Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Policing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee considers bill requiring officers to record and report suspected ICE enforcement
Summary
HB 2648 would require Washington peace officers to activate body/dash cameras and report to their agencies when they reasonably suspect ICE enforcement activity, and it includes indemnification for officers acting in good faith; law-enforcement groups supported some provisions but warned about operational impacts of mandatory community notification.
Get email alerts on the Policing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Lena Langer, counsel to the committee, described House Bill 2,648 as a measure that would require on‑duty general or limited‑authority Washington peace officers who reasonably suspect a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement employee is conducting immigration enforcement to activate body‑worn and dash cameras (if equipped), report the encounter to their employing agency so the agency may notify the community, document the interaction and attempt to confirm ICE identity if safe. The bill also directs the attorney general to represent officers in proceedings arising from actions taken in compliance with the requirements and includes a hold‑harmless indemnification if the officer acted in good faith within the scope of employment.
Sponsor Representative Mary Fosse (38th LD) said the bill aims to give officers clear steps to take in the field so they can protect community trust and avoid becoming unwitting participants in rights violations. Captain Dion Glover of the Washington State Patrol testified that many of the bill’s documentation and camera-activation elements align with existing WSP policies; Brenda Weist (Teamsters 117) said smaller jurisdictions may lack cameras and urged careful drafting on discipline protections. Steve Strand (Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs) said the bill’s community‑notification piece could discourage federal officers from seeking local assistance and urged changing mandatory language to an encouragement while keeping indemnification.
Committee members asked technical questions about camera availability, officer safety and indemnification language; sponsors and stakeholders agreed to further technical discussions and narrower drafting to address smaller jurisdictions and operational concerns. The committee concluded public testimony for the day and planned to reconvene for follow-up.
