Washington lawmakers take another look at police reform – here’s where those proposals stand

OLYMPIA – After the Legislature passed a sweeping package of police reform legislation last year, lawmakers are back addressing a number of concerns.

When the laws went into effect last summer, many law enforcement officers and members of the community expressed concerns that officers were unable to do their jobs under the new rules. They pushed for clarity on a number of topics, including the use of force, vehicular pursuits and military equipment.

Police chiefs and sheriffs and mayors from across Washington – including Spokane County Sheriff Ozzie Knezovich, Spokane Police Chief Craig Meidl and Spokane Mayor Nadine Woodward – have testified in front of the Legislature in recent weeks, speaking out against laws passed last session and asking for more clarity.

Woodward said in a Senate committee last week that the changes in some of the proposals add “much-needed balance” to what passed last year.

Families of those killed by police, on the other hand, disagree. Many say law enforcement is exaggerating their confusion with the laws because they don’t want to change. Many say the changes this session would put Washington behind where they were even before last year in terms of public safety.

Kurtis Robinson, at the Spokane NAACP and NAACP of Alaska, Oregon and Washington, said some law enforcement’s response has been “childish.”

“It’s not that that clarification isn’t good,” Robinson told The Spokesman-Review last month. “It’s the way that the need for clarification has been weaponized.”

Republicans have made public safety their top priority this session and have pushed for fixes to what they call the “anti-police” bills passed last session. Democrats have acknowledged the need for clarity but how far they go in changing the laws remains to be seen.

Here’s where the Legislature is right now on police reform:

Use of force

One of the biggest questions surrounding police reform is how the Legislature defines “physical force.”

Lawmakers and police have urged for more clarity in the laws passed last session. An opinion from the state Attorney General’s Office urged lawmakers to clarify its intent on much of the police reform legislation from last year. Specifically, the opinion urged lawmakers to create a definition for physical force, as the bill last session did not define it.

One bill that passed the state Senate Wednesday would define “physical force” as an act likely to cause physical pain or injury or any other act exerted upon a person’s body to compel, control, constrain or restrain their movement.

The bill also expands when an officer may use physical force to include when it’s necessary to protect against criminal conduct when there is probable cause; to effect an arrest; to prevent an escape; to effect an investigative detention; and to protect against imminent threat of bodily injury to the officer or another person.

The bill also updates the reasonable care standard to require officers to use available and appropriate de-escalation tactics before using force; to use a proportional amount of force to overcome resistance; to terminate the use of physical force as soon as the necessity for it ends; and use less lethal alternatives before using deadly force.

Bill sponsor Kevin Van De Wege, D-Sequim, said the intent of the bill was to clarify what law enforcement can and cannot legally do.

The bill passed 31-18 with mixed feelings on both sides, mostly due to issues with the vehicular pursuit piece.

Another bill still awaiting House floor action has a slightly different definition for “physical force.” It includes any act reasonably likely to cause physical pain or injury or any other act exerted upon a person’s body to compel, control, constrain or restrain the person’s movement. The bill says physical force does not include pat-downs, incidental touching, verbal commands or compliant handcuffing.

Under that bill, officers can use physical force “to the extent” necessary. Under the current proposal, “necessary” means the type and amount of physical force is reasonable to effect the legal purpose intended and a reasonably effective alternative does not exist.

The bill also allows officers to use “deadly force” when it is a reasonable and proportional response to the threat posed to the officer and others and a reasonably effective alternative to the use of deadly force does not appear to exist.

The House bill is currently awaiting a vote on the House floor, which could come this weekend or early next week. It must pass out of the House by Tuesday to still be alive.

One change that most people seem to get behind is clarifying that officers can use physical force to respond to mental health calls, something many officers said they could not do under the laws passed last year.

A bill that already passed in the House and is moving through the Senate would allow officers to use physical force against a person to the extent necessary to take a person into custody, transport them for treatment or provide other mental health assistance; to take a minor into protective custody; to execute or enforce an order directing an officer to take someone into custody; or execute a search warrant.

The bill also explicitly states that using reasonable care before using force does not limit officers’ caretaking functions.

That bill passed 90-5 in the House.

Car chases

Police have also raised concerns about vehicle pursuits, claiming current laws don’t give them the ability to pursue people, allowing many to flee.

Laws that passed last session limit vehicle pursuits to when an officer has probable cause, something law enforcement officers say is difficult to prove.

A bill that is currently awaiting a floor vote in the House would allow a law enforcement officer to engage in a vehicle pursuit when there is “reasonable suspicion” that a person has or is committing a violent offense, escape or driving under the influence offense.

“It is becoming common knowledge to criminals that if they do not stop, they will not be pursued,” Spike Unruh, president of the Washington State Patrol Troopers Association, said at a committee hearing in January.

Sen. Mike Padden, R-Spokane Valley, on the floor urged the support of adding “reasonable suspicion” back to the standard.

“We do not want their hands tied, but we do want something that is a good standard,” Padden said.

Families say “reasonable suspicion” is a much lower bar than probable cause and would revert the law back to where it was before last session’s changes.

“Rolling back moves nobody forward,” Fred Thomas, whose son was killed by police in 2013, said at a rally in Olympia. Thomas and other family members and advocates gathered at the Capitol steps last week to call for an “end to the rollbacks,” what they call the changes being proposed this session.

The bill does add some restrictions for pursuits, however. It would require officers to receive oversight from their supervising officer. It also requires law enforcement to notify other agencies and jurisdictions that may be affected by the pursuit; to communicate with other officers engaging in the pursuit, supervisors and dispatch; to develop a plan to end the pursuit as soon as possible; and to have taken an emergency vehicle operating course.

Another bill that passed in the Senate also includes the “reasonable suspicion” standard but includes other factors before a pursuit can take place. There must be reasonable suspicion that a person in the vehicle committed or is committing a violent, sex, escape, DUI or other offense where the public safety risks of failing to apprehend is greater than not. The pursuit must also be necessary for the pursuit of identifying or apprehending the person. It also requires authorization from a supervising officer for a pursuit to continue.

That bill passed the Senate 31-18.

On the floor, Sen. Manka Dhingra, D-Redmond, said she would not be voting for the bill because it went too far and failed to balance all interests.

“What we have before us is not a solution,” Dhingra said. “It’s based on fear.”

Military equipment

Legislation passed last session restricted the type of military equipment that law enforcement agencies could have, but some clarity was needed on what that meant.

A bill that passed unanimously out of the House would allow law enforcement agencies to use and acquire ammunition of .50 caliber or greater and other types of firearms of .50 caliber or greater. Rifles of that caliber still cannot be used or acquired by law enforcement. The definition of “rifle” does not include any device used to deploy less lethal munitions such as bean bags or sponges.

The bill is scheduled for a committee vote in the Senate next week.