[{"_1":2,"_100":-5,"_101":-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],{"_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",6111184,"mediaKeyId","2752739-49dffe8511ce62f9a50527b75b9798a0","parentId",2752739,"title","Hearing on HB 1574 spotlights expanded Good Samaritan protections, but prosecutors and law enforcement urge narrower language","audioSeconds",920,"startMs",718290,"endMs",1638400,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2752739-49dffe8511ce62f9a50527b75b9798a0&start=718&end=1638","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2752739-49dffe8511ce62f9a50527b75b9798a0/thumbnail_718290.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6111184/Washington/Hearing-on-HB-1574-spotlights-expanded-Good-Samaritan-protections-but-prosecutors-and-law-enforcement-urge-narrower-language","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6111184-95295ef5c24817a5493cc37822b7054e/orig.mp4?Expires=1774941548&Signature=cof18F2LIX5cG92PXcafXAXPTAFozYb0dR9ZvRGz6Ai--3lmMK2bwzCzpHRl9NCSW0WASt9yYnIjItq2GeVCIvpx3bKIA7lasVz4jT7Yx7qLZAJVv2oEq0WJVMN3rGuXaQzXDCmzoFaNimtWfOiSCwJEYT9Vp0qclJoMjycQUj3bbxtlUaRgvVIUqUb6VI2E0Aa-k2K17WzJk-xVzHv5EYHa~9kQoFPFgxANThUiMVrO9MWCIltTh9A58m29zT4A-YX9vyYtPsY6QyEHbHGpk3ymDvom8Tqdz4B-2IND4JMj-IwFmwifCdHSSKabXgQtKguoIdtq8qJ8-7RD1TAykA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Washington Legislature","date","2025-03-24T00:00:00Z","article","The Law & Justice Committee heard competing views on Engrossed House Bill 15-74, which would expand Good Samaritan protections for people who seek medical attention during a drug-related overdose and clarify that certain healthcare facilities may provide public-health supplies such as syringes and testing equipment.

Joe McKittrick, staff counsel, briefed the committee that the bill would extend existing protections so a person who in good faith seeks medical attention for themselves or another person would not be arrested, charged, prosecuted, or convicted for possession of a controlled substance and would be protected from certain penalties (including some probation or parole violations and failing to appear) tied to simple possession or use when the interaction arises from seeking care. The bill also specifies that property would not be subject to civil forfeiture in these circumstances unless the item seized was in plain sight, and it permits healthcare facilities to distribute certain public-health supplies.

Caleb Banta-Green, a research professor at the University of Washington Addiction, Drug and Alcohol Institute, testified in support and said the bill clarifies locations allowed to provide supplies and expands protections that encourage bystanders to call 911. He said overdose response is more urgent in the era of fentanyl and urged lawmakers to ensure the final law “is clear and actually does improve and expand protections and does not limit them or take them back.”

Malika Lamont, director of VOCA, signed in as neutral and asked the committee to restore language in an earlier draft that would avoid a patchwork of local rules and to remove provisions that would permit police to detain without arrest people who experienced or witnessed an overdose. She said adding authority to detain or to civilly forfeit property “will stop people from calling for help” and that only about 10% of people currently call for help.

Russell Brown, executive director of the Washington Association of Prosecuting Attorneys, said his organization is generally supportive of Good Samaritan protections but asked for narrowing changes. He recommended limiting civil-forfeiture protections to items related to possession or use of a controlled substance and striking the sections that would affect protection orders. He warned the bill as drafted could be read to bar arrests in circumstances unrelated to simple possession.

James McMahon, policy director for the Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs, opposed the bill’s current wording. He said officers must make on-the-spot determinations about who “sought the medical assistance and they did so in good faith,” and he expressed concern that the bill’s immunity language is broad enough to be read as applying to unrelated probation or protection-order violations occurring before or after an overdose incident.

The committee concluded the public hearing without taking a vote; some witness panels planned to submit written testimony with suggested language changes.

Ending: Supporters asked for clarified, broad Good Samaritan protections and clearer statutory language on supplies distribution; prosecutors and law enforcement urged lawmakers to narrow the bill to avoid unintended immunities or limits on arrest authority.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Senate Law & Justice - 3/24/2025 10:30 AM","oneSentenceSummary","Witnesses split on Engrossed House Bill 15-74: public-health experts and harm-reduction advocates supported expanding Good Samaritan protections and allowing some healthcare facilities to distribute supplies, while prosecutors and sheriffs’ associations urged the Legislature to narrow the bill’s language.","taxTitle","Law & Justice, Senate, Legislative Sessions, Washington","taxId",20508,"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},6111189,"Committee hears support for raising relocation-assistance cap from $50,000 to $200,000 for displaced businesses and nonprofits",338,319890,658170,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2752739-49dffe8511ce62f9a50527b75b9798a0&start=319&end=658","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2752739-49dffe8511ce62f9a50527b75b9798a0/thumbnail_319890.jpg","/articles/6111189/Washington/Committee-hears-support-for-raising-relocation-assistance-cap-from-50000-to-200000-for-displaced-businesses-and-nonprofits","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6111189-ae0a25cc97c0cecfccc8719ab974cb2f/orig.mp4?Expires=1774941548&Signature=A1pD88AoRrzTDi2S867khb9AH5Ugkvl7pMtoeqpmpEUpczm~xxy~SkIaDAd2~rmlGabWieUjNKNKSgqOc4IRYCy5BpasBFzxXXl0q~u7OqkSEbZMSsiwQzMmYPERtV2isnYocXkB5PL8TsLXeoCBkqRQswTQKhbPUbzEBp0R3TnidgMfPTaFnJ45TjwVcr1fdQ6A5mXHWryLuPKDdPTnq0MIov37yp-HuovgH1FvJmClPXkIu7SIwiP8jSPbpbRtmImVQ0om-pIaZJDDBKzD02YleV1rLUCAXYlLxJ9X6jbjE0rcJL7vH6wgjx0jXEW3raF06wwhMfjhMs2cqrje9w__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Law & Justice Committee heard from local governments and small-business owners in support of Substitute House Bill 17-33, which would increase the cap on reestablishment reimbursement for people and businesses displaced by public projects from $50,000 to $200,000 and require annual inflation adjustments.

Mac Nicholson, representing the King County Council, testified the cap addresses “reestablishment expenses” such as property repairs, signage, advertising, and lease-cost differences for up to two years. He told the committee the current $50,000 cap “was established at that level 22 years ago” and that the proposed $200,000 cap “better reflects the reality of what non profits and businesses face when having to relocate and reestablish their businesses, particularly in a dense urban environment.”

Jordan Crowley, who represents Alki Beach Academy, a West Seattle childcare center, said the center is one of about 70 businesses that will be displaced by Sound Transit construction. Crowley said raising the cap and indexing it to inflation will “ensure better compensation for those who have invested their lives in serving their communities but are forced out due to circumstances beyond their control.”

Remote testifier Keith Edwards, owner of Joint Chiropractic in West Seattle’s Jefferson Square, told the committee his relocation estimate is about $500,000 and said many affected businesses could face bankruptcy without additional financial assistance; he urged the committee to pass the bill out of committee.

Staff summarized the bill’s mechanics and fiscal note: the Washington State Department of Transportation administers the State Relocation Assistance Program and would be required to adjust the new cap annually by the Consumer Price Index.

Ending: Public testimony concluded with the committee recording one pro signer who did not testify in person and no committee vote during the hearing.
","Supporters including King County and small-business owners urged the committee to pass Substitute House Bill 17-33, which would raise the statutory cap for reestablishment reimbursement from $50,000 to $200,000 and require annual CPI adjustments; witnesses said current cap was set 22 years ago and is inadequate in dense urban markets.",{"_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},6111193,"Testimony on Tribal Warrants Act urges statutory time limit for state-court review, flags housing and funding questions",313,320,313750,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2752739-49dffe8511ce62f9a50527b75b9798a0&start=0&end=313","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2752739-49dffe8511ce62f9a50527b75b9798a0/thumbnail_320.jpg","/articles/6111193/Washington/Testimony-on-Tribal-Warrants-Act-urges-statutory-time-limit-for-state-court-review-flags-housing-and-funding-questions","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6111193-53c0d701f6c7634544882ac19b79c5b0/orig.mp4?Expires=1774941548&Signature=ZKupSoDMlSQmZj182voJtrANPsNg0Xckr~FZx64AK9XdjogZPKBeH2ChezUo-Yvi9NK~VrQddqkz8TFc4QpsyzIhXQZOnbURf~2IkPk8iD1h5bo44TeOsbA0-HJDhUngoxskEnoBZYWyEtydgnmZrRlRN80UrAo4PQy~yUdmEJK5fe7ThCx8nmIrsvmWjsFXRz418PwkIThz5wt0CSmEqMWIiGL6Mq~FdiOrkR3OsCn4G3qbBYhcXcazxeV0TNj5mGMPD8ZnE0PpgoWuUSwzPrJ9GTZupneVALCYOJuvTA9hjDOgw6buPegmBkGcv8Ue-80UxAaOsvKISwHvXwGFfA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Attorneys and tribal partners told the House Law & Justice Committee that they broadly support the Tribal Warrants Act but urged lawmakers to add statutory protections and funding clarity.

Russ, an attorney testifying in support of Engrossed Substitute House Bill 18-29, told the committee the bill contains many of the work group’s agreed recommendations but still needs “language needed to require an individual, even from a certified tribe who is arrested on a tribal warrant to see a state judge within 1 judicial day.” He said that requirement “helps to fulfill” habeas corpus and identity-protection concerns and provides a statutory recognition mechanism to implement the bill’s full-faith-and-credit principle.

The committee exchanged questions about how tribal warrants would operate alongside existing county-to-county warrant transfers. Senator Dhingra asked whether a person arrested in one county on a warrant issued in another county is transferred “on that warrant without a court hearing.” Russ responded that tribal warrants raise different sovereign issues and said, “Just because I pick up someone from Oregon and I'm in King County, I can't automatically transfer. They would have a right to a hearing. They would have a right to be in front of a court at least for the limited purposes of identity.”

Speakers who testified also asked for statutory cleanup to ensure noncertified tribes can enter warrants into state and national systems and for clarification that existing local agreements between tribes and counties (for example, Tulalip and Snohomish County) remain intact under the new law. Russ raised funding as a separate issue: he said the bill should address who pays for housing and transportation when a tribal member is held far from their home community, noting scenarios—such as a tribal member arrested in Spokane on a Tulalip warrant—that raise questions about whether the originating tribe, the state, or the receiving county covers detention and return costs.

The committee concluded public testimony on the bill without a formal vote during this hearing.

Ending: The record shows broad support among tribal partners and law enforcement for the bill’s goals alongside repeated requests for statutory language to guarantee a prompt state-court identity hearing and explicit funding or housing provisions for cross-jurisdictional detentions. Further bill language or fiscal notes may be expected in subsequent committee work.
","Witnesses testified in support of the Tribal Warrants Act (Engrossed Substitute House Bill 18-29), asking the Legislature to add a requirement that anyone arrested on a tribal warrant be seen by a state judge within one judicial day and to clarify funding for housing and transport when warrants cross jurisdictions.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Hearing on HB 1574 spotlights expanded Good Samaritan protections, but prosecutors and law enforcement urge narrower language

Committee hears support for raising relocation-assistance cap from $50,000 to $200,000 for displaced businesses and nonprofits

Testimony on Tribal Warrants Act urges statutory time limit for state-court review, flags housing and funding questions