HB 1890
In CommitteeHouse
Prosecutor liability
Concerning the establishment of liability standards for prosecutors.
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 creates a new civil lawsuit path for people injured by individuals who were released before trial after a prosecutor chose not to file charges for a violent offense. It requires prosecutors to document and consider public safety risks before making charging decisions and removes traditional immunity protections for such decisions—making them potentially liable if their failure to act recklessly harms the public.
- Creates a new civil cause of action allowing individuals injured by a person released before trial (after a prosecutor declined to file charges) to sue the prosecutor for damages.
- Defines 'violent offense' using existing state law (RCW 9.94A.030) and requires prosecutors to conduct a written, published risk assessment before declining to file charges.
- Requires prosecutors to consider evidence including criminal history, prior victimization, and alternatives to prosecution when deciding whether to file charges.
- Eliminates prosecutorial immunity as a defense in such lawsuits, including absolute immunity claims.
- Allows courts to award actual damages, at least nominal damages, costs, and attorney fees to prevailing plaintiffs.
- Holds prosecutors personally liable (and requires repayment from the state/local government) if a court finds they intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly disregarded public safety risks in declining to file charges.
Who is affected
- State and local prosecutors — Prosecutors (including elected prosecuting attorneys, deputies, and special deputies) may now face personal liability for decisions not to file charges in violent offense cases, especially if their decisions are found to have recklessly ignored public safety risks.
- Victims of violent crimes committed by pretrial releasees — Individuals injured by people released before trial—after prosecutors declined to file charges—may sue the prosecutor for damages if they can prove the prosecutor failed to adequately assess public safety risks.
- State and local governments (as fiscal entities) — State and local governments may be required to repay defense and judgment costs to prosecutors found to have acted intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly in declining charges.
- Judicial system — Courts and legal system will face new types of civil litigation involving prosecutorial decision-making, requiring new procedural and evidentiary standards.
Pro/Con Analysis
Potential Benefits (5)
Creates a new civil cause of action allowing victims injured by individuals released pretrial (after prosecutors declined charges) to sue the prosecutor — providing a direct legal remedy where none previously existed, and potentially incentivizing more rigorous public safety assessments before release decisions.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 1(1)Requires prosecutors to consider vulnerability of prior victims and future targets in risk assessments — a meaningful step toward preventing repeat victimization and centering survivor safety in charging decisions, especially in domestic violence, stalking, and sexual assault cases.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 1(4)(a)(ii)Mandates written, published risk assessments considering criminal history and risk of future violence — increasing transparency and accountability in prosecutorial decision-making and enabling public oversight of how dangerous individuals are handled pretrial.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 1(4)(a)(i)Allows prevailing plaintiffs to recover nominal damages, actual damages, costs, and attorney fees — ensuring that even low-damage cases can be pursued, and reducing the financial barrier for victims seeking redress for systemic failures that enabled violence.
Rights & LibertiesPeopleRef: Sec. 1(7)Requires liberal construction of the new cause of action to effect its remedial purposes — signals legislative intent to prioritize victim protection over prosecatorial discretion, reinforcing that public safety is a core duty, not a discretionary afterthought.
Rights & LibertiesLean peopleRef: Sec. 1(10)
Potential Concerns (5)
Prosecutors found to have acted intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly must personally repay defense and judgment costs to their government employers — shifting financial liability from public coffers to individual employees. This creates a strong disincentive for prosecutors to take aggressive public safety positions in charging decisions, potentially leading to over-cautious charging practices that prioritize legal defensibility over risk assessment nuance.
Local GovernmentPeopleRef: Sec. 1(8)(i)-(iii)State and local governments lose automatic right to indemnify prosecutors in cases where liability is found — removing a long-standing protection and exposing jurisdictions to unpredictable legal exposure and potential budget overruns, especially in high-volume jurisdictions with limited legal reserves.
Local GovernmentPeopleRef: Sec. 1(8)(a)Eliminates absolute prosecutorial immunity, which has been a bedrock principle of prosecutorial function for decades. This changes the legal landscape by exposing individual prosecutors to personal liability for discretionary charging decisions — a shift that may chill legitimate exercise of prosecutorial discretion, especially in complex or high-risk cases where outcomes are uncertain.
Rights & LibertiesRef: Sec. 1(6)Requires prosecutors to assess alternatives to prosecution (e.g., diversion, mental health treatment) before declining charges — a well-intentioned reform that may increase administrative burden and delay in low-resource jurisdictions, potentially slowing response to urgent threats or creating inconsistent application across counties.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 1(4)(a)(iii)Creates civil liability for prosecutors when a released individual commits violence — but the standard requires proving the prosecutor *recklessly* disregarded public safety, not mere negligence. This high bar may still deter only the most egregious failures, while leaving many borderline charging decisions legally unprotected, potentially chilling proactive risk mitigation in ambiguous cases.
Public SafetyLean peopleRef: Sec. 1(1)
Who Is Most Affected
Prosecutors — especially in rural or under-resourced counties — face heightened personal liability exposure and may face insurance premium spikes or difficulty obtaining coverage. Some may retreat from high-risk charging decisions to avoid liability, potentially reducing accountability for dangerous individuals.
Victims of violence committed by pretrial releasees gain a new legal avenue for redress, but must meet a high ‘reckless disregard’ standard and overcome significant evidentiary hurdles. Success depends on jurisdictional variation in prosecutorial practices and documentation quality.
State and local governments face increased fiscal risk: while they no longer indemnify prosecutors found reckless, they may still face political pressure to settle or absorb costs to avoid reputational harm — especially in jurisdictions without robust risk management protocols.
Courts will face new procedural complexities: defining ‘reckless disregard’ in charging contexts, evaluating adequacy of risk assessments, and balancing prosecutorial discretion with civil liability — potentially slowing case resolution and increasing litigation costs.