Butts v. Constantine

Decision Date15 July 2021
Docket NumberNO. 98985-1,98985-1
CourtWashington Supreme Court
Parties The FAMILY OF Damarius BUTTS et al., Respondents/Cross-Appellants, v. Dow CONSTANTINE et al., Appellants/Cross-Respondents.

Thomas William Kuffel, Office of the Prosecuting Attorney, Samantha Dara Kanner, King Co. Prosecutors Office, David J. Hackett, King County Administration Building, 500 4th Ave. Ste. 900, Seattle, WA, 98104-2316, Timothy J. Filer, Foster Garvey PC, 1111 3rd Ave. Ste. 3000, Seattle, WA, 98101-3296, for Appellant/Cross-Respondent.

La Rond Baker, King County Department of Public Defense, 710 2nd Ave. Ste. 200, Seattle, WA, 98104-1703, Adrien G. Leavitt, Northwest Defenders Division/KCDPD, 710 2nd Ave. Ste. 250, Seattle, WA, 98104-1765, Amy K. Parker, King County Department of Defense-ACA, Susan Claire Sobel, Attorney at Law, 710 2nd Ave. Ste. 1000, Seattle, WA, 98104-1744, Corey William Guilmette, Public Defender Association, 110 Prefontaine Pl. S., Suite 502, Seattle, WA, 98104-2626, Rebecca Fish, Public Defender Association, 110 Prefontaine Place S., Suite 502, Seattle, WA, 98104, Stewart Andrew Estes, Keating, Bucklin & McCormack, Inc., P.S., 801 2nd Ave. Ste. 1210, Seattle, WA, 98104-3175, Thomas P. Miller, Christie Law Group, PLLC, 2100 Westlake Ave. N. Ste. 206, Seattle, WA, 98109-5802, for Respondent/Cross-Appellant.

Isaac Ruiz, Kathryn Manning Knudsen, Ruiz & Smart PLLC, 1200 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1220, Seattle, WA, 98101, for Amicus Curiae on behalf of Public Health Amici.

Timothy George Leyh, Tyler L. Farmer, Kristin E. Ballinger, Harrigan Leyh Farmer & Thomsen LLP, 999 3rd Ave. Ste. 4400, Seattle, WA, 98104, for Amicus Curiae on behalf of Washington State Association of Counties.

Edgar Sargent, Daniel Jeffrey Shih, Susman Godfrey LLP, 1201 3rd Ave. Ste. 3800, Seattle, WA, 98101-3087, for Amicus Curiae on behalf of Community Organizations.

Antoinette M. Davis, Nancy Lynn Talner, American Civil Liberties Union of Washington, P.O. Box 2728, Seattle, WA, 98111-2728, for Amicus Curiae on behalf of ACLU of Washington.

Karen L. Cobb, Theron A. Buck, Evan Bariault, Frey Buck, P.S., 1200 5th Ave. Ste. 1900, Seattle, WA, 98101-3135, for Other Parties.

STEPHENS, J.

¶1 Damarius Butts, Isaiah Obet, Charleena Lyles, and seven other people were shot and killed by law enforcement officers in King County in 2017. Fatal Force: Police Shootings Database , WASH. POST (last updated June 21, 2021), https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/investigations/police-shootings-database/ [https://perma.cc/2KUT-4QH8]. In response to community demands for greater police accountability, King County Executive (Executive) Dow Constantine issued a series of executive orders to reform the procedures for conducting coroner's inquests—a type of death investigation the King County Charter requires whenever a law enforcement officer causes or contributes to someone's death. The King County Superior Court struck down those executive orders on various grounds, and nearly all parties appealed some aspect of that ruling. We accepted direct review.

¶2 Executive Constantine and the Inquest Administrator Michael Spearman argue the executive orders were a valid exercise of the powers granted to the Executive by the King County Charter and King County Code. Executive Constantine asks us to vacate the superior court's order and reinstate the executive orders.

¶3 The families of Butts, Obet, and Lyles (individually and collectively Families) argue state law requires more than Executive Constantine's recent reforms allow. Specifically, they argue the "Coroner's Act," ch. 36.24 RCW, requires that the involved officers be examined by the inquest jury and that the inquest jury be allowed to determine whether their relatives were killed by criminal means. The Families seek writs of mandamus to compel Executive Constantine and Administrator Spearman to comply with those requirements of state law.

¶4 Finally, four King County cities, the King County Sheriff's Office, and several individual law enforcement officers (the Law Enforcement Parties) argue the Executive's orders go too far. They claim that the Coroner's Act creates a narrow, fact-bound inquiry and that Executive Constantine's recent orders impermissibly broaden the inquest's scope and purpose. The Law Enforcement Parties seek to prevent coroner's inquests from proceeding under those orders and ask us to affirm the superior court's ruling.

¶5 Every party's arguments have some merit and all prevail to some degree. We hold that the Executive's authority to conduct coroner's inquests includes the power to establish the procedures by which those inquests are conducted, as long as those procedures are consistent with applicable state and county law. We therefore largely uphold Executive Constantine's recent reforms. But we strike the portions of the executive orders that the Families and the Law Enforcement Parties show conflict with state law, including those that would prevent inquest juries from fulfilling their duties under the Coroner's Act. The Families are correct that the law requires inquest juries be able to examine the involved officers and to decide whether those officers killed Butts, Obet, and Lyles by criminal means. Accordingly, we vacate the superior court's order and remand to grant in part the Families’ petitions for writs of mandamus.

RELEVANT FACTS

¶6 Law enforcement officers in King County shot and killed Damarius Butts, Isaiah Obet, and Charleena Lyles within a two-month period in 2017. Seattle Police killed Butts on April 20. Auburn Police killed Obet on June 10. Seattle Police killed Lyles on June 18.

¶7 The King County Charter requires coroner's inquests be held whenever "an action, decision or possible failure to offer the appropriate care by a member of any law enforcement agency might have contributed to an individual's death." KING COUNTY CHARTER § 895. Per the inquest procedures in place at the time, Executive Constantine sent letters to the Honorable Donna Tucker, presiding judge of the King County District Court, requesting judges to preside over inquests into the deaths of Butts, Obet, and Lyles.

¶8 In December 2017, in response to growing community concern, Executive Constantine convened a six-member Inquest Review Committee (IRC) to propose reforms to King County's long-standing inquest procedures. The IRC found those procedures were largely perceived by community members as "favor[ing] law enforcement," " ‘lack[ing] compassion,’ and ... condescending to families" of those killed by police. Clerk's Papers (CP) at 707-08. The IRC proposed several reforms to improve King County's inquest process, including clarifying the purpose and scope of inquests, promulgating more robust procedural rules, allowing the inquest jury to make more meaningful observations "as a voice of the community," and improving the transparency of and better educating the public about inquests. CP at 704-05. The IRC proposed a draft executive order incorporating these and other changes to King County's inquest process.

¶9 Soon after, a coalition of law enforcement representatives and community advocates attempted to create an alternative proposal that would accommodate some of the law enforcement community's concerns with the IRC proposal. That coalition shared a draft compromise executive order with Executive Constantine's office but never reached a final agreement.

¶10 Meanwhile, Judge Tucker notified Executive Constantine that the King County District Court would no longer assign judges to preside over inquests. On the day he received Judge Tucker's letter, Executive Constantine placed the pending Butts, Obet, and Lyles inquests—along with two others—on hold until new inquest procedures could be adopted. No jurors had yet been requested, so none of those inquests had formally begun. See BNSF Ry. Co. v. Clark , 192 Wash.2d 832, 838, 434 P.3d 50 (2019) ("[T]he coroner must request a jury in order to begin an inquest.").

¶11 Nearly a year after placing the inquests on hold, Executive Constantine issued Executive Order PHL 7-1-2-EO (2018 EO), incorporating several of the IRC's proposed reforms and the coalition's suggested revisions. The 2018 EO provided for an inquest administrator to preside over inquests as the Executive's designee, significantly reduced the role of the prosecuting attorney, and expanded public access to inquest proceedings, including by directing the inquest administrator to make video and audio recordings available online. The 2018 EO also allowed the chief law enforcement officer of the involved agency to provide limited testimony about police training and policies, permitted testimony from expert witnesses on whether the involved officers complied with such training and policies, and prohibited the issuance of subpoenas to compel the testimony of involved officers. Other portions of the 2018 EO maintained some long-standing practices, such as mandating a transparent process, providing for the exchange of discoverable materials, and barring the inquest jury from determining issues of fault or criminal or civil liability.

¶12 With the 2018 EO in place, Executive Constantine removed the hold from the pending inquests. In the late spring and early summer of 2019, Executive Constantine officially initiated the Butts, Obet, and Lyles inquests by requesting jurors from lists maintained by the King County Superior Court. Retired Superior Court and Court of Appeals Judge Michael Spearman was appointed as the administrator for all three inquests.

¶13 Administrator Spearman held a series of prehearing conferences in each inquest to facilitate discovery, establish the initial scope of the inquest, and address the parties’ various motions. These conferences soon exposed a flaw in the 2018 EO: it conditioned the participation of involved officers’ attorneys on the officers’ willingness to participate in the inquest, but it did not define what it meant for the officers to participate. The Butts Family moved to...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • State v. Flannery
    • United States
    • Washington Court of Appeals
    • November 22, 2022
    ...any other proceeding, where the answer might tend to incriminate [them] in future criminal proceedings.’ " Family of Butts v. Constantine , 198 Wash.2d 27, 63, 491 P.3d 132 (2021) (quoting King v. Olympic Pipeline Co. , 104 Wash. App. 338, 351, 16 P.3d 45 (2000), review denied , 143 Wash.2d......
  • State v. Flannery
    • United States
    • Washington Court of Appeals
    • November 22, 2022
    ... ... other proceeding, where the answer might tend to incriminate ... [them] in future criminal proceedings.'" Family ... of Butts v. Constantine , 198 Wn.2d 27, 63, 491 P.3d 132 ... (2021) (quoting King v. Olympic Pipe Line Co. , 104 ... Wn.App. 338, 351, 16 P.3d 45 ... ...

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT