SB 5333
In CommitteeSenate
Eluding & resisting arrest
Concerning penalties related to eluding police vehicles and resisting arrest.
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 strengthens penalties and enforcement tools related to attempting to elude a police vehicle and resisting arrest. It creates a new vehicle forfeiture process for repeat elude offenders, expands vehicle impoundment authority, mandates electronic monitoring for charged and convicted individuals, and adds elude offenses to the list of crimes requiring Department of Corrections supervision and community custody.
- Creates a new vehicle forfeiture process for repeat offenders convicted of attempting to elude a police vehicle, allowing seizure and forfeiture of vehicles used in the offense.
- Expands circumstances under which vehicles can be impounded—specifically adding arrest for attempting to elude a police vehicle—and sets new mandatory hold periods: 72 hours for first-time elude/racing offenses and 12 hours for other impoundments (e.g., DUI) when the driver is the registered owner.
- Requires electronic monitoring for individuals (both adults and juveniles) charged with attempting to elude a police vehicle or resisting arrest who are released on bail or personal recognizance, and for those placed on community custody or parole for such offenses.
- Adds attempted eluding of a police vehicle to the list of offenses requiring mandatory supervision by the Department of Corrections under community custody, and sets a one-year community custody term for convictions under RCW 46.61.024.
- Requires courts to impose electronic monitoring as a condition of community custody for individuals convicted of attempting to elude a police vehicle, and requires the Department of Children, Youth, and Families to impose electronic monitoring for juveniles on parole for the same offense.
Who is affected
- Drivers arrested for attempting to elude a police vehicle — Drivers arrested for attempting to elude a police vehicle may face vehicle impoundment (for first-time offenses) or forfeiture (for repeat offenses), and must comply with electronic monitoring as a condition of release or supervision.
- Juveniles charged with attempting to elude a police vehicle or resisting arrest — Juveniles charged with attempting to elude a police vehicle or resisting arrest may be subject to electronic monitoring as a condition of release, and those released on parole must also comply with electronic monitoring for the duration of their parole.
- Adults sentenced to community custody for attempting to elude a police vehicle — Adults sentenced to community custody for attempting to elude a police vehicle must wear electronic monitoring for the full term of their community custody supervision.
- Vehicle owners (especially non-drivers) whose vehicles were used in attempted elude offenses — Vehicle owners who are not the driver at the time of arrest (e.g., lenders or lessees) may have their vehicles seized and potentially forfeited if used in attempting to elude a police vehicle, though protections exist for holders of bona fide security interests.
- Law enforcement agencies — Law enforcement agencies gain new authority to seize and forfeit vehicles used in attempted elude offenses, and may retain or sell forfeited vehicles to fund traffic safety efforts.
Pro/Con Analysis
Stronger case for benefits
Potential Benefits (5)
Forfeiture proceeds and monitoring requirements fund traffic safety initiatives and supervision, potentially reducing dangerous high-speed chases that endanger first responders and the public.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 1 (new forfeiture provision) & Sec. 12 (amended RCW 13.40.210)(3)(b)(A)Forfeiture of vehicles used in repeat elude offenses may deter dangerous driving and reduce harm to bystanders, especially in urban areas where high-speed pursuits pose significant public risk.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 1 (new forfeiture provision)Mandatory community custody supervision for elude convictions increases accountability and enables monitoring of compliance, potentially reducing repeat offenses and improving road safety.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 7 & 9 (amended RCW 9.94A.501 & 9.94A.701)Mandatory electronic monitoring during community custody for elude convictions may reduce recidivism by deterring repeat offenses and enabling real-time supervision, especially for high-risk offenders.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 11 (amended RCW 9.94A.703)(1)(e)Mandatory electronic monitoring for juveniles on parole for elude offenses may reduce youth recidivism and improve public safety through structured supervision and early intervention.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 12 (amended RCW 13.40.210)(3)(b)(A)
Potential Concerns (5)
Mandatory 72-hour impound for first-time elude/racing offenses may reduce repeat offenses by increasing immediate consequences, but evidence on whether short-term impoundment deters future driving violations is mixed.
Public SafetyRef: Sec. 2 & 3 (RCW 46.55.113 & 46.55.360)Mandatory electronic monitoring for adults and juveniles released on bail or pending disposition may increase pretrial surveillance and restrict liberty without conviction, potentially chilling lawful behavior and disproportionately affecting low-income individuals who cannot afford monitoring costs.
Rights & LibertiesRef: Sec. 5 & 6 (new RCW 10.21 & amended RCW 13.40.040)12-hour hold for DUI impoundments and 72-hour hold for elude/racing impoundments may delay vehicle redemption, increasing financial strain on low-income drivers who rely on vehicles for transportation to work or healthcare, especially in areas with limited public transit.
HousingRef: Sec. 3 (RCW 46.55.360)(2)(a)Vehicle forfeiture for repeat elude offenders may disrupt small business operations if the vehicle is used for work (e.g., delivery, service calls), though protections for security interest holders reduce risk to lenders.
Business & EmploymentRef: Sec. 1 & 2 (new forfeiture provision & amended RCW 46.55.113)Vehicle forfeiture for repeat elude offenders may reduce recidivism by removing repeat offenders' access to vehicles, but data on elude recidivism is limited and forfeiture may displace rather than reduce risky driving if offenders use borrowed or stolen vehicles.
Public SafetyRef: Sec. 1 (new forfeiture provision)
Who Is Most Affected
Drivers arrested for elude face vehicle impoundment (72-hour hold for first-time), potential forfeiture (for repeat offenses), and mandatory electronic monitoring—increasing financial and mobility burdens, especially for low-income drivers.
Juveniles face electronic monitoring during release and parole, potentially disrupting school and family life; however, supervision may reduce recidivism and improve outcomes through structured support.
Vehicle owners (especially non-drivers) face risk of forfeiture if their vehicles are used in elude offenses, though protections for security interest holders reduce harm to lenders and lessors.
Law enforcement gains new tools to seize vehicles and fund traffic safety programs, but may face increased administrative costs for forfeiture proceedings and monitoring compliance.
Local governments may benefit from forfeiture proceeds used for traffic safety, but may also face increased costs for court proceedings, detention, and monitoring programs.