HB 1740
In CommitteeHouse
OII expansion/prosecutions
Expanding the office of independent investigations to include prosecutions of criminal conduct.
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 expands the authority of Washington’s Office of Independent Investigations and Prosecutions (OIIP) to investigate and prosecute criminal cases involving use of deadly force by law enforcement officers—including related offenses and defendants—and creates a new independent prosecutor role with final decision-making power. It also strengthens transparency, victim notification, and accountability measures for staff and processes.
- Grants the Office of Independent Investigations and Prosecutions (OIIP) concurrent authority with county prosecutors to investigate and prosecute cases involving use of deadly force by officers—including related offenses and defendants.
- Establishes a new position of independent prosecutor, appointed by the OIIP director, with final authority over charging decisions, staffing, and litigation, subject to background checks and conflict-of-interest screening.
- Requires the independent prosecutor to issue a public report explaining why charges were or were not filed in fatal use-of-force cases.
- Sets strict eligibility criteria for investigators, including prohibitions on current law enforcement employment and mandatory background checks for bias and conflicts.
- Mandates training for staff and advisory board members on antiracism, implicit bias, trauma-informed practices, and intercultural competency.
- Requires the office to complete investigations within 120 days and gives it priority over other agencies investigating the same incident.
Who is affected
- Office of Independent Investigations and Prosecutions (OIIP) — The office gains the authority to investigate and prosecute criminal cases involving use of deadly force by officers, including related offenses and defendants, and may pursue appeals and postconviction relief.
- County prosecuting attorneys — County prosecuting attorneys retain authority to prosecute crimes committed by individuals who are the subject of an officer’s use of force, but may face overlapping jurisdiction with OIIP in related cases.
- Individuals involved in use-of-force incidents and their families — Individuals involved in incidents with law enforcement (or their survivors) have the right to be kept informed about investigations, charging decisions, court hearings, and prosecutions, and victims or their families gain specific rights under state law.
- Independent prosecutor and their staff — The independent prosecutor will be appointed by the director and given final authority over hiring, charging decisions, and litigation strategy, with accountability for conflicts of interest and background screening.
- Law students — Law students may serve as interns or clerks in the office, gaining hands-on experience in investigations and prosecutions.
Pro/Con Analysis
Stronger case for benefits
Potential Benefits (5)
By granting the independent prosecutor final charging authority and requiring public reports explaining decisions in fatal use-of-force cases, the bill enhances transparency and reduces perceived or actual conflicts of interest—increasing public trust in outcomes, especially in communities historically skeptical of law enforcement accountability.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 1(2), Sec. 2(1)(b), Sec. 3(1)Mandatory training on antiracism, implicit bias, trauma-informed practices, and intercultural competency for staff and advisory board members—plus requirements that investigators not be current law enforcement and be screened for bias—strengthens procedural fairness and reduces risk of discriminatory outcomes in investigations and prosecutions.
Rights & LibertiesPeopleRef: Sec. 3(2), Sec. 13(1)(d), Sec. 13(4)The bill guarantees victims and survivors of use-of-force incidents (including those subjected to force and their families) the right to timely notification, access to court proceedings, and victim rights under RCW 7.69.030—empowering them to participate meaningfully in the justice process.
Rights & LibertiesPeopleRef: Sec. 3(2), Sec. 14(8)The advisory board’s expanded composition—including community representatives, impacted families, tribal members, and mental health experts—ensures broader community input into oversight and policy recommendations, strengthening democratic legitimacy and responsiveness in oversight of law enforcement.
Local GovernmentPeopleRef: Sec. 15(1)(i)-(iii), Sec. 15(2)(a), Sec. 15(2)(d)Granting the office priority access to evidence—including bodycam footage, 911 calls, and disciplinary records—ensures more complete and timely investigations, reducing reliance on potentially conflicted local agencies and improving accuracy of findings.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 14(7), Sec. 11
Potential Concerns (5)
The bill shifts prosecution-related costs (e.g., expert witness fees, court administration, public defense) to counties, which may strain county budgets—especially in rural or fiscally constrained jurisdictions—potentially diverting funds from other essential local services like schools or public health.
FinancialPeopleRef: Sec. 1(4)The bill creates overlapping jurisdiction between OIIP and county prosecutors in related offenses, increasing administrative complexity and potential duplication of effort for local law enforcement and prosecutors, which may delay case resolution and increase coordination costs.
Local GovernmentPeopleRef: Sec. 1(1), Sec. 12Mandating 120-day investigation timelines and prioritizing OIIP over other agencies may pressure investigators to rush complex use-of-force cases, potentially compromising evidentiary thoroughness or due process protections for all parties—including the involved officer and the person subjected to force.
Public SafetyLean peopleRef: Sec. 10, Sec. 11, Sec. 14(6)The background check requirement for independent prosecutor and investigators—including social media and affiliation review—while intended to prevent bias, may inadvertently chill lawful expression or create chilling effects on political or community engagement, especially for candidates from marginalized groups.
Rights & LibertiesLean peopleRef: Sec. 2(3), Sec. 13(2)(b)(ii)The broad immunity provision shielding the independent prosecutor and staff from civil liability for acts done in “good faith” may reduce accountability for procedural errors, prosecutorial overreach, or negligent investigations—reducing recourse for individuals wrongfully investigated or charged.
Rights & LibertiesLean peopleRef: Sec. 7
Who Is Most Affected
Families of individuals killed or injured in use-of-force incidents gain stronger procedural rights, timely information, and increased confidence in impartial investigation—though they may face emotional strain during prolonged investigations or adverse outcomes.
County prosecutors may experience jurisdictional overlap and budgetary strain, but benefit from reduced public pressure and potential collaboration with a specialized, independent unit—though they retain authority over crimes committed by individuals involved in officer use-of-force incidents.
Law enforcement officers (and their unions) may face increased scrutiny and potential prosecution, but benefit from impartial, non-local investigations that reduce perception of bias and protect officers from politically motivated or procedurally flawed local prosecutions.
Rural and small-county governments may face disproportionate fiscal burden due to fixed costs for court administration and public defense in OIIP cases, without proportional tax revenue to offset them—potentially diverting funds from other local services.
Marginalized communities—including Black, Indigenous, and other communities of color—stand to benefit from increased accountability and reduced racial bias in investigations, though they may also face heightened surveillance or over-prosecution if the office’s policies are not rigorously enforced.