<p>OPA submitted the following MAR to the SPD Chief of Police on October 20, 2016.</p>
<p><span style="color: #800000;"><strong>COMPLETED-SOME</strong></span></p>
<p><strong><a href="documents/Departments/OPA/ClosedCaseSummaries/2016OPA-0303ccs10-27-16MA.pdf" title="Closed Case Summary (2016-0303) - Issued October 21, 2016 - 2016OPA-0303ccs10-27-16MA.pdf" target="_blank">Closed Case Summary (2016-0303) - Issued October 21, 2016</a></strong></p>
<p><strong><a href="documents/Departments/OPA/ClosedCaseSummaries/2016OPA-0303ccs10-27-16MA.pdf" title="Closed Case Summary (2016-0303) - Issued October 21, 2016 - 2016OPA-0303ccs10-27-16MA.pdf" target="_blank"></a></strong><strong><a href="documents/Departments/OPA/ManagementAction/2016OPA-0303_PM-OToole_%20MA_%20letter.pdf" title="OPA's MAR - October 20, 2016 - 2016OPA-0303_PM-OToole_ MA_ letter.pdf" target="_blank">OPA's MAR - October 20, 2016</a></strong></p>
<p>OPA completed an investigation into an allegation that a Parking Enforcement Officer (PEO) failed to appear in Municipal Court in response to a valid subpoena served on that PEO. This mandatory court appearance was for a hearing on a vehicle impound the PEO had made. Impounded vehicles accumulate tow and storage fees that sometimes exceed the value of the vehicle. In order to prevent excessive charges to either the vehicle owner or the City, the Municipal Court schedules hearings within a day or two of receiving notice from the vehicle owner of his or her desire to contest the impound. In this case, the PEO received a subpoena to attend a hearing the next day but chose, instead, to attend a previously-scheduled, non-mandatory seminar sponsored by the Department. The Court did not excuse the PEO from its order to appear. As a result of the PEO's non-appearance, the vehicle was released from impound and the City was ordered to cover the accumulated tow and storage fees.</p>
<p><a href="documents/Departments/OPA/ManagementAction/COP_Response_2016OPA-0303_MA.pdf" title="SPD's Response - October 25, 2016 - COP_Response_2016OPA-0303_MA.pdf" target="_blank"><strong>SPD's Response - October 25, 2016</strong></a><br />The SPD Legal Unit has been exploring opportunities to coordinate with Seattle Municipal Court on closing this loop on parking and traffic citations where the City is not represented; in addition, in response to OPA's recommendation, the Chief asked the Legal Unit to expedite engagement with the City Attorney's Office and the King County Prosecutor's Office to explore how SPD can best assure officers are meeting their obligations under Manual Section 5.190.</p>
<p><a href="documents/Departments/OPA/ManagementAction/112316_COP_Status_Update_MAR.pdf" title="SPD's Response - November 23, 2016 - 112316_COP_Status_Update_MAR.pdf" target="_blank"><strong>SPD's Response - November 23, 2016</strong></a><br />SPD updated OPA indicating that similar to the MAR regarding Officer Subpoenas (see OFFICER SUBPOENAS MAR) the SPD Legal Unit has implemented a process by which subpoenas are tracked to ensure delivery and acknowledge receipt. SPD is also working with the Seattle Municipal Court to discuss a shared protocol given that the court does not have a protocol or system in place to reliability affirm that officers appear, or alert when officers fail to appear, when summoned. Similar to concerns expressed in OFFICER SUBPOENAS (2014-0128) above, OPA encourages SPD to include a process for supervisor reporting and accountability for officers, including PEOs that fail to appear in court, which may result in costs to the City for refunded towing and impounding fees.</p>
<p><a href="documents/Departments/OPA/ManagementAction/112316_COP_Status_Update_MAR.pdf" title="SPD's Response - November 23, 2016 - 112316_COP_Status_Update_MAR.pdf" target="_blank"><strong>SPD's Response - November 23, 2016</strong></a> <br />SPD updated OPA indicating that while technical and budget limitations have precluded the implementation of an automated system, the SPD Legal Unit has implemented a process by which subpoenas are tracked to ensure delivery and acknowledge receipt. SPD is also working with the Seattle Municipal Court to discuss a shared protocol given that the court does not have a protocol or system in place to reliability affirm that officers appear, or alert when officers fail to appear, when summoned. OPA will continue to monitor this issue until SPD and Seattle Municipal implement a reliable system of tracking subpoenas and notifying supervisors when police and parking enforcement officers fail to show up for court as required.</p>
<p><a href="documents/Departments/OPA/ManagementAction/MAR_Status_Update_3rd_qtr_2017.pdf" title="SPD's Response - Issued November 13, 2017 - MAR_Status_Update_3rd_qtr_2017.pdf" target="_blank"><strong>SPD's Response - Issued November 13, 2017</strong></a> <br />The SPD's Audit, Policy and Research section currently has policy revisions and updates under development.</p>