Washington State Bill Would Reduce Low-Level Traffic Stops
Photo by Wayan Vota
A new bill in Washington state would reduce traffic stops for low-level violations. State Bill 1513, currently in committee in the state House, would raise the threshold for a traffic stop to vehicular problems in which “an equipment failure on the vehicle may cause immediate, serious injury to the operator or other persons in the vicinity of the vehicle.” This would eliminate stops for such infractions as missing one tail light, and reduce law enforcement encounters in situations that have proven dangerous for drivers, passengers and police.
The bill also sets requirements for law enforcement to document the primary reason for any traffic enforcement (e.g. if it was in response to a citizen’s call), whether searches were conducted and if property was seized.
If enacted, the law would be similar to a Virginia statute passed in 2020 that bans traffic stops for minor offenses such as tinted windows or no license-plate light. The Virginia law says that evidence collected in such a stop will be invalid in court. Philadelphia, Pittsburgh and San Francisco have recently passed similar laws.
The legislation comes against a backdrop of high-profile deadly encounters between motorists and law enforcement across the United States. Washington State Representative Chipalo Street, who sponsored the bill in the House, puts the focus primarily on traffic safety: “There is clear correlation between what we ask our police to enforce and the safety related outcomes.”
Washington had 745 road deaths in 2022, its highest number since 1990. Rep. Street hopes that by deemphasizing lower-level offenses that don’t threaten public safety, law enforcement will have time and resources to focus on more dangerous behaviors. “Data from Washington state shows that, as enforcement citations for impaired driving, distracted driving, speeding and seatbelt violations decrease, fatalities increase,” says Street.
Citing other jurisdictions that have passed similar laws, he notes the town of Newington, CT where a decision to deprioritize non-moving violations resulted in a 250% increase in DUI arrests. Street says he was also swayed by data showing that increases in stops and searches did not result in finding higher-level offenses. In the city of Tacoma, WA, out of more than 2,000 traffic stops, just .11% of them resulted in police finding contraband.
Washington state also shows a racial disparity in law enforcement encounters. Drivers of color are twice as likely to be stopped and searched, and Native Americans five times as likely as white Washington drivers, despite white drivers being more likely to be found with drugs or weapons. So while the primary emphasis of the law is on prioritizing more serious offenses, “we also reduce the chances that enforced interaction turns tragic for the police officer or a member of the public,” says Street.
Several nationally publicized cases of drivers being killed by police started with traffic stops for a low-level offense such as a missing light or a turn signal violation. Numerous studies have shown encounters with police, and traffic stops in particular, are hazardous for both law enforcement and the alleged offender.
Research has also shown people of color are disproportionately affected by such police action. A study by the journal, Nature, found “that police stops and search decisions suffer from persistent racial bias and point to the value of policy interventions to mitigate these disparities.”
In a study published by 538, cities that reduced low-level arrests, both for traffic and public conduct, also saw a reduction in police shootings. It also found that “cities that made fewer arrests for low-level offenses did not see a substantial reduction in violent crime arrests, suggesting a more lenient approach to low-level offenses has not resulted in police being less responsive to serious public safety threats.”
When writing about this issue in his book, Confessions of a Recovering Engineer, Strong Towns founder Charles Marohn cited a conversation with a local police chief who instructed his officers to look for “any reason to make a stop and then use that interaction as a stepping-stone of sorts to look for bigger things,” such as higher-level offenses or fugitives. Such stops were also seen as a means to add seized property to the city’s asset forfeiture fund. Marohn has been a longtime advocate for changes such as this Washington bill, “We need to approach traffic safety in a way that does not depend on law enforcement for routine matters,” and instead makes police available for more serious crimes that affect public safety.
Rep. Street hopes this legislation will accomplish just that: “Trying to fight crime through traffic stops is an incredibly inefficient use of our police resources.”
Like many Strong Towns advocates, you may struggle with imposter syndrome, feeling like you’re not qualified enough to talk to city officials and staff about changing the way cities are designed or operated. But it’s essential that you keep speaking up. Here’s why.