Shooting spurs lawsuit against local SWAT

SWAT: Under scrutiny, focused on safety

A Ridgefield woman’s federal lawsuit calls into question the Southwest Washington Regional SWAT team’s training and operations.

In a lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in Tacoma, Mary Lee Andison, who was shot by police after a three-hour standoff at her Ridgefield home, alleges officers received insufficient training on de-escalating situations, communicating during critical incidents and dealing with people in psychological distress who are motivated to “commit suicide by cop.”

At about 1 p.m. June 24, 2011, Mary Lee Andison’s daughter called 911, concerned that her mother was suicidal. She called back 10 minutes later and told dispatchers that she overreacted and everything was fine, but one minute later deputies arrived. Clark County Sheriff’s Sgt. Steve Shea found Andison in a room above the garage, separate from the rest of the house’s living quarters. She held a bottle of wine in one hand and a gun in the other, according to an internal investigation.

“She held the gun up and in front of her as if to show me she had a revolver,” Shea’s report states. “The firearm was not pointed at me but presented an immediate threat to my life. … I believe I ordered her to drop the gun.”

Andison told him the gun was a starter pistol — unable to fire a bullet — and Shea said he thought he saw the signature colored tip. “You’re going to have to shoot me,” Andison told Shea. He retreated and radioed, “Gun, gun, gun,” and reported hearing a single shot as he exited the room.

SWAT and a crisis negotiation team tried repeatedly to communicate by phone and loudspeaker with Andison. About an hour and a half into the standoff, Andison called 911 to say she wanted the police to leave, and then she hung up.

Officers continued to try to make contact with her. They sent a robot to the top of the stairs and the closed door of the room where Andison was holed up. They used specialized cameras to peer into windows. They unsuccessfully tried shooting the door open with a less-lethal round. They shot out the windows in attempt to get Andison’s attention.

Andison finally opened the door and emerged with the pistol in her hand. She didn’t respond to orders to drop the weapon, according to the internal investigation. Vancouver Officer Ryan Junker fired his SWAT-issued Colt Commando 223 rifle, hitting Andison in the face.

Junker had been briefed that Andison probably had a starter pistol. Another officer said he thought he “saw something bright orange.” But SWAT officers maintained they couldn’t be sure she didn’t have a live firearm, given that other guns were in the house, a key reason why the internal investigation ruled that the shooting was justified.

Andison’s injuries were not only disfiguring, they damaged her eyesight and hearing. She will continue to need medical care and counseling, according to a $10 million claim she and her husband, Bruce, filed against Vancouver and Clark County in 2013 that has since evolved into a federal lawsuit.

Since 2000, 35 legal claims have been filed with Clark County or Vancouver over SWAT actions. Of those 35 claims, 17 were settled for a total of $31,008, according to county and city attorneys. The settled claims were mostly for property damage at neighboring residences, such as fences that were knocked down.

Of 18 claims that were denied, only Andison’s claim resulted in a lawsuit.

Andison’s lawsuit, which seeks unspecified damages, alleges the officers violated her constitutional right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.

Andison’s daughter not only called 911 back to say help was no longer needed, she also asked the two responding deputies to leave, the lawsuit states. It also argues that Andison never pointed the harmless starter pistol at anyone and never made any threats to hurt anyone but herself. Andison, now 64, has severe rheumatoid arthritis in her hands and two artificial knees, which impaired her manual dexterity and mobility, according to the lawsuit. After she was shot, officers continued to yell commands at her even though she was incapacitated, and then shot her at close range with nonlethal 40 mm rounds, the lawsuit states.

The Andisons’ Portland attorney, Robert S. Wagner, said he did not want to comment on the case while it’s pending.

City and county officials also declined to comment, giving the same reason.

In a response to the Andisons’ lawsuit, attorneys for SWAT officers refuted allegations of negligence, argued Junker’s use of force was lawful and said any damages to Andison were caused by her intoxication. Assistant Vancouver City Attorneys Dan Lloyd and Jonathan Young wrote that Junker shot Andison, but only after she “pointed a gun directly at him.”

A trial date has not yet been scheduled.

A year after Andison was shot, the Vancouver Police Department adopted a new policy for responding to calls about people threatening suicide. The policy outlines a “priority of life model” that seeks to protect victims, bystanders, first responders and, only after those, the suicidal person.

When deciding whether to respond, the policy says police should consider whether the suicidal person has committed a crime, whether the person has made any threats about killing anyone who intervenes and whether the suicidal person has any military or law enforcement training. The guideline tells officers, “Be aware of suicide by cop.” Officers must take into protective custody anyone who is so impaired that he can’t make rational decisions and has made threats in a public place.

Otherwise, though, the policy calls upon officers to disengage if a suicidal person is alone and won’t respond to contact.

The facts of any given situation aren’t always so clear, said an outside expert unfamiliar with the case who spoke generally about SWAT response.

“There’s a very fine line between suicidal and homicidal. People in great distress bounce back and forth,” said Jeff Selleg, vice president of the Washington State Tactical Officers Association and a commander at the Seattle-Tacoma International Airport. “SWAT teams only respond to tense and rapidly evolving calls. We rarely get to work on something that is black and white. … We are always swimming in the gray.”