A Seattle police officer charged with assault
has filed court papers asking a judge to block the release of patrol-car video
of the incident that led to the allegation.
In a complaint dated May 9, attorneys for the
officer, Chris Hairston, argued that the release of the video to The Seattle
Times under a public-disclosure request would violate Hairston’s right to
privacy and a fair trial. Disclosure also would conflict with state law
regarding the release of dashboard-camera video while criminal or civil
litigation is pending, the attorneys wrote.
The complaint was filed in King County
Superior Court against the King County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office, which had
planned to release the video to The Times next week.
Hairston pleaded not guilty April 19 to a
misdemeanor assault charge stemming from a confrontation with a handcuffed man
who had attacked the officer’s wife, also a police officer.
Katie Hairston and another officer responded
Sept. 24 to a
report that a person had passed out near Seattle Central Community College.
The officers spoke to several people who were
drinking alcohol, including one who assaulted Katie Hairston, according to the
City Attorney’s Office, which brought the assault charge against Chris
Hairston. Katie Hairston was treated at a hospital for a head injury and
scrapes to her hands and knees.
After her assailant had been placed in
handcuffs, Chris Hairston, a K-9 officer who had been on duty elsewhere,
arrived at the scene. He allegedly walked up to the suspect and intentionally
assaulted him, the City Attorney’s Office said.
No detailed description was provided of
Hairston’s specific actions.
The Seattle Police Officers’ Guild, which has
criticized the charging decision, said in an April 4 statement that Hairston
was captured on video “grabbing” the suspect, who had “brutally assaulted” his
wife.
“The suspect was not slapped, punched, kicked
or assaulted in any other way,” the statement said.
The guild said the facts will “clearly
demonstrate” that Hairston’s conduct “although not condoned, did not rise to
the level of a criminal act.”
The proper venue to examine Hairston’s
actions, the statement said, is the department’s Office of Professional
Accountability, which handles internal investigations.
The statement questioned whether a citizen
would be charged under the same circumstances and accused City Attorney Pete
Holmes of having a “double standard” for police officers.
“This unnecessary filing decision is only
being done for political reasons and is a waste of city resources and valuable
court time,” the guild said.
In the current issue of the guild’s newspaper,
The Guardian, Sgt. Rich O’Neill, the president of the union, suggested that the
video should be released, writing, “Mr. Holmes has yet to release the video.”
O’Neill, who couldn’t be reached for comment today, wrote that Chris Hairston
grabbed the suspect “for about two seconds.”
Holmes’ office has declined to release the
video, citing the same state law that Hairston lists in his complaint seeking
to bar release of the video.
The Times sought the video from the King
County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office, which handled the prosecution of the man
who assaulted Hairston’s wife. That office has taken a different legal position
than city attorneys on disclosing the video, concluding it can be released.
Katie Hairston’s assailant, John M. Ross, who
was originally charged with the felony of third-degree assault, pleaded guilty
to a reduced charge of fourth-degree assault, a gross misdemeanor.
Court papers say he violently pushed Katie
Hairston and punched her in the face.
The incident occurred two months after the
police department and U.S. Department of Justice signed a landmark settlement
agreement in U.S. District Court intended to address a pattern of an
unconstitutional use of force within the department.
Hairston, who joined the police department in
1999, faces up to 364 days in jail and a $5,000 fine if convicted. He was
placed on administrative reassignment after the incident and faces a police department
internal investigation when the criminal matter is concluded.