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 examine data needs or gaps in the 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.
No later than January 1, 2022, the advisory group must submit recommendations to the AGO for statewide implementation of data collection, reporting, and publication. The AGO must review the recommendations from the advisory group and recommend revisions. Upon approval, the advisory board must conduct a competitive bidding process to select a university to design, develop, and manage the data collection program.
All general authority and limited authority law enforcement agencies must report to the university all incidents of the use of force by a law enforcement officer including those in which:
When reporting an incident, the agency employing the officer that used force must provide detailed information regarding the incident, including:
Data may be submitted to the university utilizing incident reports or other electronic means. Agencies must report additional data, including additional types of interactions and incidents, as may be required by the university. Agencies are required to begin submitting data no later than July 1, 2022 and continue thereafter on at least a quarterly basis.
The AGO is required to establish an advisory group to examine data needs or gaps in the university’s use of force data program; group membership is prescribed. The advisory group must make recommendations to the AGO for statewide implementation of data collection, reporting, and publication no later than January 1, 2022. The AGO must review the recommendations from the advisory group and recommend revisions. Upon approval, the advisory board must conduct a competitive bidding process to select a university to design, develop, and manage the data collection program. Law enforcement agencies may submit data to the university utilizing incident reports or other electronic means. Additional data elements that must be reported include, the reporting of whether dashboard or body worn camera footage was recorded for an incident, and the number of officers and suspects who were present when force was used. Law enforcement agencies must develop a reporting plan for the submission of additional data relevant to public interactions and incidents. Provisions requiring the reporting of tort payout information are removed.
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.