The bill reenacts and amends RCW 10.120.020 to set statutory standards for peace officers’ use of physical and deadly force. It adopts an objective “reasonableness” standard based on whether a similarly situated reasonable officer would have acted the same way (citing Graham v. Connor). The amended section lists specific permitted purposes for using physical force (identified as items (a) through (k) in the text) and limits deadly force to situations that are necessary to protect against an immediate threat of serious physical injury or death. The bill defines “immediate threat of serious physical injury or death” as an objectively reasonable belief, under the totality of the circumstances, that a person has present and apparent ability, opportunity, and intent to immediately cause death or serious bodily injury. It requires officers to exercise reasonable care, including using de-escalation when possible, employing the least amount of force necessary, terminating force once it is no longer necessary, using less-lethal alternatives when possible before resorting to deadly force, and making less-lethal tools reasonably available. The law bars use of force tactics that are prohibited by departmental policy, the chapter, or other law except to protect life from an imminent threat, and it lists characteristics and conditions that should be considered when determining force (for example: pregnancy, minor status, vulnerable adults as defined in RCW 74.34.020, signs of impairment, suicidal behavior, limited English proficiency, and presence of children). The section states it does not limit lifesaving or community caretaking duties, response to requests for assistance, constitutional protections, or agencies’ ability to adopt stricter restrictions. An emergency clause makes the act take effect immediately. This is an amendment to an existing statute establishing procedural standards for use of force rather than creating a new crime or specifying new criminal penalties in the provided text. Important statutory definitions (for example “peace officer,” “less-lethal alternatives,” “departmental policy,” and “similarly situated reasonable officer”), broader chapter context, and any implementing details such as training, enforcement, reporting, or disciplinary procedures are not included in the extracted text.

If enacted, the bill imposes a clearer, objective standard for when officers may use force and narrows when deadly force is allowed to cases of an immediate threat defined by present ability, opportunity, and intent. Police departments and the officers they employ will be required in practice to try de-escalation, use the least force necessary, stop using force once it is no longer needed, prefer less-lethal options before resorting to deadly force, and make those less-lethal options reasonably available; the law takes effect immediately. The people most affected are peace officers, their employing agencies and the local governments that oversee them, plus first responders and service providers who interact with officers and vulnerable groups such as minors, pregnant people, vulnerable adults, and those with disabilities or limited English. Agencies will likely have to revise policies and operations to meet the new duties and could face increased costs or administrative burdens to equip and supply less-lethal options and to ensure compliance; there is uncertainty about key definitions and no implementing details on training, enforcement, reporting, or who bears costs, so how agencies must practically meet these requirements is not fully specified.