Now that the dust has settled from this year's legislative session I want to say how pleased I am with how they dealt with the conflicts that arose from HB 1310 which passed last year.
As you may recall, the 2021 legislature passed a bill, HB1310, to address the use of force and clarify and limit when it is acceptable. This was done to address the public's valid concerns over excessive police violence. While the intent was clear to the legislature, the wording allowed the police to take the position that the new law prevented them from:
The law caused quite a number of problems, both in unnecessary conflicts between elected officials and police departments, but especially by interrupting public safety services to the community.
In this year's session the bill was revised to clarify the legislature's intent and eliminate the conflict. The original intent of the bill to reduce violence was maintained; the intent was clarified with specific language to eliminate the conflict in providing services. This year's bill passed the House 90 to 5, the Senate 49 to 0.
HB1735 added new language that amends the law created by HB 1310. It says, among other things:
One of the services our local police were no longer providing was to provide transport for involuntary commitment. As one can imagine, someone with serious enough mental problems to require involuntary commitment may require some degree of effort to get them into treatment. The bill addresses this specifically by allowing physical force (not deadly force) to "Take a person into custody, transport a person for evaluation or treatment, or provide other assistance." Again, this tells the police they can resume doing this job for the community.
I'd like to recognize and thank District 22 Representative Jessica Bateman, Olympia City staff, and all the other people working behind the scene who made these changes happen. Since last year, they had been working to address the challenges from the original bill and were very successful, much to the benefit of our local communities and the state as a whole.
This law is in addition to others that were passed last year. Some examples include but aren't limited to the following:
"SB 5051 – Decertification of Officers
"Establishes criteria for mandatory statewide standards to de-certify police and corrections officers.
"SB 5066 – Duty to Intervene
"HB 1267 – Office of Independent Investigations
(The text above comes directly from the bills.)
With the new laws, plus the creation of alternatives to sending the police such as Olympia's Crisis Intervention Unit, we create a system of progressive interventions that should provide a more reasonable and appropriate response to calls for help, prevent escalation while minimizing violence, and better address public safety.
Something needed to be done and I'm glad to see the volume of effort to address these issues, which are faced by the public not only in Thurston County, but nationally.
Next steps include hiring a new police chief in Olympia that embraces these new programs and continuing to involve the public in designing and monitoring our public safety system.
Pat Cole - pcbiglife@gmail.com - is a former member of Olympia's city council. As a private citizen, he seeks to set a positive tone and lead informed discussions about local civic issues.
EDITOR'S NOTE: The opinions expressed above are those of Pat Cole and not necessarily of The JOLT or its staff or board of directors.
Further, if you'd like to express your opinions, please write them up and send them to us, especially if you are focused on Lacey or Tumwater. If you've got questions about what would be acceptable, please call Danny Stusser on 360-357-1000 x1.
5 comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here
Kruz81
I love how Pat would like to set a positive tone but starts off with the title of the article stating "more reasonable responses." This is not a positive tone and itself that it indicates that Pat and possibly others think that previous police response is not reasonable there for setting a negative tone. There are many of us, and perhaps we are the silent majority that feel that previous police responses were reasonable and potentially not enough to protect citizens. Of course this is not a popular view within the Pacific Northwest and if we happened to voice it and public or where others are that don't agree we would be chastised and treated poorly as opposed to engaging in a debate which is what we would do with the opposing viewpoint. Just wanted to point out bot everyone agrees with you except those you hear.
Thursday, March 31, 2022 Report this
PCBigLife
Thanks for your comments. First, a little disclaimer, I didn't write the title. And true, I do like to set a positive tone, something that I think is sorely lacking in much pubic discourse and writing. Plus I believe that the subject of my editorial is indeed good news, and will help improve our public safety system for both the general public and the police. On the other hand, having studied the bills and spoken to a number of people including Olympia's Police Chief, I do think the response to the original bill by many police departments was unreasonable, nor respectful of the intent of legislature, and at times ingenuous. That response was a significant factor that caused hardships to the public and other agencies. This then necessitated the revisions to the original bill, revisions which did not change the bill's intent with respect to force, but simply clarified the legislature's direction so the police had to resume their previous duties.
I don't consider myself anti-police, and appreciate the complexity of their job and the necessary purpose they serve. But I also acknowledge the serious problems that exist with respect to police violence and culture that absolutely must be addressed. And I very pleased to see legislation like this and the steps our local governments are taking to address these problems.
Friday, April 1, 2022 Report this
bobkat
I take issue with the writer's loose usage of the word "violence" in the piece. Have such instances occurred? Yes, unfortunately they have. However, when a situation requires LEO's to employ a "use of force" in the performance of their duties, it does not follow that every such instance is done with violence foremost in their minds. Given that 2 OPD officers have just been seriously wounded after (as reported on TV) answering a call for someone setting fire to their neighbors front door - I suspect that the presumed PC response would have been to send unarmed Fire Marshalls and/or an unarmed Crisis Intervention Counsellor to the scene. I'm sure that THAT scenario would have really turned out well. Just who is being violent to whom?
Friday, April 1, 2022 Report this
Panagringo
When dumbasses make knee jerk laws!
Monday, April 4, 2022 Report this
jlongley
Pat, I just read your overview of the Legislature’s efforts to clarify police use of force responsibilities, etc., re: HB 1310. Once again, I think you gathered relevant info nicely, summarized the situation well, and gave us an ordered overview of how the state law has been focused better and clarified the duties and responsibilities of local law enforcement. Your previous column(s) helped us understand the nuances of what police departments were not doing previously, as a result of HB 1310, and now you have elucidated us on how the Legislature has cleared the murky water. Thanks.
Jim Longley
Olympia
Friday, April 15, 2022 Report this