Requirement to Intervene and Report. Identifiable on-duty peace officers who witness another peace officer engaging or attempting to engage in the use of excessive force against another person are required to intervene, when in a position to do so, to end the use of excessive force or attempted use of excessive force, or to prevent the further use of excessive force, and render aid at the earliest safe opportunity. Additionally, identifiable on-duty peace officers who witness another peace officer engaged in conduct unlawful or contrary to agency policy are required to report the conduct to their supervisor.

The bill as referred to committee not considered.

A peace officer is prohibited from hog-tying a person or assisting in putting a person into a hog-tie. Hog-tying constitutes the use of excessive force for purposes of a peace officer's duty to intervene and report.

Hog-tying means connecting a hobble restraint to handcuffs or other types of restraints.

PRO: The law enforcement profession must secure public trust and accountability. This is why the Legislature made policy decisions to discontinue practices and tactics that dehumanize and create unnecessary risks to people that law enforcement serve. The term hog-tying originally comes from something that is applied to pigs and animals. Hog-tying is animalistic, extremely dangerous, and inhumane. The practice makes it hard for a person to get oxygen. Hog-tying carries a particularly high risk when used in the field, since even the best officers can overlook signs of asphyxiation. The practice is disproportionately used against indigenous, black, brown, and other people of color when police have discretion. Other major metropolitan areas have had bans on the practice for decades, like Los Angeles, which banned the practice in 1977. The Department of Justice has recommended eliminating the use of hog-tying since 1995. The Attorney General Office's use of force model policy says this practice should be discontinued. The Criminal Justice Training Commission does not train on this practice. Hog-tying has been discontinued by most, but not all, jurisdictions. Law enforcement needs to have clear statewide guidance, as this cannot be left to commanders at the local level. The state has shown leadership in the past for discontinuing dangerous practices such as chokeholds and neck restraints. This is another small step towards accountability. It is time to finalize the end of this tactic in Washington State.

CON: A restrained person can still present a danger to themselves and others, including law enforcement. The Legislature should not prohibit the tools and tactics necessary to prevent a person from being a harm to law enforcement or themselves. Law enforcement wants to do this in the safest and most humane way possible. To that end, law enforcement agencies have found new equipment to be just as effective, safe, and more humane than hog-ties. The unintended oversight of the definition in this bill is that it would prohibit the use of these more effective and more humane alternatives. The definition in this bill would unintentionally prohibit a very common, humane tactic used in correctional entities to escort or transport people from one place to another. Instead of banning this tactic entirely, the Legislature should facilitate the use of better alternatives. A grant program is envisioned to acquire better alternatives, where grant recipients must agree to prohibit the use of hog-ties in their policies as a condition of receiving funds. This approach will phase out use of hog-ties while simultaneously replacing equipment with better equipment. The job of officers is to keep people safe, and sometimes that is not pretty. What we want is the safest, most humane way possible to keep people safe, and we want the Legislature to help us accomplish this shared goal.