The bill adds a new section to chapter 4.92 RCW that limits state and local government liability for an inmate’s injury caused by the inmate’s voluntary use of a controlled substance. For use while in a correctional facility, the immunity applies when the inmate was lawfully searched for controlled substances upon admission and any discovered controlled substances were seized and removed. The immunity does not apply if the controlled substance that caused the injury was provided to the inmate by an agent of the correctional facility or by an agent of the state or local government that owns, operates, or controls the facility. The bill also provides a separate rule limiting liability for injuries from voluntary use of a controlled substance before admission, with an exception where an agent knew or should have known the inmate required medical care and failed to make a reasonable effort to provide it. The new section defines controlled substance by reference to RCW 69.50.101 and defines “correctional facility,” “inmate,” and “local government.” It applies to causes of action accruing on or after the section’s effective date. The text does not state the effective date or the exact new section number, and it does not specify how terms like “lawfully searched” or “reasonable effort to provide medical care” are to be measured or how this new section will integrate with other provisions of chapter 4.92 RCW.

If enacted, state and local governments that own or operate jails and prisons will likely face fewer successful lawsuits and therefore lower expected liability payouts and related legal costs for injuries tied to an inmate’s voluntary use of controlled substances in custody or before admission—so long as the inmate was lawfully searched on admission and contraband was seized. That reduced risk does not apply when a facility employee or other government agent supplied the substance or when staff knew or should have known an inmate needed medical care and failed to make a reasonable effort to provide it, so those situations remain exposure points for claims and potential costs. Correctional facilities and their staff will probably put more emphasis on conducting, documenting, and defending admission searches and on timely medical screening and records of any efforts to provide care to preserve the immunity; training, recordkeeping, and operational procedures may be adjusted accordingly. Important details are missing here: the measure does not define key terms like “lawfully searched” or “reasonable effort to provide medical care,” and the effective date is not stated, so agencies will face uncertainty until those points are clarified.