Creates new law by adding sections to chapter 43.10 RCW that give the Washington attorney general explicit authority to investigate and bring civil actions against local law enforcement agencies and local corrections agencies for alleged violations of the Washington State Constitution or state law. This is a procedural and enforcement change: the attorney general may investigate on the office’s own initiative or in response to independent oversight bodies; issue written civil investigative demands for documents and oral testimony; require answers to written interrogatories; and sue for injunctive or declaratory relief, damages, costs, and reasonable attorneys’ fees. The attorney general may recover costs, including reasonable attorneys’ fees, at the court’s discretion if the office prevails. The bill requires coordination at the start of a formal investigation: the attorney general must confer with the U.S. Department of Justice to avoid conflicts and may not seek relief that conflicts with a DOJ action or bring a civil action concurrent to DOJ civil actions. The attorney general must send a letter to the subject local agency explaining the investigation and request a meeting, and must confer with the subject agency and the office of independent investigations to try to clarify and remedy alleged violations without interfering with ongoing investigations. The new sections are to be liberally construed and will control over any conflicting statute, ordinance, rule, or regulation of any public employer in the event of a conflict. The act adds definitions for “local corrections agency,” “local corrections officer,” “local law enforcement agency,” and references the statutory definition of “peace officer” in RCW 10.93.020. The attorney general must develop and publish by September 1, 2026, a model policy for law enforcement agency accountability systems covering complaint receipt, investigations of serious misconduct, discipline, and disciplinary appeals, and must consult specified entities (including the DOJ, office of independent investigations, Criminal Justice Training Commission, State Auditor’s Office, law enforcement agencies and unions, prosecutors, oversight bodies, and affected community stakeholders) in doing so. Important context is missing: the text of the referenced RCW provisions is not included here, “serious misconduct” is not defined in the provided facts, and detailed procedures for coordinating with DOJ or how these sections integrate with the rest of chapter 43.10 RCW are not shown.

If enacted, the attorney general’s office will start routinely opening state-level investigations into county and city police and jail systems, demanding documents and testimony and bringing lawsuits for constitutional or state law violations. Local law enforcement and local corrections agencies and their officers will face greater legal risk and possible new costs for defense, damages, or court-ordered reforms, and they will have to respond to formal letters and meetings when investigations begin. The attorney general can recover costs and attorneys’ fees if it wins, must coordinate with the U.S. Department of Justice and the state’s independent oversight office to avoid conflicts, and cannot bring civil suits that run at the same time as DOJ civil actions. The attorney general must also produce a model policy for agency accountability by September 1, 2026, after consulting a long list of stakeholders, which is likely to push local agencies to change complaint intake, misconduct investigation, discipline, and appeal procedures. Practical uncertainties remain because the bill does not define key terms like “serious misconduct” and it does not show how the new authority will fit with existing state and federal procedures, so local agencies and the attorney general may still need clarification on when investigations start and how coordination with DOJ will work.