WA bill would limit police officers’ ability to make certain traffic stops. Here’s why

TACOMA – Washington lawmakers on Monday heard a bill aimed at improving traffic safety and reducing racial profiling by restricting reasons for law enforcement to pull over motorists.

House Bill 1512, sponsored by state Rep. Chipalo Street, would reform certain traffic-stop policies. Under the bill, law enforcement officers would enforce significant moving violations – infractions that could cause harm to others on the roads – but could not use minor maintenance problems, such as a broken taillight, as the primary reason for a traffic stop.

The bill would create a grant program to offer “solution-oriented responses to nonmoving violations for low-income road users.” It would also authorize law enforcement to mail traffic-infraction warnings without stopping or detaining drivers.

Drivers could still be pulled over for criminal-code violations, a lack of license plates and other more serious violations.

“If I can use a crude example: If there were people walking down the street wielding machetes, I would rather have our law enforcement officers addressing those folks with machetes as opposed to writing tickets for parking violations,” Street, a Seattle Democrat, told the House Community Safety Committee. “They’re both illegal things. However, one is a much more serious safety risk, and I’d love for our officers to first address those safety risks before the other, more minimal illegal activities.”

Street has been behind previous versions of the bill. He said this time, after fielding feedback, he incorporated some adjustments, such as letting officers pull over drivers with registration that’s been expired for more than a year.

Supporters of the proposal say that it would boost public safety by refocusing officers’ attention toward more serious offenses such as speeding and DUIs. Detractors worry that, although well-intentioned, the bill could backfire and hamstring officers from effectively doing their jobs.

Under the bill, drivers could still be stopped if they pose a serious risk to themselves or others. Examples include operating vehicles with dragging mufflers, shattered windshields or two broken taillights.

Nicknamed the “Traffic Safety for All” bill, the Transportation Choices Coalition and the ACLU have backed the measure. So have immigration advocates who’ve decried the “traffic-stop-to-deportation pipeline.”

Jazmyn Clark, director of the Smart Justice Policy Program with the ACLU of Washington, told McClatchy that the bill would help improve race equity. She noted that her organization also has advocated for the proposal’s prior iterations.

“We know, and data has consistently shown, that drivers of color – particularly Black drivers – are stopped and searched at higher rates than white drivers,” she said. “The Traffic Safety for All bill would reduce the unnecessary encounters between law enforcement and drivers, which allows everyone to get home safely.”

Clark added that the bill doesn’t decriminalize anything, nor does it try to restrict the ability of police to do their jobs. It’s about prioritizing road safety at a time when traffic deaths in Washington recently hit a 33-year high.

John Choi, chief prosecutor in Ramsey County, Minnesota, told the committee about a similar policy in his jurisdiction. More than three years ago, he worked with law enforcement leadership on coming up with a way to reframe nonpublic-safety traffic stops.

Choi noted that a study later showed there’d been no impact on crime, and that the policy paved the way toward enhancing trust in law enforcement.

Nickeia Hunter with the Washington Coalition for Police Accountability testified in support of Street’s bill, too. She said that in 2023, the state logged 810 traffic deaths. The main causes were speeding and impaired driving.

“This bill isn’t anti-law enforcement,” Hunter said. “It’s pro-public safety.”

What do opponents say?

State Rep. Jenny Graham, the community-safety committee’s ranking member, said she could tell that Street’s heart is in the right place. But she referenced another time that Washington passed a police-related bill that didn’t work out as hoped.

After legislation restricting police pursuits took effect in 2021, the state saw a significant spike in “crimes happening that … were an unintended consequence, but a consequence nonetheless,” Graham said. That law has been rolled back.

The Spokane Republican asked whether this kind of bill could lead to a jump in crimes.

Street replied that he doesn’t think having a broken taillight is linked to committing an offense. He argued that spending more time on combating speeding and drifting would help reduce accidents and lead to DUI arrests, thereby improving public safety.

Certain law enforcement groups have spoken out against the bill. The Washington Fraternal Order of Police said in written remarks that it would strip police of an effective public-safety tool. WAFOP said in a news release that it could lead to “increased dangerous driving behaviors going unchecked.”

Port Angeles Police Chief Brian Smith spoke virtually at Monday’s hearing in strong opposition to the measure. In addition to imposing serious restrictions on law enforcement, he said the bill would slash police productivity. During traffic stops, officers sometimes uncover that a driver is impaired or has an arrest warrant, Smith said. Other times police might recover stolen vehicles.

“We need to empower our officers to do their jobs effectively,” he said, “not restrict their ability to enforce the laws that keep us all safe.”