DAYTON–Information for public awareness about the effects of ten new Washington laws which restrict law enforcement officers was behind a pair of Town Hall meetings conducted by the Columbia County Sheriff's Office and County Prosecutor Monday and Tuesday, December 21 and 22.

Columbia County Sheriff Joe Helm and Prosecutor Dale Slack initiated the community forum to also explain new civil protocols enacted recently by the U. S. Supreme Court. The recent Caniglia v. Strom, et al, ruling prohibits officers from entering a home without a warrant under the "community caretaking" exception.

As a consequence of the new laws, citizens should be aware of the level of service they are accustomed to from law enforcement will be reduced, Helm and Slack said.

Sheriff Helm has asked the County for a budget increase for the department to cover salaries and related expenses for an additional three road deputies to properly serve Columbia County. The existing deputies are working added hours without pay to cover the needs of the department and community and are not able to get away to keep up with necessary training.

Helm presented data from similar counties illustrating they employ more deputies per capita. Helm invited the community to get in touch with local representatives to appeal to them to increase the department's budget, to vote to revise or repeal the current laws affecting law enforcement's ability to safely and effectively do their jobs while working to keep the public safe.

In addition to the restrictions imposed by Caniglia v. Strom, et al, Slack and Helm also presented the following State laws:

-ESHB 1054, limiting officers' use of tactics and equipment;

-E2SB 1310, defining physical force;

-ESSHB 1310, limiting use of physical and deadly force;

-ESSHB 1089, dealing with compliance audit requirements for deadly force investigations;

-ESHB 1257, creating the Office of Independent Investigations for inquiries into cases involving the use of police force;

-HB 1088, requiring impeachment disclosures for when a defendant believes an officer provided a criminal report that is incomplete or untruthful;

-EHB 1090, outlawing the use of private, for-profit detention facilities;

-SHB 1223, requiring all custodial interrogations to be recorded, and;

-SSB 5066, establishing a duty for officers to intervene and report when another officer uses excessive force.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Caniglia v. Strom, et al, outlaws community caretaking as the exception to entering a home without a warrant. There are a few circumstances when entering without a warrant is still allowed, such as if the officer objectively and reasonably knows (usually through actual witness) that medical attention is needed, where there is imminent danger for physical injury to someone inside. If someone inside does not answer or refuses help, including when under duress or if it's someone with mental health issues, the officer cannot enter.

ESHB 1054, entitled "Peace Officers–Tactics and Equipment," restricts officers from the use of choke holds or other neck restraints for any reason, the use of tear gas without permission from the highest elected official in the jurisdiction, and limits its use in a correctional facility to when all other measures are exhausted and only after approval from the supervisor and after sufficient warning is given to allow for compliance. The effect of the law gives the elected official authority over the sheriff in this matter.

This presents a violation to the State constitution which provides checks and balances ensuring separations of powers. Columbia County has joined Lewis County and several other counties in a lawsuit against the State over this new law with concern over the precedent this violation of the constitution could set than actually restricting the use of tear gas.

The other aspect of the new law restricts use of "military equipment" including firearms and ammunitions of .50 caliber or greater. The main concern is this includes shotguns, which are the common firearm used by officers who then may have to resort to the use of other more deadly, but allowable weapons.

ESHB 1054 also limits the instances when an officer may engage in a vehicle pursuit of a fleeing suspect, unless there is probable cause where they have committed or are committing a violent or sexual crime, or reasonable suspicion that the suspect is driving under the influence.

To pursue the suspect all of the of following conditions also have to be met:

-The pursuit must be necessary to ascertain the suspect's identity.

-The safety risks of the suspect being an imminent threat to himself is greater than the safety risks of carrying out the pursuit.

-The officer has received authorization for the pursuit from the acting supervisor who will then control the pursuit.

No mention is made to allow the pursuit of suspects for property crimes, Third- or Fourth-Degree Assault, including assault of an officer, custodial interference, mental health issues, runaways, driving while license is suspended, and other infractions.

Additionally, officers are limited in firing at a moving vehicle unless there is imminent threat of serious physical harm due to use of a deadly weapon from an occupant in the vehicle of which the vehicle is not considered a deadly weapon unless it has already been used as one.

Last, the law prohibits "no-knock warrants" and requires officers to knock, announce and provide the reason for their presence which makes the element of surprise impossible even in situations where harm or destruction of evidence is likely.

E2SB 1310 aims to provide a uniform statewide standard of defining physical force. The definitions are not in place, despite the law passed in July of this year. ESSHB 1310 provides limited guidance for use of physical force, including to protect against criminal conduct where there is probable cause to make an arrest, to actually arrest, prevent an escape from custody, protect against an imminent threat of bodily injury to self or others, including officers.

Before any use of physical force, an officer must consider whether the suspect is vulnerable in any capacity physically or mentally, does not speak English or if children are present, as well as exhaust all other appropriate and available de-escalation tactics. If these conditions are met, then they must use the least amount of force possible to overcome resistance and cease force when the need for it ends.

In addition, law ESSHB 1089 further established an audit or investigation of an officer's use of force that is retroactive to the when the law was passed, though the law is unclear and guidelines are not expected from the Attorney General until July of 2022.

Similarly, ESHB 1267 created the Office of Independent Investigations to scrutinize any police use of force, deadly or otherwise and can review cases prior to the law. The Office is given the power to increase its jurisdiction to include other types of officer investigation. The uncertainty of the laws may make an officer overly hesitant in using any force at all for the interim. There is concern over the many considerations required by officers to make in a threatening situation.

The above State laws will at times prohibit officers from quickly apprehending suspects to be questioned and arrested where they can get away and possibly commit additional crimes, and where sufficient evidence and timely and accurate witness testimony cannot be obtained for a successful prosecution. If a suspect's identity was ascertained, a warrant can be issued for their arrest, charges can be filed and, if they fled the scene of the crime, escaped or resisted arrest, those additional charges can also be filed.

SHB 1088 requires a written policy for recourse where a defendant claims he was charged for a crime based on report provided by an officer based on incomplete and untruthful information.

EHB 1090 prohibits private and for-profit detention facilities.

SHB 1223 requires all custodial interrogations be recorded using high-quality equipment and training for its use, at the expense of the local jurisdiction, for both the equipment and the training. If the officer only provides a written report of an interrogation, they have to provide a reasonable explanation and the statements must be approved at the time of submission for use later in court with notice given to the defendant that the prosecution plans to use the statements and that the defense can inform the jury that the statements were noncompliant with the law. If these conditions are not met, the statement is not admissible in court.

In addition, any statements made outside of custodial interrogations are exempt even in situations where someone confesses to a crime, which can be problematic. If the suspect does not give permission at the start of the recording, then the recorded interrogation can be stopped.

SBB 5066 establishes the requirement for all officers to intervene and report fellow officers for excessive use of force and provides legal protection for them.