A "vehicular pursuit" refers to the attempt by a uniformed peace officer in a vehicle equipped with emergency lights and a siren to stop a moving vehicle where the operator of the moving vehicle appears to be aware that the officer is signaling the operator to stop the vehicle and the operator of the moving vehicle appears to be willfully resisting or ignoring the officer's attempt to stop the vehicle by increasing vehicle speed, making evasive maneuvers, or operating the vehicle in a reckless manner that endangers the safety of the community or the officer. When engaging in a vehicular pursuit, a peace officer may violate certain rules of the road, including, for example, stop signals, speed limits, and parking restrictions.
A peace officer may not engage in a vehicular pursuit, unless:
There are additional requirements relating to supervision of vehicular pursuits. The pursuing officer must receive authorization from a supervising officer to engage in the pursuit. The supervising officer must consider the justification for the vehicular pursuit and other safety considerations, including speed, weather, traffic, road conditions, and the known presence of minors in the vehicle. In jurisdictions with fewer than 10 commissioned officers, if a supervising officer is not on duty at the time, the pursuing officer will request the on-call supervisor be notified of the pursuit according to agency procedures. In the absence of a supervising officer in these circumstances, the pursuing officer must still comply with the same requirements and safety considerations in evaluating whether to conduct or terminate a pursuit.
A pursuing officer must comply with any agency procedures for designating the primary pursuit vehicle and determining the appropriate number of vehicles permitted to participate in the vehicular pursuit and comply with any agency procedures for coordinating operations with other jurisdictions, including available tribal police departments when applicable.
The restrictions on vehicular pursuit are modified by lowering the evidentiary threshold from probable cause to reasonable suspicion, adjusting the threat threshold, and removing the authorization to engage in pursuits in circumstances involving sex offenses (that are not also violent offenses). Therefore, a peace officer may not engage in a vehicular pursuit, unless:
The requirements regarding supervision of vehicular pursuits are modified and expanded. A peace officer may not engage in a vehicular pursuit unless the officer notifies a supervising officer immediately upon initiating the vehicular pursuit. There must be supervisory oversight of any vehicular pursuit. The following requirements apply to any vehicular pursuit:
The exceptions and alternate procedures for jurisdictions with fewer than 10 commissioned officers are removed. All jurisdictions are subject to the requirements regarding supervisory oversight of vehicular pursuits.
The amended bill removes the intent section and all amendatory provisions pertaining to the standard for use of force by peace officers.
The amended bill modifies the restrictions on vehicular pursuits by: limiting the authority to engage in pursuits to when there is reasonable suspicion that a person in the vehicle has committed or is committing a violent offense, escape offense, or driving under the influence offense (rather than reasonable suspicion that a person in the vehicle has committed or is committing any criminal offense where the public safety risks of failing to apprehend or identify the person are considered to be greater than the safety risks of the vehicular pursuit under the circumstances, as provided in the underlying bill); and prohibiting pursuits unless a person in the vehicle poses a threat of serious injury or death to another person, (rather than poses a public safety risk, as provided in the underlying bill, or an imminent threat to the safety of others, as provided in current law).
The amended bill modifies the supervisory requirements for vehicular pursuits by: requiring the pursuing officer to notify a supervising officer immediately upon initiating a pursuit (rather than requiring the pursuing officer to receive authorization to continue the pursuit from a supervising officer, as provided in the underlying bill); requiring supervisory oversight of the pursuit (rather than supervisory control of the pursuit, as provided in current law and the underlying bill); and removing current law alternatives for when a supervisor is not on duty, thereby requiring supervisory oversight in all pursuits.
The amended bill also adds restrictions for vehicular pursuits, including:
(In support) The bill is not an attempt to roll back police reforms enacted in 2021. To the contrary, it is intended to clarify how these reforms are to be interpreted and implemented. Engrossed Second Substitute House Bill 1310 and Engrossed Substitute House Bill (ESHB) 1054 had the unintended consequence of increasing crime and victimization, including property crimes and gun violence. Some communities are starting to take on a "wild west" atmosphere, which is also incentivizing vigilantism. It is imperative for peace officers to be able to enforce laws and carry out their duties.
Being in a vehicle should not be a "get out of jail free" card, yet this has been the consequence of ESHB 1054. It is happening daily. Current law effectively bans vehicular pursuits. A person should not be able to steal a catalytic converter, commit a residential burglary, or assault another person, and then avoid consequences by simply getting in a car and driving away. Peace officers rely on voluntary compliance. The unintended effect of ESHB 1054 has been to incentivize people to flee in vehicles. They know officers cannot pursue them. It is more important to the ability to pursue suspects, which will then incentivize cooperation and decrease the likelihood that pursuits will actually take place, than to actually pursue them.
There is a common misconception about law enforcement agencies not supporting reform efforts. This is not true. Good policing and reforms are not mutually exclusive. The reasonable suspicion threshold, alongside a safety balancing test, is a common sense approach. The bill strikes the appropriate balance between accountability and public safety.
The Legislature should pass the version of the bill as it was referred to committee. The striking amendment, which was briefed during the public hearing, does not adequately address the many serious issues. However, either version would be preferred over current law.
(Opposed) Impacted families and community members have already expressed opposition to rolling back police reform efforts on several occasions. These legislative proposals are retraumatizing. Over policing and discriminatory policing are real and are hurting communities. The Legislature should have the courage to focus its efforts on addressing systemic racism, rather than injecting more harm into the system. The law should protect the dignity and safety of human life.
The purpose of any vehicular pursuit should be to apprehend a person suspected of a violent offense. Most often, this can be accomplished through other means. Vehicular pursuits are inherently dangerous to peace officers, subjects, and innocent bystanders. They should be used rarely, if at all. Current law strikes the correct balance. Probable cause is already a low threshold; it does not require an officer to have made an identification. It should not be adjusted to reasonable suspicion. Reasonable suspicion is an illusion. This exposes the community to more danger by escalating incidents. The bill would increase use of force and pursuits of innocent people.
The state should expand the data collection program at the Attorney General's Office to include vehicular pursuits. This will help inform policy decisions regarding this inherently dangerous police tactic.