Legal Observers Decry Seattle Police Actions At Weekend Protest

SEATTLE, WA — A team of trained legal observers says the Seattle Police Department appeared to violate a court order while dispersing crowds on Capitol Hill Saturday — and targeted its members, whose attendance at demonstrations is protected by law.

The Seattle chapter of the National Lawyers Guild has sent legal observers to protests in the city for decades. Volunteers are tasked with documenting police behavior at first amendment gatherings, including all use of force, interactions with protesters, arrests and dispersal orders. Observers are trained not to interact with police or demonstrators and offer no legal advice.

The guild estimates its members have put in more than 1,000 hours observing Seattle protests since late May.

Related: Seattle Councilmembers, Lawyers Voice Concerns Over Crowd Control

On Saturday, a team of a dozen was dispatched to observe a rally and march planned early that afternoon. Thousands peacefully walked to the Central District — where a small group set fires at a construction site near the Children and Family Justice Center — then returned to Capitol Hill.

While there was no visible police presence throughout the march, including outside the youth detention facility, the scene quickly changed as demonstrators reached the East Precinct. Police said the building was damaged by an explosion, and a window was broken. Soon after, officers entered the streets and declared a riot and an unlawful assembly, deploying most items in the department's arsenal of "crowd control weapons," except for CS gas.

Those items would have been banned by a new ordinance over the weekend, but for a last-minute challenge from the U.S. Department of Justice. A federal judge late Friday night granted a temporary restraining order, temporarily blocking the law from taking effect, pending feedback from Seattle's three police accountability branches.

Despite the pause in implementation, officers are still subject to a separate order, which bars officers from using "chemical irritants or projectiles" on peaceful protesters. The use of such devices is only permitted to protect against a "specific imminent threat of physical harm" and "specific acts of violence or destruction of property."

In a news release Sunday, the National Lawyers Guild said "haphazard and arbitrary" use of the munitions on crowds, comprised of largely peaceful protesters, ran afoul of the court order. Separately, the American Civil Liberties Union and other groups filed a motion Monday asking a judge to find SPD in contempt of violating that order.

Annika Carlsten, the lead coordinator for legal observers on the ground in Seattle, told Patch that Saturday's tactics looked nearly identical to those used from the start, undeterred by public outcry, court rulings, new laws and promises for change.

"There's been an injunction, there's been all this conversation with the public, and declarations from Chief Best and the mayor, and the public discussions at City Council about not being allowed these things, and all of the work that has been taking place since then," Carlsten said. "Between May 29 and this weekend, with the exception of the actual, official tear gas, I saw no difference in how things were handled on the side of the police."

Even with Seattle's new law on hold, Carlsten said the degree of force used Saturday is precisely what the police have already been ordered to avoid.

"That sort of widespread use without any sort of careful, deliberate control is exactly what the injunction is supposed to be saying 'you cannot do this,'" Carlsten said. "I didn't see any change in that behavior on Saturday."

Carlsten said her entire team was among the many bystanders exposed to force Saturday, despite wearing bright green hats and other clothing that identifies them, and assurances from the police department that their rights to observe would be protected.

The guild sent an email to the department on July 7, including a photo of their gear, asking SPD to verify that the presence and purpose of legal observers were properly relayed to officers. In an e-mail response dated the next day, the police department's legal affairs division acknowledged the letter and reaffirmed their right to record activities, even after orders to disperse are given.

Despite the assurances, at least one legal observer was directly pepper-sprayed, while others encountered varying degrees of force.

"I myself witnessed my partner at the time being directly shoved by an SPD officer with absolutely no reason, then attempting to touch me before someone stepped in front of me," Carlsten said.

Beyond the incidents involving legal observers, Carlsten worries that the kind of force used Saturday could discourage others from utilizing their constitutionally-protected rights.

"If I'm out there with all of that protection, and all of that privilege compared to the average person on street, and I'm getting injured, what does that say about how other people on the scene are being treated," Carlsten said. "What does that say about the chilling effect that has on people who aren't going to return to an event, or aren't going to go out to an event? In the big picture, if they're seeing us getting hurt with all of the protections, what's the message that is sending to the average person about their rights to protest on the streets of their city safely and legally?"

As for the legal observers, volunteers have no intention of staying home.

"I want people to know that, regardless of what happened this past Saturday, the people that do this work are all volunteers who are very committed to continuing to show up," Carlsten said. "So, injuring us, threatening us, intimidating us — whatever — is not going to prevent us from returning when we're asked to be there."