Attorney General seeks subpoena-style investigatory tool; witnesses split over scope
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Sign Up Free
Summary
House Bill 2161 would allow the Attorney General's Office to issue civil investigative demands (CIDs) in investigations involving constitutional or civil-rights laws and labor standards. Labor and civil-rights groups supported the expansion; law enforcement, cities and businesses urged guardrails and clearer standards.
Lawmakers on Jan. 20 considered House Bill 2161, which would authorize the Washington Attorney General to issue civil investigative demands — a subpoena-like tool commonly used under the Consumer Protection Act — in a wider set of civil investigations.
Patricio Marquez, acting division chief in the Attorney General's Office civil rights division, said the office needs the tool to investigate complex violations such as systemic discrimination and wage theft more efficiently. "This bill would allow the AGO to issue CIDs to conduct more effective and efficient investigations," Marquez said.
Workers'rights and civil‑rights advocates backed the bill. Samantha Grad of Teamsters 117 and Jeremiah Miller of Working Washington said CIDs would speed remedies for wage theft and help identify affected workers when employers have scattered records.
Opponents included the Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs, the Washington Council of Police and Sheriffs, and the Association of Washington Cities. Ryan Lufkin, speaking for the police council, warned the bill as written would "authorize the attorney general to roam our state with investigative subpoena demands without meeting any standards of proof nor need to open a lawsuit." Law enforcement witnesses also urged clearer thresholds and more coordination with local agencies before a CID is issued.
Committee members repeatedly raised questions about oversight and the standard an AGO office must meet prior to issuing a CID. Marquez said internal review typically involves a managing assistant attorney general and that issuance requires some preliminary information suggesting a possible violation; he also referenced the State v. Steele test as a judicial check that CIDs must meet (within authority, not indefinite, and reasonably related to investigation).
Business groups urged longer deadlines to challenge demands and narrower limits on pre-litigation oral testimony and asserted that confidentiality protections and procedural safeguards should be strengthened.
The committee recessed the CID hearing with no vote recorded; members indicated further discussion and possible amendments would follow as they weigh enforcement benefit against constitutional and operational concerns.