This bill amends existing law (RCW 13.40.740 and 2021 c 328 s 1) to require that law enforcement provide a juvenile (anyone under 18) access to an attorney for consultation before the juvenile may waive constitutional rights when an 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 under the juvenile’s control. Attorney consultation may be in person, by phone, or by videoconference and may not be waived. The juvenile’s statements after such contact are inadmissible in juvenile or adult court unless the juvenile was provided access to an attorney and then made an express, knowing, intelligent, and voluntary waiver consistent with RCW 13.40.140, or the statement is for impeachment purposes, or was made spontaneously. Any waiver must comply with RCW 13.40.140, and a juvenile may assert rights directly, through counsel, or by directing a parent or guardian to assert them; assertions made through counsel are treated as if made by the juvenile. The bill creates procedural protections (not a new crime or penalty change) and specifies limited exceptions where officers may question a juvenile without first providing attorney access: if the officer believes the juvenile is a victim of trafficking (RCW 9A.40.100) and information obtained cannot be used to prosecute that juvenile; if an officer reasonably believes immediate information is necessary to protect life and delay would impede protection and questioning is limited to that purpose; or if the officer has reasonable suspicion the juvenile committed certain listed offenses referenced by subsection citations to RCW 9.94A.030. The definition of "law enforcement officer" expressly includes school resource officers and certain other public officers as defined in RCW 10.93.020 and RCW 28A.320.124. The bill was read for the first time on 01/14/25 and referred to the Committee on Human Services. The extracted text does not include an effective date or implementation date, and the specific offense categories referenced by RCW 9.94A.030 subsection numbers are not defined in the provided material, so those offense definitions would need to be consulted in the cited statutes.

If enacted, the main practical effect will be that police and other public officers (including school resource officers) must change how they handle juveniles by providing access to a lawyer before questioning, detaining on probable cause, or asking for consent to search; that access cannot be waived and can be in person, by phone, or by videoconference. Because statements obtained without this consultation generally cannot be used in juvenile or adult criminal court unless a narrow exception applies, prosecuting agencies may see fewer usable statements and will need to adjust charging and investigation practices accordingly. The people most affected are juveniles, who gain stronger protections and more lawyer involvement; law enforcement agencies, which will need new procedures, training, and ways to make counsel available (which could add costs or delay interrogations but may be eased by telephone or video options); and prosecutors, who may have reduced evidence from juvenile statements. Parents, guardians, and defense attorneys will have a clearer role in asserting rights. Key uncertainties remain because the bill text here does not include an effective date, fiscal details, or the full statutory definitions of the listed offense exceptions.