Additional information regarding recent KOMO 4 story

In response to this recent KOMO 4 segment, there are a few details from the original police report that the Seattle Police Department would like to emphasize.  A redacted copy of the original police report is included as well.

  1. The witness had just left her place of employment.  She had car trouble, so she called a friend and co-worker who lived in the area.
  2. While her co-worker, the victim, was on his way to help her, he was attacked in an alley.  According to the victim, the two suspects hit him in the back of the head and the face and knocked him to the ground.
  3. The victim got up and ran away.  The witness saw him running into their workplace.  She saw that he was hurt and bleeding.  The victim told the witness that he had just been jumped in a nearby alley.
  4. The witness went to that area to see if the suspects were still there and she saw two people leaving the area.
  5. Officers responded to a 911 call of an assault.
  6. When uniformed officers arrived they conducted an area search for the two suspects based on a description provided by the victim.
  7. When officers attempted to contact the two suspects they ran away from them.
  8. The two suspects were caught but force was used during the arrest.  It was documented in accordance with Department policy.
  9. The witness and the victim were transported to the arrest location.  The victim positively identified the two suspects as the two people who had attacked him.
  10. The witness said that she felt she was too far away from the suspects to positively identify them.
  11. The two suspects were arrested and booked into King County Jail for misdemeanor assault based upon probable cause.
  12. Officers requested charges to be filed.

Additional points that the Department considers noteworthy:

  1. The Seattle Police Department’s Office of Professional Accountability (OPA), headed by a civilian director,  investigated this matter completely.  It was also reviewed by the civilian OPA Auditor, a second layer of oversight that is outside of the Department.
  2. In response to the officer’s patrol car banter where he told the suspect that he would “make stuff up,” the Department agrees that it is inappropriate.
  3. The Department asserts that nothing was made up and all necessary reports were completed.
  4. Furthermore, officers can be and have been fired for lying – in this case, “making stuff up”.  That was not the case here.
  5. As of today, charges have not been filed because the assault victim did not wish to pursue this matter in court.
  6. For more information about the OPA report on In-Car Video Review, please click here.
  7. For information about this particular OPA investigation, please visit here and go to page 17.

Here is a link to a redacted copy of the police report in question:  GO 2010-400306