Adds a new section to chapter 69.50 RCW that creates a procedural mechanism in courts of limited jurisdiction allowing a person charged with certain controlled-substance and related offenses to seek dismissal of those charges after completing a certified assessment and a court‑approved, state‑certified treatment program. The bill is a new statutory provision (NEW SECTION. Sec. 2) with a legislative finding in Sec. 1 and was read for the first time on 02/21/25. If the defendant files under seal the assessment report and proof of successful completion of the recommended treatment at or before the readiness hearing, the court must dismiss the charge(s) without prejudice on its own motion if three findings are met: (1) the certified assessment, which must consider the person’s criminal and substance use history, shows a substance use disorder requiring treatment; (2) the individual completed the recommended treatment through a court‑approved and state‑certified treatment provider; and (3) the interests of justice warrant dismissal. The court may also dismiss nonpossession offenses arising from the same course of conduct under the same cause number unless the prosecutor objects. When dismissing charges, the court must state its reasons in writing and place them on the record. This is a procedural change allowing dismissal of charges under specified provisions (RCW 69.50.4011(1)(b) or (c), 69.50.4013, 69.50.4014, and 69.41.030(2)(b) or (c)); it does not create a new crime or expressly change penalties. Important details are missing from the provided text: it does not say who certifies the assessments or the state certification for treatment providers, it does not define “readiness hearing” or the process for court approval of treatment programs, and the substantive content of the cited RCW provisions is not included.

If enacted, the law would give people charged in courts of limited jurisdiction with the listed drug and related offenses a clear opportunity to have those charges dismissed without prejudice if they complete a certified substance use assessment and finish a court‑approved treatment program, then file the assessment and proof of completion under seal at or before the readiness hearing. Courts would be required to dismiss the possession charge(s) when three findings are met, could also dismiss related nonpossession charges unless the prosecutor objects, and must put written reasons on the record for any dismissal. The most affected are defendants in those courts, who would gain a treatment‑based path to avoid immediate prosecution but not a permanent bar to future charges because dismissals are without prejudice; courts, which must review sealed materials, make specific findings, and document reasons; state‑certified treatment providers and programs, which would need to be approved and likely see increased referrals; and prosecutors, who retain the ability to object to related dismissals and may face added workload. Important implementation details are missing from the text provided—specifically who certifies assessments and treatment providers and how a “readiness hearing” and court approval of programs are to be handled—so those uncertainties could affect how easily the option is used in practice.