SB5906 — The witness discusses a Senate floor amendment affecting language about non-public ballot handling areas.
SB5906 — The witness asks that the ballot-security language remain in the bill.
SB5906 — The committee begins consideration of the bill.
Yelena Baker — Committee staff presents the staff report on Senate Bill 5906.
Yelena Baker — The sponsor references Baker's briefing.
Yelena Baker — Presented the staff report on Substitute Senate Bill 5886.
Yelena Baker — Staff to the committee presents the staff report on substitute Senate Bill 5169.
SB5906 — Staff introduces Engrossed Substitute Senate Bill 5906 as legislation establishing data and personal safety protections in public accommodations, then explains a specific provision that prohibits early learning providers and school district employees from collecting information or documents about immigration or citizenship status and includes model policy provisions.
SB5906 — The committee reopened the hearing on the bill after closing ESB 6087.
Jenny Graham — Pressed the senator for proof of reported ICE activity near a school and daycare.
Jenny Graham — Representative Graham clarifies her earlier remarks and questions the evidence behind claims that ICE was present around schools and daycares. She says she searched for supporting information after being directed to look it up, found no evidence for those claims, and instead found unrelated reporting about a father and daughter being detained. She stresses that honesty and facts matter, asks Senator Hansen to provide the articles he referenced, and notes that she has seen news articles about I-5 while appreciating the clarification about distinctions in the reporting.
Roger Goodman — Senator Hansen explains that the bill is aimed at keeping immigration enforcement out of non-public areas such as schools, daycares, and other private spaces, while not restricting activity in public areas. He cites publicly reported incidents as examples and describes how Keep Washington Working model policies distinguish public from private areas, using hospitals and schools as examples of places with restricted access. He also clarifies that the bill does not specifically name ICE but applies to immigration enforcement agencies generally. Later, he reiterates that the bill includes safeguards to protect Fourth Amendment privacy interests, supports the warrant requirement and judicial oversight, and expresses concern about state agents entering non-public areas without proper authorization.
Cyndy Jacobsen — Asked whether the proposed bill would limit ICE outside the covered facilities.
Cyndy Jacobsen — Cyndy Jacobsen asks whether the bill’s changes from last year mainly expand the measure to cover more crimes. The exchange is briefly repeated in the transcript with a name variation, and then the discussion moves on toward public testimony.
Brian Burnett — Introduced a question about the bill and addressed Senator Hansen.
Brian Burnett — Asked whether the bill applies only to ICE or to all federal law enforcement agencies.
Brian Burnett — Referenced as the best person to talk about law enforcement investigations and warrant requirements.
Jim Walsh — Representative Walsh questioned the distinction between administrative warrants and judicial warrants, then asked whether the same standard should apply to the state Attorney General’s office and other state enforcement tools. He argued that state administrative investigative mechanisms can function like warrants to themselves and pressed whether the proposal should require judicial warrants for state actions as well, referencing the civil investigative demand discussion and emphasizing that Fourth Amendment warrant protections apply when government action involves entry into non-public areas.
Jim Walsh — Raised concern that the proposal could expand use of child testimony and undermine the original protective purpose of the hearsay restrictions.
Jim Walsh — Thanked for his time; identified as Ranking Member Walsh.
Mark Schoesler — The speaker acknowledges Ranking Member Walsh, references receiving his email and prior work together, then notes that Walsh has asked a question. The exchange continues as the speaker responds positively and engages with Walsh’s inquiry as part of the same committee discussion.
Lauren Davis — The chair briefly acknowledges Representative Farber twice while keeping the hearing moving forward, first thanking him as public testimony is about to begin and later signaling to continue on with the agenda.
Bargob Iyer — Testified in support of SSB 5886 on behalf of Associated Students of Washington State University, emphasizing student control over digital likeness and safety.
Brandon Elliott — Brandon Elliott, speaking for UW Seattle, testified in support of SB 5886. He explained that the bill would add civil remedies for AI-generated identity exploitation and described harms his community has experienced, including social media impersonation and a student being harmed by explicit AI-generated content created using their image.
SB5886 — The witness supports the bill because it expands the statute to address AI-generated content and civil penalties.
HB1205 — The witness cites HB 1205 as a prior session law criminalizing malicious distribution of forged digital likeness.
SB5886 — During the SB 5886 hearing, testimony emphasized that the bill should include civil remedies for victims of forged digital likeness, and the discussion concluded with the hearing being closed after testimony urging passage of the proposed amendments.
Steve Wimmer — Steve Wimmer, speaking for the Nonpartisan Transparency Coalition, testifies in strong support of the substitute bill and broader AI safety measures. He urges the committee to expand the definition of forged digital likeness to include real-time transmission use cases, noting that digital forgeries can be used for harassment and extortion.
SB5169 — The committee transitions to the staff report on SB 5169.
SB5169 — Testimony supports the bill because current law does not admit child statements when a child witnesses a violent act.
SB5169 — The witness argues that SB 5169 would jeopardize constitutional rights and create serious due-process problems, especially in cases involving minors under 18 accused of sex offenses. They say they looked for a possible fix but found none, believe the bill should not move forward as written, and urge the committee to reject SB 5169 because it would allow problematic hearsay and limit in-person cross-examination.
SB5169 — Staff report begins on the bill concerning testimony of children.
T'wina Nobles — Senator T'wina Nobles joins the discussion on SB 5169 online, offers to answer questions, confirms the sponsor's view that the bill applies to more crimes, and is thanked for popping into the discussion.
Corrine Schneff — Testifies in favor of Senate Bill 5169 and identifies herself as Criminal Chief for the Pierce County Prosecutor's Office.
Sarah Park — Pierce County prosecutor testifies in support of SB 5169 and describes a child witness in a traumatic case.
Ms. Shnev — Referenced as having said that the difference in admissibility makes no difference in the confrontation clause context.
Carrie Arnold — Carrie Arnold, a Pierce County forensic interviewer with 22 years of experience and over 3,600 interviews, testified in support of SB 5169. She explained that forensic interviews are structured, developmentally sensitive, legally sound conversations designed to elicit detailed free-recall narratives from children without leading them. She was also referenced as the kind of interviewer involved in child interviews.
SB5169 — Bill being supported by the witness.
SB5169 — The speaker opposes Senate Bill 5169, arguing that it would make an unprecedented and overly broad expansion of hearsay testimony from teenagers. They say the bill goes far beyond Ohio v. Clark by allowing child hearsay in extreme cases that do not even involve alleged child abuse and up to age 18. The speaker warns that this would make Washington an outlier and lead to more adversarial proceedings, legal challenges, reversals of convictions, and protracted litigation, and therefore urges the committee to vote against the bill.
Anita Petra — Assistant chief criminal deputy prosecutor from Benton County testifying in support of the bill and discussing child abuse cases.
Ms. Arnold — Ms. Arnold is discussed as a trained forensic interviewer who interviews the child before prosecutorial review, with attention to whether her questions were leading or suggestive. The mentions collectively frame her as an example of a qualified interviewer whose methods may be examined for interview quality and neutrality.
Alred Barrett — Was called up for online testimony.
Kate Benward — Kate Benward was called to testify and then stated that she works on policy issues at the King County Department of Public Defense. She testified in opposition to Senate Bill 5169, arguing that it would create an unprecedented expansion of hearsay testimony from teenagers.
Alex Narvaez — Alex Narvaez was called to testify and then responded to a question about whether the bill could be fixed, stating that the law should remain as it is while increasing the age requirement to 18.
Alexandra Tobias — Testified as an attorney with Legal Counsel for Youth and Children (LCYC) opposing SB 5169.
Sarah Hudson — Testified in opposition to SB 5169 on behalf of the Washington Defender Association and the Washington Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.
E.D. Adams — Committee staff introduced engrossed second substitute Senate Bill 5865.
E.D. Adams — Committee staff presented the bill summary for Engrossed Substitute Senate Bill 6087.
SB5865 — The hearing opens on Engrossed Second Substitute Senate Bill 5865, described as the companion to House Bill 2386 and focused on statutory garnishment forms. The bill would allow a garnishee’s first answer to be substantially in the committee-developed form and includes related form requirements and a delayed effective date.
HB2386 — Identified as the companion bill previously heard and passed by the committee.