This bill amends existing law (RCW 13.40.740) and adds a new legislative finding to clarify that law enforcement may contact juvenile witnesses and victims who are not suspected of criminal involvement. It requires that when a law enforcement officer questions a juvenile who is detained based on probable cause of involvement in criminal activity, or asks a juvenile to consent to an evidentiary search of the juvenile or property, dwelling, or vehicle under the juvenile’s control, the juvenile must be provided access to an attorney for consultation before waiving constitutional rights. Consultation may be provided in person, by telephone, or by videoconference and may not be waived. The bill creates a procedural change and an evidentiary rule: statements by the juvenile made after such contact are inadmissible in juvenile offender or adult criminal court unless the juvenile was given access to counsel and knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived rights under the procedures of RCW 13.40.140; the statement is used only for impeachment; or the statement was spontaneous. Two narrow exceptions allow questioning without the consultation requirement: if the officer reasonably believes the juvenile is a trafficking victim (information obtained under that exception cannot be used to prosecute the juvenile), or if a delay for consultation would impede protection of life from an imminent threat and questioning is limited to information reasonably expected to protect life. The bill defines “juvenile” as anyone under 18 and broadly defines “law enforcement officer” to include Washington and federal peace officers, school resource officers, and other public officers enforcing specified codes. The text supplied does not include an effective date, the full text of the referenced statutes (RCW 13.40.140; RCW 9A.40.100; RCW 10.93.020; RCW 28A.320.124), or other implementation or appropriations details.

If enacted, the bill would make officers stop and give any person under 18 access to an attorney for a consultation before the juvenile can waive rights when the juvenile is detained on probable cause or asked to consent to an evidentiary search. Because that consultation cannot be waived and statements made without it are generally inadmissible unless a valid written-type waiver, an impeachment use, or a spontaneous statement applies, officers will likely pause questioning more often, arrange telephone or video contact with lawyers, and in many cases not be able to use statements they obtain without doing so. The people most affected are juveniles, law enforcement (including school resource officers and other code-enforcement officers), attorneys who must be available for consultations, parents or guardians who may help direct the juvenile through counsel, and prosecutors and courts who will see fewer admissible statements unless exceptions apply. Agencies will need new operational processes, training, and reliable ways to provide lawyer access quickly, which could create time and cost pressures; the bill text does not say who pays for or provides the consultations, nor does it give an effective date or other implementation details, so those resource and logistics questions remain unclear.