Here are 5 police reform bills that Washington state families are watching

As state lawmakers debate and vote on law enforcement reforms in Washington state, family members who have lost loved ones to police violence watch with optimism and concern.

Legislators who’ve worked with them have listened compassionately, they say. But it’s actions that matter, and the Washington Coalition for Police Accountability is watching those actions carefully.

“We can only take them at face value, because we know not yet how serious they take us,” said Nickeia Hunter in a phone interview this week. Vancouver police detectives fatally shot Hunter’s brother, Carlos Hunter, in 2019 while serving a search warrant during a traffic stop.

Hunter’s part of the WCPA, a group that includes many family members and was an extension of De-Escalate Washington, which supported Initiative 940. It was working on implementation of I-940, which changed the state’s law on police use of deadly force, and pivoted to legislation last summer.

Legislators have been working with that group and other stakeholders since June, when George Floyd’s death in Minneapolis sparked resounding calls for police accountability.

Rep. Roger Goodman, chair of the House Public Safety Committee, this week called the “deliberate and inclusive” process over the last several months “a model for how legislation should be developed and considered.”

Sen. Jamie Pedersen, chair of the Senate Law & Justice Committee, told McClatchy he can’t remember a time when there’s been so much close, careful coordination between the Senate and House on a policy area before session. He was first elected to the Legislature in 2006.

“If we just stand by and watch Black people continue to be killed by the police, we’re guilty of allowing that, tolerating that system to continue unabated,” Pedersen said in a phone interview.

Many bills face vocal opposition from law enforcement groups — critiques of proposals range from state overreach to concerns that officers lives will be put at risk.

Still, seven weeks into a mostly remote session during a pandemic, over a dozen related bills are moving through the lawmaking process. Family members remain involved as changes to the bills are negotiated.

“You do get concerned as an impacted family member,” said DeVitta Briscoe, sister of Che Taylor, who was fatally shot by Seattle Police officers. “But we know we have strong allies. We know that, as a coalition, we are a force to be reckoned with.”

There are bills regarding data collection, duty to intervene, community oversight boards — but the coalition is supporting and watching five bills in particular. If passed as a package, they believe it would set a statewide baseline for police behavior and accountability.

“It’s not the ceiling, it’s the floor,” Hunter said. “We have a great way to go before we reach the ceiling.”

Police tactics and equipment

House Bill 1054 from Rep. Jesse Johnson (D-Federal Way) would set requirements for acceptable police tactics and equipment. House members approved the bill 54-43, along party lines, Saturday evening.

“While the policy details may be complex, the values behind this legislation can be distilled into a single sentence: That preserving and protecting human life must be the most fundamental value of our law enforcement,” Johnson said on the floor Saturday.

It bans officers from using chokeholds and vascular neck restraints. No-knock warrants would no longer be an option.

It restricts situations in which officers can engage in vehicle pursuits and prohibits them from firing at moving vehicles, unless it’s necessary to protect against an “imminent threat of serious physical harm” due to the driver or a passenger’s use of a deadly weapon.

The original bill would have prohibited concealing badges; now officers would have to be “reasonably identifiable.” It bans the acquisition and use of military equipment — the definition of military equipment in the bill has evolved during the lawmaking process, as have other pieces of the bill.

A floor amendment from Rep. Goodman adopted Saturday would allow the use of tear gas in specific situations with authorization, rather than outright banning its use. Another from Rep. Gina Mosbrucker, R-Goldendale, would create a work group to make a model policy for training and using police dogs, rather than restrict their use.

In committee, law enforcement groups raised a range of objections to elements of the proposal. Washington Fraternal Order of Police issued a press release Friday urging support of the amended version.

In explaining their votes against the bill on the floor, many Republicans said they were grateful for the collaboration so far, but there was more work to be done.

“Working together on this bill, we came so close to something that would work, to give tools to law enforcement that they need to do their job with less lethal tools, so they don’t have to resort to lethal tools,” said Rep. Brad Klippert, R-Kennewick, who has been a deputy sheriff in Benton County for over two decades and was a deputy in Pierce County before that.

The bill now heads to the Senate for further consideration.

A standard for use of force and de-escalation

House Bill 1310 would set a civil standard for use of force by officers across the state, requiring reasonable care. Sponsor Rep. Johnson characterized the bill in committee as “the continued evolution of I-940.”

It repeals a state law that reads “If after notice of the intention to arrest the defendant, he or she either flee or forcibly resist, the officer may use all necessary means to effect the arrest.”

Under the bill, an officer could use physical force when necessary to make an arrest, prevent an escape, or protect against an imminent threat of bodily injury. They could use deadly force only when necessary to protect against an imminent threat of serious physical injury or death.

It requires officers to use reasonable care when using physical force, exhaust de-escalation tactics before using force when possible, and use the minimal amount of force necessary to overcome resistance, among other requirements.

Organizations that represent officers argued in committee that it would limit how they can help victims, jeopardize their safety, and that it fails to recognize the unique situations officers encounter.

“The public reasonably expects that law enforcement officer will run towards dangerous situations, and 1310 makes that expectation no longer reasonable,” James McMahan with Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs said in public testimony.

The intention is to reduce violence in police behavior, emphasizing de-escalation over confrontation, said Enoka Herat, Police Practices and Immigration Counsel at ACLU of Washington.

Herat has been working with and on behalf of the coalition that includes families. The training on de-escalation is already in place, she said, and this is meant to make it a statewide expectation.

A civil cause of action

Right now, there’s not a way to sue a police officer for violating your state constitutional rights in state court, Herat said — you’d have to go through federal court. There, the path is complicated by qualified immunity, which often shields officials from liability for police misconduct.

House Bill 1202 would allow individuals to sue a police officer or agency for violating their state constitutional rights and make it easier for them to recover damages and costs and attorney’s fees if they’re injured as a result of police misconduct.

That could include violating their duty to use reasonable care when using force that would be established in House Bill 1310.

It also authorizes the Attorney General to investigate and bring a civil suit against them if there’s a pattern of misconduct in a department or by an officer.

“Rep. Johnson’s HB 1310 establishes a duty of care for our officers, and HB 1202 is the teeth,” said Leslie Cushman, a coalition member and citizen sponsor of I-940, in testimony. “HB 1202 is about access to justice, and it is preventative — it will deter police misconduct.”

Opponents have voiced concern over a potential influx of claims and the cost — to jurisdictions, taxpayers, agencies, and, they argue, potentially individual officers. They also argue it will change officer behavior in a way that jeopardizes public safety.

An office for independent investigations

Tacoma Mayor Victoria Woodards called another of the coalition’s priorities, House Bill 1267, “Tacoma’s top priority” this session. It would create an office within the Office of the Governor to investigate deadly force incidents that involve police officers.

The concept came out of Gov. Jay Inslee’s Task Force on Independent Investigations of Police Use of Force, which was formed after the disclosure that the Pierce County Sheriff’s Office conducted the investigation into Manuel Ellis’ death even though one of its deputies was on the scene.

In committee, a few groups representing law enforcement spoke in opposition to the bill, pointing to specific objections and mentioning the work already invested in implementing I-940.

‘The teeth for everything else’

Sponsor Sen. Pedersen told McClatchy this week that House Bill 5051 is “basically the teeth for everything else.” It dramatically broadens the ability of the state to decertify officers who’ve engaged in misconduct, removing procedural obstacles in that process and adding reasons they can be decertified.

The state Criminal Justice Training Commission can decertify officers now in very limited circumstances — a Seattle Times investigation last year found that the state rarely decertifies officers and has never done so for using excessive force.

“Previously, we’ve always relied on local agencies to discipline their own officers if there’s been misconduct,” Pedersen said. For the first time, this bill would tie officers’ conduct to the fact that the state certifies them and has power to decertify them, he said.

In part, Pedersen’s bill expands the reasons for which the commission can revoke officers’ licenses. For example: the commission would be required to decertify officers if a court finds they illegally used force resulting in death or serious injury, or that they witnessed another officer use excessive force and could have intervened but didn’t.

And it expands the types of penalties the commission can impose — not just decertification, but probation, suspension, mandatory retraining.

Now, only law enforcement officers or agency representatives can submit complaints to the state commission saying an officer’s license should be denied, suspended, or revoked. Under the bill, members of the public can.

The composition of the commission would shift to include more civilians, and law enforcement representatives would no longer constitute the majority. The majority of seats on disciplinary panels, too, would be filled by people not in law enforcement.

The bill faces intense opposition from organizations representing law enforcement. It drew debate on 35 proposed amendments and final passage that stretched well past three hours Thursday evening, lasting until nearly midnight.

Republicans criticized the bill at times as an overreach, anti-law enforcement, radical, or irrelevant to rural areas. Some offered unsuccessful amendments that in part would have scaled back the proposal, put it to a vote by the people, or rendered it void if a piece of it were found unconstitutional.

Republican Sen. Jeff Holy, an attorney and former Spokane police detective, said passing one bill to solve “all the problems of so many different integrated entities” is “disingenuous.”

“I by no means am saying do nothing, but this creates tremendous chaos,” Sen. Shelly Short, R-Addy, said. “Among the chaos that’s already here ... This isn’t going to help the communities this bill purports to help.”

It ultimately passed off the Senate floor largely along party lines — Sen. Tim Sheldon, a Democrat who caucuses with Republicans, voted against it — and will go to the House for further consideration.

This story was originally published February 28, 2021 at 5:45 AM with the headline "Here are 5 police reform bills that Washington state families are watching."