Charleena Lyles Press Release

Press Release: Long Form (more details of settlement at bottom) Date: November 30, 2021

The Estate of Charleena Lyles and the Defendants City of Seattle, SPD Officers Anderson and McNew, agreed to settle the civil wrongful death lawsuit that was set to go to trial February 7, 2022. Terms include payment of $3.5 Million by the City in exchange for dismissal of the entire litigation.

Charleena Lyles 1987-2017 In one of her last text exchanges with aunt Merry Kilpatrick (and the custodian for all four of her children), Charleena wrote:

“I’m learning a little more everyday, just trying to build up my understanding, wisdom of God, the word and understanding our purpose on earth.”

Charleena was barely 100 pounds, pregnant, in her own home with her children, with a known history of mental illness, when she called 911 for help on June 18, 2017. Instead of getting the help she needed, she ended up shot dead.

The incident: June 18, 2017 [Note: All of the following facts and statements are allegations that were included in the lawsuit and the citations provided are to the appellate record.]

On June 18, 2017, Charleena called 911 at 8:55 in the morning. She reported that it appeared someone had come into her apartment and taken an x-box. Officer Jason Anderson responded to the call. Upon arrival to the address, Anderson ran a routine records check on the address.1 Up popped an Officer Safety Caution.

The log detailed the June 5, 2017 incident just weeks earlier, when Charleena had brandished and threatened officers with a large pair of scissors.

1

Id. (CP 573).

Officer Anderson pulled up the June 5 incident report and read it.

Officer Anderson read that Charleena had a mental health crisis that involved waving scissors at multiple officers, and that de-escalation techniques were successfully employed. He requested backup and Officer McNew was dispatched to Charleena’s apartment complex.2 Officer McNew had attended a 40-hour training course on crisis intervention and several annual eight-hour courses of additional crisis intervention training.3 Officer Anderson told Officer McNew about the Officer Safety Caution and described details of the June 5 incident.4 Both officers knew that Ms. Lyles could pose a threat of physical violence and that she might also be in mental crisis.5 They did not utilize their police training to prepare for the encounter with Charleena. Their only plan: not to “let her get behind us or between us and the door.”6

Officer Anderson was certified to carry a taser and had been issued an Axon X2.7 Part of his specific training included what to do when confronted with suspects who threatened officers with knives or other sharp-edged objects.8 He was trained that tasers were “an effective force option against subjects who might be possessing potentially deadly weapons such as knives, heavy 2

Id. Id. 4 Id. 5 Id. 6 Id. 7 CP 509.

8 CP 673-675; CP 676-678, 679; CP 683-685; CP 687-688; CP 691-694.

3

objects or clubs when the proper team tactics are used.” 9 Yet Officer Anderson was not carrying his taser when he responded to Charleena’s burglary call and had not done so for 1½ to 2 weeks before the incident.10 He had left it in his locker.11

12

Sometime after entering the apartment, Officer McNew wandered into the kitchen and became distracted. While he was looking at the old meatloaf on the counter, he abandoned “the plan” to stay between Charleena and the front door.13

9

CP 676-678.

CP 509.

11 Id. 10

12

Carmen Best finding of Officer Anderson policy violation

13

CP 497-498; CP 518-519; CP 574-576.

Officer McNew “heard a commotion,” looked up, and saw that Charleena had brandished a knife14 and was lunging at Officer Anderson, who was standing near the entrance to the apartment. Officer Anderson dodged out of the way and Charleena backed up into the living room area.15 Before this commotion, Charleena had been cooperative and calmly answering questions. But suddenly her calm, non-threatening, nonchalant demeanor changed. She was yelling and grimacing. Her body tensed and her muscles tightened. These sudden changes were much like what had happened to her just two weeks before when she pulled over-sized scissors on the other SPD officers.16 At this point, Officer McNew was in the narrow kitchen, and Officer Anderson was near the front door of the apartment. Charleena was in the living room, with the kitchen counter partially blocking her from Officer McNew (see diagram above).17 Officer Anderson testified that he was inside the apartment with his back against the closed door.18 But the plaintiff alleged that video surveillance demonstrated that the door was open, and he was outside the apartment standing in the exterior of the doorway with his rear foot in the hallway when he was firing his weapon.19

14

CP 518-519; CP 574-576.

CP 497-498; CP 518-519; CP 574-576.

16 Id. 17 Id. 18 CP 507.

19 CP 828 (screenshot of hallway video surveillance showing Officer Anderson shooting).

15

The plaintiff’s position was that had Officer McNew not been distracted – had he been paying attention to Charleena and his position relative to her – he would have noticed Charleena’s change in demeanor before he “heard a commotion,” and both he and Officer Anderson would have been able to retreat out the open front door, rather than be cornered by Charleena. But that did not happen. Instead, both officers drew their weapons. Officer McNew yelled to Officer Anderson “Taser,” but Officer Anderson responded that he did not have his.20 Neither officer told Charleena to drop her weapon. Neither officer drew their clubs. Officer Anderson did not pull out nor use his pepper spray canister. Instead they shot Charleena seven times.21

20 21

CP 497-498; CP 518-519; CP 574-576.

Id.

One of the bullets ripped through Charleena’s womb and killed her unborn child. Somehow the bullets did not strike Z(4) and Z2 (1) who were playing and crawling around in the living room

within feet of their mother. The entry between the kitchen where the officers stood, and the children was less than four feet wide. Charleena’s 12-year-old son, Q, was in the bedroom adjacent to the living room.

This chart is not “to scale” but roughly demonstrates the plaintiff’s re-creation of the scene.

Officer Anderson had fired four rounds towards the living room and Officer McNew had fired three times in the direction of the bedroom. This is the CSI panorama view:

As soon as Charleena fell to the ground, Z2. Q who had been sleeping came out of his room and saw his dying mother along with the other two children. An officer told Q to go back into the bedroom.

Officer McNew picked up Z2 and walked out into the hallway of the apartment. Officer Anderson stood next to Charleena’s fallen body. Officer Schickler arrived minutes later and grabbed Z from the living room. He then walked Q out of the bedroom while attempting to shield his eyes. Q had to step over his mother’s body.

Charleena was dragged out of the apartment and aid was finally, but with futility, rendered as she died on the floor.

Officer Schickler went back upstairs to take Z2 from Officer McNew. The kids were then left with Officers Procter, Sobania, and Gray-McVey for hours.

The City was under a long standing consent decree and in the process of attempting to show full compliance at the time of Charleena’s death. Judge James Robart made note of the shooting death. But still the City requested forward movement on a finding of compliance. Only after the SPD engaged in rampant excessive force against the George Floyd/BLM protesters in 2021, did the city sheepishly withdraw its request to end the monitoring. Seattle remains under the consent decree to this day.

The Legal Case and settlement.

In this wrongful death negligence case, the plaintiffs alleged that the police response to Charleena’s call for help – just one week after she had an emergent mental health episode with paranoia while holding scissors up to other officers - demonstrated that any crisis intervention/de-escalation training undergone by Officer Anderson or Officer McNew was lost, or at least set aside. And their performance revealed a lack of adequate preparation and apparent absence of any plan at all. To cap off these failures, against SPD policy, Officer Anderson left his taser in his locker at work and did not forewarn Officer McNew that he had left his mandatory non-lethal weapon back at the station.

.

The wrongful death lawsuit was filed on September 8, 2017. The case was derailed when former King County Superior Court Judge Julie Spector dismissed the lawsuit against the officers on January 4, 2019. The matter went up on appeal, was reversed on February 16, 2021, and remanded back to Superior Court for trial on February 7, 2022.

The settlement was achieved at 10:30 pm Monday night November 29, 2021 with the assistance of mediator and former Superior Court Judge John Erlick. The terms of the settlement include payment of the sum of $3.5 Million to the plaintiff. Dismissal of the police officers from the lawsuit is to occur within 7 days. Dismissal of the remainder of the case against the City must await the court approval of minor settlement process which usually takes several months.

Commissioner Eric Watness, the Personal Representative of the Estate notes: This settlement helps Charleena’s children now. The settlement does not change the course of past history but we anticipate and hope that there will be improvement in policing in our community. I’m very pleased that this case resulted in a court of appeals decision that clarifies and strengthens the rights of people who die at the hands of lawenforcement. And I am happy to begin the process of closure for Charleena’s children and family.

Attorney Karen Clark, the Guardian Ad Litem for Charleena Lyles’ children notes: It has been my honor and privilege to represent the best interests of Charleena Lyles’ four beautiful children. I am thankful that the City has settled this case. But I remain concerned that the circumstances of Charleena’s death not be forgotten. Her killing should never have happened. What happened to Charleena in her own home when she called for help - was a moral outrage. May the City and our community begin the healing process.

Karen Koehler, lead plaintiff attorney notes: Charleena Lyles #sayhername – has been the heart of this lawsuit. Her memory gave us hope and strength despite every set back that we have fought through these past four years. Her children gave us focus and resolve. Her family, her BLM marchers, and our community, gave us the support to see this battle through.

Our City has a long way to go to create more compassion and equity in the way it polices people with mental illness – particularly those of color and/or those who are marginalized. Charleena Lyles’ legal team and representatives applaud the City for settling this matter for a sum which will help her children financially for many years to

come. At the same time, we hope the City will make sure that an incident like this never happens again.

The resolution of the civil lawsuit does not impact the inquest proceedings which were also delayed by appeal.

Karen Koehler 11.30.21