On Monday, June 18, the city was to release a report by the Office of Professional Accountability's (OPA) Civilian Review Board, examining the Seattle Police Depart-ment's (SPD) investigation of charges of misconduct by Officers Greg Neu-bert and Mike Tietjen, stemming from a Belltown drug bust in January.
The report's release has now been postponed for two weeks by the city attorney's office, says the Review Board's Peter Holmes, one of its co-authors, on the grounds that the authors might get sued for what he told The Seattle Times was a report "very critical" of the SPD. According to the Times, "Holmes said the report 'shows serious problems in the department,' and that he believes politics may have played a role in the city attorney's opinion."
The OPA's auditor has already been quoted as saying that Neubert and Tietjen were dishonest and uncooperative with internal investigators; the FBI has also opened a civil-rights probe into the case, which began with allegations by the suspect (who uses a wheelchair) that he was roughed up by the pair, that drugs (about $30 in crack) were planted on him and that the officers' report was falsified.
The resulting furor has, among other things, led the NAACP to call for the firing of Chief Gil Kerlikowske.
NOTHING NEW
In particular, Neubert has been here before. This is the fourth time in six years he's been in the public eye for controversial and/or violent behavior. He was involved in the shooting of an unarmed black man, Aaron Roberts, in 2001, an incident that led to three days of protests in the Central Area.
In 2003, Neubert sued Roberts' mother for having lent her son her car the night he was shot and killed.
In 2005, Neubert shot another man in a Belltown incident.
Now this.
So how has SPD's top brass responded? By closing ranks.
He and Tie-tjen have been quietly transferred out of their Belltown patrol to minimize their public visibility. Neubert has been sent to the Harbor Unit, and Tietjen, to the Traffic Unit.
As an inside source notes, "Some punishment - spending the summer on a boat with a new, great schedule and going to the Traffic, the unit that offers the most overtime to officers - [is] typical SPD: The more you screw the pooch, the more they reward you!"
Meanwhile, across town, the Port of Seattle's new CEO has responded to an external review that concluded the port's police department could not be trusted to investigate itself in a scandal involving half the department having sent and received racist, sexist and otherwise inappropriate e-mails at work - some even after the story became a local media sensation this spring.
How is the port dealing with it? By not pursuing it further, saying that anything other than the reprimands handed out already to only nine of the offending officers, would be bad for morale.
FEAR OF UNCERTAINTY
Why do police departments - and especially the people who manage them - not get it?
Don't misunderstand me: I have a ton of respect for what police officers face in their work. My grandfather was a career beat cop; my father was still consulting for the Memphis Police when he died at age 79.
I've spent a lot of time around police, and we ask them to do a nearly impossible job and to do it perfectly. Amazingly (considering they're only human), most come pretty close.
But then there are cowboys like Neubert, or the yahoos at the Port of Seattle who have to push the envelope. Why do their superiors always protect them?
A lot of people in the big city fear and distrust police, and with good reason - it's a lot of power to vest in an individual, and you never know, when encountering an officer, whether you're dealing with the vast majority who do it right or with someone who doesn't.
And nothing feeds that uncertainty like the perception that if something untoward happens, unless you've got witnesses and friends and a lot of luck, hell will freeze over and melt again before any officer will be held accountable.
For every incident that catches the public eye, thanks to a journalist (the port) or a fortuitous video camera (the Belltown bust), most don't. And the need for police to have the public's confidence far outweighs the tender feelings of the accused officers.
If, as Peter Holmes says, there are "serious problems in the department," they need to be dealt with in as open and transparent a manner as possible. It's in the best interest of every officer who has to work with a public that needs to know, with certainty, whose side he or she is always on.[[In-content Ad]]
