This bill creates a new statutory cause of action in Title 7 RCW against a state prosecutor when an individual previously arrested for a "violent offense" is released before trial because the prosecutor declined to file what were, under the totality of circumstances known to the prosecutor, reasonable charges, that individual then injures a person, and the prosecutor did not adequately consider the risk of public harm before declining to charge. "Adequate consideration" is defined to require a written and published assessment addressing known evidence about the alleged offense, the person’s criminal record and risk of further violence, the vulnerability of potential victims, and the adequacy of alternatives to prosecution, plus consideration of relevant evidence and testimony from law enforcement, experts, victims, and advocates. The bill treats whether charges were reasonable as a question of fact and expressly bars any form of prosecutorial immunity as a defense to actions under the new section. The bill provides remedies and changes liability rules: a prevailing plaintiff may recover actual damages (and at least nominal damages), court costs, reasonable attorneys’ fees, and declaratory or injunctive relief. It preserves the general right of elected or appointed officials to have a legal defense paid by the state or a political subdivision except as limited by the statute. If the trier of fact finds by clear and convincing evidence that the prosecutor intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly disregarded the risk of public harm, the prosecutor becomes personally liable for all defense costs and any judgment, the state and political subdivisions are prohibited from paying subsequent defense costs or the judgment, and any defense costs previously paid by the state or political subdivisions must be repaid by the prosecutor within one year. The cause of action must be brought within three years after it accrues (accrual defined as discovery by the plaintiff), and the act takes effect January 1, 2026. The bill also amends related provisions in RCW 4.92.070, 4.92.075, and 4.96.041 concerning defense and payment duties. Some details are not provided in the extracted text: the new chapter number in Title 7 RCW is not given, the bill relies on external definitions and procedures in cited RCW sections (for example RCW 9.94A.030 and provisions governing prosecuting attorneys) that are not reproduced here, and specific procedural details such as venue, filing mechanics, or broader evidentiary rules beyond what is stated are not included.

If enacted, the law would give people injured by someone who was arrested for a violent offense but released because a prosecutor declined to file what a court later finds were "reasonable" charges a new path to sue that prosecutor. Prosecutors would have to prepare and publish a written assessment showing they considered all relevant evidence, law enforcement input, victims’ perspectives, and alternatives to prosecution before declining charges. That will increase prosecutors’ workload, create a new documentation requirement, and raise the risk of civil suits seeking actual damages, attorneys’ fees, and court orders. The state normally can pay a prosecutor’s defense and judgments, but if a jury finds by clear and convincing evidence the prosecutor intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly ignored the risk of public harm, the prosecutor would be personally liable for defense costs and any judgment and the state or local government would be barred from paying and could require repayment of prior defense payments within a year. The groups most affected are elected and deputy prosecutors (who face more responsibilities and potential personal financial risk), county and state governments (which could see new defense costs and judgments but also have a pathway to deny payment in extreme cases), and people injured after such releases (who gain a civil remedy with a three‑year filing deadline from when they discover the harm). Practical details about how some terms are defined and about court procedures depend on other state statutes cited in the bill and are not included here, so some implementation questions remain unclear.