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

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.