AN ACT Relating to the general powers and duties of the attorney general's office;
SB 5925 expands and codifies the Washington Attorney General’s authority to use civil investigative demands in investigations of possible violations of state or federal law. The bill authorizes the Attorney General, with assistant attorney general review and approval, to compel the production of documents, written answers to interrogatories, and oral testimony when facts reasonably suggest a possible violation of specified constitutional and statutory provisions. It sets out required contents for a demand, limits demands to matters within the Attorney General’s authority, and bars their use in criminal investigations or against federal agencies or officials for conduct performed in official duties.
The bill also establishes procedures for service, confidentiality, judicial review, and enforcement. Recipients may petition to extend, modify, or set aside a demand, and the Attorney General may seek court enforcement if a recipient does not comply. The measure includes protections for privileged material and trade secrets, restricts disclosure of demand materials, and allows limited sharing with other government enforcement officials under confidentiality conditions. It further requires the Attorney General to report to the Legislature within four years on the use of this authority, including the number of demands issued, set aside, resolved informally, and enforced through court action.
The bill adds a new section to chapter 9.08 RCW and materially expands the Attorney General’s civil investigative tools in Washington state law. It gives the Attorney General a formal pre-litigation mechanism to investigate suspected violations, while also creating procedural safeguards, venue rules, confidentiality restrictions, and misdemeanor penalties for unauthorized disclosure of a demand’s existence or contents in certain circumstances. The bill affects entities and individuals who may be subject to AG investigations, as well as courts that may be asked to review, enforce, or modify demands.
The overall sentiment appears supportive but measured. The bill passed both chambers, including the Senate and House, with clear but not overwhelming majorities, suggesting broad agreement on giving the Attorney General stronger investigative authority. The committee votes were narrower, indicating more concern at the committee level than on final passage. The absence of recorded committee transcript discussion limits insight into detailed debate, but the voting pattern suggests the measure was generally accepted with some reservations.
The main points of contention likely centered on the breadth of the Attorney General’s investigative power and the privacy/confidentiality implications of compelled civil demands. Potential concerns include whether the demands could be too open-ended, how much discretion the Attorney General should have before filing suit, and whether the confidentiality provisions and misdemeanor penalties could chill disclosure or create burdens for businesses and other recipients. Supporters likely emphasized the need for stronger enforcement tools and pre-suit fact gathering, while opponents or skeptics appear to have focused on civil liberties, due process, and the risk of overreach.