SB 5818
In CommitteeSenate
DOC transfers/immigration
Facilitating the transfer of certain individuals in the custody of the department of corrections.
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 allows the Washington State Department of Corrections to transfer incarcerated individuals to federal immigration authorities at any time during their sentence if there is an immigration detainer or related request, while placing strict limits on how state and local law enforcement can cooperate with federal immigration enforcement. It also clarifies that immigration enforcement is not a primary responsibility of local law enforcement or school staff.
- The Washington State Department of Corrections may transfer incarcerated individuals (including those on community custody) to federal immigration authorities at any time during their sentence if there is an immigration detainer, hold, notification request, or civil immigration warrant.
- State and local law enforcement agencies and school resource officers are prohibited from inquiring about or collecting immigration status unless related to a criminal investigation, and may not share information with federal immigration authorities for civil enforcement purposes unless required by law or court order.
- Individuals in custody may not be detained solely to determine immigration status, and must be informed in writing of their right to refuse to disclose immigration status and the possible consequences of doing so.
- State and local agencies may not enter into immigration detention agreements or contracts with federal immigration authorities for language services, and must terminate any existing detention agreements within 180 days of May 21, 2019 (with limited exceptions).
- Before being interviewed by federal immigration authorities while in custody, individuals must provide written consent after being informed the interview is voluntary and that refusal will not result in punishment.
Who is affected
- Incarcerated or community custody individuals with immigration detainers — Individuals currently incarcerated or under community custody in Washington State who are subject to immigration enforcement actions may be transferred to federal immigration authorities under this bill.
- State and local law enforcement agencies — State and local law enforcement agencies, including police departments and county sheriff’s offices, must follow new restrictions on sharing information or cooperating with federal immigration enforcement unless required by law or court order.
- School resource officers — School resource officers are prohibited from asking about immigration status or sharing release information with federal immigration authorities for enforcement purposes, unless legally required.
- Washington State Department of Corrections — The Washington State Department of Corrections gains explicit authority to transfer incarcerated individuals to federal immigration custody, and must follow new rules about consent and notification when doing so.
Pro/Con Analysis
Stronger case for benefits
Potential Benefits (5)
The bill prohibits state and local law enforcement and school resource officers from sharing information with federal immigration authorities for civil enforcement purposes unless legally required. This helps preserve trust between immigrant communities and local law enforcement, encouraging cooperation in crime reporting and witness testimony—critical for public safety.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 2(3)(b), Sec. 2(4)(b), Sec. 2(5)The bill explicitly prohibits detaining individuals solely to determine immigration status or based solely on a civil immigration warrant. This prevents arbitrary, prolonged detention without due process and aligns with constitutional protections against unreasonable seizure.
Rights & LibertiesPeopleRef: Sec. 2(7), Sec. 2(8)The bill requires agencies to inform individuals in custody in writing of their right to refuse to disclose immigration status and the potential consequences of doing so. This enhances procedural fairness and informed consent, especially for vulnerable populations.
Rights & LibertiesPeopleRef: Sec. 2(9)(a)By banning immigration detention agreements and language service contracts with federal immigration authorities, the bill prevents state and local resources from being used to support federal immigration enforcement infrastructure—reducing complicity in a controversial federal policy.
Local GovernmentPeopleRef: Sec. 2(12)(a), Sec. 2(13)The bill clarifies that immigration enforcement is not a primary responsibility of local law enforcement or school staff, reinforcing the principle that local agencies should focus on community safety and education—not federal civil immigration policing.
Local GovernmentPeopleRef: Sec. 2(15)
Potential Concerns (5)
The bill explicitly excludes individuals in the physical custody of the Department of Corrections from key protections in Sec. 2(3)–(6), including the right to refuse interviews and the prohibition on detention solely for immigration status determination. This creates a two-tiered system where incarcerated individuals face heightened risk of immigration enforcement without the same procedural safeguards afforded to others in custody.
Public SafetyRef: Sec. 2(15)While the bill prohibits local law enforcement from holding individuals solely for civil immigration violations, it authorizes the Department of Corrections to transfer individuals at *any time* during their sentence—including during community custody—based solely on an immigration detainer (which is not a judicial warrant). This effectively re-introduces civil immigration enforcement into the state corrections system, undermining the principle that immigration enforcement is not a police function.
Rights & LibertiesRef: Sec. 2(10) (old text), Sec. 2(15), Sec. 3(1)The bill requires written consent before federal immigration interviews, but the consent process is procedurally constrained: forms must be in English and Spanish (not all languages), and oral explanation may rely on remote interpreters. For non-English speakers, especially those with limited literacy or cognitive impairments, meaningful consent may be compromised, undermining the voluntariness of cooperation.
Rights & LibertiesRef: Sec. 2(6)(b), Sec. 2(14), Sec. 3(1)(a)The bill prohibits state and local agencies from entering into immigration detention agreements or accepting language services from federal immigration authorities. While this limits corporate contracts for private detention firms, it also eliminates a funding stream for some local governments and language service providers (e.g., community-based interpreters), potentially reducing local economic activity in immigrant-serving sectors.
Business & EmploymentRef: Sec. 2(12)(a), Sec. 2(13)The bill may reduce state costs by shifting custody of individuals with immigration detainers to federal authorities, but increases administrative burden on state and local agencies to track transfers, obtain consents, and ensure compliance with consent and notification requirements. These administrative costs fall disproportionately on cash-strapped local governments with limited staffing.
Local GovernmentRef: Fiscal Impact
Who Is Most Affected
Individuals subject to immigration detainers while in state custody face direct risk of transfer to federal immigration authorities at any point—even during community custody—potentially leading to prolonged detention and deportation without judicial review. While procedural safeguards exist, the ability to transfer at any time undermines stability and due process.
State and local law enforcement agencies must implement new compliance protocols (e.g., consent forms, status inquiries, information-sharing restrictions), increasing administrative burden and legal liability risk. However, the bill shields them from being compelled to enforce civil immigration law, reducing political pressure and potential lawsuits for overreach.
School resource officers gain clearer boundaries on immigration-related inquiries, reducing the risk of intimidating students and families and supporting safer school environments. However, they may face confusion about permissible information-sharing in hybrid criminal/immigration cases, especially where state and federal jurisdiction overlap.
The Washington State Department of Corrections gains explicit statutory authority to transfer individuals to federal custody, streamlining interagency coordination. However, it must also implement new consent and notification procedures, and may face legal challenges over the timing and criteria for transfers.