Council Amendments Could Restore Some Oversight in Bill Removing Restrictions on "Less-Lethal" Weapons

As written, the bill would allow the police department to create its own policies for the use of most crowd-control weapons.

By Erica C. Barnett

Legislation to repeal Seattle's current restrictions on police officers' use of "less-lethal" crowd-control weapons is moving forward quickly, with a committee vote scheduled for January 14, shortly after the council returns from a winter break that starts this Friday afternoon.

That leaves just five days for council members to propose amendments to the bill; council public safety committee chair Bob Kettle, who's sponsoring legislation sent down by Mayor Bruce Harrell, told council members in an email last week that he needs amendments to come in early "in part to ensure transparency but also because of the unique aspects of the Federal Monitor, DOJ, and the Court as this impacts the Consent Decree process."

The legislation repeals a law governing SPD's use of less-lethal weapons that has been in effect since 2021. SPD has never followed that law, which their legal counsel argued would "compromise public safety"; instead, the department created its own "interim policy" that does not specifically restrict or bar police from using any less-lethal weapons. (The 2021 law replaced a total ban on less-lethal weapons that the federal district judge overseeing the consent decree, James Robart, enjoined earlier that year).

The bill the council is considering empowers SPD to come up with its own crowd control policy, guided by with a list of "values and expectations" in the legislation—effectively instituting a lightly amended version of the interim policy SPD has been using, in defiance of existing law, for more than three years.

The passage of the crowd-control bill could set the stage to end the 12-year-old consent decree between the city and the US Department of Justice.

Council public safety chair Bob Kettle, who's sponsoring the legislation sent down by Mayor Bruce Harrell's office, was unavailable for comment Friday, so we weren't able to ask him directly why he wants to push the legislation through so quickly. After all, the council and mayor have known for years that the Seattle Police Department considered the law on less-lethal weapons unworkable, and took no action.

Last week, Councilmember Cathy Moore expressed concerns about the timing, noting that passing a new crowd-control law isn't a guarantee that Judge Robart will release the city from the consent decree.

"I appreciate that we want to get out of the consent decree," she said. But given the many unknowns, Moore added, "I just don't think there can be a false sense of urgency that we've got to get this done so we can get the consent decree lifted. There's no guarantee that what we do here today is going to result in the consent decree being lifted, and I think we need to use this opportunity as we are to be very thoughtful about this policy going forward."

Moore (who, like Kettle, said through a spokesperson that she was unavailable on Friday) is expected to propose several amendments, including some co-sponsored with new Councilmember Alexis Mercedes Rinck.

The first potential amendment would require the mayor to approve the use of blast balls—grenades, used widely during the protests against police brutality in 2020, that can cause serious injuries—in addition to tear gas, which requires mayoral approval under a recently passed state law.

In a November memo suggesting changes to the legislation to improve safety and accountability, the Seattle Office for Civil Rights included several examples of injuries caused by police using "less lethal" weapons. At a meeting last week, Councilmember Rob Saka appeared to dismiss these examples, saying they were from "all across the world."

A second amendment would require council approval for new less-lethal weapons that emerge in the future. The current proposal gives SPD carte blanche to approve new technologies, as long as the department believes they comply with the "values and expectations" laid out in the legislation. According to a central staff memo, the change would let SPD use new weapons against the public "without the delay associated with the legislative process, and without drawing the Council into technical, rather than policy-level, judgements about appropriate tools and methods."

Saka praised this aspect of the mayor's bill last week and suggested expanding it, saying he saw no reason the council needed to approve surveillance technologies like "throw phones" used in hostage standoffs.

Another potential amendment would require police departments outside Seattle that provide "mutual aid" during large events to either follow SPD's policies or be assigned to desk duty, freeing up Seattle officers to respond on the street. The legislation, as written, exempts mutual aid agencies from following Seattle's law, or SPD's internal policies, when doing crowd control on the city's behalf.

Finally, council members are exploring whether to retain a private right of action, included in the 2021 law the new legislation would repeal, for people injured by police using less-lethal weapons. "It is important to provide accessible opportunities for residents to pursue their claims under city law rather than under state or federal law where the proof required is more stringent and the doctrines of qualified immunity and public duty may prevent them from receiving damages for their injuries," SOCR wrote in its memo.