Will you chip in to support our nonprofit newsroom with a donation today? Yes, I want to support My Edmonds News!
Three Washington state senators said the biting testimony Pierce County’s sheriff delivered during a committee hearing Thursday was threatening to legislators.
Sheriff Keith Swank delivered the remarks to the Senate Law and Justice Committee, stating his opposition to legislation that would set stricter eligibility requirements for people to serve as sheriffs and in other law enforcement leadership jobs. In his roughly 90 seconds of comments, Swank also remarked on a bill that would restrict officers from wearing masks.
“My deputies don’t wear masks, but once you pass this law that they can’t, I would not only allow them, but I would encourage them to do so just to see what you do,” he said.
“I don’t recognize your authority to impose these controls over me and when you try to remove me from office, thousands of Pierce County residents will surround the County-City Building in downtown Tacoma and will not allow that to happen,” he continued. “I hope it doesn’t come to that, but I, and they, are prepared. Are you prepared?”
The sponsor of the bill on eligibility standards for law enforcement officials, Sen. John Lovick, D-Mill Creek, served as a state trooper and Snohomish County sheriff.
He saw Swank’s comments asking if lawmakers were “prepared” as “very, very threatening.” He compared Swank’s intimidating behavior to Eugene “Bull” Connor, the 20th-century Alabama police leader who opposed civil rights for Black people and was known for ordering the use of fire hoses and police dogs on demonstrators.
“He just doesn’t represent what law enforcement is supposed to represent,” Lovick said.
As a sheriff, Lovick said he wanted to set the example for his rank-and-file deputies.
“I want them to display the same characteristics I have,” Lovick said. “If I go and talk to legislators like that, they might feel compelled to speak to the public that way.”
Law and Justice Committee Chair Manka Dhingra, D-Redmond, said she has a thick skin after being a prosecutor for 20 years.
“I recognized threats in his speech, but I do not get intimidated by bullies,” she said Friday.
The Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs condemned Swank’s comments as “inflammatory” and said it plans to initiate proceedings to consider expelling him from the organization.
“The scope of his testimony went beyond reasonable dialogue and devolved into what could be perceived as threatening to legislators and he challenged their constitutional authority,” association leadership said in a statement. “The manner in which he conducted himself was not in line with the professional behavior we expect of members.”
The association noted it also has “grave concerns” with the legislation.
Dhingra appreciates the association’s move to potentially expel Swank, but it is “something that should’ve been handled a long time ago,” citing Swank’s history of controversial behavior in office.
Just this month, Swank clashed with Thurston County Sheriff Derek Sanders in the aftermath of a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent fatally shooting a woman in her car in Minnesota.
“PSA: if law enforcement tells you to stop. STOP,” Swank wrote on social media. “You can always sue later if your rights were violated. Even if you are right, do you want to be dead right?”
Sanders believed Swank was mocking the woman’s death, leading to a tense back-and-forth. Swank has also faced backlash for disparaging transgender people and defending those who stormed the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.
A spokesperson for the association of sheriffs and police chiefs declined to comment on whether Swank’s prior controversies played a role in its decision to begin expulsion proceedings.
Sen. Yasmin Trudeau, who serves as vice chair of the Law and Justice Committee, said she felt more directly threatened by Swank’s comments Thursday as she lives in Pierce County. The Tacoma Democrat argued it showed how “off the rails he actually is.”
“I think he’s an embarrassment to the profession,” she said.
There isn’t a timeline for a decision on Swank’s future with the Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs, spokesperson Barbara Smith said.
Eight members of the organization’s 14-member board would be needed to remove Swank from the organization, which wouldn’t affect his position as the elected county sheriff. The influential group advocates on behalf of law enforcement leaders and administers some state-funded programs.
Swank worked for the Seattle Police Department for 33 years before retiring in 2023. He won a tight election to become Pierce County sheriff in November 2024. Pierce County, home to Tacoma, has about 940,000 residents.
Swank didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment. But in a social media post, he included the testimony he would’ve given if he had more time. In it, he called Democratic lawmakers “evil” and compared them to President Donald Trump.
“You Democrats hate President Trump so much, yet you do the very things you accuse him of doing such as imposing these types of controls over other independently elected officials,” Swank wrote.
Swank also wrote that his potential expulsion from the sheriffs and police chiefs association “is what happens when you don’t tow the party line.”
Lovick’s bill would require elected sheriffs to meet the same, new heightened eligibility standards as appointed police chiefs and marshals and would force them to undergo a background check. It also limits the use of volunteers amid concerns of so-called “posses” that rural sheriffs sometimes build. It is set for a vote from the Law and Justice Committee next week.
Swank is the subject of three Criminal Justice Training Commission cases related to his certification as a law enforcement officer, but none appear to have been assigned to an investigator, according to the commission. Under the bill, if he were decertified, he would have to vacate his role as sheriff.
Washington State Standard is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Washington State Standard maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Bill Lucia for questions: info@washingtonstatestandard.com.
Swank spoke on his own behalf opposing a bill that is blatantly unconstitutional and anti-democratic. It seeks to give removal powers to an unelected board to remove an elected Sheriff from office. It is a clear effort by Democrats to remove local law enforcement they don’t like despite what voters may think. The office of Sheriff is specified in the state constitution as a county elected office. If there is a misperforming Sheriff then voter recall or the next election is the answer. Not a Olympia power grab by Democrats. WASPC is a State board so threats of retaliation against Swank for exercising his free speech rights sounds like a civil rights violation. Whats next? Removal of Auditors, Treasurers, County Commissioners or County Execs. they don’t like? Centralized power in Olympia is not what voters want.
I’m not sure that bill is blatantly unconstitutional or anti-democratic. Sheriff Swank makes some bizarre statements for an officer of the law. Regardless of these issues, I agree with you, Mark. He is an elected official. The proper way to remove him would be recall or in another election, both involving voters. Neither involve the legislature. If the governor attempts to remove him, the sheriff had better be guilty of some crime, which involves the courts.
““My deputies don’t wear masks, but once you pass this law that they can’t, I would not only allow them, but I would encourage them to do so just to see what you do,” he said.””
Really odd logic, and for a high level officer of the state’s laws, bizzare.
The issue of masked officers really needs a comprehensive risk evaluation before a law is considered. I understand the safety concerns officers may have with all of the video and identity technology out there today. Arresting a person shouldn’t make you a target. We want our law enforcement to be safe from all perspectives.
Swank was not speaking on his behalf. He was in uniform, speaking on behalf of that uniform and what it represents.
He does not represent well.
We seem to have devolved to a society where some law enforcement personnel have flipped over from trying to stop violence and keep the peace to being political activists who relish throwing gasoline on the flames of civil unrest and fear. I would think one of the main criteria society would want to look for in a “Peace” officer is someone who absolutely didn’t want to shoot or harm someone in the name of preserving the peace unless they had to. The fictional Lone Ranger chose to wear a mask for some inexplicable reason, use silver bullets, and never shoot to kill, just to wound enough to stop the law breaker. That was all absurd, of course, but the message was pretty clear. In America “the “police” should always be about keeping the peace and use deadly force as rarely as possible. Now many of our “Peace Officers” seem to want to wear a mask, and shoot to kill first and ask questions later in defiance of simple good sense. Here we have a “Peace Officer” saying that if he can’t be free to wear a mask (essentially becoming “secret police,” he will join his constituents in forming a riot against the state. Scary stuff!
The statement” Now many of our “Peace Officers” seem to want to wear a mask and shoot to kill first and ask questions later in defiance of simple good sense” is a rhetorical question. The answer is in the question. It is a generalization which disparages and demonizes the 700,000+ American law enforcement officers of all sorts. It is unfair to men and women of all races who go work not knowing if they will be alive at the end of their shift.
Clinton you are flat wrong. It is rare that police are forced to use deadly force and only when there is a perceived threat to their lives or the lives of others. You are stirring up hate for police. Provide examples in Washington where, as you claim,” Peace Officers shoot first and ask questions later”. Police sometimes mask to protect their identities from retribution by bad guys they have to deal with. They are in uniform so no “secret police” as you claim.
Clint Wright can defend himself. I will say, Mark, that I did not read that he was specifically referring to Washington in his commentary about police shooting first and asking questions afterwards. During the Obama administration the Justice Department put the Seattle police department under special supervision because of a series of civil rights violations. The police made reforms. I think a sizable number would agree that the police were not firm enough in controlling the downtown area during the George Floyd disturbances. All this aside, Washington police have avoided behaving like the police in, say, Louisville, who went in with guns blazing and killed Breonna Taylor in her apartment. This was not a one-off. But let’s get back to the point: police are now not the problem. ICE is. Their level of violence is off the charts. Police don’t wear masks and they live among us. Why should ICE not wear masks? I do see ICE or Border Patrol officers without uniform in unmarked cars. With masks they are not so much like the Gestapo. Those goons wore uniforms and were not masked. Sorry, to me ICE is out of control. I don’t think I am an alarmist to think we may under Trump’s presidency have to wear some equivalent to the Jewish star to show our citizenship.
What I’m basically saying is that, if we want to live in a truly free society where the rules are the same for everyone, we would want to hire police personnel in any jurisdiction who feel the last thing they would ever want to do is have to use deadly force against anyone, citizen or otherwise. My first wife had an uncle who was a Colonel in the WASP and the thing he was most proud of was that he never pulled his service revolver in the line of duty, let alone firing it at anyone. When he retired his subordinates gave him a matching pair of Colt .45 Automatic pistols which he tossed in a local large body of water because he was afraid someone might steal them and use them in crime. That’s who I want as the local sheriff; not some guy saying he will aid and abet an angry crowd if he doesn’t like a law he is supposed to uphold. I don’t argue with MAGA’s because telling you, “you are wrong,” is a knee jerk reaction for them. Discussion is pointless.
Michael, we see the facts very differently. I see radical, sometimes paid, protesters spewing hate towards ICE officers trying to do their job. Same job they did under Obama to the tune of 3,000,000 deportations. Maybe you believe all who entered illegally should be allowed to stay. Your entitiled to your view but, that is not the law of the land. If ICE were truly “out of control” you would see a body count like seen currently in IRAN. Remember ICE is frequently dealing with serious and sometimes dangerous felons who resist arrest and have a history of multiple crimes and convictions. Sanctuary cities do catch and release when they do new crimes so back they go on the street. ICE is the only agency committed to removing the threat from our streets. Stirring up hatred towards ICE with false narratives is only going to result in more confrontations and violence. I can read the signs that some protesters hold saying “Death to ICE”. By the way we have had undercover police officers for decades not wearing uniforms and in unmarked cars. Some are Detectives and some are doing surveillance so as to not tip off the suspect . Normal police work. ICE had 59 use of deadly force incidents with 23 fatalities over a six year period. State of Illinois police had 269 fatalities.
Mark, we live in alternative universes. We may disagree on some facts and other ones may have a significance of differing amounts. For instance the Cato Institute and other organizations report that 73% of ICE and Border Patrol detainees are not criminals, the worst of the worst. Those were who Trump said he was going after. An undocumented immigrant who has not committed a crime, because his or her immigration offense may thus be a misdemeanor, deserves more consideration than deportation to CECOT concentration camp or a country they have never known. Many have attended all their hearings in hopes of getting permanent legal status, only to be apprehended in the courthouse. Conservatives did not trust Biden or his ministers. I deserve the same consideration when I distrust Noem or Homan. Let the present government verify. Then I can trust. So far judges have said the present government has lied in court. Noem said agent Ross, who killed Ms Good, received internal injuries. Well, a black and blue mark is a sign of internal bleeding. Let’s see some verification of the injury. I could go on but I suspect this might already be too much. The gulf between our positions may be too great. I am a citizen and I presume you are. So we should want the best for the country.
A black and blue mark is an indication that he was indeed struck by Ms Good’s car. She was a trained anti-ICE “warrior”. If she wasn’t trying to hit him, she was as negligent as any of us would be if we did the same.
Perhaps, the black and blue mark was a sign of his contact with her car, Gerald. Leave it that I cannot understand your point of view. It seems to me to favor cruelty more than rule of law. I am not saying that you are a cruel person. What I am saying is that our federal immigration officials are acting cruelly. Some, perhaps like you, who have always been law abiding citizens, find it easier to believe those enforcing the law rather than the obvious cases where we now have immigration officers who are violating peoples’ rights as practiced in this country. The recent case of the naturalized Hmong citizen pulled from his home with guns drawn is a case in point. It is one of many, and Ms Good did nothing that warranted her death. As Clint says, we can’t agree on what we see. I know that I want to live in a country that will not accept the present actions of ICE as acceptable.
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/15/video/ice-shooting-renee-good-minneapolis-videos.html?searchResultPosition=1
The above analysis does not substantiate claims that Ross was struck in any fashion that might produce any serious injury.
Like I said, there is no point trying to have a discussion with people who’s minds are made up and they just know you are wrong. They want to live in a world where a masked guy with a badge can yell stop and, if you don’t, he’s allowed to blow you away, no questions asked. That just doesn’t sound like, “freedom and justice for all,” to me. but to each his own, I guess.
Your point is valid, but postings such as Mr Molly’s encourage those of us not subject to the Trump Derangement Syndrome that seems to affect his supporters, and may help persuade any undecideds – if such there still are.
I echo Mr Molly: “I know that I want to live in a country that will not accept the present actions of ICE as acceptable.” An ICE agent arresting a five year-old and using him to gain entry into his parents’ house? Spraying a downed and cuffed protester directly in the face with pepper spray? These things, and so many like them, are NOT what I want to see supported by the government of our country!
Nathaniel, I know Mike knows me well enough to know that I agree with him over all on this and I think you do too. My only point is that until Mr. Trump’s fellow Republicans in the Senate and House quit worrying about getting Primaried and reign this damn fool in, calm discussion between constituent citizens of both sides is pretty pointless. Peaceful demonstration is quite another thing and I’m all for that. If I had not had to help a friend over here with a car problem, I would have been with the crowd in Kingston peacefully protesting this preposterous nonsense. “She was a trained anti-ICE ‘warrior.'” People who would believe that would believe anything. Just like, “lots of these protesters are paid to demonstrate.” If so; where can I put in an application for the job?