This bill amends RCW 13.40.740 to require that law enforcement provide a juvenile (anyone under 18) access to an attorney for consultation, in person, by phone, or by videoconference, before the juvenile waives any constitutional rights when the officer questions the juvenile during a custodial interrogation, detains the juvenile based on probable cause of involvement in criminal activity, or requests the juvenile's consent to an evidentiary search of the juvenile or the juvenile's property, dwelling, or vehicle. The consultation cannot be waived. After consultation, the juvenile may assert rights directly, through a parent or guardian, or through counsel, and assertions made through counsel are treated as if made by the juvenile. Waiver of rights is allowed only as provided in RCW 13.40.140. The bill also changes rules about admissibility of juvenile statements in juvenile offender or adult criminal court: statements made after the described contact are not admissible unless the juvenile was given access to counsel and then expressly, knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived rights as required by RCW 13.40.140, or the statement is spontaneous or used only for impeachment. Narrow exceptions allow officers to question a juvenile without providing the required consultation if the officer reasonably believes the juvenile is a trafficking victim (information obtained under this exception cannot be used in prosecution of that juvenile), if immediate information is needed to protect life from imminent threat and delay would impede protection (limited to life‑protecting matters), or if questioning is expected to reduce or mitigate harm to the juvenile or others (information obtained under this exception cannot be used in prosecution unless the juvenile later shares it after being offered consultation). The bill defines “law enforcement officer” to include Washington and federal peace officers, school resource officers, and certain public code‑enforcement officers. Affected parties named in the text include juveniles, law enforcement officers as defined, parents and guardians, legal counsel for juveniles, and juvenile offender and adult criminal courts. The bill was read for the first time on 02/10/25. The extracted text does not show whether the bill includes other provisions such as an effective date, severability, or full definitions from the referenced statutes (RCW 13.40.140, 9A.40.100, 10.93.020, and 28A.320.124), so those details are uncertain from the provided material.

If passed, the practical effect would be that most detained or questioned young people will routinely get an attorney to consult with before they can be asked to give up rights or consent to searches, and statements made without that consultation will generally be unusable in later court cases. That change will likely reduce the number of immediate admissions or consent-based evidence prosecutors can rely on and make early lawyer involvement a standard part of juvenile contacts. The groups most affected are juveniles, defense counsel, and law enforcement (including school resource and certain code‑enforcement officers). Agencies that police juveniles will need new procedures, training, and ways to provide quick phone or video access to lawyers, which could raise operational costs and slow some investigations; public defense providers may face increased demand for immediate consults. The bill text here doesn’t show an effective date or funding for these changes, and it references other statutes for key definitions, so implementation details and who pays for added services remain unclear.