Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 10.88.330 (2026)

Arrest without warrant

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(1) The arrest of a person may be lawfully made also by any peace officer or a private person, without a warrant upon reasonable information that the accused stands charged in the courts of a state with a crime punishable by death or imprisonment for a term exceeding one year, but when so arrested the accused must be taken before a judge or magistrate with all practicable speed and complaint must be made against him or her under oath setting forth the ground for the arrest as in RCW 10.88.320; and thereafter his or her answer shall be heard as if he or she had been arrested on a warrant.

(2) An officer of the United States customs service or the immigration and naturalization service may, without a warrant, arrest a person if:

(a) The officer is on duty;

(b) One or more of the following situations exists:

(i) The person commits an assault or other crime involving physical harm, defined and punishable under chapter 9A.36 RCW, against the officer or against any other person in the presence of the officer;

(ii) The person commits an assault or related crime while armed, defined and punishable under chapter 9.41 RCW, against the officer or against any other person in the presence of the officer;

(iii) The officer has reasonable cause to believe that a crime as defined in (b)(i) or (ii) of this subsection has been committed and reasonable cause to believe that the person to be arrested has committed it;

(iv) The officer has reasonable cause to believe that a felony has been committed and reasonable cause to believe that the person to be arrested has committed it; or

(v) The officer has received positive information by written, telegraphic, teletypic, telephonic, radio, or other authoritative source that a peace officer holds a warrant for the person's arrest; and

(c) The regional commissioner of customs certifies to the state of Washington that the customs officer has received proper training within the agency to enable that officer to enforce or administer this subsection.

(3) The arrest of a person is prohibited if the arrest is related to criminal liability that is based on the provision, receipt, attempted provision or receipt, assistance in the provision or receipt, or attempted assistance in the provision or receipt of protected health care services as defined in RCW 7.115.010 that are lawful in the state of Washington.

[ 2023 c 193 s 10; 2010 c 8 s 1076; 1979 ex.s. c 244 s 16; 1971 ex.s. c 46 s 14.]

Notes:

Effective date—2023 c 193: See note following RCW 7.115.020.

Effective date—1979 ex.s. c 244: See RCW 9A.44.902.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 9 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1982–2024 · leading case: State v. Bradley, 719 P.2d 546 (Wash. 1986).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

State v. Bradley, 719 P.2d 546 (Wash. 1986). · cites it 4× “The trial court's conclusion that RCW 10.88.330 has no application to this case is correct.”

State v. Bonds, 653 P.2d 1024 (Wash. 1982). · cites it 2× “805 ; RCW 10.88.330. While Bonds could have been charged with a crime and the officers had sufficient time to obtain an arrest warrant, no such charge was filed nor warrant obtained.”

State v. Nall, 117 Wash. App. 647 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 10× “We hold that under the “fellow officer” rule, the Clallam officers were bound by what the Oregon authorities knew or should have known — that the warrant was invalid.”

State v. Nall, 72 P.3d 200 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 9× “We hold that under the "fellow officer" rule, the Clallam officers were bound by what the Oregon authorities knew or should have knownthat the warrant was invalid.”

Stalter v. State, 51 P.3d 837 (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.”

Case v. Kitsap Cnty. Sheriff's Dep't, 249 F.3d 921 (9th Cir. 2001). “at 926; Wash. Rev.Code Ann. § 10.88.330. As the majority must realize, this Washington statute is subject to the clear federal constitutional prohibition against warrantless home arrests.”

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.”

Peo v. Mitchell (Colo. Ct. App. 2024). “2001) (Washington arrest based on Oregon warrant was permissible un der Wash. Rev. Code § 10.88.330 (2023) ; within two hours of arrest , Oregon confirmed it would extradite the defendant ); see a lso Wash.”

— Wash. Rev. Code § 10.88.330(1) — 4 cases

State v. Nall, 117 Wash. App. 647 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003). “We hold that under the “fellow officer” rule, the Clallam officers were bound by what the Oregon authorities knew or should have known — that the warrant was invalid.”

State v. Nall, 72 P.3d 200 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003). “We hold that under the "fellow officer" rule, the Clallam officers were bound by what the Oregon authorities knew or should have knownthat the warrant was invalid.”

— Wash. Rev. Code § 10.88.330(2) — 1 case

State v. Bradley, 719 P.2d 546 (Wash. 1986). “The trial court's conclusion that RCW 10.88.330 has no application to this case is correct.”

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.