(The Center Square) – The Washington House Civil Rights and Judiciary Committee has voted to advance a bill that would give the State Attorney General’s Office expanded power to demand information from private individuals and entities without a judicial warrant.
While Democrat committee members such as Vice Chair Darya Farivar, D-Seattle, sought to portray the bill as giving the AGO more legal tools to protect the civil rights of state residents, Rep. Jim Walsh, R-Aberdeen, argued at the committee’s Feb. 24 vote on Senate Bill 5925 that it does the opposite.
Introduced at the request of the AGO, SB 5925 would expand the grounds for which the office could issue what is known as a civil investigative demand to a private person or entity.
A CID requires a person or entity turn over documents and/or records, and provide written or verbal testimony as part of an investigation into potential civil infractions. Because they are not criminal investigations, a judicial warrant is not required, though a CID does not constitute a search warrant to enter property to obtain the records or documents.
A person or entity must sue the AGO in court to avoid compliance or face potential court sanctions. Proposed amendments to the bill allowing individuals to obtain compensation for the cost of compliance have been repeatedly rejected.
Current law only allows the AGO to issue CIDs for investigations into a handful of civil infractions, but SB 5925 would tack on possible violations of the following as grounds to issue a CID:
Law enforcement requirements under the Keep Washington Working ActWages lawsWashington Law Against Discriminationthe City and County Jails Act.
A total of 11 proposed amendments were made in committee prior to the vote, all of which were rejected or withdrawn.
They included the following:
Require the Attorney General meet with the individual under investigation to potentially “cure” any alleged violation before issuing a civil investigative demand.Require facts and circumstances provide “clear and convincing evidence” of possible violations, rather than “would reasonably lead to” possible violations,” prior to issuing a CID.Prohibit the Attorney General’s Criminal Justice Division from issuing civil investigative demands.Prohibit the Attorney General from providing information obtained through a civil investigative demand to any state, local, or federal law enforcement agency or to any person or entity for purposes of a law enforcement investigation.
Speaking at the bill’s Feb. 24 vote, Farivar said “we are really in unprecedented times in this country, and I think it’s important that our Attorney General’s Office has the tools they need to make sure that, again, the individuals in the state of Washington have their rights respected and upheld. I believe that this legislation will make it possible for them to do that efficiently and try and reduce the potential for litigation where possible.”
However, Walsh responded by saying “we may live in unprecedented times, but if you’re concerned about government actions or organizational actions at other levels, changing our law in a way that raises questions about due process and the separation of powers, it seems to me a sort of ‘two wrongs make a right’ attitude toward law and policy.”
Rep. Hunter Abell, R-Inchelium, questioned whether the bill would reduce litigation, rather than increase it.
“It will be fascinating to find out in a couple of years how many lawsuits are started against the AG’s office,” Inchelium said. “I think just as a matter of practical, common sense, this will lead to an increase in litigation.”
