Your question relates to several statutes that authorize or direct peace officers to “place a person in custody.” With respect to the laws you mentioned, the laws you mentioned do not directly contradict Bill 1310. While Bill 1310 limits the use of physical force, it does not explicitly restrict peace officers` ability to detain individuals; Officers can still do so without the use of physical force or physical force if Bill 1310 allows it. RCW 71.05, RCW 13.34 and RCW 43.185C do not contain language that would require the use of force. Instead, in some cases, they allow or require officers to detain individuals if certain conditions are met. Finally, without relying on the Terry Stop standard, officers can make “social contacts,” that is, approaching someone and asking them to talk to them or see identification. Harrington, 167 Wn.2d at 664-665; Staat v. Flores, 186 Wn.2d 506, 521, 379 p.3d 104 (2016). “Any encounter between a police officer and a citizen is not an interference that requires objective justification.” State v. Young, 135 Wn.2d 498, 511, 957 P.2d 681 (1998) (cited in United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544, 553, 100 pp. Ct.

1870, 64 L. Ed. 2d 497 (1980)). At this time, a seizure under the Fourth Amendment or Article I, Section 7 of the Constitution of the State of Washington has not yet occurred. Young, 135 Wn.2d, p. 511 (“A police officer`s conduct of engaging in a conversation with a defendant in a public place and asking for identification is not sufficient to elevate the meeting to remand”) (cited State v. Armenta, 134 Wn.2d, p. 11). Of course, the officer could not use physical force in such a discussion unless one of the conditions of Bill 1310 was met. At the other end of the spectrum, physical strength is unlikely to be “satisfied by any contact” because its definitions “suggest a certain level of strength.” Johnson, 559 U.S.

at 139. The dictionary definition of physical violence implies an effort to overcome some form of resistance, or at least a limitation of a person`s free will to act as they wish. Therefore, actions that do not involve restrictions for anyone, but are intended to help, would likely not be considered physical violence. For example, helping someone from the ground who has fallen or is impaired while “of or relating to the body” and involves energy used to support them would not be “violence” because the officer is not trying to restrain or control that person, and it is unlikely that the person would try to stay on the ground. Similarly, picking up a young child and transporting them to a safe place would not be considered violence in most cases. However, efforts to provide assistance could, in some circumstances, escalate into physical violence if individuals resist and officers continue their efforts to force them into positions or situations they do not want to be in. But even if a person in need of help objects to that help, violence can still be justified if one of the four points of Bill 1310 is respected, such as the use of force to protect against imminent danger of bodily harm to the peace officer, another person or the person against whom the violence is being used. RCW 10.120.020(1)(a). [1] In addition to adding and amending these items, E2SHB 1310 cancelled RCW 10.31.050 (agent may use force).

Statutes 2021, c. 324, § 7. The legislator recognizes that further clarity is needed following the passage of Initiative No. 940 (Chapter 1, Acts of 2019) and Bill No. 1064 on the Acting House of Representatives (Chapter 4, Acts of 2019). Parliament intends to address excessive force and police discrimination by establishing the obligation for law enforcement officers and community law enforcement officers to act with due diligence in the performance of their duties, including the use of de-escalation tactics and alternatives to lethal force. As this example illustrates, the exclusive interpretation of the list in paragraph 10.120.020(1)(a) of the CWR appears to limit the use of force by law enforcement authorities in a manner that Parliament may not have foreseen or contemplated. But, as explained below, although the exclusive interpretation of this provision creates some tension with these other provisions, we believe that they can be reconciled, and we do not believe that this tension is sufficient to prevail over the text and intent described above. The third factor that complicates the exclusive interpretation of paragraph 10.120.020(1)(a) of the CWR is that certain statutes dealing with the use of force by public servants have not been amended or eliminated by Bill 1310. One such law is RCW 9A.16.020, which states that violence is not unlawful if it is “necessarily used by a public official in the exercise of a legal duty” or “used by a person to prevent a person with mental illness, mental incapacity or disability from committing an act dangerous to a person, or to impose restrictions necessary to protect or restore the person`s health. Apply.

only for the period necessary to obtain legal authority to retain or have custody of the person. RCW 9A.16.020(1), (6).