WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

SB 5230

Providing exceptions for juvenile access to attorney.

2025-2026 Regular Session Introduced by Phil Fortunato and 1 co-sponsor

Requires access to an attorney for juveniles before waiving rights in most custodial cases, with limited exceptions for certain threats or offenses.

First reading, referred to Human Services.
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · SB 5230

Summary: SB 5230 — Providing Exceptions for Juvenile Access to Attorney

Overview

SB 5230, introduced January 14, 2025, seeks to modify Washington law to ensure juvenile access to legal counsel before waiving constitutional rights in certain law enforcement interactions. The bill would amend RCW 13.40.740 (and related provisions from 2021 c 328 s 1) to set when and how a juvenile may consult with an attorney, and under what limited circumstances questioning may proceed without counsel.

Purpose and intent

  • Guarantee that a juvenile who is subjected to custodial interrogation, detention based on probable cause, or requests for consent to an evidentiary search has access to an attorney for consultation prior to any waiver of constitutional rights.
  • Clarify admissibility of statements obtained before and after such consultation.
  • Provide narrowly defined exceptions where law enforcement may question a juvenile without prior counsel, with strict limitations on the use of information collected in those contexts.

Key provisions

Access to counsel before waiver

  • Law enforcement must provide a juvenile with access to an attorney for consultation (in person, by phone, or via videoconference) before the juvenile waives any constitutional rights in:
    • custodial interrogation,
    • detention based on probable cause of involvement in criminal activity,
    • or requests for consent to an evidentiary search of the juvenile or the juvenile’s property.
  • The consultation cannot be waived.

Admissibility and waivers

  • Statements made after initial contact are not admissible in juvenile or adult court unless:
    • the juvenile has access to an attorney for consultation and provides an express, knowing, intelligent, and voluntary waiver after being fully informed of the rights (per RCW 13.40.140);
    • or the statement is used for impeachment; or
    • the statement was spontaneous.

Exceptions to the consultation requirement (subsection (4))

Law enforcement may question a juvenile without following the pre-consultation requirement if:
- (a) The officer believes the juvenile is a victim of trafficking; however, information obtained cannot be used in any prosecution of that juvenile.
- (b) Imminent threat to life requires immediate questioning, with limits:
- questioning is necessary to protect life,
- delaying for legal counsel would impede protection of life,
- questions are limited to information reasonably necessary to protect life.
- (c) Reasonable suspicion that the juvenile committed certain offenses, including:
- felony traffic offenses,
- most serious offenses,
- serious traffic offenses,
- serious violent offenses,
- sex offenses,
- violent offenses, as defined in RCW 9.94A.030.

Post-consultation rights and waivers

  • After consulting with counsel, a juvenile may instruct a parent/guardian or counsel to advise the officer that the juvenile wishes to assert constitutional rights. Any such assertion must be treated as coming from the juvenile, and waivers must follow RCW 13.40.140.

Definitions

  • “Juvenile” = under 18 years old.
  • “Law enforcement officer” includes general authority, limited authority, or specially commissioned officers, school resource officers, and other public officers enforcing safety codes.

Status and procedural notes

  • Status: First reading, referred to the Senate Committee on Human Services (01/14/2025).
  • The bill would amend RCW 13.40.740 and related statutory language.

Potential impact

  • Strengthens juvenile protections by ensuring access to legal counsel before waiving rights in most custodial scenarios.
  • Introduces narrowly tailored exceptions allowing immediate questioning in trafficking, imminent-threat, or specified offenses, with safeguards on admissibility and use of information.
  • Affects police procedures, as agencies must provide consultation options (including videoconference) and track admissibility criteria.
  • Implications for prosecutors, defense counsel, and families in juvenile and mixed juvenile/adult proceedings.

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.