Skip to main content
Evergreen Ledger

SHB 2351

In Committee

House

Emergency response

Protecting emergency responders and emergency response operations in Washington.

This status may be delayed. See Action History below for the latest updates.

How does a bill become law?
  1. Introduced: The bill is filed and assigned a number.
  2. Committee: A subject-matter committee holds hearings, takes public testimony, and decides whether to advance the bill.
  3. Floor Vote: The full chamber (House or Senate) debates and votes on the bill.
  4. Opposite Chamber: The bill repeats the committee and floor vote process in the other chamber.
  5. Governor: The Governor reviews the bill and decides whether to sign or veto it.
  6. Signed: The bill has been signed into law.
Introduced: January 26, 2026
Last Action: February 19, 2026
Status: H Rules X
View Bill Text (HTML) (opens in new tab)View Bill Text (PDF) (opens in new tab)

AI Analysis

This analysis was generated by AI and may contain errors. It is not legal advice. Always refer to the official bill text for authoritative information.
People & CommunitiesPeople-leaningCorporate & Wealthy Interests

This bill strengthens protections for emergency responders by making it a crime to obstruct them during emergencies, creating special rules for law enforcement activity in designated emergency zones, and prohibiting local and state agencies from helping federal immigration enforcement efforts that target emergency responders based on protected characteristics. It also clarifies definitions and sets implementation deadlines for new policies.

  • Expands the legal definition of 'obstructing an emergency responder' to include willful interference with any emergency responder (not just law enforcement officers) who is in uniform, identifies themselves, or is reasonably perceived as an emergency responder—making it a gross misdemeanor.
  • Creates 'emergency operation zones' during active emergencies or disasters, allowing governors and local executives to restrict law enforcement activity that targets emergency responders, requiring officers to disclose identities, obtain warrants, and avoid disrupting operations.
  • Bars city and county agencies from using resources to enforce federal immigration-related surveillance or registration programs targeting emergency responders based on race, religion, immigration, or citizenship status, and requires them to serve all emergency responders regardless of immigration status.
  • Bars incident command systems from using state or local resources to assist in federal immigration enforcement against emergency responders.
  • Requires reporting to the attorney general of any violations of emergency operation zone rules, with authority to publish reports and notify federal authorities—especially for violations by federal officers.

Who is affected

  • Emergency responders — Emergency responders—including police, firefighters, EMS workers, and other first responders—gain stronger legal protections against obstruction and are shielded from being targeted by local or state agencies based on immigration or citizenship status while performing their duties.
  • Local government agencies (cities and counties) — City and county governments must revise policies to avoid using resources to enforce federal immigration-related surveillance or registration programs targeting emergency responders, and ensure services are provided without asking about immigration status.
  • Incident command systems — Incident command systems (which coordinate emergency response during disasters) must follow new rules to avoid aiding federal immigration enforcement against emergency responders and must follow strict protocols when law enforcement enters their zones.
  • Law enforcement officers — Law enforcement officers entering emergency operation zones must follow specific transparency and coordination rules to avoid disrupting emergency response efforts.
Effective: January 1, 2027Fiscal impact: No significant fiscal impact is described; however, local governments and counties must review and update policies, which may require minimal administrative costs. No new funding is allocated or appropriated.
Model: Intel/Qwen3-Coder-Next-int4-AutoRoundGenerated: Mar 20, 2026 at 3:11 AM

Pro/Con Analysis

Stronger case for benefits

Potential Benefits (5)

  • Expanding legal protections to all emergency responders—including firefighters, EMS, and private-sector responders—strengthens the ability of diverse frontline workers to perform duties without fear of obstruction or retaliation, thereby improving public safety outcomes for all communities, especially those with historically under-resourced emergency services.

    Rights & LibertiesPeopleRef: Sec. 2(1), (2), (4)(a)(i–v)

  • Prohibiting local agencies from conditioning services on immigration status and requiring equal service to all emergency responders regardless of status ensures that undocumented first responders (e.g., immigrant firefighters, paramedics, police) can serve their communities without fear of deportation, improving workforce stability and public trust in emergency response systems.

    Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 3(2)(d), Sec. 4(2)(d)

  • Creating 'emergency operation zones' with strict protocols for law enforcement entry—especially the requirement to disclose identity and avoid disrupting operations—reduces the risk of federal immigration enforcement interfering with disaster response (e.g., during wildfires or floods), protecting both responder safety and operational integrity.

    Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 5, Sec. 6(1)

  • Mandating that the attorney general notify affected individuals and advocacy organizations—and publish public reports on violations—enhances transparency and accountability, especially when federal officers violate emergency zone rules, potentially deterring overreach and supporting community oversight.

    Rights & LibertiesPeopleRef: Sec. 6(5)(c), (6)

  • Limiting data collection on emergency responders to the minimum necessary and restricting disclosure protects privacy and prevents profiling, encouraging full participation in emergency services regardless of immigration status—particularly vital in communities where fear of data misuse deters help-seeking behavior.

    Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 3(2)(a)–(b), Sec. 4(2)(a)–(b)
Potential Concerns (5)

  • Expanding the definition of 'obstructing an emergency responder' to include willful interference with any person reasonably perceived to be an emergency responder—regardless of actual status—risks overcriminalization of peaceful protest or dissent, especially when combined with the gross misdemeanor penalty. The broad 'reasonable person' standard may chill constitutionally protected activity, particularly among marginalized communities already subject to heightened police scrutiny.

    Rights & LibertiesPeopleRef: Sec. 2(1), (2), (4)(a)(i–v)

  • Requiring city and county agencies to revise policies and train staff to avoid asking about immigration status—even when collecting data for service delivery—imposes administrative burdens on local governments, especially small or under-resourced jurisdictions. While the fiscal impact is described as minimal, the real-world cost of compliance (e.g., policy rewriting, staff training, audit readiness) may strain local budgets and divert resources from core services.

    Local GovernmentPeopleRef: Sec. 3(2)(c), Sec. 4(2)(c)

  • The requirement for law enforcement officers entering emergency operation zones to visibly display ID and obtain warrants before arrests may hinder rapid response in fast-moving crisis situations (e.g., active shooter, structural collapse), potentially delaying critical interventions. The exceptions for 'assumed identity' and 'probable cause of violent offense' create ambiguity, increasing the risk of inconsistent enforcement and legal challenges.

    Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 6(2)(a)–(d), (3)(c)–(d)

  • While violations of emergency operation zone rules are not criminal or civil offenses, the mandatory reporting to the attorney general (AG) and federal authorities creates a new administrative layer for local law enforcement and incident command staff, who must document and report incidents—potentially diverting personnel from emergency duties during active crises.

    Local GovernmentLean peopleRef: Sec. 6(4)

  • Requiring judicial warrants for searches/seizures in emergency zones may delay life-saving actions in time-sensitive emergencies (e.g., hazardous materials, medical emergencies), especially in rural areas where judicial availability is limited. The exception for 'probable cause of violent offense' is narrow and does not cover non-violent but urgent threats.

    Public SafetyLean peopleRef: Sec. 6(2)(c)

Who Is Most Affected

Undocumented emergency respondersPositive Impact

Undocumented emergency responders gain stronger legal protections and reduced risk of deportation while performing duties, improving workforce stability and public safety outcomes. However, they may still face indirect risks if local agencies over-comply or misinterpret the law.

Law enforcement officersMixed Impact

Law enforcement officers entering emergency zones face new transparency and procedural requirements, which may reduce operational flexibility but increase accountability and reduce abuse. Officers conducting investigations in emergency zones may face added constraints during time-sensitive operations.

Local government agenciesNegative Impact

Local governments (cities/counts) must revise policies, train staff, and potentially absorb administrative costs to comply with new reporting and service-delivery requirements. While the fiscal impact is described as minimal, smaller jurisdictions may struggle with implementation.

Private-sector emergency respondersPositive Impact

Private-sector emergency responders (e.g., contracted firefighters, EMS providers) gain explicit legal protections under the expanded 'emergency responder' definition, improving their ability to operate without obstruction and increasing workforce inclusion.

Immigrant advocacy and legal service organizationsPositive Impact

Immigrant advocacy groups and legal service providers may see increased demand for guidance on compliance and rights enforcement, but benefit from stronger legal protections for undocumented workers and increased transparency mechanisms.