Revised Code of Washington
Wash. Rev. Code § 10.82.030 (2026)
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
If any person ordered into custody until the fine and costs adjudged against him or her be paid shall not, within five days, pay, or cause the payment of the same to be made, the clerk of the court shall issue a warrant to the sheriff commanding him or her to imprison such defendant in the county jail until the amount of such fine and costs owing are paid. Execution may at any time issue against the property of the defendant for that portion of such fine and costs not reduced by the application of this section. The amount of such fine and costs owing shall be the whole of such fine and costs reduced by the amount of any portion thereof paid, and an amount established by the county legislative authority for every day the defendant performs labor as provided in RCW 10.82.040, and a lesser amount established by the county legislative authority for every day the defendant does not perform such labor while imprisoned.
[ 2010 c 8 s 1064; 1991 c 183 s 1; 1983 c 276 s 2; 1967 c 200 s 4; 1891 c 28 s 84; 1883 p 38 s 1, part; Code 1881 s 1125; 1873 p 243 s 283; 1854 p 124 s 147; RRS s 2206. Formerly RCW 10.82.030 and 10.82.050.]
Notes:
Severability—1967 c 200: See note following RCW 9.45.122.
Commitment until fines and costs are paid: RCW 10.70.010.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8
cases, 1961–2018 · leading case: Smith v. Whatcom Cnty. Dist. Court, 52 P.3d 485 (Wash. 2002).
Smith v. Whatcom Cnty. Dist. Court, 52 P.3d 485 (Wash. 2002). “110 further provides: “The amount of such fine and costs owing shall be computed as provided for superior court cases in RCW 10.82.030 and 10.82.040.” Those statutes authorize commitment for failure to pay fines assessed in superior court.”
Smith v. Whatcom Cnty. Dist. Court, 52 P.3d 485 (Wash. 2002). “110 further provides: "The amount of such fine and costs owing shall be computed as provided for superior court cases in RCW 10.82.030 and 10.82.040." Those statutes authorize commitment for failure to pay fines assessed in superior court.”
State v. Nason, 168 Wash. 2d 936 (Wash. 2010). “Nason cites RCW 10.82.030 and .040 for the proposition that the county must set an amount to credit offenders per day and must provide offenders with an opportunity to work off nonpayment by labor.”
State v. Nason, 233 P.3d 848 (Wash. 2010). “of imprisonment for contempt for nonpayment of a fine or costs is ordered, the term of imprisonment shall be set forth in the commitment order, and shall not exceed one day for each twenty-five dollars of the fine or costs, thirty days if the fine or assessment of costs was…”
In Re Hammermaster, 985 P.2d 924 (Wash. 1999). “180 allowing for the commitment of defaulting defendant on grounds of contempt of court; RCW 10.82.030 allowing imprisonment until amount of fine and costs paid; RCW 10.”
In re the Disciplinary Proceeding Against Hammermaster, 139 Wash. 2d 211 (Wash. 1999). “180 allowing for the commitment of defaulting defendant on grounds of contempt of court; RCW 10.82.030 allowing imprisonment until amount of fine and costs paid; RCW 10.”
Sanders v. AllianceOne Receivables Mgmt., Inc. (In re Sanders), 589 B.R. 874 (Bankr. W.D. Wash. 2018). “RCW 10.82.030 ; RCW 10.82.040. The amount of the reduction is determined by the county legislative authority and further determined by whether the criminal defendant performs labor during incarceration.”
Town of Ruston v. Wingard, 364 P.2d 553 (Wash. 1961). “00 per day as per RCW 10.82.030” is likewise affirmed. Finley, C.”
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.