Committee hears bill to shield peer-support talks for public safety personnel from court review

House Committee on Judiciary members on March 25 heard public testimony on House Bill 3,929, which would bar examination in civil or criminal court of communications made by public-safety peer-support recipients to designated peer supporters under specified conditions.

Proponents said the confidentiality the bill would create is essential to getting first responders to use peer-support services. "House Bill 3,929 is a crucial step toward providing that level of healing that is needed," Representative Rick Lewis said. "It provides the confidentiality piece that is critical for dealing with trauma, whether on the job or in personal relationships, to allow healing."

The bill, as described to the committee, applies when: the recipient communicated while receiving peer-support services in an official capacity; the peer supporter acted in an official capacity and had been designated in advance by a public-safety agency; the peer supporter was not involved in the traumatic event that gave rise to the need for support; and the communication occurred on or after the bill's effective date. The draft also defines terms such as "peer supporter," "peer support services recipient," and "public safety agency," and applies regardless of whether the peer supporter and recipient share the same employer.

Sheriff Matt English of Hood River County, speaking for the Oregon State Sheriffs Association, said the bill responds to a Washington state court decision that raised concern in the profession. "The court's direction created significant concern within the law enforcement community, resulting, in a deep concern that public safety personnel may waver or refuse to seek the peer support they desperately need," English testified. "Confidentiality and peer support conversations is paramount."

Trevor Womack, chief of police in Salem and a representative of the Oregon Association Chiefs of Police, told the committee the bill is needed to prevent a "chilling effect" on peer-support programs and said agencies may seek an amendment to explicitly cover non‑sworn staff. "Without the assurance that these discussions will remain private, our personnel will be far less likely to reach out for help," Womack said.

Multiple public-safety leaders and peer-support practitioners supported the bill at the hearing. Dave Pickard, managing director of the Oregon Fire Chiefs Association, said confidentiality is a "critical factor" for successful peer teams. Eric Peterson, peer-support lead for Oregon State Firefighter Council Local 1660 and Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue, described training and protocols that limit breaches of confidentiality to situations where there is a recognized imminent risk: "Our programs are designed to recognize when somebody is... has the intent and has the means. And that is really the only time when confidentiality is being... mandated to be broken."

Committee members asked several clarifying questions. Representative Tran raised concerns about domestic violence or sexual assault disclosures during peer conversations; in reply, witnesses and supporters said that confidentiality does not protect communications when a crime is disclosed that mandates reporting or intervention. The committee also discussed whether current statutory definitions (for example, ORS 181A.355 was cited in questions about whether civilian employees are covered) are sufficiently broad; witnesses said the bill's definitions will be amended to ensure telecommunicators, non‑sworn personnel and some other categories are included where appropriate.

No final committee action occurred at the hearing. The chair closed the public hearing on House Bill 3,929 and the committee said it would carry the bill over for a work session later this legislative day.