Residents debate police reform laws at Kent town hall

Things got a bit heated during a city of Kent town hall meeting about how police reform laws adopted by the Legislature will change the way officers do their jobs.

Kent Mayor Dana Ralph and Police Chief Rafael Padilla hosted the meeting Aug. 16 at the Kent Senior Activity Center and told residents the new laws will change the way police officers respond to or handle incidents. A few residents disagreed with the impact the leaders claimed.

“We want to help the community understand the impacts of the way we keep the community safe and how police can respond . …what police can and can’t do,” Ralph said to kick off the more than two-hour meeting in front of about 70 people.

Padilla focused on vehicle pursuits during part of the meeting to let people know the changes about when officers can chase someone.

“You have to have probable cause,” Padilla said prior to a chase. “You have to have evidence strong enough to arrest someone and then start the process to book them.”

Before the change, officers only needed reasonable suspicion or what the chief referred to as an educated guess before pursuing someone who might have been involved in a crime.

“If an officer sees a vehicle that’s a red car, prior to the new law that was enough for us to stop that car and determine if the person was involved or not,” Padilla said. “Now that’s not the case. The officers will have to let that car go because probable cause is a higher standard than reasonable suspicion.”

Padilla said an officer also must determine if there’s immediate threat to safety before pursuing. He gave an example of a man who robs a bank and fires off a couple of shots that don’t hit anybody. First, the officer needs probable cause of a witness who saw the man rob the bank and get into a vehicle.

But there also has to be an imminent threat to safety. Once the man got into the vehicle, he’s not a threat because he’s no longer robbing a bank or shooting a gun.

“If we decide there’s a threat, the threat of not chasing has to be greater than the physical safety of the pursuit,” Padilla said.

The chief said pursuits can no longer be done to chase someone who committed a domestic violence assault, residential burglary or commercial burglary.

“The intention of the law is let’s reduce these dangerous pursuits,” Padilla said.

But Padilla thinks the law goes too far by not allowing pursuits with reasonable suspicion or for nonviolent crimes.

“Certain things you expect us to pursue,” Padilla said. “If your family member was sexually assaulted, you probably want us to pursue.”

The laws still allow pursuit of a DUI driver, such as an officer seeing a driver weaving along the road which is reasonable suspicion.

Padilla hopes the Legislature might review some of the changes next session and update them.

He said he also fears officers might hesitate to get involved in cases because it’s now easier to decertify an officer and to sue an officer. One change encourages officers to walk away from an incident with a person if no crime is being committed and there’s no threat to the safety of others.

“An officer has to consider things such as if I violate policy or law and something goes really bad the repercussions under the new laws make it dangerous for decertification, civil liability and more, so now the stakes for an officer is he or she could lose their career and financial ability to support their families,” Padilla said. “That’s what they have to contemplate when they decide what they are going to do.”

A few residents, however, told the chief and mayor the laws needed to change so officers look at things differently.

“It doesn’t say you can’t go or you can’t use force,” one woman said about the new laws. “If possible, they want the officer to de-escalate the situation. And if there’s no crime, they can leave, it’s an option.”

Another man pointed out that the laws weren’t written necessarily for Mr. Padilla, but for officers and chiefs who have abused their power.

“These laws were written for the officers who feel they need to use unnecessary force in an already calm situation,” the man said. “It’s written for the chief who sent 29 officers surrounding one drunk man in a house who decides he need to take the man out. …it’s designed for the officer who kneels on somebody’s neck for 8 minutes because they know nothing is going to happen to them.”

Padilla said he supports those changes.

“I don’t want any of these laws repealed,” Padilla said. “I know that’s the fear. I support the laws. We just have some nuances for outcomes that we don’t necessarily want. Let’s talk about those and make some decisions. We do that together, not divided.”

Kent native Po Leapai, whose cousin, Iosia Faletogo, 36, was shot and killed during a traffic stop on New Year’s Eve 2018 by a Seattle Police officer, disagreed with Padilla’s approach and tone at the meeting.

“I’m watching you and you can’t help the BIPOC (Black, Indigenous, people of color) community here with your biases,” Leapai said to Padilla. “The reason for the bills is a lack of transparency. I watch you as chief of police make comments about how you pursue a DUI driver, what else could someone be doing in bushes other than drugs, well they could be homeless, your bias is why the laws were passed.

“It’s sickening to me. We are victims of police murders, and you make snarky comments. Our loved ones were murdered. I see you and the mayor taking sides here, and it comes across as bias that doesn’t do anything for the BIPOC community and those iffy about law enforcement.”

Leapai then said he wasn’t anti-cop, which a short while later led another man to shout, “You are anti-cop,” and then a third man to respond to that man with, “You’re anti-Black.”

Padilla said the meeting wasn’t set up to divide the community but to inform them about things that have changed. It’s about not being able to pursue a murder suspect or deal with criminal activity with just reasonable suspicion. He didn’t like the lack of transparency comment by Leapai.

“You’re not going to find a chief more transparent than me,” Padilla said. “I guarantee you there are not very many chiefs in front of people presenting (on this). If you disagree that’s fine.”

Ralph delivered a closing statement to summarize the town hall.

“This is exactly what we hoped to achieve to talk abut the laws,” Ralph said. “We heard from both sides of the conversation. The idea is to bring those sides to the middle so we can take care of each other so everyone is safe.

“We want people to know what can and can’t be done. At the end of the day, we are moving our city forward and figure out a way to do it. We are in this together. There are things about this that are tough and things that are fabulous and we are going to figure it out together.”

Sonia Joseph, whose 20-year-old son Giovonn Joseph-McDade was fatally shot by Kent Police in 2017 after a short pursuit, said after the meeting she raised her hand to ask a question but Padilla never called on her. She came away disappointed with the overall tone of the town hall.

“These laws and policies were changed so we could have more accountability and it does not stop officers from doing their job,” said Joseph, who filed a civil lawsuit against the city of Kent for the shooting of her son that resulted in a $4.4 million settlement in April by the city.

“This meeting I feel that the mayor and chief are pushing a false narrative and putting fear into the senior citizens of the city of Kent,” Joseph said. “They don’t like the fact that we changed the policies and now they are pushing fear into the communities. Nothing in these laws say that they cannot do their job.”

Residents attend a town hall meeting about police reform on Aug. 16 at the Kent Senior Activity Center. COURTESY PHOTO, City of Kent