Is Seattle really ready to move forward with expanded crowd control guidelines allowing use of less lethal weapons?

Seattle, Washington – In a move that signals a significant shift in Seattle’s policing policies, the Seattle City Council has approved Council Bill 120916, granting the Seattle Police Department (SPD) expanded authority to use less lethal weapons (LLWs) for crowd control. Approved on February 11 with a 6-3 majority, the Act prepares the foundation for official policies defining the use of these instruments.

Proponents contend that the legislation fits Seattle’s continuous attempts to improve public safety policies and could enable the city to go toward leaving a long-standing consent decree under US Department of Justice (DOJ) supervision. Critics, remembering prior issues over police reactions to demonstrations, express concerns about the policy possibly resulting in too forceful events.

Seattle considers a difficult balance between civil liberties and the pragmatic needs of modern policing while final approval from a federal court still awaited.

Key details of the newly approved legislation

Under specified circumstances, the measure gives Seattle Police Department (SPD) officials the ability to deploy less deadly weapons (LLWs) including blast balls, tear gas, and tasers. An incident commander has to authorize their deployment before use to guarantee responsibility.

But the most extreme LLWs—tear gas and blast balls—can only be used once the mayor has announced a civil emergency. This limitation is to offer one more protection against potential abuse in ordinary crowd management operations.

• Blast Balls
  • Allowed primarily in situations where there is an immediate threat to life or a declared civil emergency.
  • Must typically be thrown underhand, away from large crowds, to minimize risk to bystanders.
• Tear Gas
  • Regarded as a last-resort tactic.
  • Can only be deployed during declared emergencies, and officers must focus on de-escalation before using it.
• Pepper Spray
  • Permitted when there is a perceived threat to people or property.
  • Officers are required to limit exposure to non-involved individuals by adhering to strict guidelines.

Aiming to limit LLW use, multiple earlier ordinances from 2020 and 2021 were replaced or superseded by this new one. But temporary restraining orders from federal judges, who decided the laws should complement current federal control, prevented those earlier initiatives from being entirely carried out. City officials hope Council Bill 120916 would help them to find the perfect balance between permitting law enforcement and avoiding unnecessary injury.

Administrative oversight and federal approval

Standing under the consent decree

Since 2012, Seattle has been under a DOJ consent decree based on recorded instances of biased police practices and too forceful regulations. Although federal monitors have noticed improvement—especially in terms of lowering significant use of force—some important issues remain unaddressed. Implementation of the new measure depends on federal court approval, a process that would put Seattle closer to termination of DOJ supervision.

“We still need to present an updated policy and get it approved before any changes can take place,” SPD Sgt. Patrick Michaud said in an email to The Daily. “As far as working on campus, if we do go to any type of protest on UW campus, we coordinate everything through UWPD.”

Sergeant Michaud’s statement highlights that despite council approval and the mayor’s signature, the bill’s provisions are not yet in effect. Now, SPD has to create unambiguous instructions that fit the public safety concerns of the city and get clearance from the federal court supervising the decree as well as local officials.

Context of the University of Washington Police Department

Independent oversight and different rules

Under the Division of Campus Community Safety, the University of Washington Police Department (UWPD) operates free from the authority of the Seattle City Council. UWPD does not apply LLWs for crowd management unlike SPD. Sergeant Patrick Michaud claims, however, if SPD is summoned into the UW campus to help with an event or demonstration, its officers will follow SPD rules instead of UWPD guidelines.

“Based on our agreement with UW and the Federal Government via the consent decree, we must follow our policies,” Michaud added.

This difference draws attention to a likely gray area: even if UWPD has its own procedures, the university has to follow SPD’s guidelines should the department be called upon to help. Given the new LLW rules, some campus activists could be worried about the potential impact of these expanded crowd control policies on events or demonstrations held on university grounds one day.

Historical roots and evolving policy

The push toward reform

Seattle’s struggle with police accountability stretches back decades, but the conversation intensified in recent years:

1. 2012 DOJ Findings
   • A federal investigation concluded SPD officers routinely used excessive force, leading to the 2012 consent decree.
   • Subsequent reforms included updated training, stricter oversight, and a measurable reduction in severe uses of force.
2. Protests in 2020
   • Following the murder of George Floyd, mass demonstrations erupted in Seattle, prompting aggressive crowd-control tactics by SPD.
   • Use of “less lethal” devices like blast balls and tear gas led to injuries and widespread public outcry, culminating in multiple lawsuits and financial settlements.
3. Legislative Attempts
   • In June 2020, the City Council attempted to prohibit LLWs, but the measure was halted by a federal judge on grounds that it might conflict with the consent decree.
   • A subsequent 2021 version faced similar legal hurdles and was never fully enacted.

The recently passed rules are seen as the last piece of the jigsaw to match municipal rules with the requirements of the consent agreement and while still empowering the SPD to oversee big public events.

Divergent perspectives

Supporters’ views

Proponents of the law argue that when reacting to possible violence or property damage during demonstrations, police should be allowed some freedom. City officials argue that with proper deployment, well controlled use of LLWs can help avert rising tensions and minimize damage.

“The flexibility and ability to adjust is imperative so that we’re ready to respond in the case of violence,” said Bob Kettle, Public Safety Committee Chair.

From their point of view, the operational need for instruments like pepper spray, blast balls, and tear gas exceeds the risks—as long as appropriate responsibility systems including incident commander authorization and real-time monitoring are in place.

Critics’ concerns

Critics are concerned that letting LLWs return into SPD’s arsenal runs the danger of bringing back past mistakes. Many contend that the ordinance compromises protective laws imposed during the 2020 and 2021 demonstrations aimed at limiting the use of crowd-control weapons following questions about excessive force.

Many public comments against the measure, which reflect continuous concern over SPD’s purported aggressive policies, point out that they contradict one other.

Howard Gale, one of the most outspoken opponents of the legislation, has said that it essentially removes important protections from 2021 and might make the city liable for future damages. His point of view captures the larger conflict between guaranteeing law enforcement operational flexibility and police responsibility.

“They are actually consciously overturning legislation from 2021 that protected people, putting into effect regulations that have already failed in the past, and opening themselves up to incredible liability when people are harmed in the future,” Gale said.

What comes next?

Path toward implementation

Even though the City Council has approved the bill and Mayor Bruce Harrell has signed it into law, the legislation must still undergo federal review. The monitor overseeing Seattle’s consent decree will evaluate whether the new rules comply with constitutional policing standards.

If the federal court approves the changes, Seattle could then apply to terminate the consent decree—a move that would signal the end of more than a decade of federal oversight on the city’s policing practices.

• Pending Court Approval: The federal judge supervising the consent decree holds significant sway. Any concerns could delay or prompt modifications.
• Policy Finalization: SPD will draft a detailed set of protocols for less lethal devices, addressing exactly when and how they may be used.
• Training Requirements: Officers will likely undergo specialized training to ensure compliance with both the letter and spirit of the law.

Impact on Future Protests

Should these new rules be passed, they might change the dynamics of next Seattle demonstrations. Although the objective is to minimize the use of deadly force and lower overall harm, some claim that LLWs can still inflict major injuries. Proponents, on the other hand, think that using non-lethal substitutes would enable police to calm down tense events without turning to deadly force.

What’s ahead

For a city struggling with police reform over more than ten years, the approval of revised crowd control policies by the Seattle City Council signifies an enormous shift. Legislators look for compromise between public safety and constitutional rights by clearly enabling SPD to deploy a specified spectrum of LLWs under tight control.

Still, the measure’s final fate is unknown; it currently rests before a federal judge, a reminder that Seattle is still subject to DOJ permission decree.

Community, activists, and SPD officials are now waiting for the next moves. While some see the policy as a useful tool for police enforcement, opponents worry it may bring back issues about excessively aggressive tactics. Seattle stays in the national limelight as the debate goes on, charged with proving that it can combine security with civil liberties—a choice that can set standards for police reform throughout the nation.