New legislation went into effect July 25 defining permissible uses of force by law enforcement.

House Bill 1310 says in part, “limits the use of deadly force to very narrow circumstances where there is an imminent threat of serious physical injury or death.”

Concern has been expressed by departments across the state, but the Coalition for Police Accountability and the ACLU of Washington say it’s misguided.

“There’s nothing in the law that prohibit or prevent police from showing up to any call,” said Enoka Herat, Police Practices and Immigration Counsel with the ACLU of Washington.

Rep. Michelle Caldier (R) of the 26th District opposed the bill. Caldier said firefighters and law enforcement told him they were concerned 1310, and another law being passed, 1054, would limit their ability to respond to calls. Caldier feels the legislation is poor policy, and they did not consult all stakeholders.

A news release sent by WCPA and the ACLU states that the concern from law enforcement that HB 1310 requires them to not respond when someone is experiencing a behavioral health crisis is incorrect.

Herat said: “It’s a use of force bill. So it doesn’t even really kick in until there’s someone in front of you.”

The bill “removes the existing authority for officers to use any amount of force necessary to make an arrest, and replaces it with a reasonable care standard, requiring officers to de-escalate, use less lethal alternatives when possible, and use only the minimum amount of force necessary,” the news release says.

Rep. Roger Goodman (D) of the 45th District clarified that most of the agencies he has spoken with in the area he represents understand the legislation’s intent , support it and are continuing to respond to calls.

Sgt. Ken Dickinson, public information officer with the Kitsap County Sheriff Department, said his agency has not made the decision to not respond to calls.

When responding to an emergency, Dickinson said the agency’s philosophy is to only use the reasonable and necessary amount of force to ensure the safety of officers and the public and to make an arrest if necessary.

This change is important as there have been incidents in the state where officers have harmed or killed individuals, particularly those of color, who were not committing a crime, Herat said.

“I don’t know why other agencies have decided to [not respond.] What we’re going to have to do is we’re going to have to adjust to how we have responded to situations in the past,” Dickinson said.

Some agencies have been unclear on how the legislation affects their ability to respond to mental health calls — particularly in instances where individuals are not presenting an imminent danger to themselves or others but a mental health professional has determined they need to be detained.

With the legislation in place, police are looking for clarity in how to help detain someone in a mental health crisis without violating use of force protocol.

Goodman said officials are consulting with the attorney general’s office on whether there needs to be further clarification.

The state has an involuntary treatment act, E3SHB 1713, which states that police may assist mental health professionals in transporting individuals who they determine need to be taken to a security facility for evaluation. This bill was not amended, Goodman said, adding perhaps they will further clarify the response confusion by making explicit reference to this in the legislation.

The new legislation requires officers to have probable cause to arrest someone, not just reasonable suspicion, which officers may have used to detain people in the past, Dickinson said. “That doesn’t mean that we’re not going to respond to certain calls,” he said, “It just means that we may have to respond to them a little differently than we have in the past.”

Herat said 1310 requires officers to act with reasonable care, which Herat said is not as alarming a change as some departments are making it out to be. “I would hope that officers are always acting with reasonable care when they approach members of the public,” Herat said.

It’s going to be a learning curve for all responders to emergency calls, particularly behavioral health calls where the desire is more for mental health or medical help and not police intervention, Dickinson said. In those calls, how officers respond could look different, while still working with different emergency response partners like fire and mental health professionals.

The new legislation will make the sheriff’s agency more cognizant of how it responds to certain calls, Dickinson said.

Herat said city and county governments should be analyzing who the best responder is for different emergency calls, considering a more holistic approach to crises .“We have over relied on law enforcement to address issues of houselessness, of addiction, of mental health care. And now is the time to step back from that and again, get the best responder for each call,” Herat said.

While Caldier voted against HB 1310, she did acknowledge the need for legislation and her support of mental health professionals responding to certain emergencies along with law enforcement.

Even before the law passed, Herat said officers were paying attention. “We have seen a number of incidents where law enforcement explain that because of the law, they are spending more time deescalating the situation, rather than putting their hands on someone,” Herat said.