Washington

Overview

Washington State has emerged as a national leader in enacting statutory mechanisms to address law enforcement credibility and Brady/Giglio disclosure. Its landmark House Bill 1088 (2021) is one of the most explicit state laws in the nation requiring prosecutors to track and disclose officers with sustained findings of dishonesty or bias. The legislation mandates coordination between prosecutors and police departments, requiring notification when an officer’s credibility is called into question and the maintenance of formal Brady lists. In addition, Washington has taken major strides to increase public transparency around police misconduct and decertification through its Criminal Justice Training Commission (CJTC). Yet, despite these reforms, challenges remain—particularly around enforcement consistency, rural compliance, and the full integration of disciplinary records with courtroom proceedings.

Brief Description of Legal Landscape

In Washington, criminal prosecutions are conducted by County Prosecuting Attorneys, elected independently in each of the state’s 39 counties. The Washington Attorney General may prosecute select cases but largely provides civil and advisory support rather than exercising direct prosecutorial authority.

Disclosure and oversight obligations are governed by:

• RCW 10.93.180 (House Bill 1088): Requires law enforcement agencies to notify prosecutors of any officer with sustained misconduct involving dishonesty or bias and mandates that prosecutors maintain and disclose Brady/Giglio lists.

• Washington Court Rules – CrR 4.7: Requires disclosure of material favorable to the accused, including impeachment evidence.

• Washington Rules of Professional Conduct 3.8(d): Requires prosecutors to disclose exculpatory or mitigating evidence in criminal cases.

• Washington Public Records Act (RCW 42.56): Strongly favors public access and includes specific provisions allowing release of certain law enforcement disciplinary records.

The Washington State Criminal Justice Training Commission (CJTC) certifies, investigates, and disciplines police officers and has expanded its authority since 2021 to include increased transparency and mandatory decertification for certain forms of misconduct.

Historical Context

Washington’s disclosure practices were once as fragmented and inconsistent as those in most other states. Prior to 2021, Giglio tracking was largely discretionary, with some counties like King (Seattle) and Pierce (Tacoma) maintaining internal “Do Not Call” lists, while many smaller jurisdictions had no formal process at all.

The tipping point came with the passage of House Bill 1088, which was enacted in the wake of national demands for police accountability and in response to specific concerns within Washington about officers with credibility issues continuing to testify without disclosure. The bill—introduced by Representative Debra Entenman—required both law enforcement and prosecutorial agencies to improve communication, tracking, and disclosure of material credibility issues.

The state’s CJTC also underwent reform, gaining expanded authority to investigate, discipline, and decertify officers for a broader range of misconduct, including dishonesty and bias. For the first time, decertifications were made publicly searchable and explicitly tied to eligibility to serve as a courtroom witness.

Legal Framework and Precedents

Constitutional Provisions and State Statutes

Washington’s Constitution ensures due process and confrontation rights under Article I, Sections 3 and 22, aligning with federal protections.

Key statutes and rules include:

• RCW 10.93.180 (House Bill 1088): Requires law enforcement to notify prosecutors of sustained misconduct related to truthfulness or bias; mandates prosecutors to maintain Brady/Giglio lists and provide timely notice to defense counsel when such officers are called to testify.

• Criminal Rule CrR 4.7(a)(3): Provides the foundation for discovery obligations, requiring prosecutors to disclose any evidence material to guilt or punishment.

• Washington Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 3.8(d): Reinforces a prosecutor's obligation to disclose all known exculpatory and impeachment information.

• RCW 43.101: Governs the CJTC and sets rules for certification and decertification of peace officers, including mandatory reporting by agencies of serious misconduct.

Relevant Case Law and Judicial Interpretations

• State v. Blackwell, 120 Wn.2d 822 (1993): Confirmed that suppression of favorable evidence—including impeachment—violates due process under Brady and Giglio.

• State v. Copeland, 89 Wn. App. 492 (1998): Emphasized prosecutors’ affirmative duty to seek out and disclose information in the possession of law enforcement.

• State v. Davila, 184 Wn.2d 55 (2015): Upheld that prosecutors must disclose officer misconduct that affects credibility and cannot rely solely on defense motions to initiate the process.

These rulings reinforced the legal foundation for disclosure in Washington and paved the way for legislative reform.

Implementation and Enforcement

Law Enforcement Policies and Training

Under HB 1088, law enforcement agencies are now required to notify prosecutors when any officer has a sustained finding involving dishonesty or bias. While this is a significant step forward, implementation has varied. Some large agencies have developed internal systems to comply with the statute, while others have struggled with administrative capacity or failed to report altogether.

Agencies are also encouraged, but not required, to share pending internal investigations if they may affect credibility—though only sustained findings must be reported under the law. The Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs (WASPC) has developed guidance documents to assist agencies in compliance, but uptake remains inconsistent.

CJTC now publishes a searchable list of decertified officers, including names, agencies, and reasons for decertification. However, CJTC does not currently notify prosecutors directly when decertification occurs, and there is no unified platform integrating that data with county-level Brady/Giglio lists.

Prosecutorial Practices

Each County Prosecutor is now statutorily required to maintain a Brady/Giglio list, and notify defense attorneys when any officer on the list is expected to testify. Larger counties—such as King, Pierce, and Spokane—have developed more robust internal systems for managing these disclosures, including in-house Giglio committees and standardized intake from law enforcement.

Smaller counties vary significantly in compliance. Some have yet to fully implement HB 1088 requirements, and others rely heavily on police agencies to self-report without conducting independent verification.

Prosecutors may remove an officer from the list if later exonerated, but only through documented internal review. There is no statewide repository or cross-county sharing of Giglio information, which allows officers removed from one jurisdiction to testify in another without disclosure.

Case Studies from the State

Significant Cases Illustrating Issues of Candor

1. Seattle Police “Brady List” Expansion (2021–2023)
   The King County Prosecutor’s Office added dozens of officers to its Giglio list following internal reviews and disclosures under HB 1088. Several officers were flagged for prior dishonesty, excessive force, or discriminatory conduct. These disclosures prompted case reviews and in some instances, dismissals.

2. Pierce County Deputy Troyer Investigation (2021–2022)
   Sheriff Ed Troyer was charged with false reporting and making misleading statements. While not decertified, his conduct raised questions about how such officers are evaluated for credibility and whether prosecutors should continue calling them as witnesses.

3. Okanogan County Noncompliance Reports (2022)
   An audit by local activists and defense attorneys revealed that several rural counties had not yet implemented the reporting or tracking requirements of HB 1088, leading to gaps in disclosure and continued use of officers with known misconduct records.

Outcomes and Implications

These cases illustrate both the promise and the limitations of HB 1088. Where implemented effectively, it has led to transparency, officer accountability, and enhanced fairness for defendants. But without enforcement, centralized data integration, or robust auditing, officers with credibility issues may still testify without proper disclosure—particularly in rural or under-resourced jurisdictions.

Challenges and Gaps

Identified Issues within the State’s System

• No Centralized Statewide Giglio Database: Each prosecutor maintains their own list; officers removed in one county may still testify in another.

• Inconsistent Law Enforcement Compliance: Some agencies have failed to report sustained misconduct, delaying or obstructing disclosure.

• Lack of Notification from CJTC to Prosecutors: Decertification actions are published but not automatically integrated with prosecutorial systems.

• Variable Training and Understanding: Smaller jurisdictions may not fully understand or apply HB 1088’s requirements, leading to procedural gaps.

Legislative and Institutional Barriers

Washington has strong legal mandates in place, but lacks mechanisms to enforce them consistently or penalize noncompliance. Efforts to create a central Giglio coordination office or disclosure oversight unit have yet to materialize. Additionally, legal ambiguities remain regarding how long an officer should stay on a Giglio list and how reinstatement or exoneration should be handled across counties.

Recommendations

Suggested Improvements in Law, Policy, and Practice

1. Create a Centralized Statewide Brady/Giglio Registry
   Build a secure, state-managed database linking all county Giglio lists, POST decertifications, and sustained internal affairs findings to streamline disclosure and inter-jurisdictional coordination.

2. Mandate Independent Verification by Prosecutors
   Require prosecutors to independently check CJTC decertification and disciplinary records—not just rely on police self-reporting.

3. Require Law Enforcement to Report All Credibility-Affecting Incidents
   Amend RCW 10.93.180 to include misconduct that may not lead to decertification but still affects courtroom credibility.

4. Establish Uniform Training Standards
   Require all law enforcement and prosecutorial staff to undergo mandatory, annual training on Brady, Giglio, and HB 1088 compliance.

Recommendations for Enhanced Transparency and Accountability

1. Create an Independent Giglio Compliance Auditor
   Task the State Auditor’s Office or Attorney General with conducting annual audits of compliance with HB 1088, publishing findings publicly.

2. Expand Public Records Disclosures
   Improve the CJTC decertification database to include links to relevant agency findings, hearing documents, and disclosure history.

3. Implement Case Review Protocols
   Require prosecutors to conduct retroactive case reviews when an officer is added to a Giglio list, and notify defense counsel accordingly.

4. Develop a Defense Access Portal
   Provide criminal defense attorneys with access to a secure database of Giglio-flagged officers, with relevant redactions for safety and privacy.

Conclusion

Washington has gone further than most states in codifying disclosure duties and embedding them into the law. But codification alone is not candor—it must be followed by implementation, coordination, and enforcement. House Bill 1088 is a bold step toward systematizing truth in the courtroom, but its success will ultimately be judged by whether all 39 counties apply it equally, whether prosecutors use it robustly, and whether defense attorneys can rely on it confidently. For Washington to lead, it must finish what it started.