This bill (H-3426.1 SUBSTITUTE HOUSE BILL 2648, 69th Legislature, 2026) adds a new section to chapter 10.93 RCW that imposes procedural duties on on-duty Washington peace officers with general or limited authority who reasonably suspect an individual is a federal agent conducting immigration enforcement activities. Those officers must, when equipped, immediately activate body-worn cameras and dash cameras, immediately report the encounter to their employing agency so the agency may notify the community consistent with its policies, and document and report the encounter afterward. When documenting and reporting, the officer must attempt to contact any reporting party, confirm the suspected individual’s identity by requesting official identification if safe and feasible, and refrain from actions that may escalate the situation. The bill also requires the local government entity employing the officer, or the state when the officer is a state employee, to indemnify and hold harmless the officer for any judgment or fine levied under RCW 4.96.041 or 4.24.490 in any civil or criminal proceeding arising from actions taken in compliance with this section, provided the officer acted in good faith and within the scope of employment. This is a procedural change that creates new officer duties and an employer indemnity/defense obligation; it does not, in the provided text, create a new crime or specify new penalties. The text provided does not define key terms used (for example, the specific meanings of the officer categories, “federal agent conducting immigration enforcement activities,” “employing agency,” or “reporting party”), does not provide dates or deadlines, and does not specify how agencies must notify the community or the precise legal effect of the referenced indemnity provisions in RCW 4.96.041 and RCW 4.24.490.

If enacted, on-duty Washington peace officers who reasonably suspect someone is a federal immigration agent would have to turn on body or dash cameras when available, immediately tell their employer about the contact, and later document the encounter while trying to contact any reporting witness, asking for ID if safe, and avoiding actions that could escalate the situation. That will add immediate reporting and paperwork to officers’ duties and require agencies to handle prompt community notifications under their own policies, creating extra staff time and communication tasks for local or state employers. The people most affected are the on-duty peace officers and their employing agencies: officers gain protection from personal fines or judgments for actions taken in good faith and within their job scope, while local governments and the state would likely pick up more legal and financial responsibility for those cases and absorb the costs of notifications, records management, and potential legal exposure. Key details are missing about who exactly qualifies as a “federal agent conducting immigration enforcement activities,” how agencies must notify the community, and the exact reach of the indemnity under the cited statutes, so the full costs and risks to agencies and officers are uncertain.