SHB 1192

Extended prehearing detention for individuals convicted of serious violent or sexual offenses may increase risk of pretrial detention without due process, especially if prosecutors delay charging decisions; individuals may be held up to 30 days or longer without formal charges, even if ultimately not prosecuted. This creates a risk of prolonged incarceration without conviction, undermining presumption of innocence. The provision allows detention until either sanctions are imposed, charges are filed, *or* prosecutors say they won’t file charges — meaning detention can last indefinitely if prosecutors sit on the decision.

The bill grants near-absolute immunity to DOC staff for decisions to elevate violations to high-level status, shielding them from civil or criminal liability unless acted with reckless disregard — a high legal bar. This weakens accountability for potentially arbitrary or retaliatory elevation decisions, especially since elevation triggers harsher sanctions and longer detention. The immunity provision is broader than typical qualified immunity standards and may chill oversight or redress for wrongful elevation.

Allowing up to 30 days of total confinement per high-level hearing — and up to 30 days of prehearing detention for certain serious offenses — may increase time spent in confinement without proportional public safety benefit. Research suggests short, structured sanctions are more effective than longer punitive spells for reducing recidivism; extended sanctions may disrupt employment, housing, and family stability, increasing reoffending risk. The fiscal impact note itself acknowledges possible *increased* short-term confinement costs, implying the policy may not reduce long-term costs as hoped.

While the bill raises the burden of proof to 'beyond a reasonable doubt' for partial confinement violations, it retains 'preponderance of the evidence' for total confinement — a lower standard that increases risk of erroneous deprivation of liberty. Since most disciplinary hearings occur in total confinement (prison), the majority of individuals face a lower evidentiary threshold, undermining fairness and increasing wrongful sanction risk. This dual standard contradicts principles of equal protection and due process consistency.

The automatic elevation rule — that five low-level sanctions make subsequent violations *presumptively* high-level — risks punishing individuals for patterns rather than current conduct, without requiring proof of intent or changed circumstances. This may disproportionately impact people with disabilities, mental illness, or substance use disorders who struggle to comply with supervision conditions, effectively criminalizing relapse or instability. The rule also gives DOC broad discretion to define thresholds and exceptions, reducing transparency and predictability.