By Erica C. Barnett
The Seattle City Council narrowly rejected Councilmember Andrew Lewis’ proposal to fast-track a bill empowering City Attorney Ann Davison to prosecute people for drug possession and public use, voting to allow the bill to go through the regular committee process. The impact of the vote is that the council will take up the bill after they return from the regular August recess, allowing council staff the time to draft amendments and analyze the latest version of the legislation.
Councilmembers Sara Nelson and Alex Pedersen introduced the first version of the drug criminalization bill last April, after the state adopted legislation making drug possession and public drug use a gross misdemeanor. Initially, Lewis voted against the legislation, citing Davison’s unilateral decision to abandon Seattle Community Court, but he has since become one of the bill’s most vocal advocates, arguing that the work of Mayor Bruce Harrell’s fentanyl task force will produce policy and legal alternatives to the traditional arrest-and-prosecution system.
While the bill says diversion and other options are the “preferred” alternatives to arrest, it does not require diversion or lay out the kind of circumstances in which diversion would be appropriate. Instead, it directs SPD to develop “guidance on diversion” as part of policies that will “state that diversion and referral to services is the preferred response to possession and public use while acknowledging that arrests are warranted in some situations.”
The latest version of the bill includes 13 additional “whereas” clauses, along with eight new findings about the state of the drug crisis in Seattle. It also adds a new section to the Seattle Municipal Code stating that, in the future, police will adopt policies governing arrests for drug possession and public drug use, and that those policies will state that alternatives like diversion and treatment “are the preferred approach” when police make arrests under the new law.
At a committee meeting to discuss the drug criminalization bill Monday afternoon, council members discussed several issues with the legislation that PubliCola pointed out two weeks ago.
First, while the bill says diversion and other options are the “preferred” alternatives to arrest, it does not require diversion, provide funding for alternatives to arrest, or provide examples of circumstances in which diversion would be appropriate. Instead, it directs SPD to develop “guidance on diversion” as part of policies that will “state that diversion and referral to services is the preferred response to possession and public use while acknowledging that arrests are warranted in some situations.”
Beyond this, the ordinance delegates to individual officers the authority to decide whether a person poses a threat, based on “the totality of the circumstances and the officer’s training and experience,” which is essentially the current system, augmented by some new training on what constitutes a drug-specific threat.
“The standard mirrors the practical thought process that officers ordinarily apply in the field when deciding whether to make an arrest, and it allows for it encourages officers to exercise discretion,” mayoral advisor Andrew Myerberg told the council. If a person is only a “threat to self,” the bill says officers should “make a reasonable attempt to contact and coordinate efforts for diversion, outreach, and other alternatives,” but leaves that decision, too, up to individual officers.
“The fundamental goal of this ordinance and executives overall approach to the synthetic opioid crisis is to increase the proportion of individuals suffering from addiction who seek and accept treatment services,” Myerberg said.
Councilmember Teresa Mosqueda pointed out the obvious: The mayor’s office has not proposed funding for addiction, treatment, or diversion programs. “It seems important that the resources be sufficiently invested into the alternative strategies so that people are not being given a false promise that there will be a diversion strategy [but] we don’t have those resources,” Councilmember Teresa Mosqueda said. “And where will that funding come from?”
The law does not address private use of illegal drugs inside people’s homes.
Second, while Harrell has stated (and mainstream media outlets have inaccurately reported) that the bill includes $27 million for treatment and other alternatives to arrest, the bill never mentions money or spending priorities. In fact, as council budget chair Teresa Mosqueda noted repeatedly on Monday, the “new” $27 million is a combination of $7 million in grant funding the city didn’t spend in previous years, plus $1 million a year from two state settlements with opioid manufacturers and distributors. Harrell has indicated he wants to use the money to stand up and staff the proposed opioid response center he announced in April. That would leave no additional funding for programs like LEAD, REACH, and We Deliver Care, to which Myerberg said police could direct people who break the new law.
“When I’m talking to officers in the field about this [harm to others] concept, I guess there is a concern that it is an additional layer of complexity and standard that would be put on [officers. Personally I believe that the council should have incorporated state law, and then if some council members and others wanted to add policy or funding, they could have done that shortly after adopting the ordinance.”—Councilmember Alex Pedersen
At Monday’s meeting, Pedersen and Nelson raised concerns that the bill would create ambiguity and introduce new challenges for police officers that would make it harder for them to do their jobs.
“When I’m talking to officers in the field about this [harm to others] concept, I guess there is a concern that it is an additional layer of complexity and standard that would be put on” officers, Pedersen said. “Personally, I believe that the council should have incorporated state law into our Seattle Municipal Code and then if some council members and others wanted to add policy or funding, they could have done that shortly after adopting the ordinance.”
Myerberg said the legislation isn’t “asking [officers] to reinvent the wheel.” While it is Harrell’s “intent” to steer people toward diversion and treatment, officers will still get to make the calls they consider appropriate in all cases, including arrest if they believe it’s necessary to prevent harm or get someone to go into treatment or crisis care. “[Harrell is] asking them to do what they already do,” Myerberg said. “The executive remains clear that such a decision will be within the discretion of the officer. It will be fact-specific and individual-dependent.”
In late July, the Seattle Police Officers Guild “applauded” the new legislation, saying it would help “restor[e] public safety to the city.” This suggests that, at the very least, SPOG —which has a history of opposing substantive police reforms—does not expect the bill to cause major disruptions to officers’ usual way of doing business.
Including a preference for diversion in the police manual could lead to incremental change. But without significantly more funding, it’s unlikely to result in different outcomes, either for people using drugs in public or the general public witnessing public drug use.
Myerberg noted Harrell’s personal commitment to encouraging alternatives to arrest and prosecution, which stem partly from his direct experience as a Black man growing up in Seattle during the drug war. But intent is not the same thing as law; mayors come and go, and their lasting impact isn’t meaning well, but pushing through tangible, legally binding changes that last longer than a single administration.
A.A./N.A. meetings are filled with “blue light specials.” These are folks who were arrested for a dui or similarly related offense, and were required to go to meetings. For many, but not all, this was their introduction to getting clean/sober.
Many, but not all have benefited and are still alive from court intervention. Some get it the first time, others need to rinse and repeat, and for all too many time just runs out.
One size fits no one. Sending somebody to treatment is a clinical decision, not a political one. There seems to be a well intended myth about the need send everyone (slight exaggeration) to inpatient treatment. That may help keep them alive while they are in the facility, but you can’t keep them there forever & we can’t begin to build enough supportive living facilities to house people indefinitely after completing inpatient.
All that being said, doing nothing is not the answer. Doing nothing ensures the worst outcomes for the greatest number of people. The best clinicians, courts, and lawmakers can do is create the opportunity & support for people to be successful. Not everyone will take advantage of the opportunity. But some will.
How is “harm” defined? And why is harm to our city businesses, the civic fabric and public safety not a clear part of the definition? A year ago I went to the Interbay Triple AAA to get a passport photo and travel items. The entire front was boarded up because a car had driven through it in an attempted heist. Due to the epidemic drug-fueled vandalism, violence and theft AAA is closing and going online only, Builders Hardware is moving to Kent, and Staples is closing. I do not know how much longer Albert Lee Appliance will hang on after vagrant fires nearly burned down their building. Interbay will become a ghost town. Vandalism, graffiti, and fires will follow and the area will go from thriving business zone to dystopic no man’s land. We have already seen this happen in the area around 12th and Jackson, where similar policies of enablement and protection of the drug market over legitimate businesses has led to a state of possibly irreversible blight.
This is harm. We are encouraging dozens of solid hardworking people and business to go under or leave (taking their tax earnings with them) to favor the freedom of a tiny fraction of the population that wallows in addiction and supports addiction through crime.
lol, another whiner without a solution. Look around you, it’s not just Seattle; cities around the country are dealing with the same shit. It’s a much more complicated and expensive fix than you can fathom.
We do need treatment services in jail. I propose reducing funding by $100 million to KCRHA this year and use that to fund drug treatment instead
What good is making an arrest if there’s, not enough cops to arrest them, no jail to take them, no treatment to give them, no court to hear the case, and no place for them to go or live after they might happen to receive any of those services? For fucksake, it’s not rocket science people, but it’s expensive as shit to actually do something beyond a revolving door. Every single council member and Hizzoner are just blowing election smoke out their ass.
Hey, none of that matters. The idea is to criminalize the poor and desperate, and we need to get that on the books yesterday!
This appears to be an election season kabuki (with apologies to the Japanese) performance that is intended to preserve the status quo while talking about and pretending like something will change.
What I’d like to see is contruction of a capacious structure to which the addicted would be mandatorily placed when found doing drugs publicly or obviously under the influence publicly. While I think the idea and practice has been that this can’t happen because these folks are not disabled enough, I take exception to that. These folks, by definition as substance abuse sufferers, are a blatantly obvious danger to themselves and others. Others because they are traumatized by having to observe this, having their lives and properties damaged and stolen, etc. This should be enough, and would bring a sense of real intention to address the problem and resolve it. What we’re doing is not good for anyone and not effective except for hoovering up our tax dollars and giving us pretty much nothing in return.
And who is going to pay for it? It is easy to come up with a solution from your couch with a closed wallet…
We’re already paying for it. Except our dollars are being given to ineffective political cronies. Cut them off & spend the money in a way that has some good effect. And I don’t see you coming up with any solutions from your couch with a closed wallet or otherwise–you seem to be wasting time–yours and ours–with worthless trolling.
@pat simon – besides working daily on these issues 40 hours a week, I have lots of solutions, but idiots like you don’t want to pay for them.
Why even wait to see if they’re “under the influence”? Just toss ’em in jail. That’ll learn ’em, and our glorious city can once again be the upper income earners paradise is has always been up until we got a couple of “progressives” on the council and caused the evil fall.
i know this is satire but its really getting hard to tell out here
You’re seriously advocating for forced internment camps for anyone labeled “addicted” found doing drugs publicly or obviously under the influence publicly? Didn’t this country fight a rather stern war against that kind of ideology?
There is a mechanism for forcing people into treatment (not internment camps) when they are a danger to themselves and/or others and/or are gravely disabled. For me, being addicted to drugs and forcing the public to see them killing themselves, leaving their bodily wastes and dangerous syringes all over the ground in parks and elsewhere meets those criteria. You may not have an issue with that, but I do.
Well under half of the city’s homeless use any substance. Numbers run between 33 and 38 percent, depending on the study. Of those, well over half are only using cannabis or alcohol. Differentiating between on street counts and total numbers (excluding those living in cars and shelters, basically), and about 5% of the homeless population *might* be doing what you describe. Maybe.
I suggest we deal with the 95% first.