HOUSE BILL REPORT
HB 2710
This analysis was prepared by non-partisan legislative staff for the use of legislative members in
their deliberations. This analysis is not a part of the legislation nor does it constitute a
statement of legislative intent.
As Reported by House Committee On:
Public Safety & Emergency Preparedness
Title: An act relating to allowing the imposition of exceptional sentences for offenders who wore body armor at the time of their offenses.
Brief Description: Allowing the imposition of exceptional sentences for offenders who wore body armor at the time of their offenses.
Sponsors: Representatives Hurst, Roach, Morrell, Williams, Loomis and Kelley.
Brief History:
Public Safety & Emergency Preparedness: 1/21/08, 1/23/08 [DP].
Brief Summary of Bill |
|
HOUSE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY & EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS
Majority Report: Do pass. Signed by 7 members: Representatives O'Brien, Chair; Hurst, Vice Chair; Pearson, Ranking Minority Member; Ross, Assistant Ranking Minority Member; Ahern, Goodman and Kirby.
Staff: Yvonne Walker (786-7841).
Background:
Body armor, sometimes called a bullet-proof vest, is generally a bullet resistant metal or other
material worn by persons such as law enforcement officers and military personnel to provide
protection from weapons or bodily injury. Washington law does not prohibit the possession
of body armor.
Generally, the standard sentencing range is presumed to be appropriate for the typical felony
case. However, the law provides that in exceptional cases, a court has the discretion to depart
from the standard range and may impose an exceptional sentence below the standard range
(with a mitigating circumstance) or above the range (with an aggravating circumstance). The
Sentencing Reform Act (SRA) provides a list of illustrative factors that a court may consider
in deciding whether to impose an exceptional sentence outside of the standard range. Some
of the illustrative aggravating factors provided by the SRA include: behavior that manifested
deliberate cruelty to a victim; vulnerability of a victim; sexual motivation on the part of the
defendant; and an ongoing pattern of multiple incidents of abuse to a victim.
Summary of Bill:
The list of illustrative aggravating factors in the SRA is expanded to include any current
crime that is a violent offense and where the defendant was wearing body armor at the time
of the offense. Body armor is defined as any clothing or equipment designed, in whole or in
part, to minimize the risk of injury or death from a deadly weapon.
Appropriation: None.
Fiscal Note: Available.
Effective Date: The bill takes effect 90 days after adjournment of session in which bill is passed.
Staff Summary of Public Testimony:
(In support) This bill is important. The very fact that an offender is wearing body armor
during the commission of an offense indicates that possible violence might occur. Even in
many bank robbery events, where some people may feel it is only a loss of money, many law
enforcement officers and the public at large have been injured or put in harms way.
In California there was a violent armed robbery that occurred. As the gunmen exited the
building they initiated a gun battle where they shot 12 police officers and eight civilians.
Over 300 officers were called to the situation. The shootout continued for so long because
the gunmen were wearing body armor from their neck down to their feet. This was a life or
death situation for many law enforcement officers.
Today, offenders have firearms and body armor that far exceeds the quality than that of law
enforcement and the military. The Legislature needs to act upon this bill before a violent
shootout crime occurs in Washington. Other states have this same law, so Washington would
not be unique in creating this new crime.
(Opposed) None.
Persons Testifying: Representative Hurst, prime sponsor; Representative Roach; and Daniel Conine, Seattle Police Department.