SPD agrees to pay $32,000 for withholding domestic-violence advice

The Seattle Police Department has agreed to pay $32,000 to settle a lawsuit accusing the department of withholding information from defense attorneys about its handling of domestic-violence cases.

In the course of the case, the City Attorney's Office accidentally revealed a disputed document that showed police had instructed citizen volunteers in a victim-assistance program to not put in writing some information that could be used by defense attorneys.

As a result, the Police Department is rewriting the manual to conform to its legal obligations, according to the city.

The suit, brought last year by the Washington Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, alleged violations of the state's public-disclosure law.

But the case also raises questions about the potential violation of the civil rights of defendants and should be reviewed by the U.S. Justice Department as part of its current investigation of the Police Department's use of force and treatment of minorities, said James Lobsenz, the attorney who represented the association.

Under the settlement, completed March 22, the department did not make an admission of liability and said it was making the payment solely for the "purpose of compromising a disputed claim."

Kimberly Mills, spokeswoman for the City Attorney's Office, said Tuesday the city wanted to "resolve the issue as quickly and economically as possible."

The payment follows two other recent public-disclosure issues that have dogged the department.

In August, a King County Superior Court judge fined the department $70,000 for violating public-disclosure laws in a civil lawsuit filed by two former U.S. attorneys in Seattle who represent a man claiming he was threatened by an off-duty officer. The judge's ruling is under appeal.

The department also failed last year to produce an email written to Police Chief John Diaz by a City Council member who urged that an outside agency be brought in to investigate last summer's officer-involved shooting of First Nations woodcarver John T. Williams. The email was not included in records provided to The Seattle Times in response to a public-disclosure request.

Diaz since has pledged to improve the department's handling of public-disclosure requests.

The defense lawyers association requested the manual in October 2009 after hearing that Seattle police were instructing volunteers who work with people reporting domestic violence to "deliberately bury exculpatory evidence from the defense," Cassandra L. Stamm, a Seattle criminal defense attorney, said Tuesday in an email to The Times.

In November 2009, the department provided a copy of the 74-page manual to the association. It contained redactions, however, of information the department determined would violate a person's right to privacy or hinder effective law enforcement.

The association appealed, asking the department to turn over withheld information.

Department attorney Shawna Skjonsberg-Fotopoulos denied the appeal in December 2009 after the program manager of the department's Victim Support Team stated that disclosure of the wording would be "detrimental to effective law enforcement."

The association filed suit in Superior Court in November 2010.

As the case was pending, the city asked the judge to examine the manual in private to determine if the disputed wording should be blacked out.

But in making the request, the City Attorney's Office unintentionally provided the disputed wording to the association during an exchange of documents, Lobsenz said.

Lobsenz said he immediately notified the city, which asked him to return the material and not look at it. Lobsenz said he told the city he wasn't obligated to do that, but agreed to let the judge decide the issue.

The judge, Bruce Heller, ultimately found that Lobsenz had no obligation to return the material, allowing the association to see the wording that the department had withheld.

One section included instructions to the domestic-violence volunteers to not put in writing any information that described the incident or revealed if the "victim was intoxicated, on medication, refused services, or minimized the situation."

The section is preceded by a warning that anything the volunteers write down must be shared with defense attorneys and the suspects. The U.S. Supreme Court repeatedly has found that such "exculpatory" evidence must be turned over to the defense by prosecutors in order to ensure a fair trial.

"It's hard to look at that as anything but exculpatory evidence," Lobsenz said of what the volunteers were told not to disclose.

Although Heller's decision was limited to the accidental disclosure, he also strongly suggested he was going to rule that the Police Department had violated the public-disclosure law, Lobsenz said.

In particular, he said, Heller questioned how a department policy could be withheld from public view.

"I think everybody could see the writing on the wall," Lobsenz said.

In negotiations with the city, Lobsenz said, he asked that the department pay a $50 penalty for each day the documents were withheld. State law allows for penalties of between $5 and $100 per day for violations of the Public Disclosure Act.

Lobsenz said he considered the violation of the public-disclosure law to be "pretty egregious."

Both sides agreed to a payment of $22,050, covering 441 days that the disputed section of the manual was denied. The remainder of the settlement included $9,491.19 for attorneys' fees and $458.81 for costs.

Lobsenz said he believes the manual's wording regarding instructing the volunteers to withhold written information represents a conspiracy to violate the civil rights of suspects.

The Justice Department, responding to a series of high-profile incidents including the shooting of Williams, announced last week that it will investigate whether Seattle police have used unnecessary force and engaged in biased policing.

Lobsenz said he was told by the city the wording was being revised.

In a statement Tuesday, Mills, the spokeswoman for the City Attorney's Office, said, "We can confirm that SPD is rewriting ... sections of the manual to provide clear instructions that will protect the rights of all involved."

Information from Seattle Times archives is included in this story.

Steve Miletich: 206-464-3302 or smiletich@seattletimes.com