OLYMPIA — Proponents of police pursuit restrictions defended their stance after Thurston County Sheriff Derek Sanders called them out in a social media post.
Dom Campese, a spokesperson for the Washington Coalition for Police Accountability, spoke with The Olympian following Sanders’ Nov. 15 Facebook post.
In that post, Sanders responded to a tragic collision that killed a father of two at a Tumwater intersection on Nov. 14. He said groups such as the coalition have blamed the Sheriff’s Office, which pursued the causing driver, for the collision.
“We never named Sheriff Sanders in any of our communication with the press or otherwise,” Campese said. “However, responsibility for policies of the Thurston County Sheriff’s Office and the conduct of its deputies does lie at the feet of Sheriff Sanders.”
The coalition initially gave a quote to KOMO on Nov. 15 regarding the fatal collision in Tumwater. That quote was featured in a KOMO video that Sanders shared along with his response.
In the post, Sanders criticized the coalition for pushing what he called “no-chase laws in 2021” which he contends led to increases in non pursuit-related fatal crashes, stolen cars and other serious crimes.
“There has never been a ‘no-chase law,’” Campese said. “We led efforts in coordination with lawmakers to pass sensible restrictions on police pursuits in 2021. There is zero evidence pursuit restrictions have caused any other crimes.”
Campese said the coalition is interested in seeing Sanders’ data on the subject. He said available data does not support the conclusion that increased crime rates were directly due to pursuit restrictions.
“Pursuits or evading data was not collected prior to 2021, so there’s no baseline to judge against as far as evading,” Campese said. “Car thefts, fatal crashes, other serious crimes cannot be linked to pursuit restrictions with any data we’ve seen.”
Law enforcement officers currently can pursue a car if they have reason to suspect someone inside the vehicle violated the law in any way, according to RCW 10.116.060.
However, the law also states officers must consider if the person they are pursuing poses a threat to the safety of others, and whether the safety risks of failing to apprehend or identify the person are greater than the safety risks of the vehicle pursuit under the given circumstances.
The stricter 2021 version of the law allowed pursuits only if law enforcement officers had probable cause to believe someone in the car committed violent crimes, sex crimes, vehicular assault, domestic violence, attempting to escape custody or driving under the influence.
The restrictions proved controversial with the public, who perceived that people who had committed more minor crimes were simply driving away from law enforcement. That prompted legislators to pass a new bill to reduce the evidentiary threshold for officers to engage in vehicular pursuits from probable cause to reasonable suspicion.
Then, earlier this year, legislators passed Initiative 2113, which removed the restrictions that limited pursuits to certain crimes. The new law went into effect on June 6. Sanders was among the initiative’s supporters.
In his post, Sanders said there’s a debate to be had about pursuit policy and he’s open to changing tactics or seeking alternatives. However, he’s dissatisfied with how he’s seen those debates play out.
“The issue I have is that this is where the conversation often ends: they don’t want pursuits to occur and offer zero alternatives to curbing the crime and crashes,” Sanders said in his post.
Campese said the coalition exists in part to prevent deaths at the hands of police. The legislation they supported did not call for no pursuits, but rather restricted the use of pursuits to specific criteria, such as DUI and violent crimes.
He pointed to a 2023 report by the Police Executive Research Forum, a nationwide non-profit research and policy organization. The report features more than five dozen recommendations, including that law enforcement adopt pursuit restrictions.
“Agencies should adopt restrictive vehicle pursuit philosophies that permit pursuits only for a limited and serious set of circumstances, which should be clearly and specifically articulated,” the report reads.
The report advises agencies only allow pursuits of suspects in violent crimes and where failure to immediately apprehend a person presents an “imminent threat to the public.”
The threat to the public should be judged based on the person’s criminal actions rather than the danger created by the person’s driving, even if the pursuing officers believe the person is armed and dangerous, according to the report.
The report acknowledges that there may be some exceptional situations when police intervention is necessary to protect the public from an “imminent, egregious hazard to the community.” However, the report indicates these situations are rare.
The key question a pursuing officer should ask, the report reads, is whether a pursuit makes a situation better or worse.
“For example, if a suspect begins driving more recklessly after police intervention, it is important to discontinue the pursuit,” the report reads.
The report was funded by the U.S. Department of Justice Office of Community Oriented Policing Services and created in collaboration with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
As for alternatives, the Sheriff’s Office began using grapple nets and GPS trackers this year, and Sanders has made it known he wants a helicopter. When asked about these alternatives, Campese said the coalition supports those efforts.
“We would welcome Sanders’ efforts to eliminate dangerous pursuits,” Campese said. “We routinely endorse systems that can be enacted to assist law enforcement while ensuring the safety of the public.”
