SEATTLE — A federal judge has found evidence Seattle police stopped and detained a Black delivery driver at gunpoint because of his race, then illegally searched his trunk in a 2020 incident detailed in a civil rights lawsuit now headed for trial.
U.S. District Judge Tana Lin rejected a city motion to dismiss a series of civil rights claims from Anthony Sims’ lawsuit, filed last year after eight officers, guns drawn, responded to a downtown traffic stop on May 17, 2020, because Sims’ license plate was mistakenly identified as possibly being stolen.
Some of the officers kept their guns drawn while another took the keys out of Sims’ ignition, then opened and searched his trunk — even after police had determined that the officer who stopped him, Lt. Robert Brown, had mistakenly mixed up the tag numbers. Sims was released after the incident.
In confronting Sims after he parked to make an early-morning delivery at a 7-Eleven convenience store, SPD officers conducted a “high-risk vehicle stop,” where officers surround a vehicle, firearms at the ready, before approaching the driver.
Sims’ lawsuit has revealed SPD does not have a policy governing such stops, which are rife with potential for abuse. After Sims’ stop, officials from Seattle’s Office of Police Accountability wrote a letter to Chief Adrian Diaz suggesting a policy be developed, but Diaz declined, according to court documents.
“The court finds that a reasonable jury could conclude that the … city’s failure to train its officers on the use of force during a [high-risk vehicle stop] amounts to deliberate indifference to constitutional rights,” the judge wrote.
Sims’ case has taken on particular importance because it’s being reviewed as part of a pending attempt by the city and U.S. Justice Department to end a decade of federal oversight of the SPD. Sims’ attorneys, in a move supported by the American Civil Liberties Union of Washington and others, have argued his experience reflects ongoing concerns about the use of force and biased policing within the SPD.
The city’s motion remains under advisement by another federal judge, who could rule any time.
Tim Robinson, a spokesperson for the Seattle City Attorney’s Office, said Friday the office is “evaluating its next steps.”
Sims’ stop underscores findings by the SPD’s federal monitor last year, and an independent study in 2021, showing Black people are far likelier to find themselves at police gunpoint in Seattle than white people, even though Black people make up about 7% of the city’s population. Other people of color are similarly disproportionally affected.
That discrepancy holds true for the use of force by Seattle officers, even though data shows white people are likelier to be armed when confronted by officers. Sims had no weapon when he was stopped.
According to Seattle police documents and an OPA investigation, the sequence leading to Sims’ stop began when Brown — then an acting lieutenant — spotted Sims traveling east on Marion Street at 5:08 a.m. Brown noted in his report that Sims’ headlights were off, “despite it being dark.”
Brown ran the plate on his in-car computer and received a hit on a possible stolen vehicle out of Snohomish County. Brown radioed that he had a “possible rolling stolen” car. While he was waiting for confirmation, according to the OPA report, Sims pulled over outside the 7-Eleven on First Avenue and Cherry Street, then got out of the car.
That’s when Brown turned on his overhead lights, drew his weapon, got on his car’s public-address system and ordered Sims back into the vehicle, according to the reports.
At the same time, seven additional officers responded, surrounding Sims’ car. The officers all exited their cruisers with weapons drawn, some apparently pointing their guns at Sims while others displayed theirs in the less-threatening “sul” position — held close to the chest but pointed downward.
In his OPA interview, Brown said he couldn’t tell the race of the driver when he first spotted the vehicle.
Judge Lin, in her order, noted Brown didn’t activate his emergency lights or draw his sidearm until Sims stepped out of the car. Sims’ attorneys argued the officer resorted to the high-risk tactic partly because Sims is Black.
The judge denied the city’s attempts to dismiss that claim, finding that in this case the issue of biased policing is a matter for a jury to decide.
“The court finds there is a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Defendant Brown was motivated at least in part by plaintiff’s race,” Lin wrote. Among the evidence she considered were records of Brown’s 2019 and 2020 stops, “the vast majority of which involved a Black male or person of color,” she wrote.
Likewise, the judge said, a jury should decide the issue of whether an officer actually pointed his weapon at Sims and whether that would amount to excessive force.
Brown acknowledged, and SPD body- and dash-camera video confirms, that Sims complied and cooperated with officers, posing no threat. Lin said questions remain about whether force was justified, and her July 31 order pointed out that the courts consider pointing a loaded weapon at someone a high level of force.
The judge said one of the key outstanding questions is whether Brown’s misreading of Sims’ license plate was a “reasonable” mistake.
“There is no question that without the mistake … defendants would not have a basis to display a firearm the way they did,” Lin wrote, referring to the officers. “No reasonable officer would believe they were permitted to point a firearm at a person who is suspected only of a traffic infraction.”
The judge said Brown had a legitimate reason to stop Sims due to the issue of his headlights, but it’s how officers dealt with him afterward that most concerned her.
Lin noted there was no reason to search Sims’ trunk and that officers didn’t have a warrant. She said well-established case law shows the search was “unlawful” despite SPD arguments that the action was necessary for officer safety.
The ruling means the city has been found liable for the illegal search before trial and the only question pending is damages.
“Defendants thus invite the Court to cut another hole in the Fourth Amendment,” which protects against illegal searches and seizures, the judge wrote. “The Court declines the invitation.”
