There are two types of law enforcement agencies in the state—general authority law enforcement agencies and limited authority law enforcement agencies. "General authority law enforcement agency" means any agency, department, or division of a municipal corporation, political subdivision, or other unit of local government, and any agency, department, or division of state government, having as its primary function the detection and apprehension of persons committing infractions or violating the traffic or criminal laws in general. This includes, for example, county sheriffs, municipal police departments, the Washington State Patrol, and the Department of Fish and Wildlife.
"Limited authority law enforcement agency" means any agency, political subdivision, or unit of local government, and any agency, department, or division of state government, having as one of its functions the apprehension or detection of persons committing infractions or violating the traffic or criminal laws relating to limited subject areas. This includes, for example, the Department of Corrections, Department of Natural Resources, Department of Social and Health Services, Gambling Commission, and Liquor and Cannabis Board.
Law enforcement officers are authorized to use deadly force under certain circumstances. This includes, for example, when necessarily used to apprehend or arrest a person who poses a threat of serious physical harm to the officer or others. In each circumstance, the officer must have a good faith belief that the act is justifiable according to certain statutory requirements.
Law enforcement officers must complete basic and advanced training to obtain and maintain certification. With the passage of Initiative 940 in 2018, officers are also required to complete de-escalation training. Officers must be trained on alternatives to the use of physical or deadly force so that de-escalation tactics and less lethal alternatives are part of the decision-making process leading up to the consideration of deadly force.
Great bodily harm and substantial bodily harm are both defined in the Washington Criminal Code. Substantial bodily harm is when a person sustains temporary, but substantial disfigurement or loss of function. Great bodily injury is when a person sustains injury which is likely to cause death or which causes significant permanent disfigurement or loss of function.
The Attorney General's Office (AGO) must establish an advisory group to assist with the design, development and implementation of a statewide use of force data program. The advisory group must consist of three representatives from local nongovernment organizations or advocacy groups focused on the interaction between law enforcement and the community; three representatives from law enforcement agencies or organizations representing the interests of law enforcement; and at least one representative from the private sector with experience in data collection.
The advisory group must submit recommendations to the AGO on the phased implementation of additional data elements; practices for law enforcement reporting, utilizing incident reports to the greatest extent feasible; and practices for public access to deidentified data. Recommendation are due by April 1, 2022. The AGO must review the recommendations from the advisory group and approve or reject, in whole or in part, the recommendations. When reviewing the recommendations, the AGO must consider available funding, prioritizing the reporting of data required by law, the public's interest in accessing information in a transparent and expedient manner, and the institutional operations and demands of law enforcement. The AGO may approve recommendations subject to legislative funding. Rejected recommendations may be revised by the advisory group for reconsideration by the AGO. The advisory group sunsets on January 1, 2023.
The AGO must engage in a competitive procurement process to contract with a Washington private or public institution of higher education to design, develop, and manage the statewide use of force data collection program. The advisory group, or designated members, may participate in the procurement process. However, advisory members and representatives of entities participating in the advisory group may not bid or participate in the procurement.
All general authority and limited authority law enforcement agencies must report incidents of the use of force by a law enforcement officer to the selected institution of higher education including those in which:
When reporting an incident, the agency employing the officer that used force must provide detailed information regarding the incident, including:
Each law enforcement agency must also report any additional incidents and data required by the statewide use of force data program developed by the advisory group and approved by the AGO. All law enforcement agencies must submit the reports required by this section no later than three months after the office of the attorney general determines the institution of higher education's system can accept law enforcement agency reports. Reports must be made in the format and time frame established in the statewide use of force data program.
The committee recommended a different version of the bill than what was heard. PRO: We are currently operating in a space without data. It is not possible to measure the effectiveness of policing reforms or whether further reforms are necessary without data. Policing and police interactions disproportionately impact minority populations. A lack of transparency surrounding police interactions erodes public trust. There is broad agreement that citizens deserve better information to reduce violent interactions between law enforcement and the public.
Collection of data should not be a partisan issue. Better data helps in the furtherance of good police practices that in turn builds public confidence and integral to law enforcement in management and professional growth.
Law enforcement will support almost any data collection effort. Transparency is vital to building and maintaining public trust. Data should be comparable to other states. Disagree that tort payouts should be included. Complex set of data, that needs context. Needs decisions and actions resulting from data that result in change.
One of the major distinctions between SB 5259 and 5261 is where the data is housed. It is important for transparency and trust that the information be housed in an agency that is not closely connected with law enforcement.
There are a few recommendations for improvement. Tort payout data is complex and should not be included in this bill; there should be a robust process for community input; the agency housing the data should be publicly bid rather than assigned to WSU or the Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs; periodic independent reviews should be incorporated to ensure agencies are reporting appropriately; and language should be added to clarify that localities cannot adopt contracts that conflict with the bill.
OTHER: There is a direct correlation between universal competent data and informed decisions. What is not measured, cannot be managed. Most of this data is readily available and can be provided. It is, however, important to keep in mind the burden of reporting on smaller agencies. This bill will require training and in some cases additional equipment or software. Small agencies do not have the ability to cover these costs.
The bill should allow law enforcement agencies to submit the data by submitting incident reports. This relieves the fiscal impact and allows for objectivity and uniformity. Tort payout data should not be collected.
The committee recommended a different version of the bill than what was heard. PRO: We fully support the legislation. We think the bill creates a transparent, properly informed and robust use of force data collection system that can be used by law enforcement agencies, academia and public. While the bill may be a little on the expensive side, it is absolutely and unequivocally necessary to be best situated to make data driven decisions. We think using incident reports is the best way to go and we submit the advisory group will be in a good position to determine what sorts of incident reports and electronic transmissions could be used. I speak in support of this agency request legislation. The policy committee made changes to address the use of incident reports to lower costs. Many of the changes should result in a decrease of local costs, but higher state costs. This bill has broad bipartisan support and support from community advocates and law enforcement. The program will help ground us in facts and data so we can make informed decisions. Many pieces of the bill are subject to appropriation so the legislature will be in control of how robust the program is. We believe good management policy decisions concerning law enforcement must be assisted by reliable data. We support this approach and believe it is not an option any longer to not have a system collecting data. We have talked about funding it in the past; we hope it happens this time.
OTHER: We support the underlying goals of this bill, but this can be a particularly expensive venture for local government. I point you to the reporting data, the specific formats and deadlines required by the bill and ask the bill be amendment to simply require law enforcement agencies to submit incident reports for relevant interactions with the public. We think it will reduce local government costs and increase the objectivity and usefulness of the reports.