[{"_1":2,"_111":-5,"_112":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88,100],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6116325,"mediaKeyId","2733310-6656f6ab977a1a746a84a75d69d031f5","parentId",2733310,"title","Prosecutors back broader child-hearsay rule; defense and innocence groups warn of wrongful-conviction risk","audioSeconds",1234,"startMs",2596000,"endMs",3830000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2733310-6656f6ab977a1a746a84a75d69d031f5&start=2596&end=3830","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2733310-6656f6ab977a1a746a84a75d69d031f5/thumbnail_2596000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6116325/Washington/Prosecutors-back-broader-child-hearsay-rule-defense-and-innocence-groups-warn-of-wrongful-conviction-risk","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6116325-111e984069f0e71026c65b42bed0c13a/orig.mp4?Expires=1770906160&Signature=KAbzTYUv~lM~EhRPp2nPM4YRNvn~Izep2XAu3LVYIJtLrTope06mz9AeWJBJWri8wa6zeiHHg8XN6Nq7Wg8pFcCEfokP4b3D4OS5iiywNnKeIfJyk46zXNNsb9MfjdeFrJS6We6nExQ1Qu0OY4wiZVI2qZZzPvGh3wSSaB89W1v-Ad8pZWkgbiUA2svOThH~J7MgN-dCY6uP4cduhHyaaYNasmoj14OXbLkkSGsYDBfpI9C3GLujoo~Y5PO4U8j3Q-2LZ7lxklNN0uE3mmsJl312TPcLqQmCs6YEw2DHCthbLP2lvo5xWCVjSZSCiECWy3Egm~RfvRYnIr8TeieVPw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","House Civil Rights & Judiciary","date","2025-03-21T00:00:00Z","article","The Civil Rights & Judiciary Committee on March 21 heard sharply divided testimony on Substitute Senate Bill 5169, which would expand circumstances under which a child’s out-of-court statements may be admitted in criminal and dependency proceedings.

Yolanda Baker, committee staff, summarized the proposal and said the bill would expand the list of offenses that may be described in a child's hearsay statement, raise the age limit so that statements by anyone under 18 could potentially be admissible (subject to other statutory conditions), and allow closed-circuit testimony where a child’s statement describes attempted offenses in the listed categories. Baker explained the current hearsay exception is limited by the child’s age and to certain types of offenses and that the bill would broaden those categories.

Deputy prosecuting attorneys described courtroom limitations under the current rule. Lindsay Chenalia of the Pierce County Prosecutor’s Office told the committee of a case in which a 5-year-old witness who described a shooting could not have her child interview used at trial “because she was not injured.” Chenalia said such restrictions prevent jurors from seeing forensic interviews that often contain coherent, nonleading narrative accounts and force prosecutors to choose between plea offers and risking loss at trial when children cannot testify effectively due to trauma or memory fade.

Corine Schneff and Anita Petro, senior prosecutors, similarly urged passage, saying changes would bring the hearsay statute into alignment with the closed-circuit testimony statute and reduce trauma for young witnesses who might otherwise freeze on the stand.

Defense, innocence and public-defense voices opposed the bill. John Marlow, litigation director at the Washington Innocence Project and a survivor of childhood abuse, warned that expanding the exception “will also greatly increase the risk of wrongful convictions in our state.” Kate Benward, associate special counsel at the King County Department of Public Defense, said the proposal would make Washington “an extreme outlier” by applying hearsay exceptions to youth up to age 18 and to a broad range of offenses; she said the change would raise “significant constitutional challenges” tied to the Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses. Carrie Reardon of the Washington Defender Association and Washington Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers said the expansion goes “very far” and risks undermining defendants’ confrontation rights.

Committee members asked whether the bill would impinge on confrontation rights and whether forensic interview protocols adequately guard against leading questions. Prosecutors responded that testimonial statements still require adherence to confrontation protections and that defense counsel have access to forensic interview recordings and can raise concerns about interview technique; they also noted established protocols and training for forensic interviewers designed to minimize leading questions.

No vote on SSB 5169 was recorded in the transcript portion provided. The hearing record shows robust division: prosecutors and victim-advocate witnesses emphasized child trauma and loss of evidence when interviews cannot be admitted; defense and innocence advocates emphasized constitutional protections and the recorded history of wrongful convictions tied in other jurisdictions to overly broad hearsay usage.

Ending: The committee closed public testimony with testimony both urging adoption to reduce trauma and preserve evidence and opposing adoption because of confrontation and wrongful-conviction risks. The transcript includes requests for written materials on constitutional authorities and for further analysis; no committee action on the bill is recorded in the provided excerpt.

","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","House Civil Rights & Judiciary - 3/21/2025 10:30 AM","oneSentenceSummary","The Civil Rights & Judiciary Committee on March 21 heard sharply divided testimony on Substitute Senate Bill 5169, which would expand circumstances under which a child’s out-of-court statements may be admitted in criminal and dependency proceedings.","taxTitle","Civil Rights & Judiciary, House of Representatives, Legislative Sessions, Washington","taxId",20256,"location","Washington","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6116329,"Committee considers expanding shield law to cover agents and require businesses to notify AG on certain subpoenas",2187,43000,2230000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2733310-6656f6ab977a1a746a84a75d69d031f5&start=43&end=2230","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2733310-6656f6ab977a1a746a84a75d69d031f5/thumbnail_43000.jpg","/articles/6116329/Washington/Committee-considers-expanding-shield-law-to-cover-agents-and-require-businesses-to-notify-AG-on-certain-subpoenas","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6116329-7aba10f147228e780058b9ce711f9da4/orig.mp4?Expires=1770906160&Signature=WAQoKWxhyproJ3pGAjmTkpmnEMGiozXwB2DTJMpfu6OOxqGFcf69rsLbvzQfL8GJ-RwoBWgol8MPABfpi1qZReX5GP-vC7mXfuLMbmidHxUTmyHfu2afxlHH2Xj0hJ3r3tpc8k2g4eZkNoDq2S0GDH078ihr-FK1CZ7Eu4yaZ9qavpGU8vFH0eOlqu2frVRu7Om8wwR0qYq44N3~jsF19WhLA8shmpJO51zZn8UJ9vegod3AQtFQdzS-q7AdjOFVzYJFfqrsMAiEx2UjK~I6EiyeSrc3XKfrvDn1HElU4RXHCIapC9gSnMomySSFvE5wrITkiwHGzRNsgvA~yZ0z6A__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Senate Bill 56-32, a modest expansion and clarification of Washington’s 2023 shield law for protected health care services, was the subject of a public hearing before the Civil Rights & Judiciary Committee on March 21.

Matt Sterling, committee staff, summarized the bill: “Senate bill 56 32 relates to the shield law and protected health care services.” He explained that the 2023 law limits courts’ and law enforcement’s ability to issue or enforce subpoenas, warrants and other legal process related to the provision or receipt of protected health care services; the statute covers reproductive health care services and gender-affirming treatment and prohibits cooperation by state or local agencies to enforce another state’s laws that criminalize those services.

The bill would require Washington businesses that provide electronic communications services to notify the Attorney General’s Office if they receive subpoenas or other legal process that lack the attestation required by current law. Senator Hansen, the prime sponsor, said the bill “is a modest expansion of the shield law” that clarifies who counts as an “agent” and ensures the Attorney General is made aware when subpoenas are defective so the office can “take action.”

Adam Eitman and Nick Field, legislative staff for the Attorney General’s Office, testified in support. Eitman told the committee that the attestation requirement “essentially serves as a red flag” and that by requiring businesses to alert the AGO when attestation is missing, the office can investigate and help safeguard protected health information.

Clinical and community witnesses described practical risks if the shield law’s scope remained unclear. Mo West, a registered nurse and donor to reproductive-health providers, testified SB 56-32 “protects both the privacy and safety of people seeking abortion and gender affirming care in Washington as well as those who assist them.” Chris Smith, a full-spectrum doula, said the bill “recognizes the full community network that is involved in helping someone access abortion care” and argued that clarification would protect doulas, midwives and others who assist patients. Dr. Crystal Beal, a family medicine physician who specializes in transgender care, said threats from other states have already reached providers and families and that “Your vote on SB 5 6 3 2 will save lives.”

The bill also would extend restrictions on cooperation with out-of-state investigations to include agents of public officers and employees and would add a statutory definition of “assistance” as “any action to help, aid or support the provision or receipt of protected healthcare services,” according to the staff briefing.

No committee vote on SB 56-32 was recorded in the transcript portion provided. Sponsors and AGO staff emphasized that the bill is intended to provide clarity and an enforcement path when Washington entities receive legal process potentially aimed at enforcing another state’s prohibitions.

Ending: Supporters focused on privacy and safety for patients and helpers; the Attorney General’s Office endorsed the notification requirement so it can assess and, if appropriate, respond to subpoenas that may seek protected information.

","Senate Bill 56-32 would clarify the shield law that protects people involved with protected health care services, add agents to the law’s coverage, and require Washington businesses to notify the Attorney General if a subpoena lacking a required attestation arrives.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6116333,"Committee hears bill to make full bank-garnishment protections automatic and permanent",1865,294000,2159000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2733310-6656f6ab977a1a746a84a75d69d031f5&start=294&end=2159","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2733310-6656f6ab977a1a746a84a75d69d031f5/thumbnail_294000.jpg","/articles/6116333/Washington/Committee-hears-bill-to-make-full-bank-garnishment-protections-automatic-and-permanent","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6116333-19fb96a19226b7159e22b4d775c79c0f/orig.mp4?Expires=1770906160&Signature=E27vGuCCUOd~hUUH8rJuARq9nigfQX~W9-eT96UeNdrgxVRY5JEQ7cjqFCcDr-B1VN52vIVlg~-gxZfSuI~ofEs-riK0yrVOd~yoKPnp~U~wzhbIAAyMlhTjdvZgePI6lqxFyAw-qdaf8HPSJDxMnKrLc5SNrAJ2CPpCapbvad9rXUwY0WsQohNzJpDfGZZosdY9xQexcDtE0GPOJjv4MRTbGuywI5KQOT0bMLRgVr6ha6JfmGY-KHLnAWC7NErz1quQnhPQpT40k82hAeNXwsdIzHzHf4xkgv7-P1zOhYP9SQQqikqs1u4cJn7fSMvGGOEkckqnBVCcfMmqNzsBTg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Senators and witnesses on the Civil Rights & Judiciary Committee on March 21 heard testimony on Senate Bill 56-51, which would make automatic the full amount of Washington’s bank-account exemption for consumer debt and remove a July 1, 2025, sunset on automatic protections.

The bill was presented to the committee by staff member E. E. D. Adams, who summarized the measure as “remov[ing] the specific dollar amounts and instead insert[ing] blanks that must be filled in with the appropriate inflation adjusted amounts” and making the temporary automatic protections permanent. Adams said the bill also would require the Department of Revenue to adjust exemption amounts every three years beginning July 1, 2027.

The legislation would preserve a nonbankruptcy exemption that currently protects $2,000 of “other personal property” in a bank account, of which $1,000 is automatically protected for consumer debt under current law; SB 56-51 would make the full $2,000 automatic in nonbankruptcy proceedings and make that automatic protection permanent. The bill also adds an exemption for alimony or spousal support payments to the extent they are traceable, with an exclusion for actions by a child support or spousal support agency operating under Title IV-D of the Social Security Act.

Senator Emily Alvarado (prime sponsor) said the protections help families cover rent, groceries and medicine and described the bill as “about self sufficiency for people, about keeping a little bit of resource in their pocket so they can pay for basics even when they're facing debt and garnishment.” She said the bill is a compromise that makes the automatic protection permanent and increases the automatically protected portion to the full $2,000 for consumer debt.

Advocates urged passage. Amanda Martin, executive director of Northwest Consumer Law Center, told the committee that the automatic protection is necessary because “very few people actually claim the exemption when it is not automatic.” Adam Zahn of the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society said medical debt drives many garnishments and that protecting bank accounts helps patients. Sam Leonard of the Washington State Association for Justice described representing clients who had bank accounts frozen and said only about 3% of Washingtonians complete the exemption form when required; he said the bill “is not about keeping people from paying their debts. It's meant to ensure that those that have fallen on hard times have the resources to stay off the streets, get to work and hopefully get back on their feet.” Molly Gallagher of the Statewide Poverty Action Network said the protections disproportionately benefit communities of color and that the automatic protection is set to expire in July if the legislature does not act.

The Washington Collectors Association, represented by Mindy Chumbley, said stakeholders had narrowed differences but opposed a specific provision in Section 4 that would require plaintiffs to check a box confirming whether a defendant is part of a marital community or domestic partnership. Chumbley said, “Plaintiffs have no way to comply with this requirement,” because there is no central database that reliably indicates marital status and because accounts can be shared with unrelated parties. She urged further stakeholder work and asked the committee not to move the bill until the compliance issue is resolved.

Nick Field, legislative analyst for the Attorney General’s Office (AGO), expressed the AGO’s strong support for extending bank-garnishment exemptions and making them automatic, saying the earlier statute benefited thousands of consumers and should not sunset.

A former debtor, Russell Brandt, testified about a decade-long garnishment episode that left his family without money for housing, food and gas. “The garnishments cleaned out my bank accounts, put me in a position where I was struggling to even find gas to get to work,” Brandt said, and added that garnishments reduced his ability to pay debts because they removed basic necessities.

No final committee vote on SB 56-51 was recorded in the transcript. Committee members asked questions about the origin of the current automatic protection and whether predatory or routine credit issuance would change if protections were permanent; sponsors and witnesses answered that the bill does not increase the statutory total protected amount, it makes existing protections self-executing, and that other enforcement mechanisms (wage garnishment, liens, credit reporting) remain available to creditors.

The committee left the bill without a recorded vote in the portion of the transcript provided. If enacted as written, the bill would (1) make the full statutory account exemption for consumer debt automatically protected in nonbankruptcy proceedings, (2) remove the July 1, 2025 sunset on the automatic protection, (3) require triennial inflation adjustments beginning July 1, 2027, and (4) add a narrowly drawn spousal-support traceable-payment exemption that excludes Title IV-D actions.

Ending: Sponsors and advocates asked the committee to act before the July expiration; collectors asked for additional stakeholder work on the marital-status compliance language. The transcript does not record a committee vote on the bill during the session covered.

","Lawmakers and advocates told the Civil Rights & Judiciary Committee that Senate Bill 56-51 would preserve and expand protections that keep modest amounts in debtors' bank accounts from garnishment. Consumer advocates and the attorney general’s office urged passage; collectors raised a compliance concern about a marital-status checkbox.",{"_33":101,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":102,"_41":103,"_43":104,"_45":104,"_47":105,"_49":106,"_51":107,"_53":108,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":109,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":110,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6116320,"Committee reports three bills out of committee in executive session; roll-call tallies recorded",0,4143000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2733310-6656f6ab977a1a746a84a75d69d031f5&start=4143&end=4143","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2733310-6656f6ab977a1a746a84a75d69d031f5/thumbnail_4143000.jpg","/articles/6116320/Washington/Committee-reports-three-bills-out-of-committee-in-executive-session-roll-call-tallies-recorded","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6116320-863db3da1b6c339ba9ca40b9f5e9b78b/orig.mp4?Expires=1770906160&Signature=JZQ0gubhYEbnkqJN5gihEXVQtp3AiffjOcKOnK~3NKf~pj59yPAKVPUjRc2B3qtMtNkIZHJCaIViI9cinDAy9w6CKpP6ZYLdAQJjU36oVv0rsjeSg9-TVrrLd7mQoHOmCfNTGQNoasxbOlXzVAMtQLRmVIK7zsmHVN7J2XGgN6qt82Mbth6lEHZNMmnpGU0VGxB7z2nOJnARaryy7VBhI1ftc6on0ykv3ARi6hfblCHMGD2vRb~lvW3QmhYupn7DcPbXBujNerys05BY~9pL4jVcceFNev2nPJZYxnHge4itr3wlfm3AVQABEB6TTZpxQKSKja1TQhNoGOP4mb0-Sg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Civil Rights & Judiciary Committee moved three bills out of committee during an executive session on March 21. The transcript records motions, roll-call votes and two amendment attempts on one measure.

Senate Bill 5129 (common interest communities)
Senate Bill 5,129 was moved by Vice Chair Farber and reported out of committee with a due-pass recommendation. The roll call recorded the following votes: Taylor (yes), Farvar (yes), Walsh (no), Abel (yes), Burnett (yes), Entenmann (yes), Goodman (yes), Graham (yes), Jacobson (no), Peterson (excused), Salahuddin (yes), Tai (yes), Wallen (yes). The clerk announced the result as 10 ayes, 2 nays, 1 excused. The committee commentary said the bill builds on prior common-interest-community and condominium reforms.

Senate Bill 5202 (protection orders; firearms language and amendments)
Engrossed Substitute Senate Bill 5,202 was moved and seconded for a due-pass recommendation. Two floor amendments were considered in committee discussion. Adam 2 36 (by Representative Abel) would have removed language stating the issuance of mutual full protection orders of any type is disfavored; that amendment was defeated on a voice vote. Adam 2 35 (by Representative Walsh) would have removed a provision related to unlawful possession of a firearm (elevating an offense) from the bill; that amendment also failed to be adopted. The final roll call recorded: Taylor (yes), Farvar (yes), Walsh (no), Abel (no), Burnett (no), Entenmann (yes), Goodman (yes), Graham (no), Jacobson (no), Peterson (excused), Salahuddin (yes), Tai (yes), Wallen (yes). The clerk announced 7 ayes, 5 nays, 1 excused; the bill was reported out with a due-pass recommendation.

Senate Bill 5037 (Uniform Custodial Trust Act)
Senate Bill 5,037 was reported out of committee by voice vote; the clerk later announced 12 ayes, 0 nays, 1 excused.

Notes and context
Committee debate around SB 5202 focused on whether the legislature should include language that disfavors mutual protection orders and whether to include enhanced unlawful-possession firearm language; proponents of keeping the firearm language said it would improve victim safety by including certain untraceable weapons. Opponents warned the contested provisions could invite litigation and recommended additional work.

Ending: The committee reported the three bills to the next stage with due-pass recommendations and recorded roll-call tallies for two measures; the transcript shows the committee adjourned after the votes.","During the March 21 executive session, the Civil Rights & Judiciary Committee reported three bills out of committee with due-pass recommendations: Senate Bill 5129, Senate Bill 5202 and Senate Bill 5037. Roll-call votes and amendments discussed on SB 5202 are summarized below.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Prosecutors back broader child-hearsay rule; defense and innocence groups warn of wrongful-conviction risk

Committee considers expanding shield law to cover agents and require businesses to notify AG on certain subpoenas

Committee hears bill to make full bank-garnishment protections automatic and permanent

Committee reports three bills out of committee in executive session; roll-call tallies recorded