A few weeks ago, deputies of the King County Sheriff’s Office completed a civil eviction at a house in Seattle to remove occupants who had been ordered to leave by a judge. Deputies conduct evictions all the time, as it is a responsibility of all county sheriff’s departments under Washington State law. This eviction was different than most, however, and it provides us with an opportunity to discuss the balance that law enforcement must strike when weighing officer safety, prudent use of taxpayer dollars and the perception of the public.
The Sheriff’s Office has a Civil Unit whose day-to-day job is to carry out civil orders of the court. These orders include evictions, which are usually due to foreclosures or failure to pay financial obligations. The homeowner or landlord goes to the court and receives a legal order, which we carry out at the direction of the judge. Removing people from homes or selling distressed properties are difficult, especially when families are affected. However, it is a critical part of the rule of law, and it is our legal responsibility.
Civil Unit detectives look at the circumstances of an eviction, and will call in extra resources when there are concerns about safety, the existence of weapons or other possible threats. Sometimes we call for the assistance of the police department of the city in which the property is located; in other cases we call the King County SWAT team. The decision-making process is called a “risk assessment.”
Late in 2011, several individuals entered and began living in an empty house in Seattle. Some of the individuals claimed to be members of Occupy Seattle, and placed painted messages on the front of the house, protesting banks, foreclosures and the mortgage system. Others made statements to the press about the social justification of homeless people being able to live in empty houses at will. As time went by, the role that protests played in the inhabitation diminished, devolving into increased graffiti and damage to the house. Over time, the relationship to any organized “Occupy” element was far less clear.
The private owner of the house sought a legal eviction through the court, and it was signed by a judge. As always, the Sheriff’s Office was charged with completing the eviction. An order for eviction would be posted on the house, as is required, and the Sheriff’s Office would plan to order the occupants to lawfully and peaceably leave, if they did not voluntarily vacate the house before.
Based on a risk assessment ahead of the eviction, including the possibility of obstructions being placed in the house, active resistance to deputies entering the house and tactics used by individuals in other parts of the country, we needed to be prepared. The department’s SWAT team was used, and extensive planning was done to deal with any outcome. Thankfully, the people inside the house cooperated and left the house peaceably when we approached the house and told them to vacate. They only wanted their property back, which was respectfully given to them.
Some people questioned the use of a SWAT team to order what turned out to be less than 10 people to vacate a house. The important point to remember is that officer safety plays a critical part in our planning. Yes, we need to be attentive to cost and use only those resources that are needed. However, to be underprepared and then try to react to a highly charged incident would result in more cost and much more risk to the deputies and the public. Some also wondered why we knocked on the door at 4 a.m., although it makes more sense when you realize that the house is on a busy street and directly across from a high school. Any other time of the day would be disruptive and dangerous.
Sometimes people will ask me why, for example, a person driving by themselves gets pulled over for a minor traffic offense, and pretty soon there are two or three squad cars at the scene. They will ask me “obviously this person is not dangerous, why do the cops react that way?” The answer lies in recognizing the perspective of the officers. An officer’s sole consideration is that a fellow officer has stopped a car. The situation might be perfectly safe, but then it might not. And so, we err on the side of caution because it is the right thing to do for officer safety.
Next time you hear about a perceived overreaction by police officers or deputy sheriffs, I ask you to consider that we must always pay attention to that element of safety and ensure that we are prepared for the occasions when those extra officers are needed. It’s the best way for us to serve the public respectfully, and make sure we go home safely to our families each night.
