This bill (S-0897.1 / Senate Bill 5603, 69th Legislature, 2025 Regular Session) creates a new section in chapter 13.40 RCW and amends RCW 13.40.740. It requires mandatory attorney consultation for juveniles (persons under 18) before a juvenile may waive constitutional rights when (1) questioned during a custodial interrogation, (2) detained on probable cause of involvement in criminal activity, or (3) asked to consent to an evidentiary search of the juvenile or property under the juvenile’s control. In jurisdictions with population greater than 1,000,000 the consultation must be in person and may not be waived; in jurisdictions with population less than 1,000,000 the amended RCW 13.40.740 requires consultation that may be in person, by telephone, or by videoconference and also may not be waived. This is a procedural change (mandatory counsel access) achieved by creating a new statutory section and modifying an existing statute. The bill also changes evidentiary procedure by making statements obtained after the described contacts inadmissible in juvenile or adult criminal court unless one of three exceptions applies: the juvenile had attorney access and gave an express, knowing, intelligent, and voluntary waiver after being informed as required under RCW 13.40.140; the statement is used for impeachment; or the statement was spontaneous. Two specific exceptions allow questioning without the consultation: when an officer reasonably believes the juvenile is a trafficking victim (information obtained under this exception cannot be used in any prosecution of that juvenile), and a three-part imminent threat exception where an officer believes immediate information is necessary to protect life, delay would impede protection of life, and questioning is limited to matters reasonably necessary to protect life. After consultation, juveniles may assert rights directly, through a parent or guardian, or through counsel; waivers must comply with RCW 13.40.140. The bill requires law enforcement to coordinate with attorneys who must be available to respond to scenes and consult with juveniles, juvenile victims, or juvenile witnesses as required, and authorizes law enforcement to provide transportation for the attorney to avoid delays. It affects law enforcement officers (including Washington and federal peace officers, school resource officers, and certain public code enforcement officers), juveniles, attorneys who provide consultations, local jurisdictions divided by population thresholds, and courts handling juvenile or adult criminal proceedings. The text cites RCW 13.40.140, RCW 9A.40.100, RCW 10.93.020, and RCW 28A.320.124. Important details are missing or unclear in the provided text: the new section number in chapter 13.40 is not specified; subsection wording that directs coordination appears incomplete; the bill does not specify which attorneys must be made available (public defenders, appointed counsel, or private counsel), how attorney availability is to be ensured or funded, any specific timing standard for how quickly an attorney must respond to a scene, or enforcement or remedies beyond the inadmissibility rule.

If enacted, the bill will make it routine that juveniles must have access to an attorney before they can waive rights during custodial questioning, detention based on probable cause, or when asked to consent to searches; in counties over 1,000,000 people that access must be in person, and in smaller counties it may be in person or remote. Practically, police will need to pause or limit questioning unless an attorney consult occurs (with narrow exceptions), and statements taken without the required consultation will generally be inadmissible, which will likely reduce prosecutions that rely on such statements and strengthen protections for juveniles. The people who will feel this most are local law enforcement, public defender offices or other attorneys, and county governments that must make or fund attorney availability and coordinate logistics (including potentially providing transport). The bill does not say which lawyers must be used, how they are paid, or how quickly they must arrive, so jurisdictions will face added responsibilities, likely new costs, and operational uncertainty about how to meet the rule and what happens if an attorney cannot be produced quickly.