For hearings in relation to a certification action of a peace officer, corrections officer, or tribal police officer, a six-member hearings panel will hear the case and make the final administrative decision.  A simple majority is required for any action.  If the hearings panel is unable to reach a majority decision, the administrative law judge presiding over the hearing must enter an initial order on the matter. 

The new member on the six-member hearings panel must be an additional peace officer, corrections officer, or tribal police officer at or below the level of first line supervisor with at least 10 years' experience, respective of whether the hearing is related to a certification action of a peace officer, corrections officer, or tribal police officer. 

The CJTC must adopt rules to implement the new requirements related to certification action hearings.

Beginning July 1, 2027, the chief, administrator, or sheriff of every law enforcement agency and police department must submit biennial reports to the CJTC with the following:

• the total number and date of certification of each peace officer employed;
• peace officer training records, including the number of required hours of training for each required subject, the number of peace officers required to complete each training subject, and the number of trainings successfully completed by each required subject; and
• the number of peace officers, managers, or administration employees decertified, and the reasoning for decertification. 

Beginning July 1, 2028, the CJTC must submit biennial reports to the Governor and the Legislature summarizing the reports submitted by law enforcement agencies and police departments. 

The CJTC must prepare and make available materials and resources necessary for peace officers and officials who administer public safety laws and law enforcement services.  These materials must also be distributed to city and county officials, police chiefs, and sheriffs. 

(In support) This bill is not rolling back the good work the Legislature has done in the past.  The bill ensures that there is accountability in the law enforcement agencies across the state, confirming that the officers are completing the required trainings.  The bill also ensures that there is a focus on recruitment and retainment of law enforcement personnel.  The reporting requirement in the bill is to understand what training the state law enforcement agencies are doing.  The change in the standard of proof for hearings is only for revocation and suspension of certification.  This standard is aligned with the standard for teachers' licenses.  The bill also evens out the hearings panel members so the number of officers and civilians reviewing matters is equal.  This is important to have a fair playing field to review the work and conduct of officers.  The bill is designed to bring more transparency to the profession of law enforcement.  The current decision-making process for officer certification actions is imbalanced and uses an insufficient standard of proof.  The bill provides a professional and objectively fair decertification process, and upholds officers' due process rights.  The clear and convincing standard of proof is used for disciplinary actions for doctors and teachers.  Prior to the reform laws of 2021, the hearings panel was five people, but two were civilians and three were law enforcement.  The change in 2021 switched that balance.  This bill will adjust the panel to three and three.  A balanced hearings panel will garner trust in the decisions of the panel for the officers working every day and for the communities that they serve.  The data collection in the bill fills a vacancy.  There is currently no centralized data collection of training for officers. 

This bill is about fairness.  Law enforcement is different from most other professions because officers put their lives on the line for the sake of the public.  Anyone who is having their job reviewed should be reviewed by a panel where at least half of the people there have experience with doing the job.  The standard of proof should be higher than "probably."  There is not a massive problem in the system but there is a massive problem with the concept of fairness.  The data reporting requirement in the bill is important and should be established. 

(Opposed) There is strong opposition to the bill because it waters down civilian oversight at the state level.  The five-member panel for certification action hearings usually reaches unanimous decisions and the few times they have not been unanimous, the decisions were four to one.  This bill is seeking to solve a problem that does not exist.  Doctors and teachers do not carry weapons.  The same standard should not be applied.  The standard currently in statute is fair.  There is no evidence that the current process is not working, and there should be evidence that it is not working before the Legislature makes these changes.  Over the last four and a half years, the CJTC has managed to get through 1,500 cases.  The vast majority of these cases were closed administratively without investigation.  Only 276 cases have been forwarded by the CJTC to investigation, and in over half of these cases, there were no charges.  In total, 117 officers have been decertified under the new system.  In most cases, the officer had already resigned in lieu of termination.  Only six cases have gone through the full process with a hearing and resulted in decertification.  The real problem is that the CJTC does not have the resources to keep up with the cases before it. 

There are concerns with the change in the bill for the membership of the hearings panel on decertification cases.  The community members and law enforcement on the panel have the ability to carefully consider the presented evidence.  There should not be a return to law enforcement judging other law enforcement because of the inherent conflict of interest.  The state should not take a step backwards and should continue to have community oversight in areas that involve officer discipline.  There is support for the reporting requirements in the bill, but concerns with the changes for certification action hearings.  The bill would significantly alter the decertification process by changing the hearings panel split between civilians and officers.  The proposed modification would create an imbalance that the current makeup was designed to fix.  Further, raising the standard of proof is not necessary for due process.  The Washington Supreme Court has held that preponderance of the evidence is appropriate for decertification of court-appointed guardians, with whom law enforcement officers are similarly situated.  The proposed changes in the bill move the state backwards. 

(Other) There are a few concerns with the bill.  The CJTC staff agrees that officer certification revocation investigations and rulings should be fair and objective.  The CJTC believes that the legislation enacted in 2021 meet those standards.  There are concerns with the proposed definition for probation.  There are also concerns with the higher standard of clear and convincing evidence.  This standard was considered and rejected by the Legislature in 2021.  There are no cases since 2021 in which officer certification was suspended or revoked despite adequate proof.  The preponderance of evidence standard is common in administrative licenses proceedings and in the field of law enforcement itself.  Comparisons to the standards of proof used for teachers and doctors are misplaced.  Those professions have different investigatory and hearing practices that lack the objective, independent structure and adversarial nature in officer certification proceedings.

(In support) Representative Mari Leavitt, prime sponsor; Teresa Taylor, WACOPS - Washington Council of Police and Sheriffs; Jeff DeVere, WACOPS—Washington Council of Police and Sheriffs; and James McMahan, WA Assoc Sheriffs and Police Chiefs.

Kurtis Robinson, WA Coalition for Police Accountability; and Debbie Novak, WA Coalition for Police Accountability.