particular ones haven't been designated that because we haven't received the letter.

Does that make sense?

Yes, it does make sense.

My recollection is that there is a sort of a response letter that is due within a certain amount of time.

Is there a timeline on it?

There's a 30 day Acknowledgement that the letter has been received that requirement and we've actually we've decided we've created a separate procedure for these management action recommendations and we track them.

And we do have SPD request an extension if they need more.

We actually usually give them, I believe, six months or three months to complete the action because the acknowledgement letter is just that it's it's basically yes, we received your letter.

Thank you, which isn't.

Very significant so.

we've kind of moved beyond that and are tracking additional action.

So using the January 9th, 2020 example, a recommendation regarding body worn video that is noted as active, but there's no indication that SPD has agreed with the recommendations and that active means we're working on it versus active and the indication is that we don't intend to work on it.

Or is there a field there that I'm missing?

No, I believe active generally means active and they're working on it.

Some of these just take an awfully long time to implement or are multi-pronged in their approach and require just multiple months.

And this year in particular, as I mentioned, they've asked for a variety of extensions just because of bandwidth in their audit policy and research section.

And to address your previous question, about merging the two policy databases, these management action recommendations will be reflected on the CPC's more holistic recommendation tracker.

So while we will continue to have our own webpage individually, it will also be documented on the CPC's for anyone who wants a holistic look.

Great, thank you.

Are we at the end of our presentation?

One more slide.

Okay, got it.

Good morning again.

I'm just going to touch very briefly on the ABLE program that was mentioned by the Inspector General.

So SPD received a recommendation from the Inspector General to develop a peer intervention program.

We sent staff to the New Orleans EPIC training program with the expectation that we would then be able to develop a training course for SPD.

The EPIC program has since evolved into the ABLE program, which is the Active Bystander for Law Enforcement.

This program was developed by Georgetown University's Innovative Policing Program.

It's a scenario-based training program that's designed to provide police personnel with tools training, and the authority to intervene to prevent or stop unprofessional or improper behavior, to prevent mistakes, and to promote officer health and wellness.

We'll have more information about that coming out, but I do want to specifically thank the CPC and Sound Health for their letters that they wrote in support of SPD joining the program.

We have four trainers who are currently part of the Train the Trainer program that's ongoing.

And in January, initial classes will start with personnel from the training section, the wellness unit, and command.

And we expect the full rollout to begin in February and continue for several months.

Thank you.

This is good news to hear.

Appreciate your responsiveness to this particular recommendation and the training efforts here.

Is there currently within the SPD policy and procedures manual a policy related to the expectation that officers intervene?

It's embodied in a title five of the SPD manual.

And do we expect there to be any changes to the current policy based on this implementation and training?

That's likely.

As you know, most of the policies go through an annual review process.

And in doing so, we update to align with our current practices and training.

Right, so just looking at the thumbnails of all of the other council members here and looking to see if anybody has any questions.

And not seeing anybody come off mute or any hands raised.

And so with that, I want to thank all of you for joining us today for your annual review.

It's very, very appreciated, and I really appreciate all the efforts, especially towards transparency around previous years' recommendations so that we can all hold ourselves and other parts of the system accountable for making progress.

Thank you again for joining us in all your hard work in these difficult times.

Alex, can you read the next item into the record, please?

Agenda item number two, Council Bill 119974, an ordinance relating to civilian and community oversight of the police, creating a subpoena process for the Office of Police Accountability and the Office of Inspector General for Public Safety, while ensuring due process for individuals who are subject of the subpoena, and adding new sections 3.29.126 and 3.29.245 to the Seattle Municipal Code.

Thank you, Alex.

We start off with a quick round of introductions, please.

Greg Doss, Council Central staff.

Andrew Myerberg, Director of OPA.

Good morning, Michelle Chen, Mayor's Office Legal Counsel.

Thank you.

Good morning, Lisa Judge, Inspector General for Public Safety.

Great.

John, Ghazal, either one of you guys?

Good morning, Ghazal Sharifi, Seattle City Attorney's Office.

And I think John's up for the next item, so I think that takes care of introductions.

Thank you all for being.

Council member, you went on mute.

Thank you.

That takes care of introductions and thank you all for being with us.

I think I'm going to hand it off to central staff.

Just a couple words.

I've been working with the mayor's office, the inspector general, and the office of professional police accountability and the city attorney's office in developing this legislation.

and really appreciate the collaboration towards meeting this goal that was contained in the 2017 Accountability Ordinance and the work that this ordinance does in introducing a process for using the authority contained in the 2017 Accountability Ordinance.

With that, I'll hand it over to Council Central staff.

Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the committee.

Good morning.

Again, Greg Doss, Council Central Staff.

I'm going to kick us off today with a brief summary of the legislation and then turn it over to our guests to talk about the issue and answer any questions that Council members may have.

My comments today are captured in a Central Staff report that was emailed to members this morning and has been posted to the Council's website for public access.

So Council Bill 119974 would add a notification process to the subpoena powers that are provided to the OPA Director and the Inspector General under the 2017 Police Accountability Ordinance, Ordinance 125315. The notification process would govern how and when notification must be provided and would enhance due process by ensuring that the recipient of a subpoena is aware of their due process rights.

Council Bill 119974 would require notice to be given at the same time as the OPA director or inspector general issued a subpoena.

The notice must state the purpose of the subpoena and the basis for seeking the information.

An acknowledgment that the subpoena may be contested in court.

a statement describing the privileges and immunities of anyone who provides oral or documentary information, and a statement that would require a search warrant or equivalent to use any evidence that is obtained through a separate criminal proceeding, a subpoena in a separate criminal proceeding.

By way of background, the subpoena powers currently provided to the Inspector General and OPA Director allow the agencies to compel SPD officers, employees, or other entities, such as a private bank or a private cell phone carrier, to provide evidence in support of an investigation or systemic review.

However, before subpoenas can be issued to compel this information, the city must first negotiate the terms governing such subpoenas as part of the collective bargaining agreements with the affected employees.

In this case, that is the Seattle Police Management Association and the Seattle Police Officers Guild.

The current SPMA contract allows for the issuance of subpoenas and Council Bill 119974 would spell out the due process and notification protections for SPMA members.

The current Spog contract does not allow for the issuance of subpoenas.

This is an item that would have to be negotiated in the upcoming contract discussions between the city and Spog.

With this as an overview, I will turn it over to our guests to answer any specific questions that the council members might have.

Thank you, Greg.

All right, seeing no hands or questions, I think we had some comments that we were expecting to receive from our guests here today about the utility of the legislation.

Michelle, do you want to lead off?

Sure, happy to.

Good morning.

First, I want to start with the thank yous.

Thank you, Councilmember Herbold, for holding a committee hearing on this legislation.

And thank you for your leadership and for your staff keeping us on task to get this legislation done by this year.

Thank you to Director Andrew Meyerberg and Inspector General Lisa Judge and her deputy, Amy Tsai, who have been full partners, giving us their considerable time and input and feedback on developing this legislation.

Also, I'd like to thank City Attorney Pete Holmes and Assistant City Attorney Ghazal Sharifi for their excellent legal support, helping us to complete this legislation and jumping in midstream during a staffing transition.

Finally, I'd like to thank Mayor Jenny Durkin who had the vision and challenged us to develop legislation that would build on the 2017 Accountability Ordinance and to strengthen civilian police oversight by making OPA and OIG's power to directly issue subpoenas an explicit legal authority.

and by building the process for how this is done to ensure that individual civil liberties and due process rights are protected.

This legislation is the result of over six months of collaborative work by that group of committed stakeholders, including ACLU.

And I'm glad that we are able to accomplish this legislative goal by this year end.

In 2019, both the federal court overseeing the Seattle Police Department consent decree and the city's consultants, national policing experts, 21CP, issued a report that studied the police accountability system.

And in it, they noted that there was a lack of certainty regarding OPA and OIG subpoena authority.

This legislation is in part in response to that concern to make explicit the city's legal authority to grant administrative subpoenas as a first class charter city and OPA and OIG's direct issuance of a subpoena and enforcement to compel production of information to assist them in their investigations.

Also extremely important to the mayor was making sure that the city had a process that recognizes the important Fourth Amendment due process rights and Fifth Amendment protections against self-incrimination for individuals who are often the complainants or witnesses in these police misconduct investigations, and to avoid a chilling effect that subpoenas might have on that cooperation.

It is very important that OPA and OIG have the ability to gather information and evidence relevant to their inquiries.

This means having the ability to compel production of information if necessary.

This power, though, must be balanced against the equally important due process rights of individuals who might receive the subpoenas.

So this created some important issues on how to protect that privacy and civil liberties of civilians who have relevant information in an OPA or OIG investigation.

So a critical component of police accountability, we believe, is that people are willing to make complaints and are not intimidated by the process.

We believe this legislation, which creates the process and protections for complainants and individuals who might be the subject of the subpoena, strikes that right balance, and we ask the council's support for passage of this legislation.

Thank you.

Thank you, Michelle.

Director Meyerberg or Inspector General Judge.

Yeah, I can just quickly supplement what Michelle mentioned.

We are at OPA very supportive of this ordinance.

It's important, I think, you know, with the accountability legislation, while subpoena power was set forth, this explains it more, it talks about the processes, it talks about due process.

So in that respect, it goes further than the accountability ordinance.

And we were very pleased with the collaborative work that was not just between city partners, but also with the ACLU, the thoughts that everyone brought to the table.

And I think the finished product is exceptional.

So we're very supportive of it.

Obviously, we understand that there's still a couple of hills to climb with bargaining with the unions to fully expand subpoena power to mirror the expectations of the accountability ordinance, but I think this is a great first step, and it puts into law that OPA and OIG have subpoena power without limitation, which I think is incredibly important.

Thank you, Director Myerberg.

Inspector General Judge?

Hi there.

I would just say, yes, thank you.

I appreciate the comments of my colleagues and I echo the things that they've already said I don't feel like I have a whole lot to add to that other than my support of this legislation and my appreciation for all of the work and collaboration that went into making this possible.

I think as my office flagged pretty early on, this is a critical power.

A true robust accountability system can't work simply based on voluntary compliance alone.

So I think this was a really necessary step for everyone to take.

And I'm very appreciative of the underlying support that drove it.

So thank you very much.

And that's all I have to add.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I would like to also just highlight that there are a few technical changes that need to be made that we'll be seeing in a substitute version at our next committee meeting.

Amy Tsai, did you want to just real quickly touch upon some of those technical changes just to give council members a preview of what to expect?

At least 1 that I know of offhand is there's just a little bit of a technical exercise and the fact that it is sorry.

This is totally technical, but it refers to the subpoena authority that is already within the chapter itself.

And so just eliminating some of that redundancy is some of the cleanup involved there.

I think maybe a little bit more homework on the back end in terms of the impacts to people who are employees versus non-employees.

So a little bit of that due diligence background work.

But as Director Meyerberg said, I think it's a solid product as is.

And so we're looking at those technical kinds of aspects.

Thank you so much.

Any other questions or comments, questions from council members, comments from council members or comments from other stakeholders at the table here?

Council Member Lewis.

Thank you so much, Madam Chair.

I'll just be brief and just want to ask a question to Director Meyerberg.

I'm really glad this legislation is coming forward, and it's a very critical tool for the effectiveness of our accountability agencies.

I wonder if you might, just to contextualize this a little for the viewing public, on Um, what this new power is really going to tangibly mean, uh, for the effectiveness, uh, and ability, uh, to, um, complete investigations that maybe in the past I had, uh, would have had an inconclusive result or wouldn't have been able to, um, build a strong enough case.

But now with this new tool and this new power, new evidence, new materials can be gathered by the office to make sure that justice is done and that without this tool, it has been difficult in some cases to, because this is my understanding that I'm laying out here.

This isn't supposed to be a leading question, but if you want it to be, I guess you could also take it as that.

But just to illustrate what this is going to mean for the future of investigations in the Office of Police Accountability and how with this tool we can really make sure that we're honoring our mission with renewed diligence and effectiveness.

Well, thanks for the question.

I would say, you know, at the outset, It's not necessarily a new tool, per se.

OPA has, within the SPA contract, has subpoena power, but that subpoena power was limited by the SPA contract.

So what we can do right now, and what we have done in the past, is we can issue subpoenas to non-SPD individuals, and obviously not to their families, to seek records.

And we have done that in the past, where we've sought phone records, for example, or other materials that have been relevant to our investigation.

subpoena power in general is incredibly important important for two reasons first to allow us to do that type of expansive work to get to facts that we wouldn't have been able to do prior to the accountability ordinance being passed.

Our system ensures a chief of police and a department that will cooperate with us.

If that no longer is the case, subpoena power is essential to bring in witnesses, to interview sworn employees, to obtain department records.

So again, in some respects, it prepares for the worst case scenario.

But what this does, what this ordinance does, is it makes abundantly clear that OPA and OIG have subpoena power, that we have a powerful, robust subpoena power, and it creates a process that strengthens that subpoena power so that if there's a challenge, that it will survive the challenge.

That is the purpose of this ordinance, and I think it does so very successfully.

So I'm not sure I totally answered your question, which was leading, but I did, but I think I did give a responsive answer.

No, I appreciate that.

And we'll be talking about this a lot more, I'm sure, as we develop this.

Obviously, we're not voting on it today.

Just just make sure we don't bring forward any ordinances that would also ban leading questions because I might have those hearings.

So I appreciate it, Director.

Thank you for your leadership on this.

And I'm wondering if there's anybody at the table, perhaps central staff, who can speak a little bit to, assuming the legislation is passed, what the steps would be as it relates to activating the re-opener.

I'm assuming that we can begin discussions around the SPOG contract separate from our larger negotiations about the next FOG contract by merit of it being a re-opener.

I'm assuming that a re-opener means you can take a piece of the contract to talk about it, but I'm not certain.

Councilmember, Greg Doss, Central Staff, I have the same understanding that you do, that by bargaining the reopener into the contract, that the city has the right to raise that topic with the union at any time.

Although for practicality purposes, SPOG negotiations are about to ensue, and so it's possible that the city may just choose to roll that item into the upcoming negotiations.

would ask law to jump in and clarify anything that I might have said here.

Or Dan.

Chair Herbold, I think I agree with everything that Greg just described.

I would just point out what is probably obvious to all, that while the city can unilaterally raise the issue, Through the – either through the reopener in existing contract or as a new bargaining matter in the upcoming discussions for the next contract, both parties have to agree to the contract terms.

So we cannot unilaterally decide what will be included in the contract.

We can only unilaterally decide to enter into the negotiations with our counterparts on the other side of the table.

Thank you.

Understood.

Any other comments here?

I think the question of whether or not to do this as part of the overall negotiations or as through the re-opener I think is a tactical question that we'll need to discuss with the executive through the Labor Relations Policy Committee in consultation with our accountability partners who are advising us in that process.

So look forward to having those conversations.

All right.

Council Member Herbold, the only other thing I might add, I agree with everything that Greg and Dan described here, is that as part of the technical amendments, there was language added on the advice of the city attorney's office that we make this ordinance effective when the court approves the ordinance and then 30 days or after 30 days after the mayor signs it, whichever occurs later.

We are presenting the ordinance to the federal judge Robart for his approval and then it will become effective once that approval and 30 days passage after the mayor signs it.

Thank you, Michelle, for that addition and the changes that we should expect to see when council meets in this committee to discuss the substitute.

If there are no further questions or comments, I want to, again, echo thanks to everybody joining us here today, as well as folks who are not at the table, including the ACLU, As mentioned earlier, they were a really good partner in advocating very strongly for the most streamlined approach of issuance of appeals and still observing the ability of folks to assert their privacy rights without sacrificing that process, a very streamlined appeal process.

When we were talking about different options, their advocacy was really, really important for the option that we ultimately chose.

So many thanks to them as well.

And with that, Thank you again for joining us, and let's move on to the next item on the agenda.

Alex, can you read it into the record, please?

Item number three, proposal for misdemeanor basic need defense.

Thank you, Alex.

We do start off with quick introductions, please.

Asha Venkatraman, Council Central staff.

And other folks who are here with us today on this item, please introduce yourself.

John Shockett, City Attorney's Office.

Thank you.

Anita Condello, Department of Public Defense.

Fantastic.

Thank you all.

So let's see here.

Before I turn it over to Asha, just again as background, folks remember in late October during the budget process, this proposal was briefly discussed after direction from other council members and the council president.

We decided to take this item up after the budget process.

The proposal that we are discussing today focuses on the concept of creating a poverty defense, making meeting an individual's immediate basic need an affirmative defense to a crime.

It does not decriminalize misdemeanors, it doesn't make misdemeanors legal, it is simply allowing for an affirmative defense to misdemeanors and the decision around the adjudication of the case will be as it is now left to a judge or jury.

Central Staff's memo provides some background to provide context about how an affirmative defense fits into the criminal legal system, identifies some policy considerations for a potential future bill, and outlines some next steps.

I just want to highlight that our city attorney has said in his letters attached to the memo that he has worked to move the city attorney's office away from prosecuting property crimes that appeared to be committed out of survival necessity.

It's not only a choice.

a just choice by prosecutors.

It's also one reinforced by Seattle jurors who are loathe to convict for crimes committed out of pure necessity.

Our conversation today isn't consideration of a dramatic new policy, but one about the codification of existing product policy and allowing for defendants to make a defense to jurors and judges and allowing the jurors and judges to make a decision based on a full understanding of the circumstances.

We have both representatives from the city attorney's office, John Schakett, as well as from the King County Department of Public Defense, Director Anita Kandewal, and they are here to help inform our conversation.

I want to just thank Asha for pulling together the memo, and I'll hand it over to you, but just big picture, the memo explains some of the options and some of the process that is inherent to any case I will hand it over to Asha to talk about the next steps related to a misdemeanor arrest or a misdemeanor charge as context.

my hope is that we can go through the options, hear councilmembers interests or concern about the options, and discuss

≫ Good morning, councilmembers.

Where this memo falls in terms of our legislative process.

This the memo is very much a narrow look into what it would look like to draft this as an initial concept.

The nuances of drafting legislation, as you all know, can have.

big impacts on how a policy is actually implemented and how legislation practically operates.

And so this memo is not so much about the wider policy impacts of what it would mean to codify such a defense into the code.

Rather, it's about if going through this drafting process, the specific nuances of drafting one way or the other in terms of how an affirmative defense would work.

That's not to say that once we are a little further into this process, there won't analysis of the policy impacts of an eventual piece of legislation would look like.

It's just that there isn't any introduced legislation at this point.

So it's a very high level conversation about the concepts.

That being said, I will start with just some basic background for the viewing public about how the system works and where affirmative defenses fit in, and then we can get into the issues identified.

So basically, when somebody commits an act that could be a crime, there are a couple stages in the legal system in which the individual can get involved.

And so in, the first circumstance at the stage of arrest, the police have the discretion to arrest somebody for that act or not.

Assuming that the police do arrest somebody, the prosecutor then has the discretion to decide whether to file charges based on that crime.

The prosecutor can decide not to press charges, but if he does do so, then we move into what is a pretrial stage.

So the prosecution files charges and then a judge can to dismiss the case, or it can refer an individual to something.

In Seattle, we have pre-trial diversion, for example, so somebody could get diverted from the normal course of trial into a diversion program.

If the case does move on to trial, the prosecution has the burden to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that an individual is guilty of the crime.

So they have to prove each of the elements of a crime.

And then it's up to the judge and jury to decide whether the prosecution has met that burden.

basically argues that the prosecution did not meet their burden, that they did not prove each of the elements of the crime under reasonable doubt.

And this is where the affirmative defense comes in and can assert a defense.

An affirmative defense basically concedes that the defendant did commit the crime, but there is a justification or excuse for why the crime was committed that serves to excuse the defendant from criminal liability.

The code, the Seattle Municipal Code currently contains a few affirmative defenses.

The one that I've pointed out in the memo is the defense of duress.

And so an individual has committed an act, but essentially did so because they thought they were refusing to commit the crime would mean that they would suffer from a grievous bodily injury death and that the fear of that was reasonable.

The other type of affirmative defense is in the common law.

And common law is basically an interpretation of existing case law that isn't necessarily in a statute or an ordinance, but is still recognized as law.

And an example of that is the common law defense of necessity.

And so basically, you'll see the factors are listed in the memo, but a person committed a crime to avoid greater harm.

And lastly, in terms of background, any affirmative defense that's brought in Seattle Municipal Court would be for a misdemeanor since that is the jurisdiction over crimes, excuse me, the jurisdiction that the court has over a class of crimes.

If there are no questions about the context, I will move into the proposal itself.

And that is to determine how to codify an affirmative defense that would allow an individual to assert that they committed a crime, but did so in order to meet an immediate basic need.

And my understanding of the intent of this proposal is to provide a better way for a, a better way, excuse me, provide a way for a defendant to exit the criminal legal system based on the fact that system itself is not really suited to meet the needs of those that are committing crimes of poverty and that involvement in the system can cause harm.

As, as the noted on the city attorney has been exercising his discretion to not prosecute those property crimes that appear to be committed.

Because somebody is trying to meet their survival needs, but.

That is a different stage than what the affirmative defense, the stage it was to affirmative defense would apply.

If the prosecutor does choose to charge us for a crime, and that could be a different city attorney moving forward, or there's disagreement about whether the crime itself was committed out of necessity, excuse me, out of a need to meet an immediate basic need, you end up at the trial stage in which case the defendant can then assert this defense as a way for the judge and the jury to be able to listen to the circumstances around which a person committed a crime.

If there are no questions about that piece, I will move into the issues identified.

Just mentioned, as I did before, the concept of this defense based on poverty might be straightforward, but the way in which the legislation itself is crafted and the specific nuances of reflecting how this will work procedurally and legally can be nuanced and can result very different substantive impacts.

including how easy it is for the defendant to assert this defense.

So the first piece is about the location in the code.

As of now, as I mentioned, the affirmative defense of duress does exist in the Code, and so it could potentially go into that existing defense, which would mean a new definition, essentially, of what the duress affirmative defense includes.

It's also possible to put it in a new section of the Code, so create a new subsection in the chapter about legal criminal defenses, or it can go somewhere else, which with further research and engagement, we could figure out a new location for it.

If the defense were included in the duress legislation, it would likely require a change in jury instructions, which is what the judge provides to the jury to let them know how to weigh an affirmative defense in making a decision about whether a defendant is guilty or not.

So that would require some changes in the jury instructions.

If it got codified into a totally new section of the code, it's likely that new jury instructions would be required to be crafted to reflect the new defense.

So you'll see there are a couple options laid out, either within the existing duress defense, in a new section of the code, within the criminal defense chapter, or another location altogether.

Asha, your memo states that there's a little bit of a difference about case law as well, in that if we were to put it in the duress section of the code, there would be no case law to interpret because this would be a different type of duress than the case law that's been established with the existing duress.

challenge would exist if we put it in the criminal defenses chapter of the code as well.

Is that the case?

Yes, that's right.

I think it just might be a little more confusing if it's within the duress defense because there is already a case law about what duress means.

And so changing the definition of duress would mean that that case law doesn't automatically apply as easily.

If that makes sense.

Thank you.

Um, if we could just take a pause here to, um, this, uh, seems like a very technical thing, but I know it's, um, an item that, um, there are opinions, uh, both from the city attorney and, uh, the, um, public defender, um, around, around the location of the code and, and that I think, affects the usefulness of the change.

Maybe we could just hear a little bit from each John and Anita.

Do you want me to go first or do you want Anita to go first?

John, thank you for offering to go first.

And I just want to also underscore, as we've heard, you are here to talk about policy options from the perspective of the city attorney's office.

Your engagement on this is not an endorsement of the proposal.

Thank you, council member.

you know, happy to just offer some quick thoughts on behalf of the city attorney's office based on Asha's very helpful memo.

So on these issues, I think our perspective is that city attorney Holmes as an elected official is committed to applying discretion in cases that we charge.

And our office doesn't believe in charging what we consider to be true necessity cases.

That doesn't mean that we're going to agree with everyone on what constitutes a necessity case.

But as a matter of principle, we don't charge immediate necessity food theft type cases or things like that.

So our view of this legislation is that while we don't believe it's necessary If Council wants to legislate in this area, we're supportive of working with Council to come up with some legislation that can create a workable affirmative defense that would be consistent with the diversion programs and our efforts to be judicious about what cases we prosecute in the first place.

On the issue of where this should go in the code, our perspective is that because this isn't really duress, duress tends to be something that's intentionally caused by a third party.

It wouldn't make sense to add it to duress.

I think Asha is correct about the case law confusion.

And it's really a concept that's different from duress and looks more like necessity.

In the letter that city attorney Holmes sent to council, At the beginning of the budget process, we had suggested codifying the common law necessity defense in discussions with stakeholders.

If there's a desire to codify something a little bit different than the necessity defense, we're open to the idea of creating a new defense that would really be tailored towards what this is about, meeting an immediate basic need defense.

We believe that if this is going to happen, it should probably go in its own place in the code to reflect that it is a unique affirmative defense that would be a bit different than anything that currently exists.

Our preferences are to limit it to necessity crimes, so shoplifting or certain types of low-level theft and trespass, and be really careful that it apply to direct theft rather than That's for resale or things like that that could broaden this and have it create some unintended consequences.

And then, as an affirmative defense, our perspective is that.

the defendant should, if this is about the defendant explaining why they took a particular action, the defendant should have the burden of establishing that they committed the crime to meet an immediate basic need.

And then that could be rebutted by the prosecutor and all the evidence could be submitted to the jury.

And then a jury would be in a position to make a decision on the case based on having received all of the evidence.

So keeping this limited in a way where it wouldn't have unintended consequences, but would accomplish the policy objectives that council and stakeholders are talking about, this is something that we think is within the realm of possibility.

But we'd urge council to carefully frame this, not add it into something like duress where it's really a different concept than duress.

make sure that it's tailored to cover the kinds of cases that council wants it to cover and wouldn't necessarily go beyond that.

I'm happy to answer questions or talk further, but I think that's our initial presentation.

Thank you, John.

You jumped ahead.

I was hoping to go through each of the issues identified in the issue ID and then hear from both the city attorney and public defense, but that's okay.

You gave us a sort of a good preview for what we're going to hear more from Asha about.

Anita, do you want to respond or hold the comments around the different issues for those particular issues and maybe just start off with responding to the issue of where in the code?

Sure.

And I think the honest truth is we don't have a strong preference on where in the code.

I think jury instructions state the law.

And regardless of where we put this, a set of jury instructions will be developed by attorneys.

That's standard practice in all cases anyway.

And so I don't think that that's a very material issue.

You know, I think, from our perspective, what's really critical is that, you know, The idea of working on this legislation is something that we developed in collaboration with community partners.

And we're really committed to trying to pass legislation that actually goes beyond what current case law does.

And so we need case law that reflects our community's value of not wanting to punish people who are engaged in behavior to address their immediate needs.

And I think we don't We want to jurors to be able to hear the full story, the placement in the code doesn't matter at all.

But we just we want an opportunity for the jury to hear the facts of the case from the community and for the community to make a decision.

And I just don't think existing case law gets us there.

And so that's, I think, sort of where the larger disagreement is between us and the city attorney's office.

on the issue of placement in the code, we really defer.

Okay.

That's good to hear.

I had been under the impression from earlier discussions that that was a point of contention.

Asha, do you want to move on to elements of the defense options?

Sure.

And so the basic concept here is for a defendant to be able to assert that they were committing a crime to meet an immediate basic need.

And so depending on if there are more elements to the affirmative defense, it just requires that the party needs to prove all of those elements for the defense to be able to apply.

So, for example, if the only thing that the counsel wants the defendant to be able to prove is that they were participating in the crime in order to meet that immediate basic need.

The defendant would just have to prove that the need that they had fit within the definition of immediate basic need and that they committed the crime in order to meet it.

On the other hand, you have, as John mentioned, there is some similarity here to the common law necessity defense.

And so if the counsel's policy was that they wanted the defendant to have to prove both that they committed the crime to meet an immediate basic need and, for example, there's no other reasonable alternative to committing the crime, That makes, that increases the burden on the defendant to have to prove both the fact that they committed the crime to commit, excuse me, to meet the immediate basic need, as well as the fact that there is no reasonable alternative to doing so.

And depending on what that particular element looks like, that can change what it is that the defendant actually has to prove.

So if it is just that there was no reasonable alternative, then it would be, you know, what actual alternatives existed, were those alternatives reasonable, and all of the information that would have to go into making that determination.

But if it was the defendant didn't know about a reasonable alternative, then you have to get into whether the defendant actually knew about a reasonable alternative or the defendant should have known, which gets into what a reasonable person would have known that a reasonable alternative is.

And so as we add more elements, it does increase the burden.

And then depending on how the, additional elements are included in the legislation, you get to all of the different pieces of how you would go about proving that element.

And that doesn't get into upon whom the burden lies to prove that element, which we'll get into in the next section here.

But the options that are laid out here, speak to just the example of reasonable alternatives.

So that first option would just require that the defendant proved that they had an immediate basic need, committed the crime to satisfy it.

it could require an option B, both those factors, as well as proving the defendant had no reasonable alternative to committing the crime.

And then option C speaks to either having A or B, and then if there are any additional elements.

For example, if there are other things from the necessity defense that would go into this new defense, Or the last option, D, some other version of the existing elements we're discussing, and that could be further fleshed out with further research and engagement.

And my recollection is that thus far, there is agreement that the elements of the defense option could be having an immediate basic need and no reasonable alternative to committing the crime, but that the lack of alignment is around the burden of proof for establishing the no reasonable alternative to committing the crime.

Is that more or less correct?

Yes, as to who would have to prove the no reasonable alternative piece.

And so if my recollection of the CAO and public defense positions on that element is correct, let's move to the burden of proof question.

OK.

So as we just mentioned, depending on who holds the burden of proof, if we're talking about the no reasonable alternative element, if the desire is for the defendant to have to prove that they had no reasonable alternative, that does increase the burden on the defendant.

On the other hand, if it is the prosecution that has to prove that there was no reasonable alternative, there are a couple of potential ways, one more theoretical than the other, but theoretically you could have the prosecution proving in trying to prove its initial burden that for each crime, the defendant committed it and there was no reasonable alternative to committing the crime in order to meet the person's basic needs.

Procedurally, the other way to do it would be for the prosecution to prove the elements of the crime or to argue the elements of the crime.

The defendant would raise the affirmative defense that the defendant committed the crime, to satisfy an immediate basic need.

And then the burden could shift back to the prosecution to say that there was, in fact, a reasonable alternative.

And so that fact would defeat the affirmative defense.

If the no reasonable alternative piece was part of what the defendant had to prove as as part of the affirmative defense, they would have to prove, as I mentioned, both the piece around meeting the immediate basic need and that there was no reasonable alternative.

And then it's possible that the prosecution could come back and say there was, in fact, a reasonable alternative, but they wouldn't have the burden of proving as much.

So the options that are laid out are essentially either placing burden on the defendant or That is option A.

The option B would be having the prosecutor have to prove the no reasonable alternative piece.

Or the third option is figuring out some other allocation of burden for the other elements.

I just want to thank you.

I want to just also underscore that my understanding of the burden associated with the affirmative defense, it creates a new burden for the defendant with a preponderance of evidence to establish the defense of the basic need fulfilled by committing the offense.

Is that correct?

Yes, and the preponderance of evidence standard is that the claim is more probably true than not.

So I think if it's more than 50% true, that would satisfy the burden.

But please feel free to correct me, attorneys, if that is not a correct statement of the burden.

And if we could hear from, we've heard from the city attorney, John Schockett.

If we could hear from Anita about the position on the burden of proof around no reasonable alternative very quickly.

And then the last couple issues identified here are, I think, pretty straightforward.

We can move through those quickly.

Sure.

And quickly, just on this issue of who should have to prove that there was a reasonable alternative, I want to just remind the council of who the clients are that we represent.

90% of the individuals who go through SMC qualify for public defenders.

They are indigent individuals.

And to put the burden on them of proving that there wasn't a reasonable alternative in a system that is already so harmful to our clients is not in keeping at all with the spirit of what we're trying to push for here.

And frankly, when everyone in our community has enough to eat and shelter from the elements and their basic human needs are met, we will applaud the irrelevance of this law and not be able to use this defense at all.

But until that time, I think the city should frankly embrace the opportunity to show that there was a reasonable alternative.

and let jurors make a decision.

But to place that burden on an indigent individual who's trying to meet their needs, to show that there wasn't something nearby, seems to just sort of go in the same direction that our criminal legal system has always been in, which is burdening the individual's horror ensnared within it.

So I need to speak quickly just to clarify, I think, I understand what Director Candlewall is saying with respect to the need to prove whether there was an alternative or not, but I think it's important to note that what the defendant's standard here would be is something that's within the defendant's knowledge and isn't something that's unreasonable for anyone to establish.

For example, if you're dealing with a trespass case where a defendant trespass somewhere because they didn't have anywhere else to sleep that was undercover.

All that putting the burden on the defendant would require is for the defendant to testify and say that they weren't aware of a shelter that they could go to.

or there were shelters, but they couldn't get into them because they had a service animal or because those shelters were often full or any number of reasons.

So the defendant doesn't have to do an exhaustive search of where the shelters are as in this sort of an example, but merely say that they thought through, is there a legal way that I could satisfy this basic need?

I wasn't aware of one, and that's why I did this.

And that's something that's a thought process that's within the defendant's knowledge.

And our view is that the defendant's in the best place to say that and establish that initial burden.

And then it can be rebutted or not, depending on what the evidence is.

And ultimately, the evidence can go to a jury and the jury can make the decision.

We're looking at the goal of people being able to satisfy their immediate basic needs.

But we do think that at the end of the day, It's fair to ask the defendants to explore whether there is a legal way to satisfy their need for committing a crime to do so using the affirmative defense.

And thank you, John.

So my goal for this is just for council members to get a very and the public to get a sort of high level perspective of the different elements of the bill.

We're not going to resolve the issues here, but I do want to flag that I think the memo that Asha has written talks about no reasonable alternative.

We don't talk about no knowledge of a reasonable alternative.

So that, I don't know if there is potential there to get alignment by inserting the concept of knowledge of a reasonable alternative rather than the existence of a reasonable alternative, but let's just put a pin in that and we'll continue to talk about that item.

And Asha, can you move on to the, to the next issue in the issue paper.

So next issue talks about the applicability of the defense to all misdemeanors.

And so there are a couple of ways in which this defense could apply.

The first, which I've termed the inclusive approach, is that it applies to all misdemeanors with a few, if any, exceptions at all, which means the Defendant would have the option of raising the defense, no matter which crime the defendant is charged with, on advice of counsel about whether it makes sense to assert the defense, whether defense is applicable at that juncture based on the facts.

The other approach would be what I've termed an exclusive approach, and that approach...

Oh, my God.

I'm so sorry.

Got delivery.

So sorry, apologies.

An exclusive approach would be the applicability of the defense to a few specific misdemeanors.

And so it would mean that the defendant could only raise the defense in the circumstance that they are charged with those specific misdemeanors to which the defense is applicable and wouldn't necessarily allow them to raise it even if it was factually applicable to another charge.

but they would only be allowed to raise it in a specific list of crimes to which it is legally applicable.

Thank you.

Just real quickly, Anita and John, your thoughts on this element?

So, very quickly, there are no other affirmative defenses, or rather, other affirmative defenses are not limited by what crimes they can apply to other than murder.

I don't see why we would need to do something different here.

Also, I think drought So for example, you wouldn't be able to use self-defense in a fraud case.

And there's no written exclusion, statutorily written exclusion.

It just wouldn't work.

And I would like to see us just treat this the same way.

And I don't see a reason to treat it differently.

And so I don't think I would say, you know, our strong preference here is the inclusive approach and not the exclusive approach.

And then again, this is about trusting in our juries and letting them hear.

Right.

And if they hear that someone stole five hundred dollars worth of stuff to.

I don't even know, our juries are going to be able to understand when someone is trying to meet an immediate need and when they are not.

And I don't think we need to treat this legislation different than other affirmative of defenses.

The basic nature of the defense limits the context to which it can be applied.

And in the cases at the edges, on the margins, this is about arguing to the jury and letting the jury decide and demonstrating our faith in our community to understand these issues.

And I think that our perspective on this is that if the desire is for this not to apply to violent crimes or theft for resale or property destruction, which would be inconsistent with using something to satisfy an immediate basic need, then it makes sense to statutorily exclude those.

If there are fact patterns where stakeholders or advocates think that it would make sense for a crime other than theft for direct use and trespass.

We're happy to kind of discuss what those concepts are.

But rather than say a jury would never apply this in an assault case, if we don't want this to apply to assault, it's best to just be explicit and say this doesn't apply to assault.

It's not literally just theft and trespass.

There are things like parts trespass, and other things, and we're happy to sit down with stakeholders and look through a list of charges where this might make sense.

But we do think that it makes sense to think through where there's a desire to have this apply and then explicitly limit it to those offenses.

Thank you.

I need a last item.

So the last issue here.

I meant Asha.

I figured.

The last item here is whether the defense should apply to resale of goods or not.

And so without any limitation that's specific to stating that this does not apply to resale of goods or making sure that the term immediate basic needs is specifically defined, there's the potential that this could apply to an example of if somebody stole a bunch of cell phones and intended to resell them in order to pay their rent, it would apply to that defense.

And so the options are really figuring out if council does want the defense to apply in those circumstances, then making sure that the legislation reflects that.

If the desire is not to have the defense apply to those cases of resale, then just making sure that the scope of the defense is limited in that way, or it's very clear that immediate basic need doesn't mean.

Uh, items, excuse me, that immediate basic need doesn't mean those needs that are that could be met later on, given how much time it would take to resell an item.

So those are the options laid out.

as A and B.

My recollection of the conversation was that the defense and advocates had argued that they believed that the language immediate basic need inherently would prohibit the utility of the defense in a resale situation.

So I think there might be some alignment on the intent.

But some conversation that's still necessary to find out whether or not the language meets the intent.

Any thoughts from Anita or John about that.

You know, I think in many ways, the same question.

sort of number five is very related to number four, this question of inclusive or not inclusive.

And I think ultimately, again, with other defenses, there isn't a lot of language that carves out.

It's not going to apply to X, Y, and Z.

The defense is there, and then a person charged with a crime can decide whether to raise that defense or not.

Ultimately, I think we have to trust our juries, we can't imagine sort of the endless permutation of facts that may come up, but we can, but we do know that we can and should trust our community members to determine what is a basic need.

what is an immediate basic need.

And we shouldn't fear the possibility of people trying to tell this story.

And again, this is in the larger context of the fact that when we convict people of a crime and subject them to incarceration, that should be an extraordinary thing that we're doing, not commonplace.

It is so harmful to the people in the system.

And as we know, The system is also incredibly racially disproportionate.

So trying to find ways to slow down the machinery of the system is critically important in giving jurors the opportunity to hear stories and to exercise their judgment about what the difference is between a basic need and profiteering is where we should be headed.

And I think I agree that this is fairly similar to whether it should be limited by the crime that it applies to.

And at the end of the day, our view on it is similar in that if advocates and stakeholders aren't thinking of fact patterns where this should be applied to assault, it should exclude assault.

And if they're not thinking of fact patterns where this should be applied to theft for resale, then it should explicitly carve out theft for resale.

I agree that PB, David Ensign — Herndon, COB?

Henderson, COB?

fairly large category of cases that occur.

And if the goal is to not have this argument raised in resale cases, then they should be explicitly excluded.

Thank you.

Really appreciate that overview and the engagement of both public defense and the CAO, the city attorney's office.

and look forward to more engagement.

Other councilmembers, do you have any questions or comments?

I look forward to working with you and working to develop this legislation.

Councilmember Peterson?

Yes.

Thank you, Chair Herbold.

I've got several comments.

Thank you for Allowing me to speak.

Colleagues, under the City Council's new rules for its committees, I'm able to participate in today's Public Safety Committee because I'm an alternate member and a regular member is absent today, and I appreciate this opportunity to share input on this proposal.

from my colleague to expand the affirmative defenses available to defendants arrested and prosecuted for misdemeanor crimes within the city of Seattle.

Following the murder of George Floyd by Minneapolis police and other tragic and unjust deaths at the hands of law enforcement, City Hall has been responding to public calls for restorative justice, reinvestment in marginalized communities, and the development of public safety alternatives.

Earlier this year, our city government has taken numerous policy and budget actions to reimagine and revamp public safety.

Regarding the reform of our Seattle Municipal Code, I was proud to co-sponsor and vote for changes that repealed misdemeanor loitering laws that had racist outcomes.

We have much more work to do.

I agree we must continue to craft public policies that are compassionate and data-informed.

We must address the longstanding stigmas that demonize our neighbors experiencing homelessness, addiction, and poverty, and the disproportionate negative impacts on communities of color.

It also remains the responsibility of policymakers to strike an appropriate balance by assessing whether any proposed policy that is unconventional and untested may in fact make matters worse or allow harm to be caused to others in our communities.

So just as I appreciate the good intent in which this proposal is being floated, I hope you appreciate the good intent of my wanting to share the serious concerns of many constituents who have contacted me in recent weeks about this.

big picture, I'm very concerned that this analysis thus far is framed as how to enact this unconventional, untested policy rather than whether to enact such a controversial policy.

Right now, I just want to list the 10 specific concerns, which I hope will be helpful as the deliberative process continues on this.

First, I agree reimagining public safety has to include preventing crime, increasing police accountability, investing more in community health and wellness, respecting each other rather than enabling individuals committing crimes to sidestep codes of conduct and avoid consequences for breaking basic laws that set standards for how we respect and interact with each other.

I'm concerned that minimizing consequences for breaking certain laws will not make our communities safer.

It has made sense to reform laws such as drug possession that were meant to protect oneself, but I'm concerned that reducing laws meant to protect each other and our communities will cause harm.

This proposal seems to create too easy of a way for repeated vandalism, trespassing, shoplifting, and other misdemeanor crimes that could harm others.

I believe we should wait until we see the effects and impacts of the recent cuts to the police budget, the results of the brand new community-led participatory budgeting process next year, the implementation of alternatives to traditional policing, and the revamping of the police contract to finally put in place the missing reforms.

Let's first see how these other changes work before this council is immersed in a potentially time-consuming and distracting debate over whether we should be the first city in the U.S. to weaken our local laws that protect each other.

Once again, it seems we would be proceeding with an unconventional and untested proposal without a clear plan.

As with the unfortunate incident that was called CHOP, where Seattle became, in the eyes of many, a national embarrassment, I'm deeply concerned that such unconventional and untested proposals before us today could have a negative impact that reverberates beyond the city hall bubble and the boundaries of our city by negatively impacting police reform efforts that we want to see enacted at the state level in Olympia next year, and perhaps even the U.S.

Senate runoff election in Georgia, where control of the U.S.

Senate and future Supreme Court nominations hang in the balance.

The Seattle Times recently quoted the concern of State Rep. Roger Goodman, a Kirkland Democrat who chairs the House Public Safety Committee, who said, those who are alarmed by this can use this as a talking point to undermine what I believe are responsible justice system reforms at the state level.

The memo from central staff, the current memo, does not yet discuss any impact to the victims of the crimes, including physical, emotional, or economic harm to those victims.

I'm concerned that watering down a law and then creating a restitution fund for victims is like saying you can run a red light if you're late for work and worried you'll lose your job, but we'll use tax dollars to create a fund for the car crash victims.

We often say proposed legislation must have stakeholder input.

And in this case, I strongly believe the general public and small businesses are key stakeholders.

While advocates might have the ear of some council members and are making excellent points, we also need to listen to the general public and small businesses when it's harder to do that with the communication limitations during the COVID pandemic.

Our city cannot afford to have more local businesses leave our city and shrink the tax base we rely on to fund programs to help low-income neighbors.

The current memo from central staff does not yet discuss the cost borne by renters, homeowners, and small businesses to replace stolen merchandise or broken windows or even future increased insurance expenses.

This law could give insurance companies an excuse to classify all of Seattle as a high-risk zone, which will in turn increase premiums for renters insurance, homeowners insurance, and business loss insurance.

The memo before us does not yet say whether any other cities have experimented with expanding affirmative defenses to misdemeanor crimes.

If there are other cities, let's review that data and see how it actually works in practice so we can learn from it.

If it has not been done elsewhere in the nation, I'm concerned that communities and small businesses in Seattle are once again becoming a guinea pig.

We're still waiting to see the implementation and impact of other major changes for our police department and crime prevention solutions.

Would this apply just to Seattle residents?

If not, how would this proposal prevent those struggling economically throughout the region from just coming to Seattle to shoplift because they know they can claim poverty as a defense?

I'm not sure this proposal is needed right now, at least for the next one to five years, because the existing city attorney has already acknowledged in his October 30th memo that he does not prosecute for crimes of poverty.

It's also not needed right now because defendants can already use the common law defense of necessity, as the city attorney points out in his memo.

So I urge the chair and the members of this committee to table this idea until after the state legislature concludes its spring session.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Peterson.

I feel like much of the arguments that you have made are really based on this false narrative about the decriminalization of certain crimes.

And really, I want to center this proposal in, as Director Canawal has said, in having the faith in the public to hear the circumstances leading to an individual committing a misdemeanor crime and the faith in those members of the public who are charged with dispensing justice to make a decision based on a full understanding of the facts as presented.

And so I really think that understanding this proposal as a proposal that is really based on transparency and giving people an opportunity to tell their stories and giving judges and juries the opportunity to hear those stories and make a decision based on the values of our city and on their understanding of what the facts are.

I really think that that understanding of the proposal addresses a lot of the concerns that you have raised, but I really look forward to having additional conversations.

and additional stakeholder engagement as we move forward.

So thank you so much.

If there are, I'm looking, Council Member Lewis.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

And I just want to start with my comments and say, I appreciate a lot of the concerns that Councilmember Peterson raised associated with delving into this territory.

I do think it's important that we all not pre-judge a proposal where a bill has not been submitted yet.

So I am interested, Madam Chair, in engaging in this conversation with the stakeholders you've gathered and reserving a final opinion until there's a bill.

I think this is a good example of an idea that has been widely embraced and condemned without anything being there there yet.

So I would like to continue to engage in this process.

in a productive way, and I appreciate, Madam Chair, the process that you have laid out to discuss this beginning now and going into early next year.

So in that spirit, I want to raise a couple of just preliminary questions, knowing there will be more opportunities to ask these questions as we deliberate more, but I guess just to raise them early for central staff and to get a response from the stakeholders on the burden of proof question.

You know, as someone who has a lot of personal experience in this area, my question kind of goes to procedurally how this might work based on how that burden is distributed.

And I'd like responses from Anita and John on this, just in thinking about this early.

Because, you know, in affirmative defense, I mean, you are affirming something to the court.

I mean, you are coming in and saying, I did it, but like, listen to this.

I wonder if the burden is not on the defense, I guess I wonder what the process would be where we would essentially be hoping that the city or expecting the city in their case in chief to disprove this necessity defense as essentially Another element of whatever the crime is, or would there be some expectation that the defense still only even if the burden is on the prosecution.

That the defense would need to make a showing and put something into contention for the city to disprove because that just in terms of the mechanics of how an affirmative defense works, unless the defense.

put something out there into contention for the city to have to grapple with in their rebuttal.

I don't see how, you know, if the burden was on the city to essentially disprove it beyond a reasonable doubt, what we are essentially disproving if we don't even know if the defense has not put anything in there to be able to make that, put that into contention.

So I guess that's just because if that were the case and we were expecting the city to just preemptively disprove it, I would think that would essentially add an additional element to whatever the crime is.

Like it would be like you'd have to prove for theft, for example, that the person took something from, you know, from a store that they did it with the intent of permanently depriving the person of the item, that they left the store, and that when they did it, it was not to meet a immediate basic need, whereas we wouldn't even get to the immediate basic need if the burden is on the defense.

So, you know, that's just my initial thinking from going through this hearing here is just how that would actually work in practice if it was on the city.

Because it seems to me it could essentially add another element to some of these offenses that's structured that way.

But I thought it was my understanding that in order to offer the affirmative defense, the defendant admits that they did it.

So they admit that they did it, then they offer the affirmative defense that it was to meet a basic need.

And then the question of whose burden it is to establish that there is no reasonable alternative comes up.

Is that sequencing more or less correct?

Yeah, so I think it's a little bit like diminished capacity.

We, the defense, would assert a mental disease and no mens rea, and then the state or the city would rebut.

So we were starting from the proposition that the defense would make some sort of a showing of intent to meet a basic need, an immediate basic need.

But what would that be in the form of?

Like, would the defendant You have to essentially testify to assert that.

But then after that showing, the burden would be on the city to come back and have to basically disprove that testimony.

Because if the burden is on the city, you know, I don't know what, because I mean, I think part of Well, I mean, we can talk more about this, but it just seems that the phasing of it is a little, um, cause I, I mean, I don't know if I was a public defender, whether I would have my client testify if the burden, uh, um, was on the city, like there might be another way, I guess, to, to, to make that initial showing and then have the city, um, come back without the defense having to really put on a case.

So I guess it's just having a better understanding as we talk about this for the next few weeks.

In a case where the burden is on the city, what is the showing the defense has to make and how would they make that showing?

And then what opportunity would the city have to rebut what the defense is putting into contention to raise that there was an immediate need?

Because I think that that's all clear in my mind if the burden is on the defense, because you have to come in and I mean, you have to affirm and assert there was an immediate basic need.

You were trying to make it and put something into the record to to support that.

If the burden is on the city, you know, it seems more that.

you know, there could be a, there could be a lot less offered by the defense to put it into contention.

And it could be, that could lead to certain consequences that could be abused potentially by the defense bar.

But it's something I want to continue to grapple with.

I'm just raising these initial thoughts now, since we're early in the process.

Thank you, Council Member Lewis.

Much appreciated.

Any other comments or thoughts?

All right.

Thank you all for sticking with us late in the committee.

As we've heard, there'll be continued conversation, stakeholder meetings and consideration of feedback from council members on what we've heard today.

We'll continue with additional committee meetings in January, including additional conversation about development of this policy.

The public safety and human services committee will have a special committee meeting on Thursday, December 17th at 9.30 a.m.

This topic will not be on that agenda.

And just want to do one more quick check for the good of the order before we adjourn.

Are there any other comments from council members?

Seeing none, it is 1216 PM and we are adjourned.

Thank you.