Wash. Rev. Code » Title 10 · Chapter 10.88
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 10.88.290 (2025)

Rights of person arrested

✓ laws through the 2025 session: 2026 session laws are not yet included
SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
No person arrested upon such warrant shall be delivered over to the agent whom the executive authority demanding him or her shall have appointed to receive him or her unless he or she shall first be taken forthwith before a judge of a court of record in this state, who shall inform him or her of the demand made for his or her surrender and of the crime with which he or she is charged, and that he or she has the right to demand and procure legal counsel; and if the prisoner or his or her counsel shall state that he or she or they desire to test the legality of his or her arrest, the judge of such court of record shall fix a reasonable time to be allowed him or her within which to apply for a writ of habeas corpus. When such writ is applied for, notice thereof, and of the time and place of hearing thereon, shall be given to the prosecuting officer of the county in which the arrest is made and in which the accused is in custody, and to the said agent of the demanding state: PROVIDED, That the hearing provided for in this section shall not be available except as may be constitutionally required if a hearing on the legality of arrest has been held pursuant to RCW 10.88.320 or 10.88.330.
[ 2010 c 8 s 1072; 1971 ex.s. c 46 s 10.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10 cases, 1975–2009 · leading case: In re Writ of Habeas Corpus of Jeffries, 548 P.2d 594 (Wash. Ct. App. 1976).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In re Writ of Habeas Corpus of Jeffries, 548 P.2d 594 (Wash. Ct. App. 1976). · cites it 3× “Can Washington courts, as courts of an asylum state, consider the question of whether an accused was denied a speedy trial by the demanding state in a habeas corpus proceeding held pursuant to RCW 10.88.290 and incident to interstate rendition? 1 The trial court considered the…”
Hystad v. Rhay, 533 P.2d 409 (Wash. Ct. App. 1975). · cites it 2× “Plaintiff seeks a writ of prohibition to prevent defendants from delivering him into the custody of the Oregon officials without first providing him “judicial” notice of his rights as provided for in Washington’s Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (hereafter Extradition Act), RCW…”
Stalter v. State, 51 P.3d 837 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002). “Brooks was entitled to a hearing as soon as possible after his arrest, which he received. RCW 10.88.”
White v. King Cnty., 748 P.2d 616 (Wash. 1988). “RCW 10.88.290; Boutwell, at 839. In accordance with the summary nature of extradition proceedings, judicial review of the governor's action is limited to seeing that the prerequisites to extradition are met.”
State v. Pritchett, 530 P.2d 1348 (Wash. Ct. App. 1975). “Pursuant to RCW 10.88.290, 1 he was taken before the court and advised of his rights, one of which was that he be allowed a reasonable time within which to apply for a writ of habeas corpus.”
State ex rel. Boutwell v. Coughlin, 586 P.2d 1145 (Wash. 1978). “) Thus, the Governor's authority to arrest and deliver the fugitive is discretionary, depending solely upon that executive's fidelity to the compact entered with the other states in the formation of our union of states. See also Kentucky v.”
In re Pers. Restraint of Jian Liu, 208 P.3d 1207 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). “When such writ is applied for, notice thereof, and of the time and place of hearing thereon, shall be given to the prosecuting officer of the county in which the arrest is made and in which the accused is in custody, and to the said agent of the demanding state: PROVIDED, That…”
In re Hystad, 660 P.2d 1145 (Wash. Ct. App. 1983). “The unchallenged findings establish that Hystad is the person named in the governor's warrant, that he is substantially charged with a crime in Oregon and that, both by his own admission and by the records, he is a fugitive from justice. His petition sought relief based on the…”
In re the Pers. Restraint of Jian Liu, 150 Wash. App. 484 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). “The statute provides in full, “No person arrested upon such warrant shall be delivered over to the agent whom the executive authority demanding him shall have appointed to receive him unless he shall first be taken forthwith before a judge of a court of record in this state, who…”
Stalter v. State, 113 Wash. App. 1 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002). “RCW 10.88.330(1). Because he did not waive extradition, he was also entitled to challenge his extradition by means of a writ of habeas corpus and the court was required to provide him with sufficient time to do so.”
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.