Wash. Rev. Code » Title 10 · Chapter 10.79
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 10.79.120 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
RCW 10.79.130 through 10.79.160 apply to any person in custody at a holding, detention, or local correctional facility, other than a person committed to incarceration by order of a court, regardless of whether an arrest warrant or other court order was issued before the person was arrested or otherwise taken into custody unless the court issuing the warrant has determined that the person shall not be released on personal recognizance, bail, or bond. RCW 10.79.130 through 10.79.160 do not apply to a person held for post-conviction incarceration for a criminal offense. The definitions and remedies provided by RCW 10.79.070 and 10.79.110 apply to RCW 10.79.130 through 10.79.160.
[ 1986 c 88 s 1.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases, 1995–2020 · leading case: State v. Audley, 894 P.2d 1359 (Wash. Ct. App. 1995).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Audley, 894 P.2d 1359 (Wash. Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 2× “130, the statute authorizing warrantless strip searches of arrestees, provides: (1) No person to whom this section is made applicable by RCW 10.79.120[ 1 ] may be strip searched without a warrant unless: (a) There is a reasonable suspicion to believe that a strip search is…”
State v. Barron, 285 P.3d 231 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 2× “130 provides in part: (1) No person to whom this section is made applicable by RCW 10.79.120 may be strip searched without a warrant unless: (a) There is a reasonable suspicion to believe that a strip search is necessary to discover weapons, criminal evidence, contraband, or…”
Plemmons v. Pierce Cnty., 140 P.3d 601 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 19× “The County argues that its strip search policy, authorized by RCW 10.79.120, is constitutional as applied to Plemmons because (1) she had been arraigned on a forgery charge, subject to a judicial determination of probable cause, and (2) the search was necessary to promote jail…”
State v. RULAN C., 970 P.2d 821 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999). “The admissible evidence in Rose was obtained pursuant to a telephonic search warrant. The strip search statute does not apply to the present case because the search was not conducted at a detention facility as required by the statute.”
State of Washington v. Rico Odell Davis (Wash. Ct. App. 2020). “RCW 10.79.120 expressly states that the protections of the strip search statute do not extend to individuals incarcerated “by order of a court” or those “held for post-conviction 6 Federal courts now permit strip searches of those destined for the general jail or prison…”
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.