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

Wash. Rev. Code § 10.27.170 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) When any public attorney, corporation counsel or city attorney has reason to suspect crime or corruption, within the jurisdiction of such attorney, and there is reason to believe that there are persons who may be able to give material testimony or provide material evidence concerning such suspected crime or corruption, such attorney may petition the judge designated as a special inquiry judge pursuant to RCW 10.27.050 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 the special inquiry judge.
(2) Upon petition of a prosecuting attorney for the establishment of a special inquiry judge proceeding in an investigation of sexual exploitation of children under RCW 10.112.010, the court shall establish the special inquiry judge proceeding, if appropriate, as soon as practicable but no later than seventy-two hours after the filing of the petition.
[ 2017 c 114 s 3; 1971 ex.s. c 67 s 17.]

Notes:

Findings—2017 c 114: See note following RCW 10.112.010.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10 cases, 1975–2018 · leading case: State v. Reeder, 365 P.3d 1243 (Wash. 2015).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Reeder, 365 P.3d 1243 (Wash. 2015). · cites it 11× “¶7 The State obtained Reeder’s bank records under RCW 10.27.170 using subpoenas issued by an SIJ.”
State v. Reeder, 330 P.3d 786 (Wash. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 6× “1 ¶5 The State obtained Reeder’s bank and credit card records with subpoenas issued by a special inquiry judge under RCW 10.27.170. These records showed that McAllister made payments to Reeder totaling $1,725,700.”
State v. Burri, 550 P.2d 507 (Wash. 1976). · cites it 2× “010 when the State instituted the special inquiry proceeding, the use of RCW 10.”
State v. Neslund, 690 P.2d 1153 (Wash. 1984). · cites it 4× “Instead, any public attorney, corporation counsel or city attorney who has reason to suspect crime or corruption within his jurisdiction may petition the special inquiry judge for an order commanding persons to appear before the judge, where there is reason to believe those…”
State v. White, 720 P.2d 873 (Wash. Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 2× “2d 172 (1984), this issue cannot be addressed by this court in this appeal based upon the incomplete record regarding the use of the special inquiry judge subpoena power pursuant to RCW 10.27.170. State v. Murphy, 35 Wn. App.”
State v. Manning, 543 P.2d 632 (Wash. 1975). · cites it 3× “Approximately 45 days later the prosecutor instituted a special inquiry judge proceeding pursuant to RCW 10.27.170. The special inquiry proceeding was directed solely at the named defendants to obtain additional information to support the charges previously filed against them.”
State v. Reeder (Wash. 2015). · cites it 11× “The State obtained Reeder's bank records under RCW 10.27.170 usmg subpoenas issued by an SIJ.”
State Of Washington v. Michael Reeder (Wash. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 6× “1 The State obtained Reeder's bank and credit card records with subpoenas issued by a special inquiry judge under RCW 10.27.170. These records showed that McAllister made payments to Reeder totaling $1,725,700.”
In re Petition to Summon Grand Jury, 423 P.3d 1044 (Kan. Ct. App. 2018). “§ 54 -47b (investigatory grand jury made up of judge, referee, or panel of three judges); Wash. Rev. Code § 10.27.170 (special inquiry judge when public corruption or sexual exploitation of a child alleged).”
In re Special Inquiry Judge, 899 P.2d 800 (Wash. Ct. App. 1995). “RCW 10.27.170. Thus, the public attorney is generally in control of the special inquiry judge proceeding, although the special inquiry judge can require the public attorney to subpoena a witness who he believes to have relevant information or knowledge.”
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.