Seattle, Washington

Seattle's Partial Encryption: The "Best of Both Worlds" Model

Dispatch stays open. Tactical goes encrypted. Can this middle ground work for your city?

Key Facts

📻
Dispatch Channels Remain Open
🎯
Tactical Channels Encrypted
📅
Full Implementation Q2 2026
🔗
System PSERN

The Seattle Approach: Split Encryption

Unlike cities that have fully encrypted all police communications, Seattle has chosen a middle path. The Seattle Police Department's approach distinguishes between two types of radio traffic:

What Stays Open

  • Dispatch channels — Where officers are sent and why
  • Incident information — What's happening and where
  • General patrol communications — Routine traffic

The public can still hear when and where incidents are occurring in real time.

What Gets Encrypted

  • Tactical channels — SWAT operations, ongoing sensitive situations
  • Personal information — Names, addresses, dates of birth
  • Undercover operations — Situations where exposure risks safety

Sensitive information stays private while general awareness remains public.

How Seattle Got Here

Seattle's partial encryption isn't a sudden change—it's the formalization of practices that began during the 2020 protests and evolved with a major regional infrastructure upgrade.

2020

SPD begins selectively encrypting tactical channels during protests and high-profile incidents

2020-2025

Informal practice continues with tactical encryption used situationally

June 2025

SPD announces formal partial encryption policy as part of PSERN migration

Q2 2026

Full implementation of partial encryption under new PSERN system

The PSERN Connection

Seattle's encryption changes are enabled by the Puget Sound Emergency Radio Network (PSERN)—a major regional infrastructure upgrade replacing the aging King County radio system.

What is PSERN?

The Puget Sound Emergency Radio Network is a $273 million upgrade to the emergency communications infrastructure across King County. The new digital system provides:

  • Better coverage in buildings and tunnels
  • Improved interoperability between agencies
  • Modern encryption capabilities
  • More reliable communications during emergencies

The new system gives agencies the ability to encrypt—but each agency chooses whether and how to use that capability.

Regional Coordination

Multiple King County agencies are implementing encryption policies as they migrate to PSERN. SPD's approach is being watched as a potential model:

  • Seattle Fire Department — Also encrypting tactical channels, keeping dispatch open
  • Bothell Fire & Police — Similar partial encryption approach
  • Other agencies — Varying approaches across the county

SPD's Stated Rationale

The Seattle Police Department has been more transparent than many agencies about their reasoning. Their stated goals:

🔒

Officer Safety

Preventing suspects from monitoring tactical operations in real-time

🏠

Victim Privacy

Protecting personal information of crime victims from public broadcast

📋

Compliance

Meeting state and federal requirements for protecting certain data

📻

Public Awareness

Maintaining dispatch transparency so the public knows what's happening

"SPD's dispatch channels, which communicate when and where incidents are occurring, will remain open for the public to hear via radio scanners."
— Seattle Police Department announcement, June 2025

Pros and Cons of the Seattle Model

Is partial encryption a genuine compromise—or a stepping stone to full encryption? The answer may depend on implementation and oversight.

Potential Benefits

  • Public awareness preserved — Dispatch channels keep community informed of incidents
  • Journalism functional — Media can still monitor breaking news and arrive at scenes
  • Legitimate privacy concerns addressed — Victim information protected
  • Incremental vs. total — Better than full encryption blackout
  • Transparency about the policy — Clear public communication about what's encrypted

Concerns & Risks

  • Slippery slope — Could lead to gradual expansion of "tactical" definition
  • Accountability gaps — Critical interactions may happen on encrypted channels
  • Subjective decisions — Who decides what's "tactical"?
  • No oversight mechanism — No independent verification of proper use
  • Precedent setting — May normalize encryption as acceptable default

How This Compares to Other Approaches

Approach Dispatch Tactical Examples
Full Encryption Encrypted Encrypted Oakland, Minneapolis, NYPD (pre-Law 46)
Partial (Seattle Model) Open Encrypted Seattle, CHP, Palo Alto (post-reversal)
Delayed Access Delayed Encrypted Baltimore (15-min delay)
Press Access Press Only Encrypted NYC (under Local Law 46)
Fully Open Open Open Colorado (under HB21-1250), rural areas

What to Watch For

Seattle's model will be tested over time. Here's what transparency advocates should monitor:

1

Definition Creep

Does the definition of "tactical" expand over time to cover more routine communications?

2

Implementation Consistency

Are the rules applied consistently, or does encryption expand during controversial incidents?

3

Incident Documentation

When use-of-force incidents occur, is the communication on encrypted or open channels?

4

Public Reporting

Does SPD provide regular reports on encryption usage and any changes to policy?

5

Regional Spread

Do other King County agencies adopt similar policies, or move toward full encryption?

Is This a Model for Your City?

If your city is considering encryption, the Seattle model offers a middle ground that may be more achievable than full transparency—but comes with important caveats.

When Partial Encryption Might Work

  • Your city is determined to encrypt something—better to limit it than allow full blackout
  • You can get clear, written policy defining exactly what "tactical" means
  • There's political will for oversight and accountability
  • The community accepts it as a genuine compromise, not a first step

When to Push for More

  • Your city hasn't yet committed to any encryption—fight for full access first
  • There's no oversight mechanism for how "tactical" is defined
  • The policy is vague or subject to unilateral expansion
  • Recent incidents suggest accountability problems that require full transparency

Explore Other Approaches

Seattle's model is one of several approaches to balancing transparency and encryption. See what's working elsewhere.

Sources

Take Action for Transparency

Your voice matters. Here are concrete ways to advocate for open police communications in your community.

📧

Contact Your Representatives

Use our templates to email your local officials about police radio encryption policies.

Get Started
📚

Read Case Studies

See how encryption has affected real communities - from Highland Park to Chicago.

View Cases
📢

Spread Awareness

Share evidence about police radio encryption with your network and community.

📊

See the Evidence

Review the facts, myths, and research on police radio encryption.

View Evidence
🎤

Public Testimony

Learn how to speak effectively at city council and public safety meetings.

Prepare to Speak
📥

Download Resources

Get FOIA templates, talking points, and materials for advocacy.

Access Toolkit