Source: Dave Morrow, “Seattle Sunrise”. Www.DaveMorrowPhotography.

com

Audit Report on SPD Compliance

with Youth Access to Legal Counsel
Requirements

December 22, 2023

Table of Contents
Audit Objective and Scope......................................................................... 2

Audit Standards.......................................................................................... 2

Executive Summary.................................................................................... 3

Laws Governing Attorney Access for Seattle Youth.................................... 3

Application of Criteria................................................................................ 4

Audit Findings............................................................................................. 5

Matters for Consideration........................................................................ 10

Conclusion................................................................................................ 11

Appendix A: Recommendations and Department Response................... 12

Appendix B: Audit Methodology.............................................................. 16

Appendix C: Sample Composition............................................................ 17

Appendix D: Known Instances When SPD Made Call to Counsel............. 18

Appendix E: OPD Youth Access to Counsel Program Information............ 19

Audit Objective and Scope

Audit objective
The objective of this audit was to determine whether the Seattle Police Department (SPD) is complying with
applicable law for providing an attorney to juveniles who are questioned, detained, or searched based on
probable cause of involvement in alleged criminal activity, per the requirements of Seattle Municipal Code
3.28.147 (“the ordinance”), and the Revised Code of Washington (RCW) section 13.40.740 (“the state law”).
Audit scope
The Office 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 files generated after the effective
date of the ordinance through the beginning of audit fieldwork for this project.
Audit standards
OIG conducted this performance audit in accordance with generally accepted government auditing
standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate
evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our objectives. We
believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on
our audit objectives.

2023 Youth Right to Legal Counsel Audit Report 2

Executive Summary
OIG initiated this audit at the request of Seattle City Council Member Lisa Herbold to assess SPD
compliance with youth attorney access laws that took effect in 2021 and 2022. This audit found that
SPD officers generally did not take steps to provide juvenile detainees with access to an attorney
when required. In the population of reviewed cases wherein OIG determined SPD officers should have
put juveniles in touch with an attorney, it occurred twice. Widespread non-compliance limited the
effectiveness 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 timely assistance of SPD while conducting this audit. Early in
the project OIG identified that rates of non-compliance were high and notified SPD of this pattern. SPD
leadership took an immediate, proactive approach by implementing early training to all officers, and have
been engaged and collaborative in addressing concerns raised by the audit.
Key findings in this report include:
• Broad Non-Compliance with Attorney Access Requirements: In most cases where
OIG assessed that officers should have provided a juvenile with access to an
attorney, they did not do so.
• Training and Policy Gaps Related to Juvenile Attorney Access Requirements:
Trainings designed to apprise officers of attorney access laws appeared ineffective,
and SPD policies have not been updated to reflect state law changes.
• Lack of Supervisory Oversight in Identifying Non-Compliance with Juvenile Access
to Attorney Requirements: While SPD policy requires supervisors to screen all
arrests and Terry stops for conformance with operational expectations, OIG found
no record of any similar requirement or effort to require supervisors to screen for
or document non-compliance.

Laws Governing Attorney Access for Seattle Youth

SMC 3.28.147
Seattle City Council enacted Seattle Municipal Code 3.28.147, also known as the MiChance Dunlap-Gittens
Ordinance,1 in August 2020. The ordinance requires law enforcement to provide juveniles with access to
an attorney (namely a public defender) after an SPD officer provides a juvenile with Miranda warnings and
before the juvenile waives their constitutional right to remain silent or talk to an attorney. Officers are also
required to provide juveniles access to an attorney whenever requesting consent to search their person,
property, or vehicle.2
An exception allows officers to question a youth without first allowing them to speak to an attorney if
they reasonably believe that the information sought is necessary to protect someone’s life from imminent
threat, and the questioning is limited to that purpose.3

1 MiChance Dunlap-Gittens, 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.” Seattle City Council Bill 119840 (Aug. 17, 2020).
2 Similar youth protections were enacted in 2020 by the King County Council and are codified under Title 2 of the
King County Code, section 2.63.
3 See SMC3.28.147(D). In these exception circumstances, the officer is required to document the details of the stop,
including the time of the Miranda warning and subsequent questioning and the justification for questioning the
youth without prior counsel consultation. Pursuant to code, SPD is required to forward these exception reports to
OIG and other City and County law departments. See SMC 3.28.147(E) and (F).

2023 Youth Right to Legal Counsel Audit Report 3

At the time 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
After Seattle adopted the MiChance Dunlap-Gittens 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
effect January 1, 2022.
Among the provisions, the law adds a new section to Chapter 13.40, requiring law enforcement to provide
persons under 18 years of age with access to an attorney before waiving any constitutional rights in
custodial situations where officers seek to ask possibly incriminating questions (e.g. interrogation), when
youths are detained based on probable cause, or when officers seek to ask for consent to an evidentiary
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 officers are required to
notify a subject in custody of their right to remain silent and to have the assistance of an attorney prior to
questioning, if they choose. State law defines “custodial interrogation” as questioning or other actions by a
law enforcement officer that could result in an incriminating response from an individual who reasonably
believes they are in “custody.” 7 Determination of whether custodial interrogation has occurred is a matter
of legal interpretation and includes considerations such as whether the subject is free to leave and the
nature of questions. 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 detention is akin to an arrest)
AND 2) they are asked questions by law enforcement that could produce incriminating answers.
SPD Policy 6.150 provides that a determination of whether someone believes they are free to leave an
encounter with police is impacted by their age;
“A juvenile’s age is a consideration 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 interrogation and require that a juvenile be
provided access to an attorney in a broader set of situations that might produce incriminating 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 officers’ compliance with the RCW is challenging. The law requires that access to an attorney
must be provided before a juvenile waives their constitutional rights, rather than at the time a juvenile is
detained or taken into custody or questioned.

4 The Seattle ordinance was modeled after a similar San Francisco law titled “The Jeff Adachi Youth Rights
Ordinance” (San Francisco Admin Code Ch. 96C), which expanded on a 2018 California state law mandating that
youth 15 years of age or under be afforded legal counsel prior to custodial interrogation or waiver of Miranda
rights. See Calif. Welf. & Inst. Code § 625.6. The Jeff Adachi ordinance extended those protections 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)

2023 Youth Right to Legal Counsel Audit Report 4

In assessing compliance with both the SMC and RCW for this audit, OIG has an expectation that officers
should be proactive and err on the side of caution in providing access to an attorney when an interaction
with a juvenile involves custodial interrogation, detainment based on probable cause, or a request for
consent to search. “Non-compliance” in this report indicates officers did not take actions to comply with
relevant SMC or RCW when they should have, not necessarily that law or policy were violated.

Audit Findings
SPD officers generally did not provide juveniles with access to an attorney in the course of custodial
interrogation, detainment based on probable cause, or before requesting 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 files 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 attorney were triggered in 50 cases. In these 50 cases, SPD officers placed a call to an attorney in
compliance with the youth attorney access laws twice. OIG assessed the remaining 48 instances to be non-
compliant. Notably, among the 48 instances, officers asked juveniles potentially incriminating questions
prior to giving Miranda warning ten times.9

Interactions where attorney access should have been provided

Total = 50

Custodial interrogation 25

Consent to search 3

Detained and questioned 7

Arrested, no evidence
of questioning 13 2

Non-compliance Access provided

Figure 1

8 SPD Manual 6.220 defines a Terry stop as “[a] brief, minimally intrusive seizure of a subject based upon articulable
reasonable suspicion in order to investigate possible criminal activity. 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 Seattle laws are
triggered.
9 Due to the way SMC 3.28.147 was written, in 2021, attorney access was only required after officers 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 intention of the law and are categorized as non-compliance in Figure 1. This
issue was resolved with RCW 13.40.740 in 2022.

2023 Youth Right to Legal Counsel Audit Report 5

OIG observed several instances of non-compliance where officers verbally acknowledged restrictions
on questioning a juvenile but also did not appear to discuss the requirement or possibility of providing
access to an attorney. This indicates that although some officers are aware of restrictions on juvenile
questioning, they may be unaware of the full requirements or how to provide meaningful attorney access.
OIG identified several potential 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:
After issuing Miranda warnings, sworn employees will not question 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,
• Questioning of a juvenile during a custodial interrogation, or
• Detainment a juvenile based on probable cause of involvement in criminal activity.
These changes are not reflected 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 reflect changes in state youth attorney
access law.

Training about attorney access requirements appears to have been ineffective.

SPD policy 6.150 was revised in November 2020 to reflect requirements of the MiChance Dunlap-Gittens
Ordinance. In November 2020, SPD issued a directive to all officers highlighting the policy changes and
requiring officers to acknowledge reading and understanding the information.
SPD reported that between April – December 2022 (more than a year after the local ordinance came into
effect), all officers through the rank of Captain were provided a ‘legal refresher’ training, which included
information on juvenile right to counsel and interrogation. 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 officers appeared aware of restrictions around juvenile questioning but
not of requirements to provide attorney access to assist in decision making about waiver of rights. After
OIG presented preliminary results of this audit to SPD, the Department’s Policy and Research Section
emailed a comprehensive policy refresher on youth Miranda requirements to all officers.11
SPD reports that an e-learning course is under development.

10 According to the Washington State Office of Public Defense (OPD), as of January 2022, SPD officers 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 reflects SPD provided attorney
access in at least 6 cases from May to November 2023.

2023 Youth Right to Legal Counsel Audit Report 6

 Recommendation 2 Develop training
SPD should complete development and issuance of training on juvenile access to attorney
requirements, and include a knowledge assessment sufficient 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 additional guidance on practical
considerations for applying the law, or what to do if a situation involves a youth in crisis or with mental
illness. OIG noted circumstances in which officers may benefit from such additional guidance.
In some cases, officers engaged in custodial interrogation of a juvenile before attempting to inquire about or
determine their age. While age determination is not explicitly required in the ordinance or state law, it is a
critical part of ensuring meaningful compliance. If officers are not proactive about identifying juvenile status
early in an interaction, they may miss the requirement to provide attorney access.
Another circumstance where Department guidance is important, is that in which a juvenile is experiencing
behavioral crisis at the time of their detainment or arrest, or they have some impairment that impacts the
situation. In one observed case, officers placed a juvenile in crisis in the back of a patrol car and provided
immediate access to an attorney. 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 participate
in the call. Relevant laws and SPD policy do not provide guidance on what discretion an officer may have in
delaying a call until a juvenile has the capacity to meaningfully participate in a discussion with an attorney.
Another other case in which SPD officers provided attorney access to a juvenile took place in a precinct
holding cell. Officers kept the juvenile in handcuffs and placed a cellphone on speaker in the holding cell.
The conversation was audible on BWV and likely clear to officers standing outside the door. Consistent
with state law, SPD policy provides that the juvenile’s legal consultation “may be in person, by telephone,
or by video conference;”12 however, relevant policy does not contain guidance regarding where or how the
consultation should take place, leading to potential difficulties in ensuring that youth access to an attorney
is consistently confidential to respect attorney-client privilege.

Recommendation 3 Modify policy

SPD should modify policy 6.150 of the SPD Policy Manual to ensure that, absent exigent circumstances, officers
make a good faith effort to determine whether a detained individual is a juvenile.

Provide guidance when suitability of consultation

Recommendation 4 is in question
SPD should provide guidance around options and discretion officers may exercise when a juvenile
appears to lack the capacity to meaningfully participate in the attorney assistance process.

Recommendation 5 Provide tools to maintain confidentiality

SPD should provide guidance and/or tools to officers so that they can maintain confidentiality of
juvenile conversations with attorneys.

12 SPD Policy 6.150(11).

2023 Youth Right to Legal Counsel Audit Report 7

SPD did not update the Department-issued Miranda warning card to reflect requirements.
Most officers who provided Miranda warnings were observed reading them from a yellow, department-
issued card that provides standard warning language with an additional juvenile warning. Per SPD, this
card was last updated in 2018 and does not include guidance related to providing access to an attorney.
Including additional requirements and contact information for the Washington Office of Public Defense
(OPD) on the Miranda warning card could be an effective reminder to officers of the requirement.

Recommendation 6 Update department-issued Miranda card

SPD should revise the Department-issued Miranda card to include a reminder of youth attorney
access requirements and contact information for WA-OPD.

Black juveniles are disproportionately represented in interactions where attorney

access may be required.
The attorney access laws were created to inform juveniles of their rights before they potentially
implicate themselves in an alleged crime13. Because SPD did not have a significant rate of compliance in
implementing the laws, OIG was unable to assess the potential for disparity in their implementation14.
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 Native 6 1.7%
Asian 11 3.1%
Black or African American 169 47.9%
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific 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 Latino 38 10.8%
Unknown 149 42.2%
Not Hispanic or Latino 166 47.0%
Total 353

Figure 2

13 As part of its rationale for the ordinance, the Seattle City Council cited social science research and caselaw for the
premise that juveniles – whose brains are still developing – do not fully understand the consequences of certain
actions, such as waiving their Miranda rights. Additionally, their comprehension may be further affected by the
inherently stressful nature of detainment, search, or interrogation. These factors may make juveniles more prone
than adults to self-incriminate. See Seattle 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. Potential disparity should be examined in future work. See Appendix D for more detail.

2023 Youth Right to Legal Counsel Audit Report 8

OIG did not assess factors that contributed to disproportionality in the tested population, 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 interactions with officers that should have been informed by an
attorney consultation 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
section 6.220-POL-4(1) establishes that officers 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 consultation with their chain of command, shall address
the concern and make the appropriate referral pursuant to Section 5.002. Such
action may include PAS documentation and/or referral to OPA. The supervisor shall
document these concerns and any actions taken on a Supplement when approving
the Report or Field Contact.”
According to SPD policy 16, officers 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 specific
language on remediating inconsistencies with policy, the department’s frontline investigations policy states
that, except in cases where the Office of Police Accountability (OPA) is taking over an investigation;
“Supervisors will fully investigate and take corrective action, within their authority,
when they witness or receive allegations of an employee’s minor policy violations.”
The same policy provides at multiple points within its procedures that supervisors
will; “Document the allegation/violation, any remedial actions taken, and outcome
in PAS.”
17

OIG reviewed the Performance Appraisal System (PAS) profile for every officer involved in an instance
of non-compliance within our sample.18 The review did not find any instances where a supervisor
documented non-compliance or provided coaching notes to the officer.
All arrest or field contact reports reviewed in this audit included records of sergeant screening in the
Mark43 records management system. However, system logs reflect 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 attorney. In that instance, OPA discovered the potential violation of policy while reviewing BWV for a
different allegation and sent the attorney access issue to the chain of command as a Supervisor Action.19

15 These may include the origins, dispatch priority, and incident type for a call, among other potential 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 officer was one of the main participants in an interaction,
to the point that OIG drew evidence from their BWV. They may not have been the officer reading a Miranda
warning or interrogating the juvenile, but they were generally in position to recognize that attorney access should
be provided.
19 OPA describes a supervisor action as a complaint generally involving a minor policy violation or performance issue
that is best addressed through training, communication, or coaching by the employee’s supervisor.

2023 Youth Right to Legal Counsel Audit Report 9

An SPD Captain interviewed by OIG about this issue reported that sergeants are not provided official
training on how to review reports. As a result, there is no specific expectation that sergeants review
reports for juvenile access to an attorney.
Without sufficient supervisory screening, SPD is unable to identify and remediate gaps in training and
policy. Recognizing that SPD is constrained by staffing and improving supervisory review is a long-term
project, OIG makes the following recommendations;

Recommendation 7 Enhance arrest screening procedures

SPD should enhance current arrest screening procedures to assess whether an interaction complies
with state law relating to youth access to an attorney.

Periodically request information on youth access

Recommendation 8
to counsel calls
SPD should develop a process to periodically request information from the Washington State Office
of Public Defender on juvenile attorney access calls originating from the Department.

Matters for Consideration

During audit fieldwork, OIG noted potential issues outside the objectives of this report. These
observations are documented here for SPD’s awareness and potential OIG follow-up work.
• In addition to Miranda warnings, SPD policy requires an additional 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 prosecution for a juvenile offense and can also be used against you in
an adult court criminal prosecution 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 officers may need a reminder about the importance of clear and
complete advisements to juveniles.
• In cases of domestic violence, OIG observed that current law does not always ensure
juveniles have access to an attorney before being questioned when the “custody”
element is not present. When officers respond to domestic violence calls, OIG
observed officers typically separate and interview all parties involved to understand
what occurred and determine a “primary aggressor.” These interviews occur before
the main triggers of the RCW (interrogating the juvenile while in custody or detaining
them based on probable cause of involvement in criminal activity) or the SMC
(reading Miranda warnings). OIG observed multiple instances in which juveniles
incriminated themselves in a “non-custodial” conversation with officers during these
interviews without triggering the youth access to counsel requirement.

20 See SPD Policy 6.150 (10).

2023 Youth Right to Legal Counsel Audit Report 10

Conclusion
This audit found broad non-compliance by SPD with attorney access requirements for juveniles, as
required by law. While some officers demonstrated partial knowledge of the new legal requirements, most
did not appear to be aware of the process for connecting a juvenile with an attorney. OIG observed several
causes for non-compliance, including gaps in policy, training, guidance, tools, and supervision.
According to OPD’s report on the first year of the Youth Access to Counsel Program, 2,327 youths were
provided attorney consultations 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.
Additional work should be done to ensure SPD interactions with youth adhere to legal requirements and
account for juveniles’ cognitive development. Studies suggest that juveniles often do not fully comprehend
the potential consequences of their actions, including waiving their rights after receiving Miranda
warnings. It is important that juveniles have access to an attorney to assist them in making decisions that
impact their constitutional rights and have serious consequences in the criminal justice system.

21 See Appendix E of this report

2023 Youth Right to Legal Counsel Audit Report 11

Appendix A: Recommendations and Department Response
Recommendation 1 Update SPD policy to reflect state law
SPD should update policy 6.150 of the SPD Policy Manual to reflect changes in state youth attorney
access law.
SPD Response
▪ Concur □ Do Not Concur
Estimated Date of Implementation: Q1 2024
Implementation Plan: SPD’s Policy Unit will draft an updated policy.

Recommendation 2 Develop training

SPD should complete development and issuance of training on juvenile access to attorney
requirements, and include a knowledge assessment sufficient to evaluate understanding.
SPD Response
▪ Concur □ Do Not Concur
Estimated Date of Implementation: Q1 2024
Implementation Plan: Alongside policy development, SPD’s Education and Training Section will update
its e-learning on juvenile access to attorney requirements. A knowledge assessment tool will attach 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,
officers make a good faith effort to determine whether a detained individual is a juvenile.
SPD Response
▪ Concur □ Do Not Concur
Estimated Date of Implementation: Q1 2024
Implementation Plan: Such provisions will be included in policy revisions.

Provide guidance when suitability of consultation

Recommendation 4
is in question
SPD should provide guidance around options and discretion officers may exercise when a juvenile
appears to lack the capacity to meaningfully participate in the attorney assistance process.
SPD Response
▪ Concur □ Do Not Concur
Estimated Date of Implementation: Q1 2024
Implementation Plan: Guidance to this effect will be included in policy revisions.

Appendices 12
Appendix A continued
Recommendation 5 Provide tools to maintain confidentiality
SPD should provide guidance and/or tools to officers so that they can maintain confidentiality of
juvenile conversations with attorneys.
SPD Response
▪ Concur □ Do Not Concur
Estimated Date of Implementation: Q1 2024
Implementation Plan: Guidance to this effect will be included in policy revisions. SPD is not in a
position to procure/provide additional tools to officers for such purposes.

Recommendation 6 Update department-issued Miranda card

SPD should revise the Department-issued Miranda card to include a reminder of youth attorney access
requirements and contact information for WA-OPD.
SPD Response
▪ Concur □ Do Not Concur
Estimated Date of Implementation: TBD
Implementation Plan: SPD agrees with the idea of this recommendation. SPD will assess the feasibility
of adding this information to the card, given space constraints.

Recommendation 7 Enhance arrest screening procedures

SPD should enhance current arrest screening procedures to assess whether an interaction complies
with state law relating to youth access to an attorney.
SPD Response
▪ Concur □ Do Not Concur
Estimated Date of Implementation: Q1 2024
Implementation Plan: Considerations to this effect will be included in policy revisions.

Periodically request information on youth access

Recommendation 8
to Counsel calls
SPD should develop a process to periodically request information from the Washington State Office of
Public Defender on juvenile attorney access calls originating from the Department.
SPD Response
▪ Concur □ Do Not Concur
Estimated Date of Implementation: TBD
Implementation 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 continued 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.

Appendices 13
Appendix A continued

Appendices 14
Appendix A continued

Appendices 15
Appendix B: Audit Methodology
OIG strives to make objective, well-informed findings and recommendations as part of the audit process.
Audit staff conducted the following investigatory steps to inform audit findings:
• 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 jurisdictions;
• Interviewed Seattle City Council staff to understand the legislative objectives
of the ordinance;
• Interviewed SPD personnel including the Chief Operating Officer, General Counsel,
Technology Integration Unit, and Education & Training Section to understand SPD’s
interpretation and implementation 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 time of the interaction with SPD (260 arrests/93 Terry stops).
OIG developed a sample sufficient to assess SPD compliance; and
• Reviewed BWV of SPD arrest and Terry stop interactions involving juveniles.

Appendices 16
Appendix C: Sample Composition
OIG randomly selected 89 juvenile interactions for review from a population of 353 arrests and Terry stops.
All such interactions were coded with offense types by SPD in Mark43. Some interactions had multiple
offense types (e.g. ‘assault’ and ‘weapons’). Auditors generally selected the offense code that appeared
most relevant to the incident, and grouped offense codes where appropriate (e.g. ‘assault 2’ and 'assault
4’). This figure is meant to provide an overview of the nature of cases reviewed, not analyze the prevalence
of individual offense types.

Interactions sampled by offense type and OIG assessment

Total = 89

Assault 8 10 2
Trespass 7 3
Robbery 2 6
Stolen property/vehicle 3 5
Driving/collision 2 4
Narcotics 1 4
Domestic violence 2 3
Weapons 1 4
Harrassment 2 3
Shoplifting 2 2
Burglary 2 1
Suspicious circumstance 1 2
Missing person 1
Crisis 1
Minor in possession 1
Disturbance 1
General investigation 1
Reckless burning 1
Felony warrant 1

Attorney requirements Non-compliance Access provided

not triggered

Appendices 17
Appendix D: Known Instances When SPD Made Call to Counsel
OIG requested information from Washington State OPD for calls from SPD personnel during the period
of November 2022 to the start of fieldwork 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
descriptions of cases and where officers contacted WA-OPD. Given the heavy representation of Black
youths in interactions that may be governed by attorney access laws, OIG notes that most of the known
calls to OPD involved White youth. These limited data points are not determinative of disparity in providing
attorney access but suggest that the potential 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 questioned by officers, the youth
admitted to consuming alcohol and officers observed alcohol bottles in the rear of the vehicle. The youth’s
parent arrived on the scene and asked officers to release her son. Although the juvenile was not released
on scene, the parent was given ample opportunity to converse with officers, as well as engage in discussion
with her son prior to his transport to an SPD precinct. Officers telephoned a WA-OPD attorney and the
youth spoke with counsel for approximately 10 minutes from a private room to ensure confidentiality.
Domestic violence assault
Officers responded to a domestic violence incident involving a parent and their child, a White male, who
appeared to be in crisis.23 After separating the participants and placing the youth in the patrol car, the
officers initiated a call to the WA-OPD attorney who spoke with the youth for 10 minutes. The juvenile was
later transported to Seattle Children’s Hospital for evaluation.
Assault
Officers were called to investigate an alleged assault involving Black juveniles at a high school. During the
investigation officers 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
victim, the juvenile declined to testify in a court proceeding against his alleged assailants and the suspects
were not arrested or subject to other actions that would trigger youth access to counsel protocols.
Homicide
Two male juveniles (one Black, one White) were arrested on suspicion of homicide. SPD officers recognized
that the juveniles should not be questioned at the time of arrest. The juveniles were transported back to
SPD facilities where they were provided access to an attorney prior to interviews.
Domestic violence
A White youth was arrested after allegedly threatening suicide, breaking property, and shoving their
mother. The juvenile was taken into custody without incident or questioning, and Mirandized on scene.
Their call to counsel took place at an SPD Precinct, where the juvenile spoke with an attorney for
approximately 9 minutes from a holding cell.

22 To support the implementation of RCW 13.40.740, in January 2022 WA-OPD created the Youth Access to Counsel
(YAC) Line, a statewide system to ensure that attorney consultations 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 directing 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 officer’s report.

Appendices 18
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.

Consultations per Month

300
Average number of calls per
250 day: 6

200 Highest number of calls in one

day: 17
150
Lowest number of calls in one
100 day: 0
50

0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

How long does it take Law Enforcement to reach a YAC attorney?

• 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.

1
All data in this document is through December 31, 2022.

Appendices 19
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:

Self- Reported Race (April - December, 2022)

Unknown

White

Latine

African American/Black

Other

Indigenous

Asian American/Pacific Islander

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%

Appendices 20
The Office 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 auditing of the management, practices, and
policies of the Seattle Police Department and the Office of Police Accountability. Additionally,
OIG oversees ongoing fidelity to organizational 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 Pitts
Madison Barnwell

Inspector General
Lisa Judge

Deputy Inspector General

Bessie Scott

Office of Inspector General

phone: 206.684.3663
email: [email protected]
web: http://www.seattle.gov/oig/

Appendices 21