Other cities should be ‘somewhat nervous’ after ruling halting Seattle enforcement of graffiti

SEATTLE — The City of Seattle announced this week that it would be halting its enforcement of property crimes related to graffiti in the wake of a ruling from a district court judge. But what does that mean for other cities with similarly worded laws?

The injunction issued Wednesday by U.S. District Court Judge Marsha Pechman asserts that Seattle’s property damage laws surrounding graffiti pose “a real threat to censorship.” That’s part of a larger lawsuit stemming from the arrest of four people who were arrested for writing BLM and anti-police slogans in chalk on concrete barriers outside SPD’s East Precinct.

In the lawsuit, comparisons are made to instances where pro-police slogans were freely written in sidewalk chalk outside City Hall during a 2020 rally. Judge Pechman’s concerns center around how Seattle’s existing laws give police discretion to make arrests based on the messaging of the chalk or graffiti itself. Those laws are also modeled exactly off of Washington’s state property crime laws.

That carries a few implications -- first, what does this mean for enforcing more traditional illegal graffiti?

Deborah Ahrens is a Vice Dean and law professor at Seattle University. She argues that this ruling won’t turn Seattle into a tagger’s paradise.

“Its not open season for taggers,” she told KIRO 7. “I do not think that this is going to be license for people to go out and create thousands of dollars in property destruction.”

Even so, this Seattle-centric decision has potential to cause ripple effects across the state. Seattle isn’t the only city to have modeled their laws off of the states. That list also includes other nearby cities like Tacoma, Kent and Auburn.

“If I were a city prosecutor in another city or jurisdiction where I was trying to enforce a very similarly written ordinance, I would have to be at least somewhat nervous,” said Ahrens.

We reached out to Tacoma, who confirmed that they are at least considering changes to their laws after this ruling.

While the state law is the template in Kent, the citation for graffiti is malicious mischief. Their city council is also in the process of passing an ordinance to make it illegal for anyone under the age of 19 to buy spray paint -- that will go in front of the full council in September. That’s in response to the city’s own recent issues with graffiti. Since 2008, Kent Police have taken 700 complaints involving graffiti, but were only able to arrest 14 people, half of whom were juveniles.

Auburn’s laws also mirror Washington state’s, but with a recently implemented twist. Property owners now have less time to remove graffiti from their property after being notified by the city. Under the previous code, property owners had 15 days to remove graffiti after being notified by the city. The new ordinance reduces the time period to three days.

Auburn’s city’s code compliance manager said these changes are intended to prevent graffiti from reoccurring by removing it quickly, sending a message to graffiti vandals that it’s not tolerated.

The code does allow for extensions due to severe weather conditions that would prevent a property owner from removing the graffiti.

Under the city code, the owners of a property vandalized with graffiti are responsible for removing the graffiti.

If a property owner doesn’t remove the graffiti, the city will hire a contractor to remove the graffiti and bill the property owner. If the property owner doesn’t pay, a lien is placed on their property, according to the city code.

If the city of Seattle wants to make its own current ordinance constitutional, its city council will also need to amend it.

©2023 Cox Media Group