City of Seattle Agrees to Pay $3.5M to Settle Charleena Lyles Wrongful-Death Civil Suit

Posted

The city of Seattle has agreed to pay $3.5 million to settle a wrongful-death civil lawsuit filed on behalf of the children of Charleena Lyles, a Black mother of four  who was fatally shot by two Seattle police officers in June 2017.

Karen Koehler, a Seattle attorney who represented Lyles' estate, said the case was headed to trial in King County Superior Court in February before the settlement was reached Monday night.

The settlement was announced at a news conference Tuesday afternoon.

"For the family and especially for the children, it's a restoration of dignity," Koehler said of the settlement reached after "a marathon" 13 1/2-hour mediation session.

Lyles' four children, two girls and two boys now between the ages of 5 and 16, are being raised in California by Lyles' aunt, Merry Kilpatrick. The two youngest are special needs children Kilpatrick is now in the process of adopting, Koehler said.

Koehler said the settlement says to them that their mother "did nothing that should've led to her death ... she should not have received seven bullets."

Dan Nolte, a spokesman for Seattle City Attorney Pete Holmes, called Lyles' shooting death an indisputable tragedy and said in an email that he's glad the settlement agreement has brought some closure to the parties.

"We stand by the multiple layers of review of this event and are pleased that the officers will be dismissed from the lawsuit. The remaining parties will be mutually seeking judicial approval for a resolution of all claims," Nolte wrote.

Two Seattle police officers responded to Lyles' apartment in Northeast Seattle on June 18, 2017, after Lyles, a 30-year-old pregnant mother of four, called 911 to report a burglary. Evidence at the scene pointed to Lyles staging a burglary, and according to the officers, she suddenly attacked them with one or two knives and they fatally shot her in the cramped confines of her kitchen.



Lyles' death sparked protests and outrage, including allegations the shooting fit a pattern of institutionalized racial bias by police. Lyles was Black and Officers Jason Anderson and Steven McNew are white.

In the 18 months before she died, Lyles — a victim of domestic violence with documented mental-health issues — called Seattle police 23 times, and police said she threatened officers with a pair of shears during a June 5, 2017, disturbance call before dropping them, The Seattle Times has previously reported.

In its lawsuit, Lyles' estate had argued that officers did not act reasonably because they failed to use nonlethal force to disarm or subdue her.

Anderson, who was certified to use a Taser and under SPD policy was required to carry it, received a two-day suspension for failing to do so on the day Lyles was killed.

Seattle police ultimately determined that the officers acted reasonably in shooting Lyles and that a Taser application would have been unlikely to subdue her given the confined space and the fact that she was wearing a bulky jacket, The Seattle Times has previously reported.

In early 2019, a Superior Court judge dismissed the lawsuit, agreeing with Anderson and McNew that under Washington law, it is a "complete defense" in any action for damages for personal injury or wrongful death if the person injured or killed was committing a felony at the time, and that the felony was a proximate cause of the injury or death.

But a state Court of Appeals three-judge panel overruled the trial judge in February 2021 after attorneys representing Lyles' estate submitted opinions from three experts: The first said the officers' use of firearms was unreasonable and contrary to the Seattle Police Department's de-escalation policies; the second said Lyles' death could have been prevented had Anderson been carrying his Taser; and the third said Lyles was in a psychotic state and was therefore unable to form the intent to assault the officers.

The Court of Appeals reversed the trial judge's ruling barring the three experts from testifying, determining that the question of whether lethal force was necessary or breached a duty of care was best left to a jury to decide.