Wash. Rev. Code » Title 10 · Chapter 10.27
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 10.27.010 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
This chapter shall be known as the criminal investigatory act of 1971 and is enacted on behalf of the people of the state of Washington to serve law enforcement in combating crime and corruption.
[ 1971 ex.s. c 67 s 1.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7 cases, 1984–2018 · leading case: State v. Neslund, 690 P.2d 1153 (Wash. 1984).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Neslund, 690 P.2d 1153 (Wash. 1984). · cites it 4× “There is significance in the Legislature's failure to provide the special inquiry judge with the authority to issue search warrants.”
State v. Reeder, 365 P.3d 1243 (Wash. 2015). “” RCW 10.27.010. Under chapter 10.27 RCW, 8 a grand jury in Washington “consists of twelve persons, is impaneled by a superior court and constitutes a part of such court.”
State v. Reeder, 330 P.3d 786 (Wash. Ct. App. 2014). “RCW 10.27.010. State v. Manning, 86 Wn.2d 272, 273 , 543 P.”
State v. Sheppard, 763 P.2d 1232 (Wash. Ct. App. 1988). “Sheppard had represented Richard Myers and Roger Hondel in early 1987.”
In Re The Petition To Convene A Grand Jury, Barnes Michael Ware, 420 P.3d 1083 (Wash. Ct. App. 2018). “” CP at 85 (quoting RCW 10.27.010). The State reiterated that it did not believe that there was sufficient admissible evidence in this case to sustain a criminal conviction.”
State Of Washington v. Michael Reeder (Wash. Ct. App. 2014). “050 for an order directed to such persons commanding them to appear at a designated time and place in said county and to then and there answer such questions concerning the suspected crime or corruption as the special inquiry judge may approve, or provide evidence as directed by…”
State v. Reeder (Wash. 2015). “" RCW 10.27.010. Under chapter 10.27 RCW, 8 a grand jury in washington "consists of twelve persons, is impaneled by a superior court and constitutes a part of such court.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.