Proposed Washington law aims to address racial disparities in traffic stops

A new bill introduced in the Washington Legislature would limit the circumstances under which law enforcement officers can conduct a traffic stop.

House Bill 1512, championed by groups including the American Civil Liberties Union and Washington Coalition for Police Accountability, is intended to address racial disparities in traffic stops and vehicle searches without compromising road safety.

The legislation, called Traffic Safety for All, would eliminate the ability of police to pull motorists over solely for non-safety-related traffic violations, such as driving with a broken taillight or registration tags expired for less than a year. Advocates say it would free up additional resources for law enforcement to pull over drivers who are distracted, reckless or under the influence, which they argue pose the greatest risk to public safety. They point to instances where traffic stops of minority drivers for non-safety related reasons have escalated to violence, sometimes even fatal — reinforcing an ongoing distrust of law enforcement in those communities.

Law enforcement groups have voiced strong opposition to the bill, arguing it would negatively impact public safety.

The bill has not yet been voted on by the House Community Safety Committee, which could amend, reject or pass the bill to the House Rules Committee.

Racial disparities in stops and searches have been a persistent pattern for the Washington State Patrol. An InvestigateWest analysis of more than 7,000 high-discretion searches between 2018 and 2023 found that the patrol searched Native Americans at a rate five times higher than white Washingtonians. Black and Hispanic drivers were also searched at disproportionate rates.

Some experts in policing bias argue that the only proven way to decrease disparities in discretionary searches is to limit the circumstances in which officers can request a search. The Traffic Safety For All bill aims to do that by limiting the type of offenses that can be used as a basis to conduct a discretionary search.

A discretionary search is when an officer has no warrant or legal obligation to conduct a search, and instead uses their judgment — like an officer asking to look inside a vehicle during a traffic stop, conducting a pat-down or using a police canine.

Limiting the circumstances where officers can conduct a traffic stop indirectly limits the circumstances in which they may conduct a high-discretion search. Reform advocates say it’s necessary to improve relations between marginalized communities and law enforcement, as well as to allocate additional resources to other violations they say are greater threats to public safety.

The bill would achieve three primary goals. First, it would create grants that could be awarded to groups who provide “solutions-oriented” assistance to non-moving violations for low-income drivers, like providing vouchers for repairs or helmets. Second, it would require that police only pull over motorists for a list of moving and criminal violations, including failure to wear a seatbelt or failure to signal, but would prohibit officers from pulling drivers over primarily for certain non-moving violations, like the single broken taillight or tags expired for less than a year. Finally, it would allow law enforcement officers to send motorists a mailed warning for a non-moving traffic infraction.

Reform advocates argue racial disparities in traffic stops lead to a domino effect of accumulating non-safety-related offenses and fines that disproportionately affect minority and low-income Washingtonians.

State Rep. Chipalo Street, D-Seattle, one of the chief sponsors of the bill, said more than a dozen law enforcement agencies were consulted during the bill-writing process and that 30 lawmakers worked to draft it. Street testified Feb. 10 that he believes it would provide additional law enforcement resources to focus on safety-related infractions.

“I would love to be pulling people over because we believe it will make the road safer,” Street said.

Members of the Washington Coalition for Police Accountability also testified in support.

“We help struggling families comply with the law without unnecessary steps that escalate tensions,” said Nickeia Hunter, treasurer of the group.

Similar legislation introduced in 2024 failed to garner significant support, facing opposition from groups representing law enforcement and prosecutors.

In November, Rep. Roger Goodman, a Kirkland Democrat and the chair of the House Community Safety Committee, told InvestigateWest there were concerns about the language of the previous bill possibly restricting police discretion and capabilities.

“It’s sort of this balance between public safety and social equity,” Goodman said.

The bill’s sponsors made adjustments to the bill’s language in the hopes it would assuage the concerns, like including seatbelt violations as a reason for officers to stop a driver and removing some restrictions for stopping people with outstanding misdemeanor warrants.

Still, representatives of those groups testified they remain opposed to the legislation, sharing a range of concerns focused primarily on the perception that the bill limits the abilities of law enforcement to do their jobs.

James McMahan, policy director of the Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs, testified that although his group supported some components of the law, like the formation of the grant program, it was opposed to the changes in traffic stops.

“If the Legislature wants a person to be able to drive a car without headlights or taillights, we recommend that you simply just remove those provisions from the law,” McMahan said.

McMahan said proponents of the bill were disingenuous in stating that the new legislation would free up police resources to focus on moving violations and safety concerns, stating that many departments have already shifted priorities due to staffing issues.

Several representatives also expressed skepticism about the bill’s impacts on public safety, like Rep. Dan Griffey, R-Allyn, who is concerned the bill would endanger human trafficking victims trapped in trunks who kicked out a tail light to alert others to their location.

Street questioned how frequently those situations occurred, pointing to the small portion of traffic stops that uncover additional offenses.

“I would love to make sure we’re using that law enforcement time in the best way possible,” Street said.