HB 1138
In CommitteeHouse
Criminal interview practices
Improving public safety by implementing evidence-based interview practices that increase the reliability of statements collected during criminal investigations.
This status may be delayed. See Action History below for the latest updates.
How does a bill become law?
- Introduced: The bill is filed and assigned a number.
- Committee: A subject-matter committee holds hearings, takes public testimony, and decides whether to advance the bill.
- Floor Vote: The full chamber (House or Senate) debates and votes on the bill.
- Opposite Chamber: The bill repeats the committee and floor vote process in the other chamber.
- Governor: The Governor reviews the bill and decides whether to sign or veto it.
- Signed: The bill has been signed into law.
AI Analysis
This bill requires Washington law enforcement to stop using deceptive tactics during interrogations and adopt evidence-based, noncoercive interview methods to improve reliability of statements and public trust. Starting December 31, 2026, statements obtained through intentional deception in misdemeanor or felony investigations will be presumed inadmissible in court unless prosecutors prove the statement was voluntary. The state will provide free training on techniques like the PEACE method and trauma-informed interviews to all officers by July 1, 2026.
- Begins December 31, 2026, a statement made during an interrogation is presumed inadmissible in court if the officer used deception and the statement relates to a misdemeanor or felony investigation (or juvenile allegations that would be crimes if committed by adults).
- Prosecutors can overcome the presumption of inadmissibility only by proving—by clear and convincing evidence—that the statement was voluntary and not caused by the officer’s use of deception.
- Requires the Washington State Criminal Justice Training Commission to develop and offer free, evidence-based training on rapport-based, noncoercive interview techniques (e.g., PEACE method, cognitive interview, trauma-informed interview) to all law enforcement personnel by July 1, 2026.
- Defines key terms—including 'deception' (knowingly sharing false facts or unauthorized promises of leniency) and 'interrogation' (questioning likely to elicit an incriminating response when a reasonable person feels in legal jeopardy)—to clarify when the new rules apply.
- Mandates that training cover the science of false confessions, risks of deceptive tactics, and real-world outcomes from departments using rapport-based methods.
Who is affected
- Law enforcement officers and agencies — Law enforcement officers across Washington State will be required to use new, evidence-based interview techniques and will receive state-funded training on these methods; those who use deception in interrogations may have resulting statements excluded from evidence.
- Individuals involved in criminal investigations (suspects, witnesses, juveniles) — People being interviewed or interrogated by law enforcement—especially suspects, witnesses, and juveniles—may benefit from more reliable information-gathering and reduced risk of false confessions, and will have stronger protections against coerced statements.
- Prosecutors and defense attorneys — Prosecutors and defense attorneys will need to adjust legal strategies around admissibility of statements, as courts will apply a new presumption of inadmissibility for statements obtained through deception.
- Judges and court staff — Courts will apply a new evidentiary standard for statements obtained via deceptive interrogation tactics, potentially affecting case outcomes and requiring new judicial training or guidance.
Pro/Con Analysis
Stronger case for benefits
Potential Benefits (3)
Prohibiting deceptive interrogation tactics significantly reduces the risk of false confessions—especially among juveniles, people with cognitive impairments, and marginalized communities—who are disproportionately vulnerable to coercion, thereby preventing wrongful convictions and preserving public trust in the justice system.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 3(1)Mandating trauma-informed and rapport-based training for all officers improves how law enforcement interacts with victims and witnesses—particularly survivors of sexual assault, domestic violence, and child abuse—encouraging more cooperation, accurate reporting, and reduced re-traumatization.
EducationPeopleRef: Sec. 4(3)(d)Training on real-world outcomes of departments using rapport-based methods provides empirical evidence that these techniques yield more reliable intelligence and longer-term investigative success, strengthening community partnerships and reducing recidivism by targeting root causes rather than extracting confessions.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 4(2)(c)
Potential Concerns (3)
The presumption of inadmissibility for deceptive interrogations may lead to exclusion of reliable evidence in cases where deception did not cause involuntariness, potentially weakening prosecutions of serious crimes and reducing conviction rates—especially in cases with limited physical evidence, such as sexual assault or domestic violence.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 3(1)Requiring prosecutors to prove voluntariness by clear and convincing evidence adds a high evidentiary burden, increasing litigation time and costs for pretrial hearings and potentially causing case delays or dismissals, which may reduce overall public safety outcomes.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 3(2)Law enforcement agencies will face increased training and operational costs to comply with the new standards, and may need to retrain or replace officers who rely on traditional deceptive tactics—costs likely passed to local governments and taxpayers, especially in under-resourced jurisdictions.
Business & EmploymentLean peopleRef: Sec. 2(1)
Who Is Most Affected
Juveniles and young adults—especially those with developmental disabilities or low income—are at highest risk of false confessions under deceptive tactics; this bill reduces that risk and improves fairness in interrogations. However, some may perceive increased police scrutiny if interrogations become more structured and frequent.
Law enforcement officers will need to adapt to new techniques and face stricter evidentiary standards; while training is state-funded, compliance may initially strain resources in smaller departments. Long-term, the shift may improve professional credibility and reduce liability exposure.
Prosecutors will face higher burdens to prove voluntariness, potentially reducing conviction rates in cases reliant on confessions—but will benefit from more reliable, durable evidence in cases where statements are upheld. Defense attorneys will gain stronger tools to challenge coerced statements.