Council Reviews New Version of “Less-Lethal” Weapons Ban

Seattle Police Officers fire tear gas at demonstrators on Capitol Hill in June 2020 (via Chase Burns on Twitter)

By Paul Kiefer

Seattle City Council member Lisa Herbold introduced the latest version of legislation intended to restrict the Seattle Police Department’s use of so-called ‘less-lethal weapons’ against demonstrators during a public safety committee meeting on Tuesday, more than a year after the council first began its efforts to limit SPD’s crowd control arsenal. The proposal would restrict the use of tear gas, pepper-ball launchers and pepper spray by SPD officers responding to protests and outright ban five other ‘less-lethal’ weapons, including blast balls.

If passed, the proposed legislation would replace an ordinance the council passed in June 2020, which SPD never implemented, that would have prohibited police officers from using tear gas, pepper spray, blast balls and other ‘less-lethal’ weapons for crowd control.

Shortly after the ordinance passed, US District Court Judge James Robart—who oversees reforms to SPD as part of an ongoing agreement between the US Department of Justice and the city of Seattle known as the consent decree—issued a temporary restraining order preventing it from taking effect. The order came in response to a warning from the US Department of Justice that any law preventing officers from using ‘less-lethal’ weapons against crowds might make officers turn to more serious uses of force, including hitting protesters with batons.

In the aftermath of Judge Robart’s restraining order, city council members turned to Seattle’s police oversight bodies—the Office of Police Accountability (OPA), the Office of the Inspector General (OIG), and the Community Police Commission (CPC)—and the team appointed by the federal court to monitor the city’s compliance with federal court orders to rework the legislation.

Support PubliCola

If you’re reading this, we know you’re someone who appreciates deeply sourced breaking news, features, and analysis—along with guest columns from local opinion leaders, ongoing coverage of the kind of stories that get short shrift in mainstream media, and informed, incisive opinion writing about issues that matter.

We know there are a lot of publications competing for your dollars and attention, but PubliCola truly is different. We cover Seattle and King County on a budget that is funded entirely by reader contributions—no ads, no paywalls, ever.

So if you get something out of this site, consider giving something back by kicking in a few dollars a month, or making a one-time contribution, to help us keep doing this work. If you prefer to Venmo or write a check, our Support page includes information about those options. Thank you for your ongoing readership and support.

The updated bill that Herbold introduced on Tuesday reflects the latest round of feedback from the DOJ and court-appointed monitoring team, who began an informal review of the draft legislation in February. In their recommendations to the council, the monitoring team emphasized that SPD officers need to be able to use targeted crowd control weapons against people committing acts of violence within larger peaceful protests, and that SPD will need additional time to adjust to any new restrictions on less-lethal weapons.

In its current form, the bill would ban officers from using “disorientation devices” like blast balls or ultrasonic cannons under any circumstances, with the exception of flash-bang grenades, which would still be available to SWAT teams. It would also allow officers to use pepper spray and tear gas to move crowds of protesters, but only in response to a “violent public disturbance”—a legal term to describe violence committed by a group of twelve or more people.

Because the bill would require SPD to jump through new hoops to use tear gas for crowd control, it may align with recommendations by Seattle’s oversight agencies in August 2020 that the department only use the weapon “if at all, in a manner that keeps faith with the public trust.” Like the original ordinance it would replace, the proposal would also allow people to sue the city if SPD uses less-lethal weapons against nonviolent demonstrators.

In her comments to her colleagues on Tuesday, Herbold argued that the council should avoid fighting against the revisions made to appease the federal court. “We could be testing the patience of the court by bringing forward a bill that undoes the work they’ve done since February,” she said.

The public safety committee won’t vote on the latest version of the bill until next month. If the committee approves of the bill, it will need to receive the approval of the federal monitoring team and the DOJ before the full council can pass it into law. In the meantime, SPD’s latest revisions to its policy manual included no new restrictions for its crowd control arsenal.

One thought on “Council Reviews New Version of “Less-Lethal” Weapons Ban”

  1. The bill includes a right of action allowing people injured when SPD uses less lethal weapons to receive financial damages.

    Unfortunately, the right of action is so restricted that it doesn’t apply to anyone. To qualify the person injured must show:

    1) they were in a gathering so any bystanders (including people tear gassed in their own homes) are excluded

    2) the gathering was not a violent public disturbance which excludes everyone from the pink umbrella incident & march of SPOG since SPD declared them violent. And excludes the child pepper sprayed by SPD since OPA Director Meyerberg claims protesters were pushing SPD officers

Comments are closed.