This bill reenacts and amends RCW 42.56.240 to create a detailed list of public records exemptions for investigative, law enforcement, and crime victim information. It enumerates specific categories of records that are exempt from public inspection and copying, including intelligence and investigative records; identities of witnesses, victims, or complainants when disclosure would endanger safety; certain transferred sex-offense investigative reports; concealed pistol license, permit-to-purchase, and firearm purchase/transfer applications and related records subject to limited release exceptions; identifying details of child victims of sexual assault or commercial sexual exploitation under age 18; gang database information; electronic sales tracking system data; information in the statewide sex offender registration program; personally identifying information from local security alarm and vacation crime watch programs; the felony firearm offender conviction database; the identities of state employees who file ethics complaints or report improper governmental action in good faith; Department of Corrections security threat group information; GPS data indicating the residence of a criminal justice agency employee; and body worn camera recordings to the extent nondisclosure is required for privacy. The bill also sets procedural rules and limitations for body worn camera recordings: it lists categories presumed to be highly offensive for privacy purposes (for example, interior of residences, medical facility areas, intimate images, minors, deceased bodies, and victims or witnesses of domestic violence or sexual assault), allows those presumptions to be rebutted by evidence, and requires requests for recordings to include identifying information about the incident or persons involved. It specifies who may obtain recordings without paying redaction costs (persons directly involved, their attorneys, certain criminal-case requesters, specified executive directors of state commissions, and certain civil-rights or DOJ-settlement attorneys who explain relevancy), bars agencies from charging those entitled to free redaction, permits agencies to charge reasonable redaction costs to other requesters using the least costly commercially available technology, and provides that time spent redacting does not count toward an agency’s public records response time limits. In related court actions, prevailing parties are not entitled to fees or costs under RCW 42.56.550 unless the agency acted in bad faith or with gross negligence. The measure amends existing public disclosure law by adding and clarifying exemptions and imposing procedural requirements and limits on fee awards and redaction costs; it does not create new criminal offenses or change criminal penalties in the extracted text. A number of state laws and programs are referenced (for example, RCW chapters and sections governing firearms, sex offenses, gang databases, sex offender registration, HIPAA and health information protection, and Department of Corrections records), and affected entities include law enforcement and corrections agencies, penology agencies, state professional discipline agencies, the Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs, the Department of Corrections, entities authorized under RCW 9.41.815, the statewide sex offender notification program, and certain state commissions. The text provided is incomplete in two respects: the full definition of “body worn camera recording” is cut off, and the identity of “the commission” referenced for signed, sworn complaints is not specified in the extracted facts. The bill likely contains additional subsections or sections beyond those listed here, but those are not included in the extracted material.

If enacted, the bill narrows what parts of police, corrections, and related agency records are open to the public by listing many specific categories that agencies can withhold—everything from investigative files and certain sex‑offense reports to gun license and purchase records (which may still be shared with law enforcement or statutorily authorized recipients), gang database entries, sex‑offender program data, security threat group information, and GPS or sensitive body‑worn camera content. Practically, that means law enforcement and corrections agencies will have clearer grounds to deny or redact records, some outside parties (victims, attorneys, certain commission directors, and authorized agencies) will get easier or free access to body‑worn camera recordings while others can be charged for redaction, and specific protections are established for identities and locations tied to victims, minors, and certain shelters. Agencies will likely need to spend time applying exemptions, verifying requester entitlement, and performing redactions, but they can require identification from those getting free copies and may charge reasonable redaction fees to other requesters using the least‑costly tools; time spent redacting won’t count against public‑records response limits. The bill also makes it harder for requesters to recover fees when they win court challenges unless the agency acted in bad faith, lowering litigation cost risk for agencies. Two implementation details are unclear from these facts: the full legal definition of “body worn camera recording” and which specific “commission” must receive certain complaints without anonymous filings.