The King County Office of Law Enforcement Oversight (OLEO) recently presented a report to the King County Council Law & Justice Committee that identified systemic concerns related to the June 2017 shooting death of 20-year old student Tommy Le.
OLEO engaged the OIR Group, nationally recognized experts who have reviewed hundreds of officer-involved shootings, to conduct the systemic review–a process that seeks to identify ways to improve law enforcement practices and accountability by looking at policies, training, tactics, and other factors that contribute to the outcome of loss of life.
“This review revealed that the investigation had shortcomings in fact collection, evaluation of systemic issues, and scrutiny of the deputy’s decision-making,” said OLEO Director Deborah Jacobs. “The community will find the lack of accountability, learning, or remediation related to the internal review of the shooting of Tommy Le unsettling, and OLEO hopes this review can serve as a turning point.”
The report made 29 recommendations (listed below) in response to identified shortcomings in the King County Sheriff’s Office (Sheriff’s Office) handling of the matter. Highlights include:
Inadequacy in Taking Statements from Involved Personnel
Similar to in its review of the shooting of Des Moines teen Mi’Chance Dunlap-Gittens, as well as OLEO’s prior recommendations on its policies to the Sheriff’s Office, the OIR Group highlighted the Sheriff’s Office’s practices with respect to obtaining statements from deputies involved in such incidents.
- Although on-scene and witness deputies were interviewed within hours of the shooting of Le, the deputy who used deadly force instead submitted a compelled written statement about his actions and observations a day after the incident and was not interviewed until five weeks after the incident.
- Similarly, the on-scene deputy who deployed his Taser only submitted a compelled written statement a day after the incident, and no interview of him occurred until five weeks after the incident.
- When the involved deputy and witness deputy interviews were finally held, neither lasted more than 17-minutes total.
- The internal Investigation of the incident did not adequately delve into the witness deputies’ observations and the involved deputy’s decision to use deadly force.
Critical Incident Review Board Failed to Consider that Le Was Likely Running Away When Shot by Deputies
While the Sheriff’s Office’s investigative reports do not plainly indicate such, the non-transcribed interviews of the involved and key witness deputy indicate that Le was likely shot while running away from the deputy who used deadly force. This evidence is reinforced by the statements of another witness deputy and the autopsy evidence, which established that the two fatal shots entered Le from the back. This is the second OLEO systemic review of a shooting–the first being the shooting of Mi’Chance Dunlap-Gittens–in which a young individual has been shot in the back by deputies.
Knife vs Plastic Pen and the Sheriff’s Narrative and Characterizations of Le
In the aftermath of the critical incident, OLEO noted unnecessarily biased language was employed by the Sheriff’s Office in its portrayal of Tommy Le. In its first press release on the matter, Le was described by the Sheriff’s Office as “claiming to be the creator” and advancing on deputies with a sharp object in his hand–that object turned out to be a pen. This led to OLEO’s report by the Brechner Center for Freedom of Information at the University of Florida at Gainesville issued in 2018 recommending changes to the Sheriff’s Office public information policies. In a letter of April 1, 2019, the Sheriff’s Office committed to updating those policies by October 1, 2019. Although OLEO continues a dialogue about these policies with the Sheriff’s Office, to date the Sheriff’s Office has not adopted or implemented updated policies.
The Sheriff’s Office went to extraordinary measures in its investigation to advance the theory the Le had a knife at some point in the encounter. Deputies went to Le’s home, collected a variety of kitchen knives, and showed them to witnesses to potentially identify. This occurred despite no evidence that Le had taken a knife from his home or returned home to deposit a knife prior to interacting with deputies after his initial encounter with the civilian witnesses. In subsequent press releases, the Sheriff’s Office included pictures of knives taken from Le’s home that were never connected to Le on the day of the incident.
Compounding the problematic way in which this matter was handled, upon reviewing the matter the Sheriff’s Office found the use of deadly force justified and publicly reported that even if multiple deputies were confronted in the future with an individual known only to be holding a plastic pen, then the deployment of deadly force could well be the result. The OIR Group recommended that the Sheriff’s Office retract the statement.
“The Sheriff’s Office’s messaging to its public (and as concernedly to its own members) that its deputies might well use deadly force when again confronted with a subject armed only with a pen is a remarkable statement,” noted report author Mike Gennaco. “While virtually any object (including a plastic pen) can cause harm under extraordinary circumstances, the weaponry and other tools that the Sheriff’s deputies carry combined with the training they are provided should virtually always enable three on-scene deputies to neutralize any threat a person holding a pen without resorting to deadly force.”
Failure to Consider Size Differentials Between Le and the Sheriff’s Deputies
While any analysis of the use of deadly force is expected to consider the “totality of circumstances,” the Critical Incident Review Board did not consider that there were multiple deputies on scene and whether the significant disparity in stature between the on-scene deputies and Le provided a potential opportunity for less lethal force options. The autopsy report describes Le as 5 feet 4 inches and 123 pounds; each of the three on-scene deputies was considerably larger in height and weight.
Inappropriate Voting Membership on Critical Incident Review Board
Among the six voting members of the Critical Incident Review Board on whether a shooting is justified, among other questions, are a King County Police Officers’ Guild representative as well as one of the Sheriff’s Legal Advisors. The OIR Group notes this concern. For either to have a vote on the propriety of the reviewed member’s conduct and performance is inconsistent with their customary role.
- Union representatives are obligated to advocate for their members for all employment matters, including accountability and discipline. Asking such individuals to fairly and objectively evaluate the performance of their members, as participation in this process should entail, requires them to step out of their roles as advocates and into a quasi-judicial role. The expectation that a Union representative could effectively navigate those inconsistent roles is unfair.
- Legal Advisors’ usual role is captured in their title: they provide legal advice to the organization. Traditionally, a bright line is created between those providing such advice and the actual decision-makers, so as to preserve the ability of each to contribute in focused and clearly delineated ways.
In addition to these highlighted issues, the OIR Group noted a number of other policy and practice concerns with this incident. “This review reveals numerous areas for reform, with many overlaps from our recommendations in the review of the shooting of Mi’Chance Dunlap-Gittens,” said Gennaco. “Failure to address these issues will perpetuate public distrust as well as the Sheriff’s Office’s ability to learn from such tragedies.”
