Audit Report on SPD Compliance
with Youth Access to Legal Counsel
Requirements
December 22, 2023
Source: Dave Morrow, “Seale Sunrise”. Www.DaveMorrowPhotography.com
2
2023 Youth Right to Legal Counsel Audit Report
Table of Contents
Audit Objecve and Scope ........................................................................ 2
Audit Standards ......................................................................................... 2
Execuve Summary ................................................................................... 3
Laws Governing Aorney Access for Seale Youth ...................................3
Applicaon of Criteria ............................................................................... 4
Audit Findings ............................................................................................ 5
Maers for Consideraon ....................................................................... 10
Conclusion ............................................................................................... 11
Appendix A: Recommendaons and Department Response ..................12
Appendix B: Audit Methodology ............................................................. 16
Appendix C: Sample Composion ...........................................................17
Appendix D: Known Instances When SPD Made Call to Counsel ............18
Appendix E: OPD Youth Access to Counsel Program Informaon ........... 19
Audit Objective and Scope
Audit objective
The objecve of this audit was to determine whether the Seale Police Department (SPD) is complying with
applicable law for providing an aorney to juveniles who are quesoned, detained, or searched based on
probable cause of involvement in alleged criminal acvity, per the requirements of Seale Municipal Code
3.28.147 (“the ordinance”), and the Revised Code of Washington (RCW) secon 13.40.740 (“the state law”).
Audit scope
The Oce of Inspector General for Public Safety (OIG) reviewed a sample of SPD arrests and Terry stops
involving youths under 18 years of age conducted between January 1, 2021, and October 24, 2022. OIG
chose this period to include all relevant body worn video (BWV) and case les generated aer the eecve
date of the ordinance through the beginning of audit eldwork for this project.
Audit standards
OIG conducted this performance audit in accordance with generally accepted government auding
standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sucient, appropriate
evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our ndings and conclusions based on our objecves. We
believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our ndings and conclusions based on
our audit objecves.
3
2023 Youth Right to Legal Counsel Audit Report
Executive Summary
OIG iniated this audit at the request of Seale City Council Member Lisa Herbold to assess SPD
compliance with youth aorney access laws that took eect in 2021 and 2022. This audit found that
SPD ocers generally did not take steps to provide juvenile detainees with access to an aorney
when required. In the populaon of reviewed cases wherein OIG determined SPD ocers should have
put juveniles in touch with an aorney, it occurred twice. Widespread non-compliance limited the
eecveness of laws designed to protect some of the community’s most vulnerable members and steps
are needed to address systemic reasons for non-compliance.
OIG would like to acknowledge the full and mely assistance of SPD while conducng this audit. Early in
the project OIG idened that rates of non-compliance were high and noed SPD of this paern. SPD
leadership took an immediate, proacve approach by implemenng early training to all ocers, and have
been engaged and collaborave in addressing concerns raised by the audit.
Key ndings in this report include:
• Broad Non-Compliance with Aorney Access Requirements: In most cases where
OIG assessed that ocers should have provided a juvenile with access to an
aorney, they did not do so.
• Training and Policy Gaps Related to Juvenile Aorney Access Requirements:
Trainings designed to apprise ocers of aorney access laws appeared ineecve,
and SPD policies have not been updated to reect state law changes.
• Lack of Supervisory Oversight in Idenfying Non-Compliance with Juvenile Access
to Aorney Requirements: While SPD policy requires supervisors to screen all
arrests and Terry stops for conformance with operaonal expectaons, OIG found
no record of any similar requirement or eort to require supervisors to screen for
or document non-compliance.
Laws Governing Attorney Access for Seattle Youth
SMC 3.28.147
Seale City Council enacted Seale Municipal Code 3.28.147, also known as the MiChance Dunlap-Giens
Ordinance,
1
in August 2020. The ordinance requires law enforcement to provide juveniles with access to
an aorney (namely a public defender) aer an SPD ocer provides a juvenile with Miranda warnings and
before the juvenile waives their constuonal right to remain silent or talk to an aorney. Ocers are also
required to provide juveniles access to an aorney whenever requesng consent to search their person,
property, or vehicle.
2
An excepon allows ocers to queson a youth without rst allowing them to speak to an aorney if
they reasonably believe that the informaon sought is necessary to protect someone’s life from imminent
threat, and the quesoning is limited to that purpose.
3
1 MiChance Dunlap-Giens, in whose honor the ordinance is named, was a 17-year-old teenager who was shot and
killed by Des Moines police, and “dreamed of one day going to law school and championing the rights of young
people.” Seale City Council Bill 119840 (Aug. 17, 2020).
2 Similar youth protecons were enacted in 2020 by the King County Council and are codied under Title 2 of the
King County Code, secon 2.63.
3 See SMC3.28.147(D). In these excepon circumstances, the ocer is required to document the details of the stop,
including the me of the Miranda warning and subsequent quesoning and the juscaon for quesoning the
youth without prior counsel consultaon. Pursuant to code, SPD is required to forward these excepon reports to
OIG and other City and County law departments. See SMC 3.28.147(E) and (F).
4
2023 Youth Right to Legal Counsel Audit Report
At the me of its passing, the ordinance was recognized as one of the strongest youth right to counsel laws
in the country.
4
The law has not been revised since its enactment.
RCW 13.40.740
Aer Seale adopted the MiChance Dunlap-Giens Ordinance, the Washington State Legislature enacted
a similar state law. House Bill 1140 was passed by the Washington State Legislature in April 2021 and took
eect January 1, 2022.
Among the provisions, the law adds a new secon to Chapter 13.40, requiring law enforcement to provide
persons under 18 years of age with access to an aorney before waiving any constuonal rights in
custodial situaons where ocers seek to ask possibly incriminang quesons (e.g. interrogaon), when
youths are detained based on probable cause, or when ocers seek to ask for consent to an evidenary
search.
5
Application of Criteria
The local ordinance and the state law are expansions of Miranda rights established by the Supreme
Court decision in Miranda v. Arizona (1966)
6
. Under that ruling, law enforcement ocers are required to
nofy a subject in custody of their right to remain silent and to have the assistance of an aorney prior to
quesoning, if they choose. State law denes “custodial interrogaon” as quesoning or other acons by a
law enforcement ocer that could result in an incriminang response from an individual who reasonably
believes they are in “custody.”
7
Determinaon of whether custodial interrogaon has occurred is a maer
of legal interpretaon and includes consideraons such as whether the subject is free to leave and the
nature of quesons. For simplicity in this discussion, Miranda warnings are required to be given if 1) a
person is in custody (they do not feel they are free to walk away, and the detenon is akin to an arrest)
AND 2) they are asked quesons by law enforcement that could produce incriminang answers.
SPD Policy 6.150 provides that a determinaon of whether someone believes they are free to leave an
encounter with police is impacted by their age;
“
A juvenile’s age is a consideraon in determining whether the juvenile would not
feel free to leave. A child may be in custody for purposes of the Miranda rule when
an adult in the same circumstances would not.
”
SMC 3.28.147 and RCW 13.40.740 extend beyond custodial interrogaon and require that a juvenile be
provided access to an aorney in a broader set of situaons that might produce incriminang answers or
evidence against the juvenile. Notably, the RCW protects juveniles who are detained based on probable
cause, and both SMC and RCW protect juveniles who are asked to consent to a search of property under
their control.
Determining ocers’ compliance with the RCW is challenging. The law requires that access to an aorney
must be provided before a juvenile waives their constuonal rights, rather than at the me a juvenile is
detained or taken into custody or quesoned.
4 The Seale ordinance was modeled aer a similar San Francisco law tled “The Je Adachi Youth Rights
Ordinance” (San Francisco Admin Code Ch. 96C), which expanded on a 2018 California state law mandang that
youth 15 years of age or under be aorded legal counsel prior to custodial interrogaon or waiver of Miranda
rights. See Calif. Welf. & Inst. Code § 625.6. The Je Adachi ordinance extended those protecons to youth 16 and
17 years of age.
5 RCW 13.40.740(1).
6 384 U.S. 436 (1966).
7 RCW 10.122.020 (1)
5
2023 Youth Right to Legal Counsel Audit Report
In assessing compliance with both the SMC and RCW for this audit, OIG has an expectaon that ocers
should be proacve and err on the side of cauon in providing access to an aorney when an interacon
with a juvenile involves custodial interrogaon, detainment based on probable cause, or a request for
consent to search. “Non-compliance” in this report indicates ocers did not take acons to comply with
relevant SMC or RCW when they should have, not necessarily that law or policy were violated.
Audit Findings
SPD ocers generally did not provide juveniles with access to an aorney in the course of custodial
interrogaon, detainment based on probable cause, or before requesng consent to search.
In most cases where OIG assessed that a juvenile should have been provided access
to an attorney, SPD did not provide this opportunity.
OIG reviewed body-worn video and relevant case les for a sample of 89 arrests or Terry stops where
the subject was a juvenile.
8
From this sample, OIG determined the relevant requirements for access
to an aorney were triggered in 50 cases. In these 50 cases, SPD ocers placed a call to an aorney in
compliance with the youth aorney access laws twice. OIG assessed the remaining 48 instances to be non-
compliant. Notably, among the 48 instances, ocers asked juveniles potenally incriminang quesons
prior to giving Miranda warning ten mes.
9
Interactions where attorney access should have been provided
Total = 50
Figure 1
8 SPD Manual 6.220 denes a Terry stop as “[a] brief, minimally intrusive seizure of a subject based upon arculable
reasonable suspicion in order to invesgate possible criminal acvity. The stop can apply to people as well as
vehicles. The subject of a Terry stop is not free to leave.” Of note, Miranda warnings are generally not required
during a Terry stop of an adult but may reach a threshold for juveniles where Washington or Seale laws are
triggered.
9 Due to the way SMC 3.28.147 was wrien, in 2021, aorney access was only required aer ocers provided a
Miranda warning. While any of the cited instances occurring in 2021 were not technically non-compliant with
SMC, they arguably did not meet the intenon of the law and are categorized as non-compliance in Figure 1. This
issue was resolved with RCW 13.40.740 in 2022.
Custodial interrogaon
25
3
7
13 2
Consent to search
Non-compliance Access provided
Detained and quesoned
Arrested, no evidence
of quesoning
6
2023 Youth Right to Legal Counsel Audit Report
OIG observed several instances of non-compliance where ocers verbally acknowledged restricons
on quesoning a juvenile but also did not appear to discuss the requirement or possibility of providing
access to an aorney. This indicates that although some ocers are aware of restricons on juvenile
quesoning, they may be unaware of the full requirements or how to provide meaningful aorney access.
OIG idened several potenal causes for this lack of knowledge including gaps in policy, Department
guidance, training, and tools.
SPD Policy has not been updated to reflect changes in state law.
SPD policy 6.150(11) states the following:
Aer issuing Miranda warnings, sworn employees will not queson any person
younger than 18 years of age or request consent from a juvenile to search their person,
property, dwelling, or vehicle unless the juvenile has consulted with legal counsel.
This language reflects the language of the SMC provision effective in 2021 but does not address the 2022
RCW law change. Unlike the ordinance, the state law is not based on issuance of a Miranda warning and
applies to a potentially broader set of circumstances. Namely,
• Quesoning of a juvenile during a custodial interrogaon, or
• Detainment a juvenile based on probable cause of involvement in criminal acvity.
These changes are not reected in SPD policy and may increase the risk of non-compliance.
Recommendation 1 Update SPD policy to reflect state law
SPD should update policy 6.150 of the SPD Policy Manual to reect changes in state youth aorney
access law.
Training about attorney access requirements appears to have been ineffective.
SPD policy 6.150 was revised in November 2020 to reect requirements of the MiChance Dunlap-Giens
Ordinance. In November 2020, SPD issued a direcve to all ocers highlighng the policy changes and
requiring ocers to acknowledge reading and understanding the informaon.
SPD reported that between April – December 2022 (more than a year aer the local ordinance came into
eect), all ocers through the rank of Captain were provided a ‘legal refresher’ training, which included
informaon on juvenile right to counsel and interrogaon. These materials listed both SMC and RCW
requirements, as well as a phone number for the King County Department of Public Defense.
10
The legal
refresher was not part of a reoccurring training curriculum.
As noted previously, a number of ocers appeared aware of restricons around juvenile quesoning but
not of requirements to provide aorney access to assist in decision making about waiver of rights. Aer
OIG presented preliminary results of this audit to SPD, the Department’s Policy and Research Secon
emailed a comprehensive policy refresher on youth Miranda requirements to all ocers.
11
SPD reports that an e-learning course is under development.
10 According to the Washington State Oce of Public Defense (OPD), as of January 2022, SPD ocers are expected
to call OPD or are forwarded to OPD by King County.
11 Preceding issuance of this audit report, OIG received call data from WA-OPD that reects SPD provided aorney
access in at least 6 cases from May to November 2023.
7
2023 Youth Right to Legal Counsel Audit Report
Recommendation 2 Develop training
SPD should complete development and issuance of training on juvenile access to aorney
requirements, and include a knowledge assessment sucient to evaluate understanding.
SPD may not have provided sufficient guidance to officers to promote compliance.
Materials provided in SPD’s 2022 legal refresher training did not include addional guidance on praccal
consideraons for applying the law, or what to do if a situaon involves a youth in crisis or with mental
illness. OIG noted circumstances in which ocers may benet from such addional guidance.
In some cases, ocers engaged in custodial interrogaon of a juvenile before aempng to inquire about or
determine their age. While age determinaon is not explicitly required in the ordinance or state law, it is a
crical part of ensuring meaningful compliance. If ocers are not proacve about idenfying juvenile status
early in an interacon, they may miss the requirement to provide aorney access.
Another circumstance where Department guidance is important, is that in which a juvenile is experiencing
behavioral crisis at the me of their detainment or arrest, or they have some impairment that impacts the
situaon. In one observed case, ocers placed a juvenile in crisis in the back of a patrol car and provided
immediate access to an aorney. However, based on the juvenile’s comments, he did not appear to
understand who he was talking to, and may have been further agitated by being compelled to parcipate
in the call. Relevant laws and SPD policy do not provide guidance on what discreon an ocer may have in
delaying a call unl a juvenile has the capacity to meaningfully parcipate in a discussion with an aorney.
Another other case in which SPD ocers provided aorney access to a juvenile took place in a precinct
holding cell. Ocers kept the juvenile in handcus and placed a cellphone on speaker in the holding cell.
The conversaon was audible on BWV and likely clear to ocers standing outside the door. Consistent
with state law, SPD policy provides that the juvenile’s legal consultaon “may be in person, by telephone,
or by video conference;”
12
however, relevant policy does not contain guidance regarding where or how the
consultaon should take place, leading to potenal dicules in ensuring that youth access to an aorney
is consistently condenal to respect aorney-client privilege.
Recommendation 3 Modify policy
SPD should modify policy 6.150 of the SPD Policy Manual to ensure that, absent exigent circumstances, ocers
make a good faith eort to determine whether a detained individual is a juvenile.
Recommendation 4
Provide guidance when suitability of consultation
is in question
SPD should provide guidance around opons and discreon ocers may exercise when a juvenile
appears to lack the capacity to meaningfully parcipate in the aorney assistance process.
Recommendation 5 Provide tools to maintain confidentiality
SPD should provide guidance and/or tools to ocers so that they can maintain condenality of
juvenile conversaons with aorneys.
12 SPD Policy 6.150(11).
8
2023 Youth Right to Legal Counsel Audit Report
SPD did not update the Department-issued Miranda warning card to reflect requirements.
Most ocers who provided Miranda warnings were observed reading them from a yellow, department-
issued card that provides standard warning language with an addional juvenile warning. Per SPD, this
card was last updated in 2018 and does not include guidance related to providing access to an aorney.
Including addional requirements and contact informaon for the Washington Oce of Public Defense
(OPD) on the Miranda warning card could be an eecve reminder to ocers of the requirement.
Recommendation 6 Update department-issued Miranda card
SPD should revise the Department-issued Miranda card to include a reminder of youth aorney
access requirements and contact informaon for WA-OPD.
Black juveniles are disproportionately represented in interactions where attorney
access may be required.
The aorney access laws were created to inform juveniles of their rights before they potenally
implicate themselves in an alleged crime
13
. Because SPD did not have a signicant rate of compliance in
implemenng the laws, OIG was unable to assess the potenal for disparity in their implementaon
14
.
However, nearly half of all arrests or Terry stops of juveniles over the reviewed period involved a Black or
African American youth, as shown in Figure 2:
Race of Juvenile, as Reported by SPD Count Percentage
American Indian or Alaska Nave 6 1.7%
Asian 11 3.1%
Black or African American 169 47.9%
Nave Hawaiian or Other Pacic Islander 2 0.6%
Unknown 55 15.6%
White 110 31.2%
Total 353
Ethnicity of Juvenile, as Reported by SPD Count Percentage
Hispanic or Lano 38 10.8%
Unknown 149 42.2%
Not Hispanic or Lano 166 47.0%
Total 353
Figure 2
13 As part of its raonale for the ordinance, the Seale City Council cited social science research and caselaw for the
premise that juveniles – whose brains are sll developing – do not fully understand the consequences of certain
acons, such as waiving their Miranda rights. Addionally, their comprehension may be further aected by the
inherently stressful nature of detainment, search, or interrogaon. These factors may make juveniles more prone
than adults to self-incriminate. See Seale City Council Ordinance 126132, pp. 1-4 (Aug. 17, 2020).
14 While OIG did not assess disparity, it is of note that most of the few known calls SPD placed to WA-OPD, concerned
White male juveniles. Potenal disparity should be examined in future work. See Appendix D for more detail.
9
2023 Youth Right to Legal Counsel Audit Report
OIG did not assess factors that contributed to disproporonality in the tested populaon, as such factors
are beyond the scope of this audit.
15
However, general non-compliance by SPD has likely meant that a
greater number of black youths had interacons with ocers that should have been informed by an
aorney consultaon but were not.
Supervisors do not appear to be regularly screening for or identifying
non-compliance with juvenile access to attorney requirements.
SPD policies and procedures contain supervision requirements for arrests and Terry stops. SPD manual
secon 6.220-POL-4(1) establishes that ocers will document all Terry stops. If a Terry stop appears to be
contrary to policy, supervisors are to follow prescribed guidance to address the inconsistency:
“
If a supervisor concludes that a Terry stop appears to be inconsistent with SPD
policy, the supervisor, in consultaon with their chain of command, shall address
the concern and make the appropriate referral pursuant to Secon 5.002. Such
acon may include PAS documentaon and/or referral to OPA. The supervisor shall
document these concerns and any acons taken on a Supplement when approving
the Report or Field Contact
.”
According to SPD policy
16
, ocers are required to report, and sergeants are required to screen, all arrests.
This screening includes reviewing arrest reports. While SPD’s arrest policy does not contain specic
language on remediang inconsistencies with policy, the department’s frontline invesgaons policy states
that, except in cases where the Oce of Police Accountability (OPA) is taking over an invesgaon;
“
Supervisors will fully invesgate and take correcve acon, within their authority,
when they witness or receive allegaons of an employee’s minor policy violaons.”
The same policy provides at mulple points within its procedures that supervisors
will; “Document the allegaon/violaon, any remedial acons taken, and outcome
in PAS.
”
17
OIG reviewed the Performance Appraisal System (PAS) prole for every ocer involved in an instance
of non-compliance within our sample.
18
The review did not nd any instances where a supervisor
documented non-compliance or provided coaching notes to the ocer.
All arrest or eld contact reports reviewed in this audit included records of sergeant screening in the
Mark43 records management system. However, system logs reect that none of the reports were
disapproved by the screening sergeant.
OIG reviewed all OPA complaints over the review period and found only one case related to juvenile access
to an aorney. In that instance, OPA discovered the potenal violaon of policy while reviewing BWV for a
dierent allegaon and sent the aorney access issue to the chain of command as a Supervisor Acon.
19
15 These may include the origins, dispatch priority, and incident type for a call, among other potenal factors.
16 See SPD Policy Manual 6.010(4), 6.010 (6).
17 See SPD Policy Manual 5.003-POL (1); 5.003-PRO (1).
18 For the purposes of this audit, ‘involved’ means that the ocer was one of the main parcipants in an interacon,
to the point that OIG drew evidence from their BWV. They may not have been the ocer reading a Miranda
warning or interrogang the juvenile, but they were generally in posion to recognize that aorney access should
be provided.
19 OPA describes a supervisor acon as a complaint generally involving a minor policy violaon or performance issue
that is best addressed through training, communicaon, or coaching by the employee’s supervisor.
10
2023 Youth Right to Legal Counsel Audit Report
An SPD Captain interviewed by OIG about this issue reported that sergeants are not provided ocial
training on how to review reports. As a result, there is no specic expectaon that sergeants review
reports for juvenile access to an aorney.
Without sucient supervisory screening, SPD is unable to idenfy and remediate gaps in training and
policy. Recognizing that SPD is constrained by stang and improving supervisory review is a long-term
project, OIG makes the following recommendaons;
Recommendation 7 Enhance arrest screening procedures
SPD should enhance current arrest screening procedures to assess whether an interacon complies
with state law relang to youth access to an aorney.
Recommendation 8
Periodically request information on youth access
to counsel calls
SPD should develop a process to periodically request informaon from the Washington State Oce
of Public Defender on juvenile aorney access calls originang from the Department.
Matters for Consideration
During audit eldwork, OIG noted potenal issues outside the objecves of this report. These
observaons are documented here for SPD’s awareness and potenal OIG follow-up work.
• In addion to Miranda warnings, SPD policy requires an addional advisement for
youth, which reads:
“
If you are under the age of 18, anything you say can be used against you in a
juvenile court prosecuon for a juvenile oense and can also be used against you in
an adult court criminal prosecuon if you are to be tried as an adult.
”
20
OIG observed six instances where the youth advisement was not given as required
by policy, despite being printed on the Department-provided Miranda card.
This indicates ocers may need a reminder about the importance of clear and
complete advisements to juveniles.
• In cases of domesc violence, OIG observed that current law does not always ensure
juveniles have access to an aorney before being quesoned when the “custody”
element is not present. When ocers respond to domesc violence calls, OIG
observed ocers typically separate and interview all pares involved to understand
what occurred and determine a “primary aggressor.” These interviews occur before
the main triggers of the RCW (interrogang the juvenile while in custody or detaining
them based on probable cause of involvement in criminal acvity) or the SMC
(reading Miranda warnings). OIG observed mulple instances in which juveniles
incriminated themselves in a “non-custodial” conversaon with ocers during these
interviews without triggering the youth access to counsel requirement.
20 See SPD Policy 6.150 (10).
11
2023 Youth Right to Legal Counsel Audit Report
Conclusion
This audit found broad non-compliance by SPD with aorney access requirements for juveniles, as
required by law. While some ocers demonstrated paral knowledge of the new legal requirements, most
did not appear to be aware of the process for connecng a juvenile with an aorney. OIG observed several
causes for non-compliance, including gaps in policy, training, guidance, tools, and supervision.
According to OPD’s report on the rst year of the Youth Access to Counsel Program, 2,327 youths were
provided aorney consultaons from more than 180 law enforcement agencies statewide.
21
While this
audit did not compare SPD compliance to other agencies, this data supports a conclusion that higher rates
of compliance are achievable.
Addional work should be done to ensure SPD interacons with youth adhere to legal requirements and
account for juveniles’ cognive development. Studies suggest that juveniles oen do not fully comprehend
the potenal consequences of their acons, including waiving their rights aer receiving Miranda
warnings. It is important that juveniles have access to an aorney to assist them in making decisions that
impact their constuonal rights and have serious consequences in the criminal jusce system.
21 See Appendix E of this report
12
Appendices
Recommendation 1 Update SPD policy to reflect state law
SPD should update policy 6.150 of the SPD Policy Manual to reect changes in state youth aorney
access law.
SPD Response
▪
Concur
□
Do Not Concur
Esmated Date of Implementaon: Q1 2024
Implementaon Plan: SPD’s Policy Unit will dra an updated policy.
Recommendation 2 Develop training
SPD should complete development and issuance of training on juvenile access to aorney
requirements, and include a knowledge assessment sucient to evaluate understanding.
SPD Response
▪
Concur
□
Do Not Concur
Esmated Date of Implementaon: Q1 2024
Implementaon Plan: Alongside policy development, SPD’s Educaon and Training Secon will update
its e-learning on juvenile access to aorney requirements. A knowledge assessment tool will aach to
employees’ acknowledgement of policy updates.
Recommendation 3 Modify policy
SPD should modify policy 6.150 of the SPD Policy Manual to ensure that, absent exigent circumstances,
ocers make a good faith eort to determine whether a detained individual is a juvenile.
SPD Response
▪
Concur
□
Do Not Concur
Esmated Date of Implementaon: Q1 2024
Implementaon Plan: Such provisions will be included in policy revisions.
Recommendation 4
Provide guidance when suitability of consultation
is in question
SPD should provide guidance around opons and discreon ocers may exercise when a juvenile
appears to lack the capacity to meaningfully parcipate in the aorney assistance process.
SPD Response
▪
Concur
□
Do Not Concur
Esmated Date of Implementaon: Q1 2024
Implementaon Plan: Guidance to this eect will be included in policy revisions.
Appendix A: Recommendations and Department Response
13
Appendices
Appendix A continued
Recommendation 5 Provide tools to maintain confidentiality
SPD should provide guidance and/or tools to ocers so that they can maintain condenality of
juvenile conversaons with aorneys.
SPD Response
▪
Concur
□
Do Not Concur
Esmated Date of Implementaon: Q1 2024
Implementaon Plan: Guidance to this eect will be included in policy revisions. SPD is not in a
posion to procure/provide addional tools to ocers for such purposes.
Recommendation 6 Update department-issued Miranda card
SPD should revise the Department-issued Miranda card to include a reminder of youth aorney access
requirements and contact informaon for WA-OPD.
SPD Response
▪
Concur
□
Do Not Concur
Esmated Date of Implementaon: TBD
Implementaon Plan: SPD agrees with the idea of this recommendaon. SPD will assess the feasibility
of adding this informaon to the card, given space constraints.
Recommendation 7 Enhance arrest screening procedures
SPD should enhance current arrest screening procedures to assess whether an interacon complies
with state law relang to youth access to an aorney.
SPD Response
▪
Concur
□
Do Not Concur
Esmated Date of Implementaon: Q1 2024
Implementaon Plan: Consideraons to this eect will be included in policy revisions.
Recommendation 8
Periodically request information on youth access
to Counsel calls
SPD should develop a process to periodically request informaon from the Washington State Oce of
Public Defender on juvenile aorney access calls originang from the Department.
SPD Response
▪
Concur
□
Do Not Concur
Esmated Date of Implementaon: TBD
Implementaon Plan: Such an inquiry would fall within the purview of SPD’s Audit Unit, which
conducts all internal audits of SPD compliance with policy and law. If it is the intent of the OIG that
SPD, rather than the OIG, undertake connued systemic review of compliance in this area, such audits
can be added to the Audit Unit workplan at a frequency determined by the Audit Unit commander.
14
Appendices
Appendix A continued
15
Appendices
Appendix A continued
16
Appendices
OIG strives to make objecve, well-informed ndings and recommendaons as part of the audit process.
Audit sta conducted the following invesgatory steps to inform audit ndings:
• Reviewed SMC 3.28.147, RCW 13.40.740 and SPD Policy 6.150;
• Conducted background research on youth access to counsel laws enacted in
other jurisdicons;
• Interviewed Seale City Council sta to understand the legislave objecves
of the ordinance;
• Interviewed SPD personnel including the Chief Operang Ocer, General Counsel,
Technology Integraon Unit, and Educaon & Training Secon to understand SPD’s
interpretaon and implementaon of SMC 3.28.147 and RCW 13.40.740;
• Examined relevant training materials related to SMC 3.28.147 and RCW 13.40.740;
• Interviewed several community-based stakeholders, including the CPC, ACLU and
Innocence Project, to understand and ensure that their concerns were considered
throughout the engagement;
• Selected a random sample of arrests and Terry stops for SPD compliance with SMC
3.28.147 and RCW 13.40.740. The sample was drawn from all arrests and Terry
stops occurring between January 1, 2021, and October 24, 2022, of juveniles under
18 years of age at the me of the interacon with SPD (260 arrests/93 Terry stops).
OIG developed a sample sucient to assess SPD compliance; and
• Reviewed BWV of SPD arrest and Terry stop interacons involving juveniles.
Appendix B: Audit Methodology
17
Appendices
OIG randomly selected 89 juvenile interacons for review from a populaon of 353 arrests and Terry stops.
All such interacons were coded with oense types by SPD in Mark43. Some interacons had mulple
oense types (e.g. ‘assault’ and ‘weapons’). Auditors generally selected the oense code that appeared
most relevant to the incident, and grouped oense codes where appropriate (e.g. ‘assault 2’ and 'assault
4’). This gure is meant to provide an overview of the nature of cases reviewed, not analyze the prevalence
of individual oense types.
Appendix C: Sample Composition
Aorney requirements
not triggered
Non-compliance Access provided
3
1
2
3
4
4
4
3
Assault
Trespass
Robbery
Stolen property/vehicle
Driving/collision
Narcocs
Domesc violence
Weapons
Harrassment
Shopliing
Burglary
Suspicious circumstance
Missing person
Crisis
Minor in possession
Disturbance
General invesgaon
Reckless burning
Felony warrant
8 10 2
2
7
2
2
2
2
3 5
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
6
2
2
Interactions sampled by offense type and OIG assessment
Total = 89
18
Appendices
OIG requested informaon from Washington State OPD for calls from SPD personnel during the period
of November 2022 to the start of eldwork in March 2023, including and beyond any cases sampled in
this audit.
22
To illustrate instances when SPD facilitated youth access to counsel, the following are brief
descripons of cases and where ocers contacted WA-OPD. Given the heavy representaon of Black
youths in interacons that may be governed by aorney access laws, OIG notes that most of the known
calls to OPD involved White youth. These limited data points are not determinave of disparity in providing
aorney access but suggest that the potenal for disparity should be examined as SPD establishes greater
rates of compliance.
Automobile accident
An intoxicated White male youth was involved in a car accident. When quesoned by ocers, the youth
admied to consuming alcohol and ocers observed alcohol boles in the rear of the vehicle. The youth’s
parent arrived on the scene and asked ocers to release her son. Although the juvenile was not released
on scene, the parent was given ample opportunity to converse with ocers, as well as engage in discussion
with her son prior to his transport to an SPD precinct. Ocers telephoned a WA-OPD aorney and the
youth spoke with counsel for approximately 10 minutes from a private room to ensure condenality.
Domestic violence assault
Ocers responded to a domesc violence incident involving a parent and their child, a White male, who
appeared to be in crisis.
23
Aer separang the parcipants and placing the youth in the patrol car, the
ocers iniated a call to the WA-OPD aorney who spoke with the youth for 10 minutes. The juvenile was
later transported to Seale Children’s Hospital for evaluaon.
Assault
Ocers were called to invesgate an alleged assault involving Black juveniles at a high school. During the
invesgaon ocers called WA-OPD to gain an understanding of the youth access to counsel process and
what safeguards they should be aware of when the suspect is located and the call is made. As a reluctant
vicm, the juvenile declined to tesfy in a court proceeding against his alleged assailants and the suspects
were not arrested or subject to other acons that would trigger youth access to counsel protocols.
Homicide
Two male juveniles (one Black, one White) were arrested on suspicion of homicide. SPD ocers recognized
that the juveniles should not be quesoned at the me of arrest. The juveniles were transported back to
SPD facilies where they were provided access to an aorney prior to interviews.
Domestic violence
A White youth was arrested aer allegedly threatening suicide, breaking property, and shoving their
mother. The juvenile was taken into custody without incident or quesoning, and Mirandized on scene.
Their call to counsel took place at an SPD Precinct, where the juvenile spoke with an aorney for
approximately 9 minutes from a holding cell.
Appendix D: Known Instances When SPD Made Call to Counsel
22 To support the implementaon of RCW 13.40.740, in January 2022 WA-OPD created the Youth Access to Counsel
(YAC) Line, a statewide system to ensure that aorney consultaons are available to youth on a 24/7 basis. Prior
to the YAC Line, all youth access calls within King County were directed to the county‘s Department of Public
Defense. The department began direcng all YAC calls to WA-OPD in November 2022.
23 SPD data describes the race of this youth as ‘Unknown’. For the purpose of this analysis OIG assessed that this
youth is best described as White based on review of BWV and the ocer’s report.
19
Appendices
Appendix E
WASHINGTON STATE
OFFICE OF PUBLIC DEFENSE
OPD’s Youth Access to Counsel Program
Implementation of HB 1140: Fulfilling the Mandates of RCW 13.40.740
The Youth Access to Counsel (YAC) Program was launched on January 1, 2022 as a result
of HB 1140. This law created a non-waivable affirmative requirement that law enforcement put
youth into contact with an attorney during certain phases of an investigation, such as prior to
custodial interrogation or when seeking permission to search. The requirements are laid out in
full in RCW 13.40.740. The Office of Public Defense (OPD) created the YAC Line, a statewide
system to ensure that attorneys are available 24/7, to provide these consultations. It can be
accessed by law enforcement by calling 1-877-JPUB-DEF (1-877-578-2333).
How many calls come into the YAC Line?
As of December 31, 2022
1
, the YAC Line provided 2,327 consultations to youth.
How long does it take Law Enforcement to reach a YAC attorney?
1
All data in this document is through December 31, 2022.
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Consultations per Month
Average number of calls per
day: 6
Highest number of calls in one
day: 17
Lowest number of calls in one
day: 0
• Over 70% of calls that resulted in YAC consultations were answered by an
attorney in under one minute.
• About 96% of those calls were answered by an attorney in less than 2 minutes.
• Once in touch with an attorney, about 67% of consultations are completed
within 20 minutes.
20
Appendices
Appendix E continued
What do YAC Attorneys do?
• Gather information from the officer calling into the line in order to provide advice to the
youth and then speak with the youth in a confidential setting.
• Provide the youth with information about their constitutional rights and how they apply
to the youth’s current situation to help them decide what to do.
• Engage in stated-interest representation, which means they give information and
guidance about the law as applied to the youth’s unique situation, but ultimately the
youth chooses if they want to assert their rights or not.
How does the YAC Line work?
• Seven experienced attorneys from across the state staff the YAC Line.
• The Line is staffed by four of these attorneys at all times. Calls are routed to the
attorneys through a sophisticated call chain allowing every call to be answered without
requiring a recall by the officer.
• Between 60% and 70% of calls are answered by the attorney in Position A.
Where do the calls come from?
• Calls have come from every county in the state except one.
• The YAC Line has received calls from over 180 law enforcement agencies statewide.
Who are the youth consulting with YAC Attorneys?
• The youth ranged in age from 9 to 17.
• 3% of youth required an interpreter. (The YAC Line provides interpreter services.)
• Based on data collected between April and December, the youth consulted identify as
the following races and ethnicities:
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%
Asian American/Pacific Islander
Indigenous
Other
African American/Black
Latine
White
Unknown
Self- Reported Race (April - December, 2022)
21
Appendices
The Oce of Inspector General for Public Safety (OIG) was established in 2017 via Ordinance
125315 to help ensure the fairness and integrity of the police system in its delivery of law
enforcement services. OIG provides independent auding of the management, pracces, and
policies of the Seale Police Department and the Oce of Police Accountability. Addionally,
OIG oversees ongoing delity to organizaonal reforms implemented pursuant to the goals of
the 2012 Consent Decree and Memorandum of Understanding.
Project Team
Anthony Harris, Auditor-in-Charge
Conor McCracken
Dan Pis
Madison Barnwell
Inspector General
Lisa Judge
Deputy Inspector General
Bessie Sco
Oce of Inspector General
phone: 206.684.3663
email: [email protected]
web: http://www.seattle.gov/oig/
