Washington Code 10.93.180 – Protocol for potential impeachment disclosures
Current as of: 2023 | Check for updates
|
Other versions
(1)(a) Each county prosecutor shall develop and adopt a written protocol addressing potential impeachment disclosures pursuant to Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), and subsequent case law. The protocol must provide guidance for: (i) The types of conduct that should be recognized as potentially exculpatory or as creating potential impeachment material; (ii) how information about an officer or officer conduct should be shared and maintained; and (iii) under what circumstances an officer’s information or name may be removed from any list of potential impeachment disclosures.
Terms Used In Washington Code 10.93.180
- Case law: The law as laid down in cases that have been decided in the decisions of the courts.
- Contract: A legal written agreement that becomes binding when signed.
- Defendant: In a civil suit, the person complained against; in a criminal case, the person accused of the crime.
- Discovery: Lawyers' examination, before trial, of facts and documents in possession of the opponents to help the lawyers prepare for trial.
- Impeachment: (1) The process of calling something into question, as in "impeaching the testimony of a witness." (2) The constitutional process whereby the House of Representatives may "impeach" (accuse of misconduct) high officers of the federal government for trial in the Senate.
- Jurisdiction: (1) The legal authority of a court to hear and decide a case. Concurrent jurisdiction exists when two courts have simultaneous responsibility for the same case. (2) The geographic area over which the court has authority to decide cases.
- Testify: Answer questions in court.
(b) The protocol shall be developed by the prosecuting attorney with consultation of agencies representing law enforcement officers and local departments that will be impacted by the protocol.
(c) Subject to amounts appropriated for this purpose, no later than June 30, 2022, the criminal justice training commission shall provide, or contract with an organization that serves prosecuting attorneys in Washington to provide, online training for potential impeachment disclosures.
(d) Local protocols under this section shall be adopted and in place no later than July 1, 2022. Local protocols must be reviewed every two years to determine whether modifications are needed.
(2)(a) A law enforcement agency shall report the following information to the prosecuting authority of any jurisdiction in which the officer may testify as a witness:
(i) Any act by the officer that may be potentially exculpatory to a criminal defendant; and
(ii) Misconduct that the officer has engaged in that affects his or her credibility.
(b) The law enforcement agency shall report the information within 10 days of the discovery of the act under (a)(i) of this subsection or the misconduct under (a)(ii) of this subsection.
(3)(a) Prior to hiring any peace officer with previous law enforcement experience, a law enforcement agency must inquire as to whether the officer has ever been subject to potential impeachment disclosure. The agency shall verify the officer’s response with the prosecuting authorities in the jurisdictions of the officer’s previous employment. Prosecuting authorities shall respond within 10 days of receiving a request from a law enforcement agency for verification. The fact that an officer has been subject to impeachment disclosure is not, in and of itself, a bar to employment. Any prehiring process or hiring decision by an agency does not constitute a personnel action under RCW 10.93.150.
(b) Within 10 days of hiring an officer with a prior potential impeachment disclosure, the law enforcement agency shall forward that information to the prosecuting authority of any jurisdiction in which the officer may testify as a witness.
(4) An appointed or elected public official, public employee, or public agency as defined in RCW 4.24.470 is immune from civil liability for sharing impeachment information about a peace officer with the peace officer’s employer, potential employer, or prosecuting authority unless it is shown that the official, employee, or agency acted with gross negligence or in bad faith.
[ 2021 c 322 § 1.]