Bill would let Washington attorney general issue civil investigative demands for constitutional, labor and policing matters

Senate Bill 5,925 would let the Washington State Attorney General issue civil investigative demands, an administrative discovery tool, when investigating alleged violations of the state and federal constitutions, labor laws, law-enforcement use-of-force policies and other statutes.

The bill's sponsor, Sen. Drew Hansen (23rd Legislative District), told the Law and Justice Committee that the change is intended to give the Attorney General the same investigative tools now used for Consumer Protection and Medicaid-False Claims investigations. "You might think of [CIDs] more like discovery and really more like written discovery and document discovery," Hansen said, adding the authority is requested by the Attorney General and does not change who may be held liable.

Patricio Marquez of the Attorney General's Office said CIDs would allow investigations to identify affected workers and obtain employer records more quickly, citing a wage-and-tip case in which the office identified at least 18 affected baristas but believes more workers were harmed. "Had our office been able to issue a CID, we could have obtained records from the owner identifying the baristas he employed, their hours worked, tips earned, and wages paid," Marquez said.

Labor and worker-advocacy witnesses also urged approval, saying wage-theft cases often affect multiple employees and that faster investigatory tools would speed relief. Jeremiah Miller of Working Washington and Samantha Grama of Teamsters Local 117 said the change would reduce delay and cost for vulnerable workers who otherwise lack private remedies.

Opponents, including law-enforcement associations, warned the proposal lacks sufficient procedural guardrails. "This bill authorizes the attorney general to roam the state with investigative subpoena demands without meeting any burden of proof nor even taking the very first step of opening a suit," said Ryan Lufkin of the Washington Council of Police and Sheriffs, who argued the measure could permit burdensome or unconstitutional demands. The Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs urged standards similar to reasonable suspicion for investigative intrusions and said the bill should include requirements to coordinate with local law enforcement.

Local-government associations and small-business representatives asked for clearer limits and more time to respond; Rose Gunderson of a retail association recommended extending appeal windows for small employers so they can secure counsel and understand which documents are required.

No formal vote took place; the committee heard extensive testimony pro and con. The bill includes a disclaimer that the added CID authority "does not supersede nor displace" existing CID authority under other statutes and introduces "entity" as a potential CID recipient. The committee received a fiscal note for the measure and heard requests for additional constitutional guardrails and clarity about use and disclosure of materials collected under a CID.

The committee is expected to consider amendments to address concerns raised by law enforcement, cities and counties before further action.