SB5925 — The committee opens consideration of Senate Bill 5925, a bill requested by the Attorney General concerning the office’s general powers and duties. Staff explains that the measure would expand the Attorney General’s authority to issue civil investigative demands (CIDs) for documents and answers in investigations of possible violations of the U.S. Constitution, the Washington State Constitution, law enforcement use of force, tactics and training, Keep Washington Working Act requirements, wage laws, the Washington Law Against Discrimination, and the city and county jails act.
SB5925 — The bill is being supported as a tool to speed up enforcement of labor standards and wage theft cases.
SB5925 — Referenced as the bill being supported for faster wage theft enforcement.
SB5925 — Supported as legislation concerning the Attorney General's investigative authority.
SB5925 — Discussed as a bill that would strengthen the Attorney General's investigative authority.
SB5925 — Urged to be passed because it would improve investigations before filing suit.
SB5925 — Criticized for including language the witness says is likely unconstitutional.
SB5925 — Criticized for authorizing a gag order and limiting speech about subpoenas.
SB5925 — Discussed as having a criminal-use provision that the witness says is being misunderstood.
SB5925 — Criticized for lacking a reasonable-suspicion threshold for civil investigative demands and for not requiring coordination with law enforcement.
SB5925 — Discussed as lacking a coordination requirement and as part of a broader concern about the Attorney General's role.
SB5925 — Opposed as part of a broader expansion of Attorney General authority.
SB5925 — Discussed as having broad potential legal impacts for counties and unclear guardrails.
SB5925 — Public testimony on SB 5925 is closed; the chair announces the tally of pro and con sign-ins.
Nikki Torres — Senator Nikki Torres is called on and then asks whether any other state has a similar framework in place, specifically comparing it to the bill’s non-court order demand framework.
Nikki Torres — Asks whether there are known instances of ICE entering non-public areas around the state.
Nikki Torres — Senator Nikki Torres responded to the bill discussion by noting she has a similar bill and suggesting the sponsor consider amending in language to address Amber Alert loopholes. She referenced working with WSP on the issue and framed her comments as a related policy proposal tied to the same bill discussion.
Jeff Holy — Senator Holy is identified as having a question.
Jeff Holy — Senator Holy asks a casual question of the sponsor.
Jeff Holy — Senator Holy asks whether the CID is like a subpoena duces tecum without court review.
Jeff Holy — Senator Holy asks a follow-up question about enforcement and enabling authority.
Jeff Holy — Senator Holy asks about contempt and failure-to-comply procedures.
Jeff Holy — The witness addresses Ranking Member Holy.
Jeff Holy — The witness opened by greeting Senator Holy, repeatedly addressing him by name, thanking him for the opportunity to testify, and noting that he was among the members present.
Jeff Holy — Senator Jeff Holy is referenced first in connection with his comments on the bill's language, and later he is thanked as a leader on the issue, together reflecting a continuous discussion of his role and contributions to the bill.
Manka Dhingra — The witness opens the hearing by greeting Chair Dhingra, Vice Chair Trudeau, Ranking Member Holy, and other committee members, and thanks the committee for hearing the bill.
Manka Dhingra — The chair is addressed as 'Senator Dhingra' in the discussion transitioning to public testimony.
Manka Dhingra — The chair is thanked as the committee moves to public testimony.
Manka Dhingra — The chair is addressed by name as Giovanni begins testimony.
Manka Dhingra — The chair is addressed by name in the transition to the next witness.
Manka Dhingra — Thanked for leadership on the bill.
Manka Dhingra — Addressed as Senator Dhingra by the witness.
Manka Dhingra — Addressed again as Senator Dhingra in the witness's greeting.
Manka Dhingra — The witness thanked Senator Dhingra for the opportunity to testify.
Manka Dhingra — The witness referred to the sponsor as Senator Dhingra in the opening greeting.
Manka Dhingra — The witness said Senator Dhingra was one of the sponsors she had worked with.
Manka Dhingra — Addressed as Chair Dhingra by the witness.
Manka Dhingra — The chair is addressed by name.
Manka Dhingra — At the start of testimony, the witness addresses Chair Dhingra and then extends greetings to the vice chair, ranking member, and other committee members.
Yasmin Trudeau — The witness opens by greeting Chair Dhingra, Vice Chair Trudeau, Ranking Member Holy, and the committee, and then thanks Vice Chair Trudeau and the rest of the members for hearing the bill today.
Yasmin Trudeau — Senator Trudeau explained that the bill is aiming for a middle ground on retention periods and acknowledged that the current retention period is broadly unpopular, but presented it as a compromise intended to balance different perspectives and encourage further discussion.
Yasmin Trudeau — The speaker describes being persuaded by Senator Trudeau to see the issue differently and says they will continue working with her on related legislative details, specifically retention periods and the admissibility/evidence aspect.
Yasmin Trudeau — Senator Yasmin Trudeau is credited with including Public Records Act disclosure language in the bill, thanked for her patience while the association gathered and organized feedback, and praised as a leader on the issue. The discussion also expresses a desire to continue working with her to refine and perfect the bill.
SB5925 — The witness testifies in support of SB 5925.
Samantha Grad — Samantha Grad continues her testimony in support of SB 5925 by explaining that wage theft enforcement is often slow and burdensome for workers to recover what they are owed. She gives examples from the waste and recycling industry, where hundreds of workers were underpaid and owed $700,000 in stolen wages, and notes that similar delays affect workers such as TNC drivers. She argues that while the bill will not eliminate wage theft entirely, it would speed up enforcement and help workers living paycheck to paycheck recover stolen wages more quickly.
Jeremiah Miller — Jeremiah Miller, Acting Executive Director and Legal Director for Working Washington, testifies in support of SB 5925. He explains that Working Washington represents vulnerable workers, including recent immigrants, people of color, and female-identifying workers, who often need government enforcement to vindicate their rights. He also notes that the barista case mentioned earlier originated with Working Washington, underscoring the organization’s role in bringing cases forward and supporting broader investigative authority.
Patricio Marquez — Referenced as having just mentioned the barista case.
Ryan Lufkin — Ryan Lufkin, speaking for the Washington Council of Police and Sheriffs, opposes the bill and argues that it is intrusive, lacks adequate oversight, and raises constitutional concerns. He says the Attorney General already has broad discovery and subpoena powers through ordinary civil process, and that the bill’s restrictions are likely unconstitutional. He further warns that the measure functions like a gag order by barring subpoena recipients from discussing it except with counsel, and adds that claims the bill prevents use in criminal proceedings are inaccurate, urging caution in how the proposal is viewed.
James McMahon — James McMahon, Policy Director with the Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs, testifies in opposition to the bill. He says the proposal lacks a threshold for CIDs, does not adequately coordinate with law enforcement, and would inappropriately position the Attorney General as a watchdog over Washington’s law enforcement agencies. He notes that he had constructive conversations with the prime sponsor over the summer but reiterates his concerns about the bill’s broader impact on law enforcement oversight.
James McMahon — James McMahon, Policy Director with the Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs, introduced himself and testified in support of the bill on behalf of the association.