Federal court dismisses SPD cops' lawsuit decrying use-of-force reforms

A federal judge filed a ruling Monday that eviscerated the lawsuit filed by 126 Seattle cops decrying their employer's new use-of-force policies.

The cops filed a suit in May claiming that federally mandated use-of-force policies intended to correct a 2011 Department of Justice finding of "pattern of excessive force" in the department violated officers' constitutional rights to self-defense and legal searches and seizures.

The suit was filed against U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, the City of Seattle, Mayor Ed Murray, former Mayor Mike McGinn, the Seattle police chief, City Attorney Pete Holmes and Merrick Bobb, the Department of Justice's monitor of the Seattle Police Department, among several others.

The lawsuit argued that the new force guidelines, which took effect Jan. 1, violated officers' Second Amendment right to bear arms for the purpose of self-defense, as well as a Fourth Amendment right to be protected from illegal seizures. The complaint also alleged a violation of the Equal Protection Clause, saying the new force policies burdened their fundamental rights.

Read more background on the lawsuit here.

At the time, the Seattle Police Department distanced itself from the claims of its officers and U.S. Attorney Jenny Durkan derided the lawsuit as "without merit."

Judge Marsha Pechman seemed to agree in her Monday dismissal of the lawsuit.

First, she granted Bobb's motion to dismiss the suit against him because he is legally immune from lawsuits as an actor of the federal court at the behest of a judge.

As for the Second Amendment complaint, Pechman wrote, "(W)hile the Second Amendment protects and individual's right to bear arms, the Second Amendment does not provide that individuals have a right to use a firearm in any particular way."

She goes on:

"Plaintiffs can point to no case establishing that the Second Amendment codified a free-standing right to self-defense, as opposed to case law interpreting the textual Second Amendment rights to 'keep and bear arms' in light of their porposes (which the Supreme Court has held include the facilitaiton of self-defense. ... "(T)he Supereme Court has been clear that 'the right secured by the Second Amendement is not unlimited' and is 'not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.'"

Pechman also acknowledge that the Seattle Police Depatment has a right to regulate the use of city-issued weapons used on behalf of city government.

The judge also dismissed the lawsuit's interpretation of the Fourth Amendment altogether, claiming they "grossly misconstrue Fourth Amendment law," according to the ruling.

Pechman wrote that the claim that the use-of-force policies inflice a metaphorical seizure from government actors "misses the mark entirely."

Finally, Pechman ruled that the cops have no legitimate claim of an equal protection violation because they "fail to describe themselves as members of an affected class similarly situated to those outside the class."

"No Supreme Court case identifies self-defense as a 'fundamental right' on par with the right to marry or to vote," Pechman wrote.

She also defended the intentions of the new use-of-force guidelines and maintained that the policy allows for several concessions depending on circumstances.

She wrote:

"(T)he Police provides officers with a wide range of tools to gain control over situations and to protect themselves, from use of verbal commands to physical restraint, TASERS, pepper spray, and batons, in addition to firearms. ... The Policy is not so inflexible and arbitrary as to shock the conscience, even itf it slows or even forestalls the application of force in police interactions with resisting subjects."

Athan Tramountanas, who represents 91 of the plaintiff officers said: "My clients are disappointed in today's ruling, but remain resolute in their belief that the new use of force policy unreasonably restricts their ability to defend themselves and perform their jobs in a manner that best keeps themselves and the public safe."

Seattle Police Chief Kathleen O'Toole issued a statement on the ruling:

"The Seattle Police Department is entirely committed to constitutional policing and is moving full speed ahead with implementation of the Consent Decree. As Chief, I will ensure that our officers have the policies, training, equipment and support to do their jobs safely and effectively."

Mayor Ed Murray welcomed Pechman's ruling.

"Judge Pechman's dismissal of the suit today confirms that SPD's use-of-force policy is both practical and constitutional," he said in a statement from the city. "Today we move forward with police reform and move past internal divisions over policy. The city and the officers who filed the suit share the same objectives: safety for the public, and safe working conditions for the officers who provide for the public's safety."

The lawsuit was "dismissed with prejudice," meaning the decision is final and the officers cannot refile the same lawsuit.

Lynsi Burton can be reached at lynsiburton@seattlepi.com. Follow her on Twitter at @LynsiBurton_PI.

For more Seattle police and crime news, visit Seattle 911.