1200 King County King County Courthouse 516 Third Avenue Seattle, WA 98104 Meeting Agenda Law and Justice Committee
Councilmembers: Girmay Zahilay, Chair; Kathy Lambert, Vice-Chair; Claudia Balducci, Rod Dembowski, Reagan Dunn, Jeanne Kohl-Welles
Lead Staff: Nick Bowman (206-477-7607) Committee Clerk: Angelica Calderon (206-477-0874)
9:30 AM Tuesday, August 31, 2021 Virtual Meeting
REVISED AGENDA - SPECIAL MEETING
PUBLIC NOTICE: The Law and Justice Committee meetings will be held virtually until further notice. To help prevent the spread of the COVID 19 virus the chambers will be closed and all committee members and staff will be participating in the meeting remotely. The live feed of the video conference will be streaming on the King County Council's website and on KCTV Channel 22. Ways to provide public comment are noted below.
Pursuant to K.C.C. 1.24.035 A. and F., this meeting is also noticed as a meeting of the Metropolitan King County Council, whose agenda is limited to the committee business. In this meeting only the rules and procedures applicable to committees apply and not those applicable to full council meetings.
HOW TO PROVIDE PUBLIC COMMENT: The Law and Justice Committee values community input and looks forward to hearing from you on agenda items.
There are two ways to provide public comment:
1) In writing: You may comment in writing on agenda items by submitting your written comments to [email protected] or by going to https://kingcounty.gov/council/committees/law_justice.aspx and selecting "Click Here to Submit Written Public Comment". If your comments are submitted before 8:30 a.m. on the day of the Law and Justice Committee meeting, your comments will be distributed to the committee members and appropriate staff prior to the meeting.
King County Page 1 Printed on 8/26/2021 L&J Meeting Materials Page 1 August 31, 2021 Law and Justice Committee Meeting Agenda August 31, 2021
2) Orally during the meeting by phone via the ZOOM application or computer at https://zoom.us/ and entering the meeting identification and password below.
Meeting ID: 224 110 7915 Passcode: 011668
If you do not have access to the ZOOM application you can connect to the meeting by calling 1 253 215 8782 and using the meeting ID and password above. Connecting in this manner however may impact your ability to be unmuted to speak.
You are not required to sign up in advance. During this period of virtual meetings, public comment will be limited to items on the meeting agenda.
You have the right to language access services at no cost to you. To request these services, please contact our Language Access Coordinator, Reeni Nair at 206 477 4978, or [email protected], by 11:00 a.m. the day prior to the meeting.
If you do not wish to be called upon for public comment during the meeting, please help us manage the callers and use one of the options below (Live Streaming or King County TV Channel 22.
To show a PDF of the written materials for an agenda item, click on the agenda item below. 1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call
3. Approval of Minutes
Minutes of May 4, 2021 meeting pp. 4-7
4. Public Comment
Discussion and Possible Action
5. Proposed Ordinance No. 2021-0193 pp. 8-29
AN ORDINANCE relating to the public defense advisory board; and amending Ordinance 17678, Section 4, and K.C.C. 2.60.031. Sponsors: Mr. Zahilay Jenny Giambattista, Council Staff
King County Page 2 Printed on 8/26/2021
L&J Meeting Materials Page 2 August 31, 2021 Law and Justice Committee Meeting Agenda August 31, 2021
6. Proposed Ordinance No. 2021-0194 pp. 30-39
AN ORDINANCE relating to the public defender selection process; and amending Ordinance 17588, Section 4, as amended, and K.C.C. 2.60.026. Sponsors: Mr. Zahilay Jenny Giambattista, Council Staff
7. Proposed Motion No. 2021-0205 pp. 40-53
A MOTION requesting the executive develop a plan for establishing a community-based countywide hotline, web portal, incident reporting requirements for a countywide data collection system and public awareness campaign for persons to report hate crimes and incidents.
Sponsors: Mr. Dunn Mike Reed, Council Staff
8. Proposed Motion No. 2021-0156 pp. 54-86
A MOTION signaling the council's intent to establish a hate crimes unit within the criminal investigation division of the department of public safety. Sponsors: Mr. Dunn
Nick Bowman, Council Staff
Briefing
9. Briefing No. 2021-B0112 no materials
Evaluation of King County Sheriff’s Office: Policy, Practice, and Review Mechanisms for Officer-Involved Shootings: Systemic Review relating to the November 25, 2019 Officer-Involved Shooting of Anthony Chilcott.
Adrienne Wat, Interim Director, Office of Law Enforcement Oversight Katy Kirschner, Senior Policy Analyst, Office of Law Enforcement Oversight Mitzi Johanknecht, Sheriff, King County Sheriff’s Office
Adjournment
King County Page 3 Printed on 8/26/2021
L&J Meeting Materials Page 3 August 31, 2021 1200 King County King County Courthouse 516 Third Avenue Seattle, WA 98104 Meeting Minutes Law and Justice Committee Councilmembers: Girmay Zahilay, Chair; Kathy Lambert, Vice-Chair; Claudia Balducci, Rod Dembowski, Reagan Dunn, Jeanne Kohl-Welles
Lead Staff: Nick Bowman (206-477-7607) Committee Clerk: Angelica Calderon (206-477-0874)
9:30 AM Tuesday, May 4, 2021 Virtual Meeting
DRAFT MINUTES
1. Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Chair Girmay Zahilay at 9:31 a.m
2. Roll Call Present: 6 - Ms. Balducci, Mr. Dembowski, Mr. Dunn, Ms. Kohl-Welles, Ms. Lambert and Mr. Zahilay
3. Approval of Minutes Councilmember Kohl-Welles moved approval of the April 6, 2021, meeting minutes. There being no objections, the minutes were approved.
4. Public Comment The following individuals provided public comment
1. Hester Serebrin 2. David Song
King County Page 1
L&J Meeting Materials Page 4 August 31, 2021
Law and Justice Committee Meeting Minutes May 4, 2021
Discussion and Possible Action
5. Proposed Motion No. 2021-0144
A MOTION confirming the executive's appointment of Michele Turner, to the King County emergency management advisory committee, representing private business and industry. Nick Bowman, Council Staff, briefed the Committee on the legislation and answered questions from the members. Michele Turner, Head of Global Business Resiliency, Amazon, appointee to the King County emergency management advisory committee, addressed the committee and answered questions from the members.
A motion was made by Council Member Dunn that this Motion be Recommended Do Pass Consent. The motion carried by the following vote:
Yes: 6 - Ms. Balducci, Mr. Dembowski, Mr. Dunn, Ms. Kohl-Welles, Ms. Lambert and Mr. Zahilay
6. Proposed Motion No. 2021-0145
A MOTION confirming the executive's appointment of Terry Miller, who resides in council district two, to the King County emergency management advisory committee, representing the King County fire commissioners association.
Nick Bowman, Council Staff, briefed the Committee on the legislation and answered questions from the members. Terry Miller, appointee to the King County emergency management advisory committee was present.
A motion was made by Council Member Dunn that this Motion be Recommended Do Pass Consent. The motion carried by the following vote:
Yes: 6 - Ms. Balducci, Mr. Dembowski, Mr. Dunn, Ms. Kohl-Welles, Ms. Lambert and Mr. Zahilay
7. Proposed Motion No. 2021-0146
A MOTION confirming the executive's appointment of Ellen Montanana, who resides in council district six, to the King County emergency management advisory committee, representing the city of Bellevue. Nick Bowman, Council Staff, briefed the Committee on the legislation and answered questions from the members. Ellen Montanana, Emergency Planning Program Administrator, City of Bellevue Fire Department, appointee to the King County emergency management advisory committee, addressed the committee and answered questions from the members.
A motion was made by Council Member Dunn that this Motion be Recommended Do Pass Consent. The motion carried by the following vote:
Yes: 6 - Ms. Balducci, Mr. Dembowski, Mr. Dunn, Ms. Kohl-Welles, Ms. Lambert and Mr. Zahilay
King County Page 2
L&J Meeting Materials Page 5 August 31, 2021
Law and Justice Committee Meeting Minutes May 4, 2021
8. Proposed Motion No. 2021-0147
A MOTION confirming the executive's appointment of the Honorable Linda Newing, mayor, city of Newcastle, who resides in council district nine, to the King County emergency management advisory committee, as an alternate to the Sound Cities Association representative.
Nick Bowman, Council Staff, briefed the Committee on the legislation and answered questions from the members. Linda Newing, Mayor, City of Newcastle, appointee to the King County emergency management advisory committee, addressed the committee and answered questions from the members.
A motion was made by Council Member Dunn that this Motion be Recommended Do Pass Consent. The motion carried by the following vote:
Yes: 6 - Ms. Balducci, Mr. Dembowski, Mr. Dunn, Ms. Kohl-Welles, Ms. Lambert and Mr. Zahilay
9. Proposed Motion No. 2021-0154
A MOTION confirming the executive's appointment of Michelle Kinberg, who works in council district six, to the King County emergency management advisory committee, as an alternate for the city of Bellevue representative.
Nick Bowman, Council Staff, briefed the Committee on the legislation and answered questions from the members. Michelle Kinberg, Emergency Management Senior Administrative Assistant, City of Bellevue Fire Department's Office of Emergency Management, appointee to the King County emergency management advisory committee, addressed the committee and answered questions from the members.
A motion was made by Council Member Dunn that this Motion be Recommended Do Pass Consent. The motion carried by the following vote:
Yes: 6 - Ms. Balducci, Mr. Dembowski, Mr. Dunn, Ms. Kohl-Welles, Ms. Lambert and Mr. Zahilay
10. Proposed Motion No. 2021-0156
A MOTION signaling the council's intent to establish a hate crimes unit within the criminal investigation division of the department of public safety. This matter was Deferred
11. Proposed Motion No. 2021-0164
A MOTION affirming the King County council's support for the emotional and mental health programs under development by the King County sheriff's office; and requesting the sheriff's office provide a report evaluating the programs developed by the temporary wellness and resiliency deputy coordinate position.
Nick Bowman, Council Staff, briefed the Committee on the legislation and answered questions from the members. Jesse Anderson, Chief, Patrol Operation Division, King County Sheriff's Office, commented and answered questions from the members.
Councilmember Lambert asked to be added as co-sponsor to the legislation.
This matter was Deferred
King County Page 3
L&J Meeting Materials Page 6 August 31, 2021
Law and Justice Committee Meeting Minutes May 4, 2021
12. Proposed Motion No. 2021-0166
A MOTION approving a reimagining transit safety and security report, in response to the 2021-2022 Biennial Budget Ordinance, Ordinance 19210, Section 113, Proviso P5. Mary Bourguignon, Council Staff, briefed the Committee on the legislation and answered questions from the members. Terry White, General Manager, Metro Transit, briefed the Committee and answered questions from the members.
A motion was made by Vice-Chair Lambert that this Motion be Recommended Do Pass Consent. The motion carried by the following vote:
Yes: 6 - Ms. Balducci, Mr. Dembowski, Mr. Dunn, Ms. Kohl-Welles, Ms. Lambert and Mr. Zahilay
Other Business OLEO Director’s Report. Adrienne Wat, Interim OLEO Director provided the committee with a status update on OLEO’s ongoing work and answered questions from the members.
Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 10:49 a.m.
Approved this ______day of ______
Clerk's Signature
King County Page 4
L&J Meeting Materials Page 7 August 31, 2021 Metropolitan King County Council Law & Justice Committee
STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item: 5 Name: Jenny Giambattista Proposed No.: 2021-0193 Date: August 31, 2021
SUBJECT
Proposed Ordinance 2021-0193 would amend Ordinance 17678, Section 4, and K.C.C 2.60.031 relating to the Public Defense Advisory Board.
SUMMARY
The Public Defense Advisory Board (PDAB) was created in 2013. Proposed Ordinance 2021-0193 reflects the changes recommended by PDAB to King County Code section 2.60.031 relating to the Public Defense Advisory Board. These changes are focused on the board member selection process and reporting requirements and do not substantively change the overall function and duties of the board. Staff have also prepared a striking amendment to reflect additional changes supported by Executive staff and PDAB.
BACKGROUND
Creation of the Board
The King County Public Defense Advisory Board (“the Board”) was created, along with the King County Department of Public Defense and the office of County Public Defender, by a charter amendment that the Council placed on the November 2013 ballot by adopting Ordinance 17614.1 The PDAB began meeting in August 2014.
Section 350.20.65 of the King County Charter provides that the County Council shall prescribe by ordinance the Board's membership, the process and qualifications for appointment to the Board, and the Board’s rules and procedures.2
Duties of the Board
Section 350.20.65 assigns the following duties to the Board:
1 Both the Department and the Board were created in response to a Washington Supreme Court ruling and the proposed settlement of a class action lawsuit against King County regarding county benefits for public defense agency employees (Dolan v. King County). 2 Section 2.60.031(C) of the King County Code (Att. 17) provides in part that the Board “shall establish its own rules of procedure, subject to the county charter, the county code and other applicable law, and shall choose its own chair.”
L&J Meeting Materials Page 8 August 31, 2021 • “[R]eview, advise and report on the department of public defense in a manner that may be prescribed by ordinance”;
• “[A]dvise the executive and council on matters of equity and social justice related to public defense”;
• “In the event of a vacancy in the office of county public defender, . . . recommend candidates from whom the county executive shall make an appointment to fill the vacancy subject to confirmation by the county council”; and
• Such additional duties as the County Council may prescribe by ordinance.
Section 2.60.031 of the King County Code assigns the following additional duties to the Board:
• Work collaboratively with the County Public Defender (KCC 2.60.031(B));
• Through the Board chair, consult with the County Prosecutor, the Courts, and the Department of Public Defense in the performance of all the Board’s duties except the recommendation of candidates to serve as County Public Defender (2.60.031(B));
• Meet at least once every two months (KCC 2.60.031(H)); and
• Issue at least two written reports to the Executive and the Council each calendar year: one on the Board’s review of the Executive’s proposed budget for public defense and one on the state of county public defense; the latter report must include an assessment of the county’s progress in promoting equity and social justice related to the criminal justice system and may include recommendations for advancing equity and social justice.
Board Membership
The 11-member Board is required by the county code (KCC 2.60.031(D)) to consist of one representative from each of the following:
1. The Washington Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers;
2. The Washington state Office of Public Defense;
3. The Washington Defender Association;
4. The King County Bar Association;
5. A bar association identified as a minority bar association by the Washington State Bar Association;
6. A nonpartisan organization active in King County that focuses on mental health issues;
L&J Meeting Materials Page 9 August 31, 2021 7. A nonpartisan organization active in King County that focuses on substance abuse issues;
8. A nonpartisan organization active in King County that focuses on issues concerning military veterans;
9. A nonpartisan organization active in King County that focuses on issues related to poverty;
10. A nonpartisan organization active in King County that focuses on juvenile justice issues; and
11. A nonpartisan organization active in King County that focuses on immigration issues.
KCC 2.60.031(G) sets the following additional requirements:
• “Each member of the advisory board shall have substantial experience and expertise that are relevant to the work of the department of public defense and shall have an ability and willingness to commit the time necessary to attend meetings and participate effectively as a member of the board.”
• “A majority of the members should have substantial familiarity with advocating on behalf of the indigent.”
• “To the extent practicable, the board membership shall reflect the diversity of the county.”
• “A member may not, while serving on the board, hold elective public office except precinct committee officer, be a candidate for elective public office except precinct committee officer, serve as a King County judicial officer, a King County prosecuting attorney or a King County public defender or be an employee of a King County court, the King County prosecuting attorney or the King County department of public defense.”
Terms of Board Members
Board members serve three-year terms. To avoid excessive turnover, the terms are staggered, with the terms of three or four members expiring each year. To achieve this result, four of the initial board members are appointed to one-year terms, four are appointed to two-year terms, and three are appointed to three-year terms. (KCC 2.60.031(E))
The Council may reappoint Board members for additional three-year terms and may remove any Board member by motion adopted with the affirmative votes of at least five councilmembers. (KCC 2.60.031(E))
Board Selection Process
The process for selecting Board members is prescribed in KCC 2.60.031(F). Briefly, the represented organizations are notified of board vacancies and are invited to recommend
L&J Meeting Materials Page 10 August 31, 2021 candidates to the County Executive, who makes appointments from among those recommended.3
Board Confirmation Process
Council confirmation or rejection of a Board appointment requires “the affirmative votes of at least five members” (KCC 2.60.031(F)(4)). If the Council rejects an appointment, the represented organization4 is required to recommend to the Executive, within 30 days after receiving notice of the rejection, another candidate. The Executive then has an additional 30 days to make a new appointment from among all the recommended candidates (excluding those who have been rejected by the Council).5 (KCC 2.60.031(F)(5).
ANALYSIS
The Proposed Ordinance was developed by the Public Defense Advisory Board. Upon introduction, additional issues needing clarification were identified. Council staff worked with the PDAB board chair and Executive staff to develop the attached striking amendment.
This section of the staff report will describe the substantive changes in both the underlying ordinance and the Striking Amendment.
Board Selection Process
The current recruitment process involves finding organizations representing specific issues areas that are willing to nominate candidates to represent those organizations on the PDAB board. Executive staff note the process can be cumbersome and time consuming and has been a barrier to qualified potential PDAB members who are not affiliated with a particular organization. The Proposed Ordinance is intended to eliminate the requirement that a nonpartisan organization for each specific issue area be represented on the board. Instead, the proposed ordinance requires board members represent issues that may affect public defense clients and includes a list of those issues that reflect the issues areas in the current code. However, a drafting error in the proposed ordinance resulted in a shortening of the list of issues.
Striker update: The drafting error has been corrected in the striking amendment (lines 22-42) and the final list of representatives would read as follows.
D. The board shall consist of one representative from each of the following:
1. The Washington Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers; 2. The Washington State Office of Public Defense; 3. The Washington Defender Association
3 Section 2.60.031(F) contains a number of procedural details and contingency provisions. 4 That is, the organization that would have been represented by the rejected appointee. 5 If the represented organization fails to recommend another candidate within 30 days, the Executive may either continue to wait indefinitely or choose from among the remaining candidates who have not been rejected by the Council.
L&J Meeting Materials Page 11 August 31, 2021 4. The King County Bar Association and 5. Bar Associations identified as minority bar associations by the Washington State Bar Association and 6. The remaining six members of the board shall represent areas or issues that may affect public defense clients, including mental health, substance abuse, military veterans, poverty, juvenile justice and immigration issues.
Additionally, the Proposed Ordinance allows candidates to apply individually if the applicant has significant experience or knowledge in one of the issue areas (lines 43- 45). The applicants applying individually are also required to submit resumes.
Striker Update: The striker eliminates the term “nonpartisan” organization to refer to those organizations who could nominate candidates to the PDAB board. This is because the County does not generally refer to those organizations working on issues such as mental health, substance abuse, military veterans, poverty, juvenile justice and immigration as nonpartisan.
The proposed ordinance also eliminates the requirement for the clerk to publish a notice in the official county newspaper of the vacancy for the board seats representing issues that may affect public defense clients (lines 73-75). Executive staff report that newspapers are not an effective means of reaching community organizations. However, the proposed ordinance adds a requirement for the clerk to notify those nonpartisan organizations active in the issue areas referenced in Subsection D6, which identifies the list of public defense related issues to be represented by PDAB board members.
Striker update: Upon consultation with the Clerk and Executive staff, the responsibility for notification has been changed from the Clerk to the Executive (line 65). There is not a single list of every organization in King County working on issues affecting public defense clients. However, Executive staff note they can send a notification to all organizations which contract with the Department of Community and Health Services. Additionally, the nominations, either self-nominations or nominations from organizations would now go to the Executive rather than to all councilmembers. The Executive would continue to transmit a nominee for approval to the Council.
Reporting Changed to Every Other Year
Under the existing code, the board is required to provide two reports each year: a report on the board’s review of the Executive’s proposed budget for public defense and report on the state of County Public Defense. The proposed ordinance changes the reporting requirement so that each report is required at least every other year (lines 138-139).
Eliminates requirement to consult with County Prosecutor, Courts, Department of Public Defense in the performance of its duties. (Lines 16-18)
As shown below, the proposed ordinance eliminates the requirement for the Board to consult with the County prosecutor, Courts, and Department of Public Defense.
B. In performing its duties, the board shall work collaboratively with the County public defender and may reasonably request relevant, ((non privileged))
L&J Meeting Materials Page 12 August 31, 2021 nonprivileged information from the county public defender. ((The board through its chair shall consult with the county prosecutor, courts, and department of public defense in the performance of all of its duties except for the recommendation of candidates.))
The PDAB chair reports that the existing language is overly broad and could require consultation when it is not in the best interest of the Department of Public Defense or PDAB. However, PDAB intends to continue to consult with the Prosecutor and Courts when appropriate. Additionally, PDAB will continue to get regular updates at its Board meetings from managers at DPD and the labor unions representing Public Defense staff.
Staffing
The existing King County Code 2.60.031 states:
The council shall provide for staffing of the advisory board.
The proposed ordinance would specify that Council is to provide funding for executive staffing of the advisory board (lines 143-144).
The council shall provide for funding for executive staffing of the advisory board.
Striker Update: In order to avoid the ordinance binding future budgetary actions of the Council, the striker clarifies that funding is subject to appropriation (lines 144-145).
The council shall provide funding, subject to appropriation, for executive staffing of the advisory board.
Code Clean-Up
The proposed ordinance also cleans up sections of the code. For example, it deletes references to the initial board terms and corrects the names of the Council’s Law and Justice Committee.
AMENDMENT
As described above, a striking amendment has been prepared in collaboration with the Public Defense Advisory Board. It makes clarifying edits to Proposed Ordinance 2021- 0193. It also replaces the Clerk of the Council with the Executive as the entity responsible for notification when a vacancy occurs. Further, the striking amendment specifies it is the Executive rather than the Clerk of the Council that would receive application materials from prospective materials.
INVITED
• Louis Frantz, Public Defense Advisory Board • Anita Khandelwal, Director, Department of Public Defense
L&J Meeting Materials Page 13 August 31, 2021 ATTACHMENTS
1. Proposed Ordinance 2021-0193 2. Striking Amendment S1
L&J Meeting Materials Page 14 August 31, 2021 ATTACHMENT 1 KING COUNTY
Signature Report 1200 King County Courthouse 516 Third Avenue Seattle, WA 98104 Ordinance
Proposed No. 2021-0193.1 Sponsors Zahilay
1 AN ORDINANCE relating to the public defense advisory
2 board; and amending Ordinance 17678, Section 4, and
3 K.C.C. 2.60.031.
4 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF KING COUNTY:
5 SECTION 1. Ordinance 17678, Section 4, and K.C.C. 2.60.031 are each hereby
6 amended to read as follows:
7 A. The public defense advisory board shall: regularly review the activities and
8 plans of the department of public defense, make recommendations to the county public
9 defender on matters concerning the department, advise the executive and council on
10 matters of equity and social justice related to public defense, prepare the reports required
11 in this section and such other reports as the board may deem appropriate; and when there
12 is a vacancy in the office of county public defender, as provided in K.C.C. 2.60.026,
13 recommend to the county executive candidates to fill the vacancy.
14 B. In performing its duties, the board shall work collaboratively with the county
15 public defender and may reasonably request relevant, non-privileged information from
16 the county public defender. ((The board through its chair shall consult with the county
17 prosecutor, courts, and department of public defense in the performance of all of its
18 duties except for the recommendation of candidates.))
19 C. The board shall consist of eleven members, shall establish its own rules of
20 procedure, subject to the county charter, the county code and other applicable law, and 1
L&J Meeting Materials Page 15 August 31, 2021 Ordinance
21 shall choose its own chair.
22 D. The board shall consist of one representative from each of the following:
23 1. The Washington Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers;
24 2. The Washington state Office of Public Defense;
25 3. The Washington Defender Association;
26 4. The King County Bar Association;
27 5. ((A b))Bar associations identified as a minority bar association by the
28 Washington State Bar Association; and
29 6. ((A nonpartisan organization active in King County that focuses on)) The
30 remaining six members of the board shall represent areas or issues that may affect public
31 defense clients, including mental health((;
32 7. A nonpartisan organization active in King County that focuses on substance
33 abuse issues;
34 8. A nonpartisan organization active in King County that focuses on issues
35 concerning military veterans;
36 9. A nonpartisan organization active in King County that focuses on issues
37 related to poverty;
38 10. A nonpartisan organization active in King County that focuses on juvenile
39 justice issues; and
40 11. A nonpartisan organization active in King County that focuses on
41 immigration issues)).
42 E. Candidates for a position referenced in subsection D.6. of this section may
43 either be nominated by a nonpartisan organization active in the areas referenced or may
2
L&J Meeting Materials Page 16 August 31, 2021 Ordinance
44 apply individually for one of the seats listed if the applicant has significant experience or
45 knowledge in one of the listed areas.
46 F. Members of the board shall serve staggered three-year terms and until their
47 successors are appointed and confirmed((, except that the members designated in
48 subsection D.1., 2., 3. and 4. of this section shall serve an initial term of one year and the
49 members designated in subsection D.5., 6., 7. and 8. of this section shall serve an initial
50 term of two years)). If a member leaves the board midterm, the person appointed as a
51 replacement shall serve the remainder of the unexpired term, rather than beginning a new
52 term of three years. The county council may reappoint board members for additional
53 three-year terms and may remove any board member by motion adopted with the
54 affirmative votes of at least five councilmembers. Members of the board shall not be
55 compensated for the performance of their duties as members of the board, but may be
56 reimbursed for parking expenses in the King County parking garage when attending
57 meetings of the committee, which shall be deemed to be for the business convenience of
58 the county and shall be paid for by the department of public defense.
59 ((F.)) G. The process for filling vacancies on the board is:
60 1.a. Upon learning of a pending or existing vacancy or one hundred twenty days
61 before a scheduled vacancy on the board, the board chair and the county public defender
62 shall provide written notice of the vacancy to the clerk of the council and to the
63 executive.
64 b. Upon learning of a pending or existing vacancy or one hundred twenty days
65 before a scheduled vacancy, the clerk of the councilshall provide written notice of the
3
L&J Meeting Materials Page 17 August 31, 2021 Ordinance
66 vacancy to the executive, all councilmembers, the board chair, the county public defender
67 and:
68 (1) to the represented organization for vacancies in the board seats designated
69 in subsection D.1., 2., 3. and 4. of this section;
70 (2) to each of the bar associations identified as a minority bar association by
71 the Washington State Bar Association for a vacancy in the board seat designated in
72 subsection D.5. of this section; and
73 (3) ((by publication of notice of the vacancy in the official county newspaper
74 and in the largest newspaper of general circulation within the county for the board seats
75 designated in subsection D.6., 7., 8., 9., 10. and 11. of this section)) to nonpartisan
76 organizations active in the areas referenced in subsection D.6. of this section for
77 vacancies in boards seats designated in subsection D.6. of this section.
78 c. The notice shall specify the deadlines established in subsection ((F.))G.2. of
79 this section;
80 2. Within sixty days after the clerk of the council provides the notice required in
81 subsection ((((F.)) G.1.b. of this section, ((the represented)) a nonpartisan organization
82 ((,)) or any minority bar association organization may ((and each nonpartisan
83 organization with the required subject matter focus that wishes to do so shall)) submit in
84 writing at the same time to the county executive and the clerk of the council, the names of
85 ((three)) candidates recommended for appointment to fill a vacancy in the board seat for
86 which notice was required to be given to the organization((, together)). The nonpartisan
87 organization with the required subject-matter focus may submit the names of up to five
88 candidates with the resume of each candidate and all other written materials that the
4
L&J Meeting Materials Page 18 August 31, 2021 Ordinance
89 organization considered in deciding to recommend the candidate. The organization shall
90 not rate the candidates, but may provide a brief description of the strengths of each
91 candidate. An individual candidate shall also submit to the county executive and the
92 clerk of the council a resume and other relevant materials, including a written statement
93 or other documents that establish the candidate's expertise in one of the areas listed. The
94 clerk of the council shall provide an electronic copy of the resumes and other written
95 materials to each councilmember;
96 3. Within thirty days after receiving the written materials concerning the
97 recommended candidates for a board seat designated in subsection D.1., 2., 3. or 4. of this
98 section, or within sixty to ninety days after the clerk of the council provides the notice
99 required in subsection ((F.)) G.2. of this section for a board seat designated in subsection
100 D.5((,)). or 6.((, 7., 8., 9., 10. or 11.)) of this section, the county executive shall appoint
101 one of the recommended candidates by providing written notice of the appointment to the
102 clerk of the council, who shall provide an electronic copy of the notice to each
103 councilmember. If the applicable organization fails to timely recommend three
104 candidates, the executive may either make an appointment from among the recommended
105 candidates or candidate or wait until the organization has recommended three candidates
106 and make an appointment within thirty days after receiving the board's recommendation
107 of the third candidate;
108 4. The county council may confirm or reject the executive's appointment by
109 motion adopted by the affirmative votes of at least five members. A motion to confirm
110 the appointment shall be referred for committee consideration to the council's law((,)) and
111 justice((, health and human services)) committee, or its successor; and
5
L&J Meeting Materials Page 19 August 31, 2021 Ordinance
112 5. If the council rejects the executive's appointment of a board member, the
113 clerk of the council shall provide written notice of the rejection to the executive and the
114 represented organization or organizations. Within thirty days after receiving the written
115 notice, the represented organization shall provide to the executive in writing, and
116 contemporaneously to the clerk of the council, the name, resume, and all other relevant
117 written information for one additional candidate. Within thirty days after receiving the
118 additional candidate recommendation and the relevant written materials, the executive
119 shall appoint the board member from among the recommended candidates, excluding any
120 candidate whom the council has rejected. If a represented organization fails to timely
121 provide the additional candidate recommendation and relevant written materials, the
122 executive shall proceed in the same manner as if the entity had recommended fewer than
123 the required number of candidates, as provided in subsection ((F.)) G.3. of this section.
124 ((G.)) H. Each member of the advisory board shall have substantial experience
125 and expertise that are relevant to the work of the department of public defense and shall
126 have an ability and willingness to commit the time necessary to attend meetings and
127 participate effectively as a member of the board. A majority of the members should have
128 substantial familiarity with advocating on behalf of the indigent. To the extent
129 practicable, the board membership shall reflect the diversity of the county. A member
130 may not, while serving on the board, hold elective public office except precinct
131 committee officer, be a candidate for elective public office except precinct committee
132 officer, serve as a King County judicial officer, a King County prosecuting attorney or a
133 King County public defender or be an employee of a King County court, the King County
134 prosecuting attorney or the King County department of public defense.
6
L&J Meeting Materials Page 20 August 31, 2021 Ordinance
135 ((H.)) I. The board shall meet at least once every two months and shall issue at
136 least two written reports to the executive and the council ((each calendar year, including:
137 one report on the board's review of the executive's proposed budget for public defense;
138 and one report on the state of county public defense. Each report shall be issued at least
139 every other year. The report on the state of county public defense shall include an
140 assessment of the progress of the county in promoting equity and social justice related to
141 the criminal justice system and may include recommendations for advancing equity and
142 social justice.
7
L&J Meeting Materials Page 21 August 31, 2021 Ordinance
143 ((I.)) J. The council shall provide for funding for executive staffing of the
144 advisory board.
KING COUNTY COUNCIL KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON
______
Rod Dembowski, Chair ATTEST:
______
Melani Pedroza, Clerk of the Council
APPROVED this _____ day of ______, ______.
______
Dow Constantine, County Executive
Attachments: None
8
L&J Meeting Materials Page 22 August 31, 2021 ATTACHMENT 2
August 23, 2021 S1
Sponsor: Zahilay [JGiambattista ] Proposed No.: 2021-0193.1
1 STRIKING AMENDMENT TO PROPOSED ORDINANCE 2021-0193, VERSION
2 1
3 On page 1, beginning on line 4, strike everything through page 8, line 148, and insert:
4 "BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF KING COUNTY:
5 SECTION 1. Ordinance 17678, Section 4, and K.C.C. 2.60.031 are each hereby
6 amended to read as follows:
7 A. The public defense advisory board shall: regularly review the activities and plans
8 of the department of public defense, make recommendations to the county public defender on
9 matters concerning the department, advise the executive and council on matters of equity and
10 social justice related to public defense, prepare the reports required in this section and such
11 other reports as the board may deem appropriate; and when there is a vacancy in the office of
12 county public defender, as provided in K.C.C. 2.60.026, recommend to the county executive
13 candidates to fill the vacancy.
14 B. In performing its duties, the board shall work collaboratively with the county
15 public defender and may reasonably request relevant, ((non-privileged)) nonprivileged
16 information from the county public defender. ((The board through its chair shall consult with
17 the county prosecutor, courts, and department of public defense in the performance of all of
18 its duties except for the recommendation of candidates.))
- 1 - L&J Meeting Materials Page 23 August 31, 2021 19 C. The board shall consist of eleven members, shall establish its own rules of
20 procedure, subject to the county charter, the county code and other applicable law, and shall
21 choose its own chair.
22 D. The board shall consist of one representative from each of the following:
23 1. The Washington Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers;
24 2. The Washington state Office of Public Defense;
25 3. The Washington Defender Association;
26 4. The King County Bar Association and ;
27 5. ((A b))Bar associations identified as ((a)) minority bar associations by the
28 Washington State Bar Association; and
29 6. ((A nonpartisan organization active in King County that focuses on mental
30 health;
31 7. A nonpartisan organization active in King County that focuses on substance
32 abuse issues;
33 8. A nonpartisan organization active in King County that focuses on issues
34 concerning military veterans;
35 9. A nonpartisan organization active in King County that focuses on issues related
36 to poverty;
37 10. A nonpartisan organization active in King County that focuses on juvenile
38 justice issues; and
39 11. A nonpartisan organization active in King County that focuses on immigration
40 issues)) The remaining six members of the board shall represent areas or issues that may
41 affect public defense clients, including mental health, substance abuse, military veterans,
42 poverty, juvenile justice and immigration issues.
43 E. Candidates for a position referenced in subsection D.6. of this section may either
- 2 - L&J Meeting Materials Page 24 August 31, 2021 44 be nominated by an organization active in the areas referenced or may apply individually for
45 one of the seats listed if the applicant has significant experience or knowledge in one of the
46 listed areas.
47 F. Members of the board shall serve staggered three-year terms and until their
48 successors are appointed and confirmed((, except that the members designated in subsection
49 D.1., 2., 3. and 4. of this section shall serve an initial term of one year and the members
50 designated in subsection D.5., 6., 7. and 8. of this section shall serve an initial term of two
51 years)). If a member leaves the board midterm, the person appointed as a replacement shall
52 serve the remainder of the unexpired term, rather than beginning a new term of three years.
53 The county council may reappoint board members for additional three-year terms and may
54 remove any board member by motion adopted with the affirmative votes of at least five
55 councilmembers. Members of the board shall not be compensated for the performance of
56 their duties as members of the board, but may be reimbursed for parking expenses in the
57 King County parking garage when attending meetings of the committee, which shall be
58 deemed to be for the business convenience of the county and shall be paid for by the
59 department of public defense.
60 ((F.)) G. The process for filling vacancies on the board is:
61 1.a. Upon learning of a pending or existing vacancy or one hundred twenty days
62 before a scheduled vacancy on the board, the board chair and the county public defender shall
63 provide written notice of the vacancy to the clerk of the council and to the executive.
64 b. Upon learning of a pending or existing vacancy or one hundred twenty days
65 before a scheduled vacancy, the ((clerk of the council)) executive shall provide written notice
66 of the vacancy to ((the executive,)) all councilmembers, the board chair, the county public
67 defender and:
68 (1) to the represented organization for vacancies in the board seats designated in
- 3 - L&J Meeting Materials Page 25 August 31, 2021 69 subsection D.1., 2., 3., and 4. of this section;
70 (2) to each of the bar associations identified as a minority bar association by the
71 Washington State Bar Association for a vacancy in the board seat designated in subsection
72 D.5. of this section; and
73 (3) ((by publication of notice of the vacancy in the official county newspaper and
74 in the largest newspaper of general circulation within the county for the board seats
75 designated in subsection D.6., 7., 8., 9., 10. and 11. of this section)) to organizations active in
76 the areas referenced in subsection D.6. of this section for vacancies in boards seats designated
77 in subsection D.6. of this section.
78 c. The notice shall specify the deadlines established in subsection ((F.))G.2. of this
79 section;
80 2. Within sixty days after the ((clerk of the council)) executive provides the notice
81 required in subsection ((F.)) G.1.b. of this section, ((the represented)) an organization ((, any
82 minority bar association organization may and each nonpartisan organization with the
83 required subject matter focus that wishes to do so)) listed in subsection D1.,2.,3. and 4. of this
84 section shall submit in writing ((at the same time)) to the county executive ((and the clerk of
85 the council,)) the names of three candidates recommended for appointment to fill a vacancy
86 in the board seat for which notice was required to be given to the organization((, together)).
87 For the board seats designated in subsection D.5 and D.6. of this section, the organizations
88 with the required subject-matter focus may submit the names of up to three candidates. All
89 nominations shall include the board application, with the resume of each candidate and all
90 other written materials that the organization considered in deciding to recommend the
91 candidate. The organization shall not rate the candidates, but may provide a brief description
92 of the strengths of each candidate. ((The clerk of the council shall provide an electronic copy
93 of the resumes and other written materials to each councilmember)) An individual candidate
- 4 - L&J Meeting Materials Page 26 August 31, 2021 94 shall also submit to the county executive a board application, resume and other relevant
95 materials, including a written statement or other documents that establish the candidate's
96 expertise in one of the areas listed;
97 3. Within thirty days after receiving the written materials concerning the
98 recommended candidates for a board seat designated in subsection D.1., 2., 3. or 4. of this
99 section, or within sixty to ninety days after the ((clerk of the council)) executive provides the
100 notice required in subsection ((F.)) G.2. of this section for a board seat designated in
101 subsection D.5((,)). or 6.((, 7., 8., 9., 10. or 11.)) of this section, the county executive shall
102 appoint one of the recommended candidates by providing written notice of the appointment
103 to the clerk of the council, who shall provide an electronic copy of the notice to each
104 councilmember. If the applicable organization referenced in subsection D.1.,2.,3. and 4. of
105 this section fails to timely recommend three candidates, the executive may either make an
106 appointment from among the recommended candidates or candidate or wait until the
107 organization has recommended three candidates and make an appointment within thirty days
108 after receiving the board's recommendation of the third candidate;
109 4. The county council may confirm or reject the executive's appointment by motion
110 adopted by the affirmative votes of at least five members. A motion to confirm the
111 appointment shall be referred for committee consideration to the council's law((,)) and
112 justice((, health and human services)) committee, or its successor; and
113 5. If the council rejects the executive's appointment of a board member nominated
114 by an organization referenced in subsection D1.,2.,3. and 4. of this section, the clerk of the
115 council shall provide written notice of the rejection to the executive and the represented
116 organization or organizations. Within thirty days after receiving the written notice, the
117 represented organization shall provide to the executive in writing, and contemporaneously to
118 the clerk of the council, the name, board application, resume((,)) and all other relevant
- 5 - L&J Meeting Materials Page 27 August 31, 2021 119 written information for one additional candidate. Within thirty days after receiving the
120 additional candidate recommendation and the relevant written materials, the executive shall
121 appoint the board member from among the recommended candidates, excluding any
122 candidate whom the council has rejected. If a represented organization fails to timely provide
123 the additional candidate recommendation and relevant written materials, the executive shall
124 proceed in the same manner as if the entity had recommended fewer than the required
125 number of candidates, as provided in subsection ((F.)) G.3. of this section.
126 ((G.)) H. Each member of the advisory board shall have substantial experience and
127 expertise that are relevant to the work of the department of public defense and shall have an
128 ability and willingness to commit the time necessary to attend meetings and participate
129 effectively as a member of the board. A majority of the members should have substantial
130 familiarity with advocating on behalf of the indigent. To the extent practicable, the board
131 membership shall reflect the diversity of the county. A member may not, while serving on
132 the board, hold elective public office except precinct committee officer, be a candidate for
133 elective public office except precinct committee officer, serve as a King County judicial
134 officer, a King County prosecuting attorney or a King County public defender or be an
135 employee of a King County court, the King County prosecuting attorney or the King County
136 department of public defense.
137 ((H.)) I. The board shall meet at least once every two months and shall issue at least
138 two written reports to the executive and the council ((each calendar year)), including: one
139 report on the board's review of the executive's proposed budget for public defense; and one
140 report on the state of county public defense. Each report shall be issued at least every other
141 year. The report on the state of county public defense shall include an assessment of the
142 progress of the county in promoting equity and social justice related to the criminal justice
143 system and may include recommendations for advancing equity and social justice.
- 6 - L&J Meeting Materials Page 28 August 31, 2021 144 ((I.)) J. The council shall provide funding, subject to appropriation, for executive
145 staffing of the advisory board."
146
147 EFFECT prepared by J.Giambattista: This striking amendment makes clarifying edits
148 to Proposed Ordinance 2021-0193. It also replaces the clerk of the council with the
149 executive as the entity responsible for notification when a vacancy occurs. Further, this
150 amendment specifies it is the executive rather than the clerk of the council that would
151 receive application materials from prospective materials.
- 7 - L&J Meeting Materials Page 29 August 31, 2021 Metropolitan King County Council Law & Justice Committee
STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item: 6 Name: Jenny Giambattista Proposed No.: 2021-0194 Date: August 31, 2021
SUBJECT
Proposed Ordinance 2021-0194 would amend Ordinance 17678 and King County Code 2.60.026 to make changes to the selection process for the King County Public Defender.
SUMMARY
Proposed Ordinance 2021-0194 would amend Ordinance 17678 and King County Code 2.60.026 to make changes to the selection process for the King County Public Defender to lengthen selected timelines and reduce by one the number of candidates the Executive can request from PDAB. Additionally, Proposed Ordinance changes the requirements for an annual report from the Public Defender to a report at least every other year.
BACKGROUND
The Process for Selecting the County Public Defender
The King County Charter (§§ 350.20.61, 250.20.65) and the King County Code (K.C.C. 2.60.026) prescribe the process for appointment and confirmation of the County Public Defender. All appointments are subject to confirmation by the Council. The process begins with a national recruitment of candidates by the Executive, who then provides to the Public Defense Advisory Board the names, resumés, and other relevant information about all candidates who meet the qualifications for office set forth in the charter and the code.
Within 60 days the Board is required to recommend three candidates, one of whom the Executive must appoint. The Executive has the option to ask the Board to recommend three additional candidates, and then choose from among the six. If the Executive’s appointment is rejected by the Council and the Executive has already asked PDAB for three additional names, the Public Defense Advisory Board is required within thirty days to provide one more name. If that name is rejected by the Council, the Executive may begin a new recruitment process.
L&J Meeting Materials Page 30 August 31, 2021 If Executive has not already asked for three additional names and the Executive’s nomination is rejected by Council, the Executive can ask the PDAB for four additional names and within thirty days after receiving the request, the PDAB shall provide the names and all relevant information of four additional candidates. Within 30 days after receiving the additional names, the Executive shall appoint the County Public Defender. If that appointment is rejected by the Council, the Executive may begin a new recruitment process.
ANALYSIS
The following changes to the Public Defender selection process are proposed to King County Code Section 2.60.
• Time for the executive to send PDAB the candidate names is extended from 30 days after commencing the recruitments to 60 days (Line 42). • Time for PDAB review of candidates is extended from 60 to 90 days (Line 46). • Allows PDAB to request additional time to identify its recommended candidates, not to exceed 60 days (line 53-55). • Specifies that when the Executive requests additional names from the board, that request can be for up to three additional names rather than three names depending on the number of qualified candidates remaining and extends the time for board to comply from 30 to 60 days (line 60). • Eliminates the requirement that in the event the County Council rejects the Executive’s appointment of the County Public Defender, PDAB must provide the name of an additional candidate (lines 75-78). • If the Council rejects the Executive’s appointment and the Executive has not already requested additional candidates from PDAB, the proposed ordinance changes from four to up to three the number of additional candidates the Executive may request from PDAB (Lines 83 to 84).
As a result of the combined changes in lines 75 through 84, in the event the Council rejects the Executive’s appointment after Executive has already requested additional candidates from PDAB, the recruitment process would need to begin again.
Additionally, the proposed ordinance changes the requirements for an annual report from the Public Defender to a report at least every other year (lines 18-19).
INVITED
• Louis Frantz, Public Defense Advisory Board • Anita Khandelwal, Director, Department of Public Defense
ATTACHMENTS
1. Proposed Ordinance 2021-0194
L&J Meeting Materials Page 31 August 31, 2021 ATTACHMENT 1 KING COUNTY
Signature Report 1200 King County Courthouse 516 Third Avenue Seattle, WA 98104 Ordinance
Proposed No. 2021-0194.1 Sponsors Zahilay
1 AN ORDINANCE relating to the public defender selection
2 process; and amending Ordinance 17588, Section 4, as
3 amended, and K.C.C. 2.60.026.
4 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF KING COUNTY:
5 SECTION 1. Ordinance 17588, Section 4, as amended, and K.C.C. 2.60.026 are
6 each hereby amended to read as follows:
7 A. The department of public defense shall be directed by the county public
8 defender, whose duties include:
9 1. Managing the department of public defense;
10 2. Ensuring the department employs the needed technical and public defense
11 expertise to ensure effective delivery of public defense services;
12 3. Representing the executive in all city, county, state and federal forums where
13 the defense perspective is required;
14 4. Ensuring that the American Bar Association Ten Principles for a Public
15 Defense Delivery System, as approved by the American Bar Association House of
16 Delegates in February of 2002, guide the management of the department and
17 development of department standards for legal defense representation, and filing with the
18 clerk of the council by April 1 of ((each)) at least every other year a report on the results
19 of the county public defender's efforts in that regard;
1
L&J Meeting Materials Page 32 August 31, 2021 Ordinance
20 5. Following the Washington State Standards for Indigent Defense Services;
21 ((and))
22 6. Developing and maintaining appropriate standards and guidelines for the
23 qualifications and experience level of public defense attorneys and paraprofessionals;
24 7. Working collaboratively with the public defense advisory board and
25 providing relevant nonprivileged information to the board upon its reasonable request;
26 and
27 8. Fostering and promoting system improvements, efficiencies, access to justice
28 and equity in the criminal justice system.
29 B.1. The county public defender shall be appointed by the executive, subject to
30 confirmation by the council. The executive shall appoint one of the three candidates
31 recommended by the public defense advisory board, except that the executive may
32 request three additional candidates from the public defense advisory board, and the
33 executive may then appoint the county public defender from among the six candidates,
34 subject to confirmation by motion by the council. Confirmation requires the affirmative
35 votes of at least five members of the council.
36 2. Within seven days after either a vacancy occurs in the office of the county
37 public defender or the county executive learns that a vacancy is expected to occur within
38 one hundred eighty days, including but not limited to a vacancy that will result from the
39 expiration of the term of a county public defender who the executive determines to not
40 reappoint, the executive shall provide written notice of the vacancy or expected vacancy
41 to each member of the public defense advisory board and to the clerk of the council and
42 shall commence a national recruitment for candidates to fill the vacancy. Within sixty
2
L&J Meeting Materials Page 33 August 31, 2021 Ordinance
43 thirty days after commencing the recruitment, the executive shall provide to each member
44 of the public defense advisory board the names, resumes and all other relevant
45 information about all candidates who meet the qualifications for office set forth in the
46 county charter and subsection C. of this section. Within ((sixty)) ninety days after
47 receiving the names, resumes((,)) and other relevant information about the qualified
48 candidates from the executive, the public defense advisory board shall provide in writing
49 at the same time to the executive and the clerk of the county council the names of three
50 candidates to fill the vacancy, together with copies of the candidates' resumes and other
51 relevant information, including all written information upon which the board relied in
52 choosing the three candidates. The board shall not rank the candidates, but may
53 summarize the particular strengths of each candidate. If the board is unable to provide
54 the names of three candidates within ninety days, the board may request in writing
55 additional time from the executive, not to exceed sixty days, to identify candidates.
56 3. The executive may request in writing to the board chair, within fifteen days
57 after receiving the list of three candidates, that the board provide to the executive the
58 names, resumes and other relevant written information of up to three additional
59 candidates, depending on the number of qualified candidates remaining, and the board
60 shall comply with such a request within ((thirty)) sixty days and shall at the same time
61 provide a copy of the additional materials to the clerk of the council.
62 4. Within thirty days after receiving either the original list of three candidates or
63 the list of up to three additional candidates, the executive shall appoint the county public
64 defender by providing written notice of the appointment to the clerk of the council, who
65 shall provide an electronic copy of the notice to each councilmember and to the chair of
3
L&J Meeting Materials Page 34 August 31, 2021 Ordinance
66 the public defense advisory board. If the board fails to timely recommend in writing to
67 the executive the initial three or ((six)) sufficient additional candidates, as applicable, the
68 executive may either appoint the county public defender from among the candidates who
69 have been recommended or wait until the board has recommended the requisite number
70 of candidates and make the appointment within thirty days thereafter.
71 5. The county council may confirm or reject the executive's appointment by
72 adoption of a motion with the affirmative votes of at least five members. A motion to
73 confirm or reject the appointment shall be referred for committee consideration to the
74 council's committee of the whole.
75 6. ((If the council rejects the executive's appointment of the county public
76 defender, the public defense advisory board shall, within thirty days, recommend and
77 provide in writing at the same time to both the executive and the clerk of the council the
78 name, resume and all other relevant written information for one additional candidate.
79 7.)) If the council rejects the executive's appointment of the county public
80 defender and the executive has not previously elected to request additional candidates
81 from the advisory board under ((this subsection B.7. or)) subsection B.3. of this section,
82 the executive may request the public defense advisory board for recommendation of
83 ((four additional candidates)) up to three additional candidates in accordance with
84 subsection B.3. of this section. Such a request must be made in writing within seven days
85 after the council rejects the executive's appointment, to the chair of the advisory board,
86 with a copy to the clerk of the council. ((The advisory board shall, within thirty days
87 after receiving the executive’s request, recommend and provide in writing at the same
4
L&J Meeting Materials Page 35 August 31, 2021 Ordinance
88 time to both the executive and the clerk of the council the name, resume and all other
89 relevant written information for four additional candidates.
90 8.)) 7. Within thirty days after receiving the additional name or names, the
91 executive shall appoint the county public defender from among the recommended
92 candidates, except that the executive may not reappoint any candidate whose appointment
93 has been rejected by the council. If the advisory board fails to recommend the additional
94 candidate or candidates required by subsection B.((6.)) 3. and ((7.)) 6. of this section and
95 provide the required written information, the executive shall proceed in the same manner
96 as set forth in subsection B.4. of this section.
97 ((9.)) 8. At any time after the commencement of the national recruitment
98 process required by subsection B.2. of this section, except when the executive has
99 appointed a county public defender and the council has not confirmed or rejected the
100 appointment, the executive may request that the council authorize the commencement of
101 a new national recruitment and public defense advisory board review and executive
102 appointment process. Such a request must be submitted in writing to the clerk of the
103 council with a copy to the chair of the advisory board. When so requested, the council
104 may authorize commencement of a new recruitment, advisory board review, and
105 appointment process by motion adopted with the affirmative votes of at least five
106 councilmembers.
107 ((10.)) 11. Within seven days after appointment, the county public defender
108 shall designate an employee in the department of public defense to serve as a deputy and,
109 in the event of a vacancy in that office, as interim county public defender until a new
110 county public defender has been appointed.
5
L&J Meeting Materials Page 36 August 31, 2021 Ordinance
111 C. The county public defender must be an attorney admitted to practice law in
112 any jurisdiction within the United States and in active status and good standing. The
113 county public defender shall, within two years after appointment, be an attorney admitted
114 to practice law in the courts of the state of Washington and an active member of the
115 Washington State Bar Association in good standing and shall, at the time of appointment,
116 have at least seven years of experience as an attorney primarily practicing criminal
117 defense, including both felonies and misdemeanors, as well as supervisory and
118 managerial experience.
119 D. The term of office of the county public defender shall end at the same time as
120 the term of the county prosecuting attorney. The county executive may reappoint the
121 county public defender to additional four-year terms, subject to confirmation by the
122 county council. The county council may confirm or reject the executive's reappointment
123 by adoption of a motion with the affirmative votes of at least five members.
124 E. The executive may remove the county public defender from office for cause,
125 which includes, but is not limited to:
126 1. The grounds for vacancy of elective office under Section 680 of the King
127 County Charter;
128 2. Failure to meet the applicable legal requirements for serving as county public
129 defender, as set forth in the county charter or the county code;
130 3. Conviction of a crime;
131 4. A finding or stipulation of misconduct under the Washington Rules of
132 Professional Conduct; and
133 5. Failure to manage the department effectively.
6
L&J Meeting Materials Page 37 August 31, 2021 Ordinance
134 F. To remove the county public defender for cause, the executive shall serve a
135 written notice of removal, specifying the cause for removal, by delivering a copy of the
136 notice to the county public defender personally or by leaving a copy of the notice at the
137 office of the county public defender with a secretary or other assistant to the county
138 public defender. The executive shall contemporaneously deliver a copy of the written
139 notice of removal to the clerk of the council and to the chair of the public defense
140 advisory board.
141 G. The county public defender may appeal removal to the council by delivering a
142 written notice of appeal to the clerk of the council within ten days after service of the
143 written notice of removal. The notice of appeal shall be delivered at the same time to the
144 executive and to the chair of the public defense advisory board. The council shall review
145 de novo the grounds for removal and either affirm or reverse the removal within thirty
146 days after delivery of the notice of appeal by an affirmative vote of five members, or else
147 the removal shall stand. Removal of the county public defender is effective upon the
148 earliest of:
149 1. Ten days after service of notice of removal, if the county public defender
150 serves no notice of appeal;
151 2. Affirmation of removal by the council following an appeal;
152 3. Thirty days after delivery of the notice of appeal, if the council neither
153 affirms nor reverses the removal; or
154 4. The county public defender's delivery of a written notice of resignation to the
155 executive or the clerk of the council.
7
L&J Meeting Materials Page 38 August 31, 2021 Ordinance
156 H. The county public defender shall receive compensation at the same rate as the
157 prosecuting attorney.
KING COUNTY COUNCIL KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON
______
Rod Dembowski, Chair ATTEST:
______
Melani Pedroza, Clerk of the Council
APPROVED this _____ day of ______, ______.
______
Dow Constantine, County Executive
Attachments: None
8
L&J Meeting Materials Page 39 August 31, 2021 Metropolitan King County Council Law & Justice Committee
STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item: 7 Name: Mike Reed Proposed No.: 2021-0205 Date: August 31, 2021
SUBJECT
Development of a plan for the establishment of a hotline for the reporting of hate crimes and incidents, and for a public awareness campaign associated with the hotline.
SUMMARY
Rising levels of concern regarding hate crimes and hate incidents, including a recent pattern of incidents targeting Asian Americans, has led to interest in facilitation of the reporting process for such incidents. Proposed Motion 2021-0205 would provide for the development of a plan to establish a countywide “Stop Hate Hotline” that would support accessible reporting of hate events in a way that avoids fear of retribution. The legislation also provides for a public awareness campaign associated with the hotline.
BACKGROUND
Emerging concern regarding the increasing occurrence of hate crimes and hate incidents, and the need for effective information tools regarding the prevalence of such incidents, has led to interest in facilitating the process for reporting such incidents. Among the recent trends of note has been an increase in hate incidents targeting Asian Americans.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation reports annually on trends in the incidence of hate crimes. The FBI has collected national hate crime data since 1992, pursuant to the 1990 Hate Crime Statistics Act.
Under FBI data collection definitions, hate crimes are criminal events motivated, in whole or in part, by actual or perceived bias based on race, ethnicity, ancestry, religion, sexual orientation, disability, gender, and gender identity. Prejudiced hate speech alone, absent a genuine threat of violence or criminality, is constitutionally protected, and is not included in these FBI data.
FBI annual hate crime national totals for 2019 hit their highest level in over a decade on with an overall increase of almost three percent over the previous year. The 7,314 hate crimes represent events tabulated from voluntarily collected complaint reports submitted by 15,588 agencies across the country. The 2019 increases in hate incidents evidenced more violent offenses, such as homicides and assaults.
L&J Meeting Materials Page 40 August 31, 2021
FBI hate homicides rose most sharply to 51, more than double 2018 levels, as single assailant mass domestic terror attacks became increasingly lethal. 2019 was the third consecutive annual rise in a series of sharp increases in hate homicides enumerated by the FBI.
Aggravated assaults in 2019 rose for the sixth straight year to the highest level since 2001. These serious physical attacks rose 5.9% from 818 in 2018 to 866 and have increased 47% since 2013. Aggravated assault is an “unlawful attack…for the purpose of inflicting severe or aggravated bodily injury [and]….is usually accompanied by the use of a weapon or by other means likely to produce death or great bodily harm.” Simple assault rose 4.7% in 2019 year to 1,730 and is up 25.5% from 2014 levels.
Anti-Semitic hate crimes rose 14% to 953 in 2019 from 835 in 2018 to hit the highest level since 2008. Anti-Latino hate crimes rose 8.7% from 485 in 2018 to 527 in 2019 to the highest total since 2010. Anti-Arab hate crime rose 16% to 95, while anti-Muslim hate crime fell by a dozen incidents or 6% from 188 to 176, the third consecutive decline, after peaking at 308 in 2016.
In King County, according to a June 11, 2021 posting, the King County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office has charged 15 hate crimes this year from incidents referred to the Office by police. The King County Prosecutor’s Office indicates that there are likely more cases, though the Office only charges a case when a completed investigation is referred by law enforcement, and the Prosecutor believes that they can prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. That can be difficult in suspected hate crimes where there are no statements or other evidence indicating the motive for an attack.
Specifics of the cases are as follows: • Five of the cases involve Asian/Pacific Islander victims. • Two involve attacks against people perceived as undocumented immigrants. • Two of the incidents targeted gay men. • One person targeted is transgender. • Five of the crimes were black victims targeted by white defendants.
Trends in case filings through June 2021 are as follows: • 2018: 30 cases filed • 2019: 39 cases filed • 2020: 59 cases filed • 2021 (through June 8): 15 cases filed
Elsewhere in the nation, consideration is being given to “hate hotline” legislaton. In California, proposed legislation would require the state Attorney General to establish and publicize a toll-free public hotline telephone number for the reporting of hate crimes. Through the creation of an accessible hate crimes hotline, the legislation is intended to create safe spaces to report hate crimes, particularly where there may be a distrust of police by hate crime victims.
L&J Meeting Materials Page 41 August 31, 2021 ANALYSIS
Proposed Motion 2021-0205
Proposed Motion 2021-0205 establishes the Council’s intent that the Executive develop a plan for establishing a community-based countywide Stop Hate Hotline to report hate crimes and hate incidents. The Executive is to convene a workgroup to develop a plan to establish the hotline, to include telephone and web-based online portals for reporting. The plan should also address incident reporting requirements for data collection purposes, as well as a public awareness campaign.
The workgroup is to include staff from the Department of Community and Human Services, Public Health/Seattle King County, the Prosecutor’s Office, the Sheriff’s Office, and representatives from community-based organizations representing populations that have been affected by hate crimes or hate incidents.
The goals of the Stop Hate Hotline include: • To provide hate crime victims a means to report the crimes, without fear of retribution or mistrust; • To provide access to services for the victim regardless of whether the incident is reported to law enforcement; and • To raise public awareness about the nature of hate crimes, how and where they occur locally and how to report them, and to collect and report countywide data on hate crimes and hate incidents.
The work group is to: • Make use of successful strategies developed in other jurisdictions; • Work with the federal Department of Justice to create reporting systems requirements that meet federal standards, and to explore opportunities for federal technical assistance and grant funding; • Identify minimum service requirements for a hotline and web portal contractor; • Explore partnership opportunities with existing service providers and identify federal technical assistance and grant funding for such providers.
Public information materials used for the hotline and in the public awareness campaign are to be accessible in multiple languages.
The executive is requested to transmit a plan for the establishment of the hotline and the public awareness campaign to Council by September 1, 2021.
AMENDMENT
Amendments have been prepared to 1) revise dates for convening the workgroup and report transmittal; and to provide for recommendation of a hosting agency. • Amendment1: o Provides for a January 31, 2022 date by which the work group must be convened, rather than July 1, 2021; and
L&J Meeting Materials Page 42 August 31, 2021 o Provides for a June 30, 2022 date for transmittal of the plan for establishment of the hate crimes hotline and public awareness campaign, rather than September 1, 2021. • Amendment 2: o Provides that the plan identify an agency to serve as host for the hotline and undertake the public awareness campaign.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Proposed Motion 2021-0205 2. Amendment 1 3. Amendment 2
L&J Meeting Materials Page 43 August 31, 2021 ATTACHMENT 1 1200 King County Courthouse KING COUNTY 516 Third Avenue Seattle, WA 98104 Signature Report
Motion
Proposed No. 2021-0205.1 Sponsors Dunn
1 A MOTION requesting the executive develop a plan for
2 establishing a community-based countywide hotline, web
3 portal, incident reporting requirements for a countywide
4 data collection system and public awareness campaign for
5 persons to report hate crimes and incidents.
6 WHEREAS, the Washington state Legislature finds that the state interest in
7 preventing crimes and threats motivated by bigotry and bias goes beyond the state
8 interest in preventing other felonies or misdemeanors that are not motivated by hatred,
9 bigotry and bias, and that prosecution of those other crimes inadequately protects citizens
10 from crimes and threats motivated by bigotry and bias, and
11 WHEREAS, as a result of that recognition by the state, state law establishes that a
12 person who intentionally threatens or causes injury to persons or physical property
13 because of the victim's race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, gender, sexual
14 orientation, gender expression or identity or mental, physical or sensory disability has
15 committed a hate crime offense under RCW 9A.36.080, and
16 WHEREAS, in addition to the criminal penalty provided in state law for
17 committing a hate crime offense, state law allows that the victim may bring a civil cause
18 of action for the hate crime offense against the person who committed the offense. A
19 person may be liable to the victim of the hate crime offense for actual damages, punitive
1
L&J Meeting Materials Page 44 August 31, 2021 Motion
20 damages of up to one hundred thousand dollars and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs
21 incurred in bringing the action, and
22 WHEREAS, according to the U.S. Department of Justice, in the simplest terms, a
23 hate crime must include both hate and a crime, and
24 WHEREAS, the federal government and national advocacy groups acknowledge
25 that there is a difference between hate crimes and hate incidents. Hate crimes have
26 established criminal penalties and require due process to arrest alleged perpetrators, file
27 charges and adjudicate those cases. A hate crime is a crime for which an individual can
28 be arrested and where bias was observed and can be proven, and
29 WHEREAS, the U.S. Department of Justice and national advocacy groups have
30 noted that hate or bias incidents are acts of prejudice that are not classified as crimes and
31 do not involve violence, threats or property damage. The most-common examples of
32 hate incidents are racial slurs and attacks, notes the National Asian Pacific Bar
33 Association, where yelling a racial slur without committing a crime or threatening one is
34 likely a hate incident that negatively affects the victim but cannot be prosecuted as a hate
35 crime, and
36 WHEREAS, the federal government and national law enforcement leaders have
37 noted that, if possible, all hate incidents, such as verbal harassment or refusal of service,
38 should be reported to law enforcement in that reports of any hate incidents help law
39 enforcement "focus, track and provide extra attention to areas to prevent those incidents
40 from escalating into crimes of violence or reportable criminal acts," and
2
L&J Meeting Materials Page 45 August 31, 2021 Motion
41 WHEREAS, according to the U.S. Department of Justice, hate crime victims
42 include not only the crimes' immediate targets but also others like them. Hate crimes
43 affect families, communities and, at times, the entire nation, and
44 WHEREAS, hate-fueled attacks have spiked across the country over the past year,
45 particularly against those of Asian descent, and
46 WHEREAS, according to data compiled by California State University's Center
47 for the Study of Hate and Extremism, annual hate crime totals for 2019 hit their highest
48 level in over a decade. The center's data shows that hate crime tabulated from voluntarily
49 collected complaint reports submitted by law enforcement agencies across the country
50 represents the third consecutive year of an elevated number of reports where the 2019
51 increases in hate crime were far more precipitous: among the most violent offenses
52 homicides and assaults; among those directed toward certain target groups, such as Jews
53 and Latinos; and in some of the nation's largest cities. The center also noted that there
54 were one hundred twenty-two incidents of anti-Asian-American hate crimes in sixteen of
55 the country's most populous cities in 2020, an increase of almost one hundred fifty
56 percent over the previous year, and
57 WHEREAS, a separate group, Stop AAPI Hate, catalogued nearly three thousand
58 eight hundred hateful incidents, which are not limited to crimes, during the first year of
59 the pandemic and noted that most of those hateful incidents targeted women, and
60 WHEREAS, the King County prosecutor's office has reported a troubling rise in
61 hate crimes perpetrated in King County, from thirty cases in 2018 to fifty-nine cases in
62 2020, and
3
L&J Meeting Materials Page 46 August 31, 2021 Motion
63 WHEREAS, it is well-established that victims of hate crimes under report
64 incidents of violence to due to social stigmatization and fear of reprisal. International
65 research into hate crime shows that those crimes are less reported to the police than non-
66 hate crimes, and most victims do not report their hate victimization to the police or to
67 other organizations, and
68 WHEREAS, researchers note that underreporting is the result of suspicion of
69 government agencies among some marginalized communities. For some communities,
70 that suspicion stems from the historically poor relationship between state agencies and
71 communities. In addition, those victims fear being subject to discrimination, and even
72 victimization, by police or other criminal-justice agency staff, and
73 WHEREAS, there are also practical limitations that prevent hate crime victims
74 from reporting. Those are issues affecting the accessibility or adequacy of existing
75 reporting mechanisms for victims. For example, limited access to translation resources
76 for some groups is a barrier to reporting, and
77 WHEREAS, the King County Coalition Against Hate and Bias has established the
78 Hate and Bias Response Survey to counter potentially skewed data caused by the under-
79 reporting of hate crimes, even in time of increased hate crime activity, and
80 WHEREAS, other jurisdictions have established hate crime hotlines and reporting
81 programs. Those programs are run by either law enforcement or prosecutors, where
82 victims would be reluctant to use those programs because of mistrust or suspicion of the
83 organizations, and
84 WHEREAS, on May 20, 2021, President Biden signed Pub. L. 117-13, the
85 COVID-19 Hate Crimes Act, which requires the federal Department of Justice to
4
L&J Meeting Materials Page 47 August 31, 2021 Motion
86 facilitate the expedited review of hate crimes and reports of hate crimes. In addition, the
87 legislation requires that the federal government issue guidance for state, local and tribal
88 law-enforcement agencies on establishing online hate crime reporting processes,
89 collecting data disaggregated by protected characteristic, such as race or national origin,
90 and expanding education campaigns. The bill also establishes federal grants for states
91 and local governments to implement the National Incident-Based Reporting System and
92 to conduct law enforcement activities or crime reduction programs to prevent, address, or
93 respond to hate crimes;
94 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT MOVED by the Council of King County:
95 A. It is the intent of the council that the executive develop a plan for establishing
96 a community-based countywide Stop Hate Hotline for persons experiencing hate crimes
97 and hate incidents to report the hate crimes and hate incidents and to provide community
98 assistance to address the impacts of the hate crimes or incidents on victims and survivors.
99 B. The executive is requested to convene a workgroup to develop a plan to
100 establish a community-based Stop Hate Hotline to include telephone and web-based
101 online portals for reporting hate crimes and hate incidents. In addition, the plan should
102 also include both incident reporting requirements for data collection purposes and an
103 attendant public awareness campaign. The workgroup shall be convened by July 1, 2021.
104 The workgroup shall include staff from the department of community and human
105 services, public health - Seattle & King County, the prosecutor's office, the sheriff's
106 office and representatives from community-based organizations that represent
107 populations that have been affected by hate crimes or hate incidents, including, but not
108 limited to, members of coalitions.
5
L&J Meeting Materials Page 48 August 31, 2021 Motion
109 C. The Stop Hate Hotline shall have three goals:
110 1. To provide a means for victims and survivors of hate crimes or incidents to
111 report the crimes or incidents to community-based service providers who would then help
112 the victims report the crime or incident to law enforcement authorities without fear of
113 retribution or mistrust;
114 2. To provide access to services for the victim regardless of the whether the
115 incident is reported to law enforcement; and
116 3. To raise public awareness about the nature of hate crimes and hate incidents,
117 how and where they occur locally and how to report them, and to collect and report
118 countywide data on hate crimes and incidents.
119 D. The workgroup shall to the extent feasible use successful strategies developed
120 in other jurisdictions in developing a plan for the hotline, web portal and public
121 awareness campaign.
122 E. The workgroup shall work with the federal Department of Justice to create
123 reporting systems requirements that meet the federal standards to be established pursuant
124 to Pub. L. 117-13, the COVID-19 Hate Crimes Act, and to explore how the county can
125 obtain federal technical assistance and grant funding for these programs.
126 F. The workgroup shall identify the minimum service requirements for a hotline
127 and web portal contractor, including:
128 1. Identification of populations to be served;
129 2. Services hours;
130 3. Data recording and reporting requirements;
6
L&J Meeting Materials Page 49 August 31, 2021 Motion
131 4. Systems to engage victims with law enforcement agencies in the event of a
132 crime;
133 5. Procedures to ensure victims can access appropriate services;
134 6. Language access for non- or limited-English speaking communities; and
135 7. An estimate of projected funding and other resources needed to establish a
136 hotline, web portal and reporting system.
137 G. The workgroup shall explore partnership opportunities with existing services
138 providers who already work with communities that have been subject to hate crimes and
139 incidents. In addition, the workgroup shall identify federal technical assistance and grant
140 funding for these programs available through Pub. L. 117-13, the COVID-19 Hate
141 Crimes Act, and to explore how the county or contractor can use these funds to offset the
142 costs of the developing, implementing and operating the hotline, web portal, and
143 reporting system.
144 H. The public information materials used for the hotline and in the public
145 awareness campaign shall be accessible in multiple languages.
146 I. The executive is requested to transmit to the council by September 1, 2021, a
147 plan for the establishment of the hotline and public awareness campaign, in the form of a
148 paper original and an electronic copy filed with the clerk of the council, who shall retain
7
L&J Meeting Materials Page 50 August 31, 2021 Motion
149 the original and provide an electronic copy to all councilmembers and to the lead staff of
150 the community, health and housing services committee or its successor.
KING COUNTY COUNCIL KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON
______
Rod Dembowski, Chair ATTEST:
______
Melani Pedroza, Clerk of the Council
APPROVED this _____ day of ______, ______.
______
Dow Constantine, County Executive
Attachments: None
8
L&J Meeting Materials Page 51 August 31, 2021 ATTACHMENT 2
8-31-21 1
Sponsor: Dunn [M. Reed] Proposed No.: 2021-0205
1 AMENDMENT TO PROPOSED MOTION 2021-0205, VERSION 1
2 On page 5, line 103, after "convened by" strike "July 1, 2021" and insert "January 31,
2022" 3 2022"
4
5 On page 7, line 146, after "council by" strike "September 1, 2021," and insert "June 30,
2022," 6 2022,"
7
8 EFFECT prepared by Mike Reed: Changes the date by which the Stop Hate Hotline
9 workgroup is to convene, from July 1, 2021 to January 31, 2022; changes the date by
10 which the Executive is to transmit a plan for the establishment of a hotline and a
11 public awareness campaign from September 1, 2021 to June 30, 2022.
12 13 14
- 1 - L&J Meeting Materials Page 52 August 31, 2021 ATTACHMENT 3
8/31/2021 2
Sponsor: Dunn [M. Reed] Proposed No.: 2021-0205
1 AMENDMENT TO PROPOSED MOTION 2021-0205, VERSION 1
2 On page 5, line 103, after "awareness campaign." insert "Also, the plan shall also include
3 a recommendation regarding the identification of the hosting agency and implementation
4 of the public awareness campaign for the hotline."
5
6 EFFECT prepared by Mike Reed: Provides that the plan will recommend the
7 assignment of an agency to host the hotline, and to carry out the public awareness
8 campaign.
9
- 1 - L&J Meeting Materials Page 53 August 31, 2021 Metropolitan King County Council Law & Justice Committee
STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item: 8 Name: Nick Bowman Proposed No.: 2021-0156 Date: August 31, 2021
SUBJECT
Signaling the Council's intent to establish a hate crimes unit within the Criminal Investigation Division of the King County Sheriff's Office.
SUMMARY
Proposed Motion 2021-0156 would state the Council's intent to establish a hate crimes unit, consisting of no less than four deputies and one support staff position, within the Criminal Investigation Division of the King County Sheriff's Office (KCSO).
BACKGROUND
In Washington State a person who maliciously and intentionally causes physical injury, physical damage, or threatens an individual based on his or her perception of the victim's race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender expression or identity, or mental, physical, or sensory disability has committed a hate crime; the commission of which is a Class C felony.1
In the several years leading up to 2019, law enforcement agencies across the country reported increasing numbers of hate and bias related crimes. According to local law enforcement data collected by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, hate crimes in 2019 rose to over 7300 criminal instances; the highest level in over a decade.2 While a more recent report by the Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism at California State University, San Bernardino, suggests that hate crimes across the nation in 2020 saw a 6% decrease overall, hate crimes against Asian Americans increased by 145%.3
Locally, reported instances and criminal charges for hate crimes have increased. Data collected by the Seattle Police Department's Bias Crime Unit showed reported hate crimes in 2020 were 63% higher than those reported in 2019.4 According to the King County Prosecutor's Office there were 30 hate and bias criminal cases prosecuted in
1 RCW 9A.36.080 2 Tim Arango (2020). "Hate Crimes in U.S. Rose to Highest Level in More Than a Decade in 2019." New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/16/us/hate-crime-rate.html S 3 Attachment 2 4 http://www.seattle.gov/police/information-and-data/bias-crime-unit/bias-crime-dashboard
L&J Meeting Materials Page 54 August 31, 2021 King County in 2018, 39 cases in 2019 and 59 cases in 2020. Despite these figures, law enforcement experts generally agree that hate crimes often go unreported and therefore the true number of hate crimes committed is likely to be significantly higher than what available data suggests.
The King County Sheriff's Office, while not having a dedicated hate crimes unit, does have special practices and procedures for the response and investigation of such crimes. KCSO's General Orders Manual dedicates a section specifically to the investigation of hate crimes where direction for deputies, supervisors and others is defined.5 For instance, the policy states that "deputies must be mindful that not only is the individual who is personally affected by [hate crimes] victimized, but the entire class of individuals residing in the community is also affected. Deputies must be sensitive and respond in a way that the trauma of the victim and the community is not exacerbated. Victims of bias crimes may suffer serious and long-lasting traumatic stress." Additionally, Sergeants, per KCSO's policy, are required to respond to the scene of a hate crime which is not required for most crimes.
ANALYSIS
Proposed Motion 2021-0156 would signal the Council's intent to establish a hate crimes unit at the Sheriff's Office. The motion would further request that the Executive fund and the Sheriff create the unit, which shall consist of no less than four deputies and one support staff position. Once established, the Proposed Motion calls for the unit to develop a community engagement plan intended to encourage victims to report hate and bias crimes and for the unit to develop a standard system for collecting, analyzing, and reporting these incidents.
Based on current estimates, the total cost of the unit for the 2021-2022 biennium would be approximately $1,100,000.
INVITED
• Mitzi Johanknecht, Sheriff, King County Sheriff's Office
ATTACHMENTS
1. Proposed Motion 2021-0156 2. FACT SHEET: Anti‐Asian Prejudice March 2020 – Center for the Study of Hate & Extremism
5 GOM 17.05.000
L&J Meeting Materials Page 55 August 31, 2021 ATTACHMENT 1
1200 King County Courthouse KING COUNTY 516 Third Avenue Seattle, WA 98104 Signature Report
Motion
Proposed No. 2021-0156.1 Sponsors Dunn
1 A MOTION signaling the council's intent to establish a
2 hate crimes unit within the criminal investigation division
3 of the department of public safety.
4 WHEREAS, a person who intentionally threatens or causes injury to persons or
5 physical property because of the victim's race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin,
6 gender, sexual orientation, gender expression or identity, or mental, physical, or sensory
7 disability has committed a hate crime offense under RCW 9A.36.080, and
8 WHEREAS, hate-fueled attacks have spiked across the country over the past year,
9 particularly against those of Asian descent, and
10 WHEREAS, according to data compiled by California State University's Center
11 for the Study of Hate and Extremism, there were one hundred twenty-two incidents of
12 anti-Asian American hate crimes in sixteen of the country's most populous cities in 2020,
13 an increase of almost one hundred fifty percent over the previous year, and
14 WHEREAS, the King County prosecutor's office has reported a troubling rise in
15 hate crimes perpetrated in King County, from thirty cases in 2018 to fifty-nine cases in
16 2020; and
17 WHEREAS, it is well established that victims of hate crimes under report
18 incidents of violence to due to social stigmatization and fear of reprisal;
1
L&J Meeting Materials Page 56 August 31, 2021 Motion
19 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT MOVED by the Council of King County:
20 A. It is the intent of the council to establish a hate and bias crimes unit within the
21 department of public safety, which is otherwise known as the King County sheriff's
22 office.
23 B. The council requests the executive fund and the sheriff establish a hate and
24 bias crimes unit within the department of public safety otherwise known as the king
25 county sheriff's office.
26 C. The hate and bias crimes unit should consist of no less than four deputies and
27 one support staff position who shall employ all necessary resources and vigorous law
28 enforcement action to identify, investigate and arrest hate and bias crime perpetrators.
29 D. Recognizing the particular fears and distress typically suffered by victims, the
30 potential for reprisal and escalation of violence, and the far-reaching negative
31 consequences of hate and bias crimes on the community, the hate and bias crimes unit
32 should establishes policies which are mindful of and responsive to the security concerns
33 of victims and their families.
34 E. The hate and bias crimes unit should develop a community engagement plan
35 in order to encourage victims of hate crimes to report incidents involving hate and bias
36 crimes.
37 F. The hate and bias crimes unit should develop a standard system for collecting,
38 analyzing and reporting incidents of crime that are, in whole or in part, directed against
2
L&J Meeting Materials Page 57 August 31, 2021 Motion
39 individuals because of race, religion, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity
40 or disability.
41
KING COUNTY COUNCIL KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON
______
Rod Dembowski, Chair ATTEST:
______
Melani Pedroza, Clerk of the Council
APPROVED this _____ day of ______, ______.
______
Dow Constantine, County Executive
Attachments: None
3
L&J Meeting Materials Page 58 August 31, 2021 ATTACHMENT 2
FACT SHEET: Anti-Asian Prejudice March 2021 Center for the Study of Hate & Extremism
Anti-Asian Hate Crime Reported to Police in America’s Largest Cities: 2019 & 2020
Anti-Asian Hate Crimes Surge 145%, while overall hate crime Drops 6% in 2020.
% of Change for Percent of Change City Total Hate Crimes Total Hate Crimes % of Population - 2019 2020 Total Hate Crimes Anti-Asian Hate Population 2019 2020 AAPI Anti-Asian Anti-Asian 2019-2020 Crimes New York City, NY 428 265 -38% 14.5% 833% 3 28 8,336,817 Los Angeles, CA 326 355 9% 11.6% 114% 7 15 3,979,537 Chicago, IL 100 81 -19% 6.9% 0% 2 2 2,693,959 Houston, TX 25 47 88% 6.5% - 0 3 2,316,797 Phoenix, AZ 156 204 31% 4.2% 50% 2 3 1,680,988 Philadelphia, PA 35 17 -51% 7.5% 200% 2 6 1,584,064 San Antonio, TX 9 38 322% 2.8% 0% 0 0 1,508,083 San Diego, CA 30 25 -17% 17.2% - 0 1 1,423,852 Dallas, TX 31 62 100% 3.40% - 0 6 1,343,565 San Jose, CA 34 89 162% 38.0% 150% 4 10 1,021,786 San Francisco, CA 64 52 -19% 35.0% 50% 6 9 881,549 Seattle, WA 114 126 11% 16.9% 33% 9 12 753,655 Denver, CO 88 71 -19% 3.7% - 0 3 727,211 Washington, DC 203 132 -35% 4% -83% 6 1 705,749 Boston, MA 170 146 -14% 9.7% 133% 6 14 694,295 Long Beach, CA 23 18 -22% 12.3% - NA 0 462,645 Cleveland, OH 116* NA - 2.4% 200% 2 6 380,989 Cincinatti, OH 41 45 10% 2.3% - 0 1 303,954 TOTALS 1877 1773 -6% N/A 145% 49 120 Note: Total Hate Crimes 2019 and Total Hate Crimes 2020 for Cleveland are not included in the Totals for Select Cities in those years. Cleveland is also not included in the percentage of change for Total Hate Crimes in 2019-2020. Source: Curated Database by CSHE, Drawn from data by policing agencies
Anti-Asian hate crime in 16 of America’s largest cities increased 145% in 2020 according to an analysis of official preliminary police data by the Center for the Study of Hate & Extremism at California State University, San Bernardino, with the first spike occurring in March and April amidst a rise in COVID cases and negative stereotyping of Asians relating to the pandemic.
L&J Meeting Materials Page 59 August 31, 2021 In a study to be released later this month entitled Report to the Nation: Anti-Asian Prejudice & Hate Crime, data further indicated that this rise occurred amidst an overall decline in hate crime likely caused by a lack of interaction at frequent gathering places liked transit, commercial businesses, schools, events, and houses of worship. In 18 of major U.S. cities, including the 16 largest ones, hate crimes overall declined by 6 precent. This is the first study of police data for 2020 across the U.S. Other charts from different datasets from the forthcoming report are presented herein. The FBI releases its 2020 national hate crime figures in November.
Anti-Asian Hate Crime Incidents in Select US Cities 2019 & 2020 30
25
20
15
10 Numner Incidentsof
5
0
Years 2019 2020
Source: CSHE
L&J Meeting Materials Page 60 August 31, 2021 Anti-Asian Hate Crime Incidents FBI Data (1996-2019) 400
350
300
250
200
Incidents 150
100
50
0
Years (1996-2019)
Source: FBI/UCR [From 2013-2019 Asian & Haw./Pac. Islander-Alaska Native Combined] FBI Hate Crime: Multi-Year Trend by Group
L&J Meeting Materials Page 61 August 31, 2021
For above table Anti-Asian does NOT include Pac. Isl./Alaska Native. Source: FBI
L&J Meeting Materials Page 62 August 31, 2021 Google Trends Key Word Search: "Ch--a Virus," "Ch--k," "Kung Flu," & "G--k" Weekly (3/1/20 to 2/21/21) 120
100
80
60
40
20 Number of Searches Number Searches of for Terms
0 3/1/2020 6/7/2020 7/5/2020 8/2/2020 1/3/2021 3/15/2020 3/29/2020 4/12/2020 4/26/2020 5/10/2020 5/24/2020 6/21/2020 7/19/2020 8/16/2020 8/30/2020 9/13/2020 9/27/2020 11/8/2020 12/6/2020 1/17/2021 1/31/2021 2/14/2021 10/11/2020 10/25/2020 11/22/2020 12/20/2020
"ch--a virus": (United States) ch--k: (United States) kung flu: (United States) g--k: (United States) Weeks
Source: CSHE/Google Trends Searchable Database (2021)
Source: Schild, Leonard, et al. “‘Go eat a bat, Chang!’: An Early Look on the Emergence of Sinophobic Behavior on Web Communities in the Face of COVID-19.” CISPA Helmholtz Center for Information Security, Boston University, Binghamton University, Max Plank Institute for Informatics. pp 3-4. 8 April 2020/Sage Publications.
L&J Meeting Materials Page 63 August 31, 2021 New Center for Public Integrity/Ipsos Poll Beliefs about Who is Responsible for the Coronavirus by Political Affiliation April 28, 2020 160% 140% 120% 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% Percentage Percentage of Sample Believe Who the Statement
Political Affiliation Republican (N=215) Democrat (N=36) Independent (N=35)
Source: New Center for Public Integrity/Ipsos Poll (April 28, 2020)
If you were out in public, how concerned would you be about coming close to someone who is of Asian ancestry? Total Republican Democrat Independent Very concerned 7% 7% 7% 10% Somewhat concerned 17% 20% 17% 11% Not very concerned 35% 41% 31% 37% Not at all concerned 41% 33% 46% 42% Source: New Center for Public Integrity/Ipsos Poll (April 28, 2020)
L&J Meeting Materials Page 64 August 31, 2021 New Center for Public Integrity/Ipsos Poll Beliefs about Coming Close to Someone of Asian Ancestry in Public by Political Affiliation April 28, 2020 50% 45% 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% Very concerned Somewhat concerned Not very concerned Not at all concerned
Political Affiliation Republican Democrat Independent
Percentage Percentage of Sample Have Who a Specific Feeling Source: New Center for Public Integrity/Ipsos Poll (April 28, 2020)
STOP AAPI Hate: Anti-Asian Hate Victimization Reporting Portal PREJUDICE INCIDENTS TARGETING U.S. AAPI POPULATIONS MARCH 19 - DECEMBER 31, 2020 Physical Assault 8% Shunning or Avoidance 20% Coughing/Spitting 6%
Verbal Harrassment 66%
Note: It should be noted that spitting on someone is considered a type of assault. Source: Stop AAPI Hate (February 9, 2021) Source: https://stopaapihate.org
The 14% of incidents from STOP AAPI hate that are from assaults and spitting are crimes totaling approx. 392. The most Anti-Asian hate crimes reported in one year was 355 in 1996. Verbal harassment can also be a hate crime when it is in the form of an actionable threat, as opposed to mere offensiveness.
L&J Meeting Materials Page 65 August 31, 2021
PREJUDICE INCIDENTS TARGETING U.S. AAPI POPULATIONS BY VICTIM ETHNICITY MARCH 19 - DECEMBER 31, 2020
Other Ethnicities 29%
Chinese 41%
Filipinos 7%
Vietnamese 8% Koreans 15%
Source: Stop AAPI Hate (February 9, 2021) https://stopaapihate.org
L&J Meeting Materials Page 66 August 31, 2021 Prejudice Incidents Targeting U.S. AAPI Populations, By Place MARCH 19 - DECEMBER 31, 2020 Illinois Washington 4% 7%
New York City 20%
California 69%
California New York City Washington Illinois
Source: Stop AAPI Hate (February 9, 2021)
L&J Meeting Materials Page 67 August 31, 2021
Source: American Community Survey 2019
Resources for More on AAPI Prejudice: Asian Americans Advancing Justice - Atlanta — Website, Twitter Asian Americans Advancing Justice - Asian Law Caucus — Website, Twitter Center for Pan Asian Community Services — Website, Twitter National Asian Pacific American Women's Forum - Atlanta — Website, Twitter
L&J Meeting Materials Page 68 August 31, 2021 SOURCES AND COLLECTION INFORMATION FOR REPORT The following is the data or links to the data that was collected by the Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism at California State University, San Bernardino and then reported in the “Fact Sheet: Anti-Asian Prejudice March 2021.” All hate crime data from the select cities under study in the report were collected from the policing agencies for those select cities. Data was either collected directly from data analyst who work for those policing agencies or was collected from the publicly available dashboard available online. See below for sourcing for each city’s data for 2020 and 2019. For more information on the data collection, please contact Prof. Brian Levin ([email protected]), Director or Dr. Kevin Grisham ([email protected]), Associate Director, of the Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism. SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA Data for 2020 and 2019 reporting was collected from the following link: https://data.sandiego.gov/datasets/police-hate-crimes/ CINCINNATI, OHIO Preliminary data for reporting in 2020 was provided by Alan Wedd, Social Science Research Specialist, Office of Criminal Justice Services in Ohio. Data for 2020 was sent as Excel spreadsheet and can be seen below:
The data for 2019 was collected in the same manner and can be obtain from CSHE upon request. Due to space limitations, that data is not included in this source list.
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS Data for reporting on 2020 was provided by H. Aden, Freedom of Information Act Officer, Chicago Police Department per a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request on December 31, 2020. Data was sent as an Excel spreadsheet and the excerpts of the Anti-Asian data can be seen below:
L&J Meeting Materials Page 69 August 31, 2021
The data for 2019 was collected in the same manner and can be obtain from CSHE upon request. Due to space limitations, that data is not included in this source list. PHOENIX, ARIZONA Data for reporting in 2019 and 2020 was provided Public Records, Code Enforcement Unit, Phoenix Police Department. Screenshot of the 2020 and 2019 data is provided below:
L&J Meeting Materials Page 70 August 31, 2021
DENVER, COLORADO Data for reporting from 2010 to 2020 was provided by Mike Nichols, Senior Statistical Researcher, Denver Police Department. The data from 2010 to 2020 was sent as Excel spreadsheet and the excerpt for the Anti-Asian data for 2020 can be seen below (no data on Anti-Asian hate crime was reported in 2019):
L&J Meeting Materials Page 71 August 31, 2021 HOUSTON, TEXAS Data for 2020 and 2019 reporting was collected from the following link: https://txucr.nibrs.com/Report/HateCrime WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLOMBIA Data from 2012 to 2020 reporting was collected from an Excel spreadsheet at the following link: https://mpdc.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/mpdc/publication/attachments/Hate%20Cr imes%20Open%20Data_4.xlsx PHILADELPHIA, PENNSLYVANIA Data for reporting in 2019 and 2020 was provided by Lieutenant Barry Jacobs, Open Records Officer, Open Records/Right-to-Know Section, Philadelphia Police Department. Data for reporting in 2020 was gathered by Masood Farivar, Writer, Voice of America, who collected it from the Boston Police Department. Screenshot of the 2020 and 2019 data is provided below:
L&J Meeting Materials Page 72 August 31, 2021
L&J Meeting Materials Page 73 August 31, 2021
CLEVELAND, OHIO Preliminary data for reporting in 2020 was provided by Alan Wedd, Social Science Research Specialist, Office of Criminal Justice Services in Ohio. Data for 2020 was sent as Excel spreadsheet and can be seen below:
The data for 2019 was collected in the same manner and can be obtain from CSHE upon request. Note: Due to the high number of overall hate crimes categorized as “Other” and due to a history of Cleveland overall hate crime data being reclassified later that often changes the presentation of the data, CSHE has opted not to report the overall hate crime data as this time in this report. CSHE has decided to provide the Anti-Asian hate crime for this report as we believe it is less likely to be reclassified. DALLAS, TEXAS Data for 2020 and 2019 reporting was collected from the following link: https://txucr.nibrs.com/Report/HateCrime
L&J Meeting Materials Page 74 August 31, 2021 SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA Data for reporting from 2019 to 2020 was provided by Lieutenant R. Andrew Cox, Office in Charge, Risk Management – Legal Division, San Francisco Police Department. The data from 2019 and 2020 was sent as Excel spreadsheet and the excerpt for the Anti- Asian data for 2019 and 2020 can be seen below:
L&J Meeting Materials Page 75 August 31, 2021 SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA Data for reporting in 2019 and 2020 was provided Monique Villarreal, Research and Development Unit, San Jose Police Department. Screenshot of the 2019 and 2020 data is provided below:
L&J Meeting Materials Page 76 August 31, 2021 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON Data for 2020 and 2019 reporting was collected from the following link: https://www.seattle.gov/police/information-and-data/bias-crime-unit/bias-crime- dashboard Note: Data presented in CSHE chart is from the category, “Malicious Harassment.” BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS Data for reporting in 2020 was provided by Masood Farivar, Writer, Voice of America, who collected it from the Boston Police Department. Data for 2020 was sent as Excel spreadsheet and can be seen below:
The data for 2019 was collected from the following link: https://masscrime.chs.state.ma.us/tops/report/hate-crime_1/boston/2019 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA Data was collected from crime data set (2010 to 2019) from Los Angeles Police Department from the following link: https://data.lacity.org/Public-Safety/Crime-Data-from-2010-to-2019/63jg-8b9z Note: Detective Orlando Martinez, Hate Crime Coordinator, Robbery-Homicide Division, Los Angeles Police Department, assisted CSHE is accessing the dataset.
L&J Meeting Materials Page 77 August 31, 2021 NEW YORK CITY, NEW YORK Data was collected from crime data set (2019 to 2020) from New York City Police Department from the following link: https://app.powerbigov.us/view?r=eyJrIjoiYjg1NWI3YjgtYzkzOS00Nzc0LTkwMDAtNTgz M2I2M2JmYWE1IiwidCI6IjJiOWY1N2ViLTc4ZDEtNDZmYi1iZTgzLWEyYWZkZDdjNjA0 MyJ9
SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS Data for 2020 and 2019 reporting was collected from the following link: https://txucr.nibrs.com/Report/HateCrime
LONG BEACH, CALIFORNIA Data for reporting in 2020 was provided by Crystal Niebla, Reporter, Long Beach Post, who collected it from the Long Beach Police Department.
No 2019 data was available.
L&J Meeting Materials Page 78 August 31, 2021 HATE CRIME LAWS
Current Federal Hate Crime Protections Constitutional Protections Relevant Text “Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall U.S. Const. amend. XIII, § 1 exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.” Section 1. “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1 state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 5 within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article. “The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of U.S. Const. amend. XV, § 1 race, color, or previous condition of servitude.” Federal Statutes Description 18 U.S.C. § 241 – Conspiracy against Makes it unlawful for two or more persons to conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in the free enjoyment of a rights right or privilege secured to him or her by the Constitution or laws of the U.S. 18 U.S.C. § 242 – Deprivation of Makes it unlawful to willfully deprive any person of the rights, privileges, or immunities secured to him or her by the Constitution or rights under color of law laws of the U.S., or to subject a person to different punishments, pains, or penalties because of that person’s alien status, color, or race. Makes it unlawful to willfully injure, intimidate, or interfere with any person participating in any one of the following six federally Violent Interference with Federally protected activities, on account of his or her race, color, religion, or national origin: 1) enrolling in or attending a public school, 2) Protected Rights, 18 U.S.C. § 245 – participating in or enjoying a service, program, facility or activity administered by any State or local government, 3) applying for or Federally protected activities enjoying employment, 4) serving in a State court as a juror, 5) traveling in or using a facility of interstate commerce, or 6) enjoying the goods or services of certain public places of accommodation. Damage to Religious Property, Church Arson Prevention Act, 18 U.S.C. § 247 Prohibits the intentional defacement, damage, or destruction of any religious real property because of the religious nature of that – Damage to religious property; property, or because of the race, color, or ethnic characteristics of any individual associated with that religious property. Also obstruction of persons in the free criminalizes the intentional obstruction of a person’s free exercise of religious beliefs by force or threat of force. exercise of religious beliefs Criminal Interference with Right to Fair Makes it unlawful to use or threaten to use force to interfere with an individual’s housing rights on account of his or her race, color, Housing, 42 U.S.C. § 3631 – religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin. Violations; penalties The Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crime Prevention Act of The first statute to allow federal criminal prosecution of hate crimes motivated by the victim’s perceived or actual sexual orientation or 2009, 18 U.S.C. 249 – Hate crime gender identity. Makes it unlawful to willfully cause bodily injury to a person on account of his or her actual or perceived race, color, acts religion, or national origin, or attempt to do so through use of a dangerous weapon.
Source: U.S. Dept. of Justice
L&J Meeting Materials Page 79 August 31, 2021 Hate Crime Laws By State: 2020 Race, First Interference Gender Sexual Political State Statute religion, Gender Age Disability Homelessness Responder/ with religious Identity Orientation Affiliation ethnicity Police worship Ala. Code § 13A-5-13 Proposed Alabama Ala. Code § 13A-6-28 YES NO NO NO YES NO NO NO NO legislation Ala. Code § 13A-11-12 Alaska Stat. § Alaska 12.55.155(c)(22) YES YES NO NO NO YES NO NO NO NO Alaska Stat. § 11.76.110 Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-701 D.13 and D.15 Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-1707 Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-1708 Arizona YES YES NO NO YES YES NO NO NO NO Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-1604 A.1 Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 41-1750 A.3 Arkansas NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO YES Cal. Penal Code § 422.55 Cal. Penal Code § 422.6 Cal. Penal Code § 422.7 Cal. Penal Code § 422.75 Cal. Penal Code § 422.76 California YES YES YES YES YES YES YES NO NO YES Cal. Penal Code § 11411 Cal. Penal Code § 11413(b)(2) Cal. Penal Code § 13023 Cal. Penal Code § 13519.6 Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-9-121 Colorado YES NO YES NO YES YES NO NO NO NO Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-9-113 Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46a-58 Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53-37a Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-40a Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-181j Connecticut YES YES YES NO YES YES NO NO NO NO Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-181k Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-181l Conn. Gen. Stat. § 29-7m Conn. Gen. Stat. § 7-294n 11 Del. Code Ann. § 1304 11 Del. Code Ann. § 1301 Delaware YES YES YES NO YES YES NO NO NO NO 11 Del. Code Ann. § 1331 11 Del. Code Ann. § 805 D.C. Code § 22-3701 D.C. Code § 22-3703 District of D.C. Code § 22-3704 YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES NO YES Columbia D.C. Code § 22-3312.03 D.C. Code § 22-3312.02 D.C. Code § 22-3702 Fla. Stat. Ann. § 775.085 Fla. Stat. Ann. § 775.0845 Fla. Stat. Ann. § 876.17 Florida YES NO NO YES YES YES NO YES NO YES Fla. Stat. Ann. § 876.18 Fla. Stat. Ann. § 806.13 Fla. Stat. Ann. § 877.19 Ga. Code Ann. § 17-10-17 Georgia Ga. Code Ann. § 16-11-37 YES YES NO NO YES YES NO NO NO YES Ga. Code Ann. § 16-7-26 Haw. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 706- 662 Haw. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 846- 51 Hawaii Haw. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 711- YES YES YES YES YES YES NO NO NO NO 1107 Haw. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 846-51, 846-52, 846-53, 846-54 Idaho Code Ann. § 18-7901 Idaho Code Ann. § 18-7902 Idaho YES NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO YES Idaho Code Ann. § 18-7903 Idaho Code Ann. § 67-2915 720 Ill. Comp. Laws Ann. 5/12-7.1 730 Ill. Comp. Laws Ann. 5/5-5-3.2 720 Ill. Comp. Laws Ann. 5/12-7.6 Illinois YES YES YES NO YES YES NO NO NO NO 720 Ill. Comp. Laws Ann. 5/21-1.2 20 Ill. Comp. Laws Ann. Act 4070 20 Ill. Comp. Laws Ann. 2605/2605-390 Ind. Code Ann. § 10-13-3-1 NO Indiana Ind. Code Ann. § 35-43-1-2 YES NO NO NO YES YES NO NO YES (“Creed”) Ind. Code Ann. § 10-13-3-38
L&J Meeting Materials Page 80 August 31, 2021 Race, First Interference Gender Sexual Political State Statute religion, Gender Age Disability Homelessness Responder/ with religious Identity Orientation Affiliation ethnicity Police worship Iowa Code § 729A.1 Iowa Code §§ 729A.2 Iowa Code § 729.5 Iowa Iowa Code § 716.6A YES YES NO YES YES YES YES NO NO NO Iowa Code § 692.15 Iowa Code § 80B.11 Iowa Code § 729A.4 Kansas Kan. Stat. Ann. § 21-6815 YES NO NO YES YES NO NO NO NO NO Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 532.031 Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 525.110 Kentucky YES NO NO NO YES NO NO NO YES NO Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 525.113 Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 17.1523 La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 14:107.2 La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 14:225 Louisiana La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § YES YES NO YES YES YES YES NO YES NO 15:1204.4 La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 40:2403 H.(1) 17 Me. Rev. Stat. §§ 2931, 2932 5 Me. Rev. Stat. § 4684-A Maine 17-A Me. Rev. Stat. § 1151 YES YES NO YES YES YES NO YES NO NO 17-A Me. Rev. Stat. § 507 25 Me. Rev. Stat. § 1544 25 Me. Rev. Stat. § 2803-B Md. Code Ann. Crim. Law § 10-301 Md. Code Ann. Crim. Law § 10-302 Md. Code Ann. Crim. Law § 10-303 Md. Code Ann. Crim. Law § Maryland YES YES YES NO YES YES NO YES NO YES 10-304 Md. Code Ann. Crim. Law § 10-305 Md. Code Ann. Crim. Law § 10-307 Md. Code Ann. Pub. Safety § 2-307 Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 265 § 37 Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 265 § 39 Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 266 § Massachusetts YES NO YES NO YES YES NO NO NO YES 127A Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 22C § 33, 34, 35 Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 6 § 116B Mich. Comp. Laws. Serv.§ 750.147b Michigan YES YES NO NO NO NO NO NO NO YES Mich. Comp. Laws. Serv.§ 28.257a Minn. Stat. § 609.2231 Minn. Stat. § 609.749 Minnesota Minn. Stat. § 609.595 YES YES YES YES YES YES NO NO NO YES Minn. Stat. § 626.5531 Minn. Stat. § 626.8451 Miss. Code Ann. § 99-19- Mississippi 301 through 99-19-307 YES YES NO NO NO NO NO NO YES YES Miss. Code Ann. § 97-17-39 Mo. Rev. Stat. § 557.035 Missouri YES YES YES NO YES YES NO NO NO YES Mo. Rev. Stat. § 574.085 Mont. Code Ann. § 45-5- 221 Montana YES NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO Mont. Code Ann. § 45-5- 222 Neb. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 28- 110 Neb. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 28- Nebraska YES YES NO YES YES YES NO NO NO NO 111 Neb. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 28- 114 Nev. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 193.1675 Nev. Rev. Stat. Ann. § Nevada YES YES YES NO YES YES NO NO NO YES 207.185 Nev. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 206.125 N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § New Hampshire YES YES NO YES YES YES NO NO NO NO 651:6(f)
L&J Meeting Materials Page 81 August 31, 2021 Race, First Interference Gender Sexual Political State Statute religion, Gender Age Disability Homelessness Responder/ with religious Identity Orientation Affiliation ethnicity Police worship N.J. Rev. Stat. § 2C:16-1 [declared unconstitutional by State v. Pomianek, 221 New Jersey N.J. 66 (2015)] YES YES YES NO YES YES NO NO NO NO N.J. Rev. Stat. § 2C:33-9 N.J. Rev. Stat. § 2C:33-11 N.J. Rev. Stat. § 52:9DD-9 N.M. Stat. Ann. § 31-18B-3 N.M. Stat. Ann. § 30-15-4 New Mexico YES YES YES YES YES YES NO NO NO YES N.M. Stat. Ann. § 31-18B-4 N.M. Stat. Ann. § 31-18B-5 N.Y. Penal Law § 485.05 N.Y. Penal Law § 485.10 N.Y. Penal Law § 240.31 New York YES YES NO YES YES YES NO NO NO YES N.Y. Penal Law § 240.70 N.Y. Penal Law § 240.71 N.Y. Exec. Law § 837(f)4-c N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-3 N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-12.14 N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-401.14 North Carolina YES YES NO NO NO NO NO NO NO YES N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-49(b1) N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-62.2 N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-144 N.D. Cent. Code § 12.1-14- 04 N.D. Cent. Code § 12.1-21- 01 North Dakota YES YES NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO N.D. Cent. Code § 12.1-21- 02 N.D. Cent. Code § 12.1-21- 08 Ohio Rev. Stat. Ann. § Ohio 2927.12 YES NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO Ohio Rev. Stat. Ann. § 2927 Oklahoma Stat. tit. 21 § 850 Oklahoma Stat. tit. 21 § Oklahoma 1174 YES NO NO NO NO YES NO NO NO YES Oklahoma Stat. tit. 21 § 1765 Or. Rev. Stat. § 166.155 Or. Rev. Stat. § 166.165 Oregon Or. Rev. Stat. § 166.075 YES YES YES NO YES YES NO NO NO NO Or. Rev. Stat. § 181A.225 Or. Rev. Stat. § 181A.470 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 2710 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 3307 Pennsylvania YES NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5509 71 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 250(i) R.I. Gen. Laws § 12-19-38 R.I. Gen. Laws § 11-44-31 Rhode Island YES YES NO NO YES YES NO YES NO YES R.I. Gen. Laws § 42-28-46 R.I. Gen. Laws § 42-28.2-8.1 S.C. Code Ann. § 16-5-10 S.C. Code Ann. § 16-7-120 South Carolina NO NO NO NO NO NO YES NO NO YES S.C. Code Ann. § 16-11-535 S.C. Code Ann. § 16-11-110 S.D. Codified Laws § 22- 19B-1 South Dakota YES NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO YES S.D. Codified Laws § 22- 19B-2 Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35- 114(17) Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17- 309 Tennessee YES YES NO YES YES YES NO NO NO YES Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17- 311 Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-14- 301 Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 42.014 Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 12.47 Tex. Penal Code Ann. § Texas YES YES NO YES YES YES NO NO YES NO 28.04 Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 28.08 Tex. Gov. Code Ann. § 411.046
L&J Meeting Materials Page 82 August 31, 2021 Race, First Interference Gender Sexual Political State Statute religion, Gender Age Disability Homelessness Responder/ with religious Identity Orientation Affiliation ethnicity Police worship Utah Code Ann. § 76-3- 203.3 Utah Code Ann. § 76-3- 203.4 Utah Code Ann. § 76-6-103 Utah YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES NO Utah Code Ann. § 76-6-101 Utah Code Ann. § 53-10- 202 Utah Code Ann. § 76-3- 203.14 13 Vt. Stat. Ann. § 1455 Vermont YES YES YES YES YES YES NO NO NO NO 13 Vt. Stat. Ann. § 1456 Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-57 Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-423 Va. Code Ann. § 18.2- 423.01 Virginia Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-423.1 YES NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO YES Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-423.2 Va. Code Ann. § 18.2.127 Va. Code Ann. § 18.2.138 Va. Code Ann. § 52-8.5 Wash. Rev. Code Ann. § 9A.36.078 *** CHANGE IN 2019 *** (SEE 1732-S.SL) *** Wash. Rev. Code Ann. § 9A.36.080 Washington YES YES YES NO YES YES NO YES NO NO Wash. Rev. Code Ann. § 9.61.160 Wash. Rev. Code Ann. § 36.28A.030 Wash. Rev. Code Ann. § 43.101.290 West Virginia W. Va. Code Ann. § 61-6-21 YES YES NO NO NO NO YES NO NO YES Wis. Stat. § 939.645 Wisconsin YES NO NO NO YES YES NO NO NO NO Wis. Stat. § 943.012 Wyoming Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 6-9-102 NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO
Key Federal Hate Crime Cases
Barclay v. Florida, (1983), the United States Supreme Court upheld the death sentence of a black defendant given by a judge who invoked the defendant’s racial motivation in committing random murder to foment a race war.
Dawson v. Delaware, (1992), the Supreme Court overturned a death sentence that was imposed for a murder by a prison escapee, because it was made in part on the basis of his membership in a white supremacist group. Because no connection existed between the defendant Dawson’s racist beliefs and associations, and his opportunistic killing while on the run, the Court held that mere abstract racist ideology was an impermissible basis to impose criminal liability.
R.A.V. v. St. Paul, (1992), the Supreme Court unanimously invalidated a 1989 municipal "hate speech" ordinance used to prosecute a teenage skinhead for burning a cross in the yard of an African American family, although it split as to why. The invalidated law selectively punished the terroristic use of hate symbols, but only when the symbols expressed certain hatreds, but not others. The Court held it unconstitutional to punish the terroristic use of a symbol on the basis of which underlying prejudiced viewpoint it punishes.
Wisconsin v. Mitchell, (1993), the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of broadly applicable penalty enhancement laws for hate crime. Penalty enhancement laws increase the punishment for an underlying crime when an additional prohibited element is present, such as the use of a weapon or recidivism. Specifically, the enhancement law at issue in Mitchell punished an offender's discriminatory selection of a victim or property based on the status characteristics of another person, including race, religion, color, national origin, and ancestry. The Supreme Court cited three basic rationales for affirming the law. First, while the government may not punish abstract beliefs, it has wide latitude to sanction motive. Second, the Court also ruled that penalty enhancement laws, unlike the statute at issue in R.A.V., were aimed at discriminatory conduct, and did not prevent or punish merely hateful expression. Third, the Court noted the severity of hate crimes’ harms, stating that they are "thought to be more likely to provoke retaliatory crimes, inflict distinct emotional harm on their victims and incite community unrest” (Wisconsin v. Mitchell, p. 487-88, 1993).
Apprendi v. New Jersey, (2000), finding hate crime laws are specific intent statutes requiring proof of discriminatory motive in victim selection, the Supreme Court held prosecutors must establish the presence of a bias motive enhancement or any other enhancement beyond a reasonable doubt to obtain a conviction when its inclusion substantially impacts the defendant's sentence.
L&J Meeting Materials Page 83 August 31, 2021 Virginia v. Black, (2003), the Supreme Court held that laws that criminalize burning a cross on someone’s property to terrorize residents are constitutional, as long as the government does not differentiate which bigoted viewpoint the threat promotes, or automatically punish those consensually burned on private property.
U.S. v. Miller, (2014), in a split decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit threw out convictions under the Shepard-Byrd Act because the victim’s religion was not established as a “but-for cause” of the attack—meaning that the victim’s status as a member of a protected group was not the offender’s only motivating factor in committing the crime— as opposed to just being a motivating factor. The Miller decision made prosecuting cases under federal hate crime law more difficult, as the victim’s membership in a protected class must be the only motivating factor; if there are any other motivating factors, it is not a hate crime.
U.S. v. Hill, (2019), in a split decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ruled the Shepard-Byrd Act properly covered a homophobic violent attack in the workplace because the law “easily falls under Congress’s broad [constitutional] authority to regulate interstate commerce.”
Recent Federal Laws
The Hate Crime Statistics Act (HCSA), 28 U.S.C. § 534, was signed into law by President Bush in April 1990. The HCSA initially required the Attorney General to collect data voluntarily submitted by the states on crimes motivated by race, religion, sexual orientation, and ethnicity, but was subsequently amended in the 1990s to include disability. Gender and gender identity were added in 2013, and other changes were made in 2017 that added various religious and ethnic subcategories.
The Hate Crime Sentencing Enhancement Act was enacted in 1994. The statute, a penalty enhancement law, increases the sentence for underlying federal offenses by about one third when the fact finder establishes beyond a reasonable doubt that the target is intentionally selected because of the race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, gender, disability, or sexual orientation of another. The law’s practical limitation is that it is only applicable to a relatively small number of substantive underlying federal offenses (28 U.S.C. 994).
The Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009, became effective in 2010 after being signed by President Obama in October 2009. This new federal law, codified at 18 U.S.C. §249, improved the existing criminal civil rights statute by extending federal group protection to gender, gender identity, disability, and sexual orientation. Federal law previously covered only race, color, religion, and national origin. However, these new categories, like some earlier ones, are only protected in the new law when the bigoted crimes also affect interstate commerce because of federal jurisdictional requirements found in the Constitution’s Commerce Clause. The Shepard Byrd Act punishes violence and attempts involving bodily injury through firearms, fire, explosives, and other dangerous devices. Second, the legislation also expands the mandate of the Hate Crimes Statistics Act to cover gender and gender identity.
The Protecting Religiously Affiliated Institutions Act of 2018, enacted in September 2018, expands existing law protecting houses of worship to include “real property owned or leased by a nonprofit, [or] religiously affiliated organization.”
Recent Federal Proposals to Combat Hate
In July 2019, a group of bipartisan U.S. Senators announced their plan to introduce the “Never Again Education Act.” If enacted, the Act would create a grant program at the U.S. Department of Education to enable teachers across the nation to access resources and training to teach their students about the Holocaust.
In July 2019, U.S. Senators Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) and Dick Durbin (D-IL) introduced the Khalid Jabara and Heather Heyer National Opposition to Hate, Assaults, and Threats to Equality (NO HATE) Act of 2019, and Representatives Don Beyer (D-VA) and Pete Olson (R-TX) introduced its companion bill in the House of Representatives under the name NO HATE Act. The bill is named after two hate crime victims whose murders were prosecuted as hate crimes but not reported in hate crime statistics. If passed, the bill would incentivize state and local jurisdiction to improve their hate crime reporting and data collection systems.
There have also been proposals among advocacy groups to close the so-called but-for loophole referenced above in U.S. v. Miller, which would change the motivation standard that prosecutors would have to prove under current federal hate crime law, from having to prove a victim’s membership in a protected category as the sole cause of the offender’s crime, to a significant motivating factor.
L&J Meeting Materials Page 84 August 31, 2021 Recent State Reforms on Hate Crime – Legislative and Non-Legislative
UTAH In April 2019 Utah governor Gary Herbert signed a new hate crime bill, SB 103, into law that expanded both the groups and criminal circumstances covered after a brutal anti-Latino assault was found not to be covered by a weaker previous law, SB 102, which prosecutors deemed ineffectual and did not address felony attacks.
NEW YORK Starting with the introduction of a similar bill in 2014, New York’s legislature has approved the passage of a bill that bans the use of the “panic” defense by suspects charged with crimes against gay and transsexual individuals. In support of the bill, Governor Andrew Cuomo tweeted that he would sign it into law once it reached his desk. However, some criminal defense organizations in the state have been outspoken against it, asserting that its passage will limit due process for suspects.
INDIANA In Indiana, Senate Bill 198 was signed into law on April 3, 2019. The new law enhances penalties for crimes based on a person’s actual or perceived characteristic, trait, belief, practice, association or other characteristics. The statute covers color, creed, disability, national origin, race, religion and sexual orientation, but excludes gender, gender identity, age or sex.
OREGON Oregon’s legislature passed Senate Bill 577, which expands the circumstances where the state’s earlier 1981 intimidation statute, which focused on perpetrator group conduct, was deficient, by strengthening penalties and clarifying coverage. The legislation also expanded data collection to include non-criminal incidents.
GEORGIA Georgia enacted a new hate crime law on June 26, 2020 that protects on the basis of race, sex, sexual orientation, color, religion, national origin, mental disability, or physical disability. In 2004, the state Supreme Court overturned the state’s hate crime law.
SOUTH CAROLINA H. 3063, which just passed in the Criminal Law Subcommittee of the South Carolina House of Representatives, would amend pre- existing law with an enhancement for crimes motivated by discrimination based on race, religion, color, sex, age national origin, sexual orientation or homelessness. So far, 28 state representatives have sponsored the bill. The bill has not yet passed.
NORTH CAROLINA This year, a group of Democratic lawmakers tried to strengthen North Carolina's hate crime law. In March, State Senators Jay Chaudhuri of Wake County, Valerie Foushee of Orange County, and Mujtaba Mohammed of Mecklenburg County introduced the Hate Crimes Prevention Act to broaden the existing law to include sexual orientation, gender identity, and disability, and to create a hate crime category of "felonious assault" applicable to crimes of bias involving death, kidnapping, rape, or forcible sexual offenses. It would also require the creation of a hate crime database at the State Bureau of Investigation and mandate hate crime-related training for law enforcement and prosecutors.
NEVADA Joining the ranks of other states, Nevada has succeeded in banning the use of “panic” defenses for suspects charged with crimes against gay and transsexual members of the community. The passage of the bill received a landslide victory in both the State Senate and House before the governor signed it into law.
MINNESOTA Keith Ellison, the Attorney General for the state of Minnesota, has begun the process of creating a work group that will empower local law enforcement to more accurately document crimes of hate and bias. Additionally, a grant program that funds security initiatives for places of worship was extended by Minnesota state leadership.
NORTH DAKOTA Recently, the North Dakota Advisory Committee held a public meeting focused on listening to concerns expressed by professionals and activists from within the state. However, some participants left the meeting early under the impression that the committee has not done enough to address issues of hate experienced by citizens of North Dakota.
L&J Meeting Materials Page 85 August 31, 2021 MICHIGAN The Michigan State Police has added a hate crimes category for attacks against people based on their gender identity, which brings the state in line with FBI tracking categories. The federal agency started tracking gender identity and sexual orientation hate crimes following the adoption of the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr., Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009.
CALIFORNIA Assembly member Richard Bloom of Los Angeles is introducing a bill in January 2021 to create a permanent State of Hate Commission and other states are expected to follow his lead.
AB 1052 would require peace officers to undergo comprehensive training on hate crimes. It also requires all in-service peace officers to take a refresher course on hate crimes every three years that will be developed by the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training.
AB 300 would improve accuracy in reporting of hate crimes and incidents by requiring specific reports from law enforcement agencies in California to include a checkbox indicating whether the case is a hate crime or incident. It would also require law enforcement agencies to complete a supplemental report that specifies the type of bias motivation and other relevant information for each hate crime or incident.
In June 2019, AB 1985 was signed into law. The bill clarifies that a disability is protected under the law regardless of whether it is temporary, permanent, congenital, or acquired by heredity, accident, injury, advanced age, or illness. The bill also requires any local law enforcement agency that updates an existing hate crime policy or adopts a new hate crime policy to include, among other things, the Police Officer Standards and Training (POST) framework and information regarding bias motivation.
L&J Meeting Materials Page 86 August 31, 2021
Law & Justice Committee
August 31, 2021
Agenda Item No. 9 Briefing No. 2021-B0112
Evaluation of King County Sheriff’s Office: Policy, Practice, and Review Mechanisms for Officer-Involved Shootings: Systemic Review relating to the November 25, 2019 Officer-Involved Shooting of Anthony Chilcott.
Materials for this item will be available the day of the meeting
L&J Meeting Materials Page 87 August 31, 2021