The Seattle Public Safety Committee voted to recommend passage of Council Bill 120916 on Jan. 14, 2025, advancing an ordinance that would require the Seattle Police Department to adopt and maintain crowd-management policies restricting the use of ‘‘less lethal’’ crowd-control tools unless specific facts and circumstances indicate an imminent risk of physical injury or significant property damage.

The measure matters because it is tied to the city’s effort to exit a federal consent decree and to align local law with state rules on chemical agents. Deputy Mayor Tim Burgess told the committee the intent is to “harmonize city law and police department policies so that we could submit those policies to the department of justice for their review and then to Judge Robart for his consideration.”

Committee discussion and a full hour of public comment focused on the safety and accountability implications of allowing blast balls, rubber projectiles, OC/CS agents and similar tools. Dozens of residents and advocates urged the committee to keep or strengthen bans, citing injuries and a multimillion-dollar settlement from the 2020 demonstrations. Gabriel Jones, a public commenter, summarized that concern: “I need you to stand up with the people of the city, and I need you to vote no on less lethal options so we can keep our civilians alive.” Jonathan Toledo, who identified himself as a member of the Seattle Alliance Against Racist and Political Repression, said the earlier use of such tools “resulted in a $10,000,000 lawsuit paid for by our tax dollar money,” and described injuries including “fractures, blindness, and even heart attacks.”

The executive branch, the Community Police Commission (CPC) and other accountability offices testified in support of the mayor’s approach with qualifications. Deputy Mayor Burgess told the committee the ordinance “establishes the values and rules that govern the use of less lethal tools in crowd management situations,” and said it would in some respects be more restrictive than state law. Joel Merkel, co-chair of the Seattle Community Police Commission, said the CPC’s police practices work group developed three principles to guide its recommendations: “above all else, the protection of human life is paramount,” that “the use of less lethal weapons should be avoided unless there is a direct threat to someone’s life or significant property damage,” and that “SPD plays an important role in facilitating safe gatherings and protecting civilians’ constitutional rights to assemble.”

The committee considered 10 proposed amendments. Key changes adopted in committee included a requirement that blast-ball use be limited to circumstances mirroring Phase 5 of SPD’s CMICs (unlawful assembly/riot conditions) and that mutual-aid officers responding to Seattle for crowd management must follow the on-scene Seattle incident commander and applicable state standards. The committee also added language to require the Office of Inspector General for Public Safety to review and report on deployments of less lethal tools and on related SPD training.

Several amendments failed in committee after divided roll-call votes, including proposals that would have required mayoral proclamation and explicit mayoral authorization before blast-ball deployment (one version of a mayoral proclamation passed but a separate amendment requiring the mayor personally to authorize blast-ball use failed). Another rejected proposal would have mandated that blast balls be deployed underhand, directed away from people and at least 10 yards from individuals.

Public comment emphasized prior harms and the financial cost of litigation. Karen Coller (attorney) submitted a letter and photographic examples the committee entered into the record documenting injuries from blast balls and other crowd-control measures used during prior protests. Deputy Mayor Burgess and CPC representatives repeatedly urged the committee to balance restrictions with operational realities, including mutual-aid protocols and rapidly evolving incidents, and highlighted training, command-and-control and accountability offices as part of the policy framework.

Votes at a glance

- Committee recommendation on Council Bill 120916 (final, as amended): recommend passage (committee vote 3 in favor — Council President Nelson, Council member Saka, Chair Robert Kettle — 1 opposed — Council member Moore — and 1 abstention — Council member Hollingsworth). The committee clerk recorded the roll call: Council member Hollingsworth (abstain), Council member Moore (no), Council President Nelson (yes), Council member Saka (yes), Chair Kettle (yes).

- Amendment 1 (chair’s package, baseline restrictions including CMICs/phase language and reporting to OIG): ADOPTED (5–0).
- Amendment 2 (required mayoral proclamation for blast-ball use): ADOPTED (5–0).
- Amendment 3 (mayoral proclamation plus explicit mayoral authorization to use blast balls): NOT ADOPTED (2–3).
- Amendment 4 (require blast balls be thrown underhand, directed away from people and at least 10 yards from individuals; add CPC recitals): NOT ADOPTED (2–2–1 abstention).
- Amendment 5 (prohibit deployment to a crowd-management role of mutual-aid officers unwilling/unable to comply with SPD crowd-management policy): NOT ADOPTED (2–3).
- Amendment 6 (require the executive to consult accountability partners on policy revisions per the accountability ordinance): ADOPTED (5–0).
- Amendment 8 (add obligation to identify and communicate entry/exit points for nonparticipants in vicinity—purpose-statement language): NOT ADOPTED (2–3).
- Amendment 9 (add proportionality language to purpose statement limiting tools that can cause physical injury where only property damage is occurring): NOT ADOPTED (1–3–1 abstention).
- Amendment 10 (create a city-level private right of action with a $10,000 baseline for injuries caused in violation of SPD policy): NOT ADOPTED (0–2–3).

What the ordinance would do (as amended by committee)

- Require SPD to adopt crowd-management policies that prohibit use of less lethal tools in crowd-management settings except when specific facts and circumstances indicate an imminent risk of physical injury to any person or significant property damage. The bill also repeals an older code section (section 3.28.146) and certain prior ordinances.
- Align certain provisions of Seattle law with state law on CS/OC agents and add a city requirement that SPD notify the Council Public Safety Committee before authorizing any less-lethal tool not already in SPD policy.
- Require prompt reporting to the Office of Inspector General for Public Safety and an annual OIG evaluation of any deployment of less-lethal weapons in crowd-management settings, and include those findings in OIG and SPD annual reports.
- Clarify that mutual-aid officers responding at Seattle’s request must operate under the on-scene Seattle incident commander and follow Seattle policies and state training standards.

Public comment and accountability concerns

Speakers during the hybrid public-comment period — including residents who said they were injured during 2020 protests and demonstrators who described seeing medics and journalists harmed — urged the council to retain a near-total ban on blast balls, rubber projectiles and chemical agents. Many speakers cited a prior roughly $10 million settlement tied to 2020 protest responses and argued that allowing these tools again would lead to further injury and litigation. Supporters of the mayor’s approach, including the CPC and some accountability offices, said the focus should be on clear, enforceable policy, training, and oversight so that tools are used only in narrowly defined, high-risk circumstances.

What’s next

Chair Robert Kettle told the committee the measure will be transmitted to the full City Council; he said the bill was originally scheduled for the Jan. 28 council agenda but “will be probably shifted to February 4.” The full council will take up the committee’s recommendation and any additional amendments at that meeting.

Sources and attribution

This article is based on the Jan. 14, 2025 Seattle Public Safety Committee hearing (public comment, staff presentations, testimony from the mayor’s office and SPD leadership, and roll-call votes). Quotations and factual claims are drawn from the meeting transcript and the letters and materials entered into the record. Direct quotes in this story are attributed to individuals who spoke at the hearing.