Controversial bill spelling out removal for decertified sheriffs advances in Washington legislature

When the bill requiring new eligibility standards for sheriffs and police chiefs passed the Washington state Senate on Feb. 12, Sen. Jeff Wilson (R-Longview) said Pacific County may be the bill’s potential “first victim.” The bill's requirement for five years’ law enforcement experience would disqualify their current sheriff, Daniel Garcia, a naval veteran who won office without prior law enforcement experience.

Now, Democrats in the House have defused that particular issue by exempting incumbents like Garcia from the new requirements.

RELATED: Stricter standards for Washington sheriffs approved in state Senate

Sen. John Lovick (D-Mill Creek), the bill’s prime sponsor and the former sheriff in Snohomish County, told KUOW that the change “has lowered the temperature on a lot of things.” He noted that some sheriffs — like Whatcom County Sheriff Donnell Tanksley — have signaled support for the new eligibility and background check requirements, while opposing the provision to automatically remove sheriffs who are decertified.

Lovick said existing state law only allows law enforcement officers, including sheriffs, to be decertified for “serious misconduct” and he said the fears that sheriffs will be targeted for decertification based on their political beliefs are misplaced.

“Out of the 39 sheriffs, I doubt if there’s a single sheriff that’s going to have to deal with this,” Lovick said. “But they’ll know that they will be held accountable.”

However, the elected sheriffs appear largely unified against a key aspect of Lovick’s proposal, SB 5974, which specifies that if a sitting sheriff is decertified by the state’s Criminal Justice Training Commission, the position will be declared vacant to ensure that decertified sheriffs don’t remain on the job. In that event, county officials would appoint their replacement. The sheriffs promoted a different bill in which decertification would trigger a recall vote.

King County Sheriff Patti Cole-Tindall, currently the state’s only appointed sheriff, said she would let her colleagues weigh in on the bill's implications for elected sheriffs.

“I can understand and appreciate the premise behind this proposed legislation and why it was drafted,” Cole-Tindall said in a statement. “I agree that minimum qualifications and basic standards be put in place.”

For herself, she pledged to abide by the eligibility requirements and decertification provisions in the bill.

RELATED: No cops hired so far with Washington state's new $100M grant program

The decertification process is overseen by the state’s Criminal Justice Training Commission, which was expanded five years ago to include a majority of civilians, along with members of law enforcement.

Mason County Sheriff Ryan Spurling is currently serving on the commission. He supports strong accountability measures, and said the decertification cases he’s observed so far were valid, in his opinion.

But he said the atmosphere of a sheriff's office is inherently more political than under an appointed chief; Spurling said he's seen attempts to discredit sheriffs with politically motivated complaints which he’s worried could threaten their candidacies or their certification.

“I know a sheriff during last election, his opponents made complaints against him that were erroneous but they weaponized it during the campaign,” he said.

Spurling said he supports the provisions in state law mandating decertification for criminal convictions or violation around excessive use of force. But Spurling said state law also allows decertification if an officer makes statements “involving prejudice or discrimination” against protected groups. Spurling said that may conflict with the free speech rights of elected sheriffs to criticize laws that they believe are not supported by their constituents.

“If a sheriff — for example, in Klickitat County — feels his constituency wants him to work with ICE and that’s what his county wants him to say as an elected, shouldn’t he be able to say that?” Spurling said. “The moment he breaks the law, he should be removed, I agree with that. But shouldn’t he be able to say what he wants to say without being removed?”

RELATED: Washington state Senate passes mask ban to curb federal immigration enforcement tactics

Spurling was referring to Klickitat County Sheriff Bob Songer, who posted a video offering to facilitate federal immigration enforcement, which could potentially violate the Keep Washington Working Act. State Attorney General Nick Brown also sued the Adams County Sheriff for allegedly violating that law; his spokesperson said a trial is currently set for July.

Some of the more vehement opposition to the bill has come from Pierce County Sheriff Keith Swank and supporters of the constitutional sheriff movement, which promotes the idea that sheriffs answer only to their voters and aren’t obligated to enforce laws that they deem unjust.

“That’s simply false when it comes to Washington state,” said retired University of Washington law professor Hugh Spitzer, who is a state constitution expert. “All elected officials have the duty to follow the law. And in Washington, no elected officials can pick and choose among the laws that they wish to follow or enforce.”

“Legislation can set statewide eligibility standards for law enforcement officers at all levels, including elected law enforcement leaders,” he added.

Spitzer said legislators also set eligibility standards for elected judges and prosecutors, who can lose their seats if they are disbarred by the state bar association for misconduct. They can appeal those decisions to the Washington Supreme Court.

A law enforcement officer could also appeal his or her decertification in state courts, Spitzer said. But Sheriff Spurling said one key difference is that judges and prosecutors are disciplined by their professional peers; decertification cases are considered by a five-person panel in which the majority of members are not law enforcement.

The bill is opposed by the Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs, which states: “Although everyone acknowledges that if a Sheriff were decertified, they would not and should not be able to perform as a sworn law enforcement officer, it is a big jump to allow a state board to remove the person elected by voters.”

However, the Washington Council of Police & Sheriffs, a labor organization made up of police officer guilds, supports the bill, telling lawmakers that “few things erode trust more than leader not held to account.”

This bill is also supported by the Washington Coalition for Police Accountability. It builds on laws passed in 2021 to make the decertification process more accessible and transparent.

Supporters say the state’s qualifications for law enforcement leaders, as well as the roles of volunteers which are addressed in this bill, have not been updated in decades.

The bill could soon go to the House floor, after which it could return to the Senate to review the most recent changes.