Democrats rework plan for WA prosecutor on police use of deadly force
State Sen. Manka Dhingra speaks as the Washington state Senate convenes for floor session on Feb. 28, 2023. (Washington State Legislative Support Services)
Washington Democrats are trying again to give the state additional power to prosecute cases when police use deadly force.
But the bill looks a bit different this time around compared to past years.
The previous version made the Office of Independent Prosecutions a division in the attorney general's office.
But then-Attorney General Bob Ferguson argued that prosecuting these cases could be a conflict of interest for the attorney general's office. The agency serves as legal counsel for state law enforcement, including the Washington State Patrol.
Former Gov. Jay Inslee raised similar concerns about conflict of interest if the office was housed under the governor.
'We were without options,' said Rep. Monica Stonier, D-Vancouver, the prime sponsor of past legislation to create the office.
But now with a new administration in town, lawmakers plan to relaunch their push for the independent prosecutor, this time in the governor's office.
Sen. Manka Dhingra, D-Redmond, filed a bill Tuesday to add a statewide prosecutor to an existing law enforcement oversight agency.
Proponents say it makes sense to place the prosecutor under the governor's jurisdiction, as part of the Office of Independent Investigations lawmakers created in 2021. The agency would be renamed the Office of Independent Investigations and Prosecutions.
Ferguson, now governor, also prefers placing the prosecutor in his office.
Still, supporters of the measure should expect similar pushback as in past years from county prosecutors who say a statewide counterpart usurps their authority.
The new attorney general, Nick Brown, said in an interview earlier this month he thought his office should oversee the independent prosecutor.
'There's been conversations about putting it in the governor's office or some other independent entity,' Brown said the day he was sworn in. 'At least from my vantage point on the outside, over the last couple years, it always made the most sense for me to house that work here.'
An attorney general's office spokesperson said this week staff were reviewing the latest proposal.
The past two years, Democrats in the state House have moved a bill forward to create the independent prosecutor's office with no Republican support. But both times the legislation didn't make it to the Senate floor.
Dhingra is optimistic about its chances, but justifying the cost in a difficult budget year could be tough.
'Anything with a fiscal note is in trouble this year,' Dhingra said.
Last year's legislation was expected to cost $9.5 million in the 2025-2027 biennium, and $12.7 million in the next biennium. Previous versions cost much more. Locating the prosecutor within the Office of Independent Investigations could lead to even more savings.
Adding the independent prosecutor is a priority for police accountability advocates. They also want to authorize the attorney general to investigate local police for violating state law. A committee hearing on that legislation, Senate Bill 5066, is set for Thursday.
The Washington Coalition for Police Accountability just wants to see the office up and running. It 'doesn't really matter where it's located,' said the group's policy expert, Leslie Cushman.
Cushman said the coalition believes the independent prosecutor will 'improve accountability, and it'll give some confidence to communities.'
Another big holdup in recent years has been local prosecutors who argued the independent statewide office would take away their authority to investigate these cases.
Republicans in the past have agreed. Law enforcement groups have also been opposed.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
But supporters say local prosecutors work too closely with law enforcement, giving their decisions in cases of deadly force an air of bias.
'This isn't going to guarantee anybody is going to be prosecuted,' Cushman said. 'It's just guaranteeing greater credibility of the process and maybe some greater transparency.'
The statewide prosecutor could see a rough average of 30 cases annually, according to projections last year.
The prosecutor would handle cases from the independent investigations office. The agency is just starting to conduct its own inquiries on new cases, launching in December to look into deaths in southwest Washington and the Olympic Peninsula before expanding across the state.
So far, the investigations office has initiated probes in two cases, in Centralia and Vancouver. The agency is required to finish its inquiries within 120 days.
Currently, those investigations would go to the county prosecutor. But if lawmakers pass Senate Bill 5584, the evidence would be forwarded to the independent prosecutor, who would review the case concurrently with the local prosecutor.
If both file charges, it would be a judge's job to decide whose prosecution 'will best promote the interests of justice.'
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
The idea of the state bringing charges against police officers who use deadly force isn't entirely new.
In late 2023, a jury found three officers not guilty of criminal charges in the killing of Manuel Ellis in Tacoma in a case handled by the attorney general. In that case, the Washington State Patrol investigated Ellis' death and turned its findings over to the attorney general.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


CNN
6 minutes ago
- CNN
Fetterman calls out Democrats for not condemning LA protest violence. Lawmakers respond.
US Sen. Chris Murphy and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez push back on Sen. John Fetterman's criticism of his fellow Democrats for not condemning the violence associated with the LA protests. Posting on 'X,' he said that his party 'loses the moral high ground."


Atlantic
35 minutes ago
- Atlantic
The White House Is Delighted With Events in Los Angeles
The last time President Donald Trump tried to send military forces into American streets to put down civil unrest, in June 2020, Pete Hegseth was positioned outside the White House with a Kevlar helmet and riot shield. Major Hegseth's mobilization as part of a District of Columbia National Guard unit summoned to restore order in the nation's capital, where protests had erupted following the police murder of George Floyd, occurred as Pentagon leaders scrambled to avert what they feared could be a confrontation between active-duty U.S. forces and their fellow Americans. Today, Hegseth is second only to the president in directing the administration's use of the National Guard and active-duty Marines to respond to unrest over immigration raids in Los Angeles. And this time, the military's civilian leadership isn't acting as a brake on Trump's impulse to escalate the confrontation. The Hegseth-led Pentagon is an accelerant. The administration's decision to federalize 4,000 California National Guard forces, contrary to Governor Gavin Newsom's wishes, and to dispatch 700 active-duty Marines to the Los Angeles area, marks a break with decades of tradition under which presidents have limited their use of the military on American soil. If there are any internal misgivings about busting through yet another democratic norm, they haven't surfaced publicly. Indeed, officials at the White House told us they are satisfied with the way the L.A. confrontation has unfolded. They believe that it highlights their focus on immigration and law and order, and places Democrats on the wrong side of both. One widely circulated photo—showing a masked protester standing in front of a burning car, waving a Mexican flag—has been embraced by Trump supporters as a distillation of the conflict: a president unafraid to use force to defend an American city from those he deems foreign invaders. 'We couldn't have scripted this better,' said a senior White House aide granted anonymity to discuss internal conversations. 'It's like the 2024 election never ended: Trump is strong while Democrats are weak and defending the indefensible.' Democrats, of course, take a different view, and say the administration's actions have only risked triggering further violence. Retired officers who study how the armed forces have been used in democracies told us they share those concerns. They point to the damage that Trump's orders could do to the military's relationship with the citizens it serves. 'We should be very careful, cautious, and even reluctant to use the military inside our country,' Bradley Bowman, a former Army officer who heads the defense program at the Foundation for Defense of Democracy, told us. Conor Friedersdorf: Averting a worst-case scenario in Los Angeles State and local authorities typically use law-enforcement personnel as a first response to civil disturbances or riots, followed by National Guard forces if needed. Retired Major General Randy Manner, who served as acting vice chief of the National Guard Bureau during the Obama administration, said the federalizing of California Guard forces—putting them under presidential rather than state control, a move allowed with certain limits—pulls those service members away from their civilian jobs and makes it harder to complete planned training or exercises. 'Basically, the risk does not justify the investment of these forces, and it will negatively impact on readiness,' Manner told us. Retired officers we spoke with also drew a distinction between the involvement of National Guard and active-duty forces. Whereas National Guard troops assist citizens after natural disasters and have the advantage of knowing the communities they serve, active-duty forces are primarily trained to 'see the enemy and neutralize the enemy,' said Mark Cancian, a retired Marine colonel now at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. 'When you're dealing with U.S. citizens, no matter what they're doing, that's not the right mindset.' 'This is not Fallujah,' Bowman added. 'This is Los Angeles.' Juliette Kayyem: Trump's gross misuse of the National Guard This morning, Hegseth made his first congressional appearance since his bruising confirmation process, appearing before a House committee. His tone with Democrats was at times combative. When Representative Betty McCollum, a Minnesota Democrat, asked the defense secretary what the cost of the California deployment would be, he declined to provide a figure and instead pivoted to criticism of Minnesota Governor Tim Walz for the state's response to the violence that followed Floyd's killing in 2020. (Military officials said later they expected the Los Angeles deployment, as envisioned, to cost roughly $134 million.) 'If you've got millions of illegals, you don't know where they're coming from, they're waving flags from foreign countries and assaulting police officers, that's a problem,' Hegseth told lawmakers. Trump, for his part, told reporters that anyone who tries to protest at the Saturday parade celebrating the 250th birthday of the U.S. Army will 'be met with very big force.' He also said that he wouldn't hesitate to invoke the Insurrection Act, which would permit him to employ the military for law enforcement or to suppress a rebellion, if he believed that circumstances required. Speaking to troops at Fort Bragg in North Carolina later in the day, the president promised to stop the 'anarchy' in California. ' We will liberate Los Angeles and make it free, clean, and safe again,' he said. 'We will not allow an American city to be invaded and conquered by a foreign enemy.' Some Republicans have privately expressed worry that Trump may overplay a winning hand. Even in the West Wing, two people we spoke with tried to downplay the incendiary rhetoric from Trump and Hegseth. They stressed that, to this point, National Guard forces have been in a defensive posture, protecting federal buildings. Although they believe that Trump has the political advantage at the moment, they acknowledged there would be real risks if U.S. troops got involved in violence. 'We don't know who would get blamed but no one wins if that happens,' one senior aide told us. 'No one wants to see that.' Hegseth's support for using active-duty troops in Los Angeles stands in contrast to what his predecessor did in 2020. At that time, Defense Secretary Mark Esper, along with Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Mark Milley, scrambled to block Trump's desire to employ active-duty forces against the demonstrators protesting racial violence. The president had mused about shooting protesters in the legs, Esper wrote later. To satisfy his boss while also avoiding a dangerous confrontation, the defense chief called active-duty forces from Fort Bragg to Northern Virginia but sought to keep them out of the fray. Tom Nichols: Trump is using the National Guard as bait In his 2024 book The War on Warrior s, Hegseth described how his experience as a D.C. Guardsman in 2020 crystallized his views about the divide between military personnel and what he saw as the degenerate protesters who were lobbing bricks and bottles of urine at the citizen soldiers. When the D.C. Guard was again summoned seven months later, to help secure the 2021 inauguration following the January 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol, Hegseth was told to stand down because fellow Guardsmen suspected that one of his tattoos was a sign of extremism. (Hegseth has maintained it is part of his Christian faith.) Hegseth was angered by his exclusion and resigned from the Guard. That experience remains with him as he attempts to reshape the military, and its role in society, in line with Trump's worldview. As he has written: 'My trust for this Army is irrevocably broken.'


New York Post
36 minutes ago
- New York Post
Biden admin evacuated 55 Afghans on terror watchlist to US during botched withdrawal: DOJ watchdog
US officials encountered 55 Afghan evacuees on the terrorist watchlist after the Biden administration's chaotic 2021 withdrawal from the Middle Eastern country, according to a Justice Department inspector general report. The report, released Tuesday, confirmed longstanding suspicions from Republican lawmakers that the Biden administration failed to properly vet US-bound refugees as the Taliban retook control of Afghanistan. 'I've sounded the alarm about the need to thoroughly vet Afghan evacuee applicants since August 2021,' Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) said in a statement, reacting to the DOJ IG report. 'The Biden-Harris administration, my Democrat colleagues in Congress and many in the media were quick to dismiss glaring red flags that a nonpartisan national security analysis now confirms.' 3 Grassley charged that the Biden administration endangered the lives of Americans by allowing improperly vetted Afghan refugees into the US. AP The FBI's Terrorist Screening Center (TSC) identified 55 Afghans that were either already on the terrorist watchlist and made it to a US port of entry or were added to the database during the evacuation and resettlement process, the report found. Of those, at least 21 were added to the terror list after they had already entered the US. After investigations, the FBI eventually removed 46 evacuees from the watchlist, determining that they posed no threat to the homeland. However, nine remained in the terror database as of July 2024 and eight were in the US. 'As if it wasn't already obvious, the Biden-Harris administration endangered American lives by allowing suspected terrorists to enter the United States and roam free for years,' Grassley argued, noting that his 'oversight of this matter will continue.' Roughly 90,000 Afghans were allowed entry into the US and became eligible for Special immigrant Visas under the Biden administration's Operation Allies Refuge (OAR) and Operation Allies Welcome (OAW) programs, which provided the foreign nationals immigration processing and resettlement support. 'According to the FBI, the need to immediately evacuate Afghans overtook the normal processes required to determine whether individuals attempting to enter the United States pose a threat to national security, which increased the risk that bad actors could try to exploit the expedited evacuation,' the DOJ IG report stated. Despite the 55 individuals flagged, the DOJ inspector general determined that overall 'each of the responsible elements of the FBI effectively communicated and addressed any potential national security risks identified.' 3 The Biden administration hastily evacuated tens of thousands of Afghans as the country fell to the Taliban in 2021. AFP via Getty Images 3 As of July 2024, eight Afghans on the FBI's terror watchlist were still in the United States. AP Last October, the DOJ charged an Afghan national brought into the US during the chaotic withdrawal with plotting an ISIS-inspired Election Day terror attack. Nasir Ahmad Tawhedi, 27, was living in Oklahoma City on a Special Immigrant Visa as he took steps to stockpile AK-47 rifles and ammunition to carry out an attack on US soil 'in the name of ISIS,' according to the Justice Department. Tawhedi entered the US on Sept. 9, 2021, just weeks after the Taliban regained control of Afghanistan and the last US troops departed from the war-torn nation. Tawhedi was charged with conspiring and attempting to provide material support to ISIS and is currently awaiting trial.