The purpose of an Attorney General`s opinion is to answer legal questions as best as possible – not to make policy proposals. Therefore, we are not taking a position here on how Parliament should amend these laws. However, for the reasons just mentioned, it is important that Parliament clarify its intent with respect to these matters. Now for your specific questions: Use of force doctrines can be used by law enforcement officers and military personnel on guard duty. The purpose of these doctrines is to balance security needs with ethical concerns about the rights and well-being of intruders or suspects. Injuries to civilians tend to draw attention to self-defence as justification and, in the case of death, to the concept of justified homicide. The first factor that makes it unclear whether the list in paragraph 10.120.020(1)(a) of the CWR should be exclusive is a text factor. The restrictions on the use of force in clause 3 of Bill 1310 are divided into two parts: (1)(a), which deals with the use of force in general, and Part (1)(b), which deals with the use of lethal force. Paragraph (1)(b) states that “a peace officer shall not use lethal force against another person except to the extent necessary to protect himself or herself from an imminent threat of serious injury or death to himself or any other person” (emphasis added). In contrast, paragraph (1)(a) states that “a peace officer may use physical force against a person if” any of the four circumstances described above are present. Normally, the use of “only” in a paragraph and its omission in the preceding paragraph would constitute strong evidence that Parliament intended a difference in meaning, one being an exclusive list and the other illustrative.

See, for example, Perez-Crisantos v State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 187 Wn.2d 669, 680, 389 pp.3d 476 (2017) (“If Parliament includes particular language in one section of one statute but omits it in another, the exclusion is presumed to be intentional.”). In England and Wales, the (appropriate) use of force against the police and any other person is provided for in section 3 of the Criminal Law Act 1967, which provides: The police shall use physical force only to the extent necessary to comply with the law or restore order, if persuasion, advice and warnings are considered inadequate. It is argued that the skills necessary to perform law enforcement tasks well cannot be acquired outside of a classroom. These skills are generally best acquired through repeated exposure to law enforcement situations in the performance of the work. [22] Results on whether an officer`s experience contributes to the likelihood of use of force vary across studies. Some have suggested that if a person refuses to comply with a Terry stop, they are participating in the crime of obstruction, which is likely grounds for arrest and justifies the use of force under Bill 1310. According to the relevant Washington law, “a person is guilty of obstructing a law enforcement officer if the person intentionally obstructs, delays, or obstructs a law enforcement officer in the performance of his or her official powers or duties.” RCW 9A.76.020.

But courts interpret the obstruction charge narrowly, requiring it to be based on conduct rather than mere speech or refusal to cooperate. Statement v. J.E.J., 183 Wn.2d 497, 354 P.3d 815 (2015); City of Shoreline v. McLemore, 193 Wn.2d 225, 438 p.3d 1161 (2019) (plural); State v. D.E.D., 200 Wn. App. 484, 494, 402 P.3d 851 (2017) (“In general, there is no obligation to cooperate with the police. Providing information to the police does not constitute an obstruction of a law enforcement officer”) (citations omitted). In der Rechtssache D.E.D.

The Court of Appeal ruled that resisting handcuffs if a suspect is not arrested during a Terry stop does not constitute obstruction. D.E.D., 200 Wn. App. at 496. The court said: “If the suspect is personally the target of pre-trial detention, we believe that the absence of an obligation to assist the police prevents the application of the obstruction law to enhance cooperation. [T]he legislature has imposed an obligation to cooperate only in the event of lawful arrest. (emphasis added). Therefore, a court is unlikely to find a person with a disability by refusing to comply with a public servant`s request; However, obstruction could be achieved if this passive resistance was more active or involved additional behavior. Id.

(refused to enter into the question of whether “active resistance” to a Terry decision could be considered obstruction). In the absence of other evidence, we take no position on whether the elements of disability could be met for those who refuse to comply with Terry, but we find that courts generally require active resistance or behaviour beyond mere speech or refusal to cooperate. The reading of the list as exclusive also seems more consistent with Parliament`s intention to pass Bill 1310. The bill sought to establish the duty of peace officers to act with due diligence, to limit the use of lethal force by officers to “very limited circumstances” and, to the extent possible, to require peace officers to use as little physical force as possible. Statutes 2021, c. 324, § 1. These statements of intent strongly suggest that Bill 1310 seeks to limit the circumstances in which officers may use physical force. However, if the list in paragraph 10.120.020(1)(a) of the CWR were to be interpreted as exemplary and not exhaustive, the provision would do nothing to limit the circumstances in which physical abuse is permitted. Our answer to your second question largely determines our answer to that question. Because we conclude that the list of circumstances in which force is permitted under paragraph 10.120.020(1)(a) of the CWR is exclusive, we conclude that the legislation you are requesting here does not provide an independent basis for the use of force.

However, this conclusion is uncertain for the same reasons as explained in our answer to your second question. And it`s important to realize that in many of the circumstances covered by the laws you`re referring to, some level of physical abuse will likely be permitted under Bill 1310. A Washington Post report found that 385 Americans were shot and killed by law enforcement officers in the first five months of 2015, an average of more than two fatal hits a day, more than double what official statistics reported. 221 of those killed were armed with rifles, 68 with knives or other blades. [17] At common law, Sotomayor stated, the element of violence in the crime of assault was “satisfied by the slightest offensive contact.” Because perpetrators of domestic violence are often prosecuted under assault or assault laws, it makes sense that Congress considered such offensive touches to meet the standard that disqualifies a person from owning a gun, Sotomayor said. The court ignores accepted definitions of domestic violence, Scalia said, choosing instead to cite expansive definitions in an amicus curiae letter from the National Network to End Domestic Violence and publications from the Justice Department`s Office of Violence Against Women. As an example of the broad definition, Scalia cited Amici`s description of domestic violence as acts that humiliate, isolate, frighten, and blame; excessive monitoring of a woman`s behaviour; repeated accusations of infidelity; and controlling contact with others. We begin by pointing out that the answers to all your questions are extremely difficult. Reasonable minds do not agree on the right legal conclusions.

We give our best legal answers for them here, but we must recognize that these answers are controversial and uncertain. As this example illustrates, reading the list in paragraph 10.120.020(1)(a) of the RCW as exclusive may limit the use of force by law enforcement in ways that legislators may not have anticipated or contemplated. But, as explained below, although the exclusive interpretation of this provision creates some tension with these other provisions, we believe that they can be reconciled, and we do not believe that this tension is sufficient to prevail over the text and intent described above.