Wash. Rev. Code » Title 10 · Chapter 10.93
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 10.93.001 (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) This chapter may be known and cited as the Washington mutual aid peace officer powers act of 1985.
(2) It is the intent of the legislature that current artificial barriers to mutual aid and cooperative enforcement of the laws among general authority local, state, and federal agencies be modified pursuant to this chapter.
(3) This chapter shall be liberally construed to effectuate the intent of the legislature to modify current restrictions upon the limited territorial and enforcement authority of general authority peace officers and to effectuate mutual aid among agencies.
(4) The modification of territorial and enforcement authority of the various categories of peace officers covered by this chapter shall not create a duty to act in extraterritorial situations beyond any duty which may otherwise be imposed by law or which may be imposed by the primary commissioning agency.
[ 1985 c 89 s 1.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13 cases, 1992–2018 · leading case: State v. King, 219 P.3d 642 (Wash. 2009).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. King, 219 P.3d 642 (Wash. 2009). · cites it 2× “4 (quoting RCW 10.93.001(3)). ANALYSIS I. Officer Starks’ Opinion Testimony ¶11 King argues that Starks opined he was guilty of reckless driving, and the Court of Appeals erred by ruling that such an opinion on guilt cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.”
State v. Plaggemeier, 969 P.2d 519 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 4× “*477 RCW 10.93.001(2); 2 Rasmussen, 70 Wn. App.”
State v. Barker, 990 P.2d 438 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 2× “41 RCW 10.93.001(2). 42 RCW 10.93.001(4).”
Vance v. Dep't of Licensing, 65 P.3d 668 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003). “RCW 10.93.001(2), (3). Under the statute, “courts are not limited by the common law definition, but may consider the Legislature’s overall intent to use practical considerations in deciding whether a particular arrest across jurisdictional lines was reasonable.”
State v. Barron, 160 P.3d 1077 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). “RCW 10.93.001(2) states that WMAPOPA should be liberally construed to effectuate the legislature's intent to modify "current artificial barriers to mutual aid and cooperative enforcement of the laws.”
State v. Tolbert, 433 P.3d 501 (Or. Ct. App. 2018). “2d 819 , 821-22 (1986), superseded by statute , Wash. Rev. Code § 10.93.001 , as recognized in Vance v.”
State v. Rasmussen, 855 P.2d 1206 (Wash. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 2× “RCW 10.93.001(2). The Act allows an officer to enforce criminal and traffic laws outside the officer's jurisdiction.”
City of Tacoma v. Durham, 978 P.2d 514 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999). “RCW 10.93.001. As stated, the statutory definition of fresh pursuit relies, at least in part, on the common law.”
State v. Eriksen, 216 P.3d 382 (Wash. 2009). · cites it 3× “120(1) must not be read in isolation from the rest of the Washington Mutual Aid Peace Officers Powers Act of 1985 — especially the legislature's statement of intent and construction in RCW 10.93.001. Indeed, RCW 10.93.120(1) refers to "[a]ny peace officer who has authority under…”
Sheimo v. Bengston, 825 P.2d 343 (Wash. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 2× “RCW 10.93.001(2), (3). The Act expanded the authority of law enforcement officers to act throughout the state in a variety of circumstances including: (2) In response to an emergency involving an immediate threat to human life or property; (3) In response to a request for…”
State v. Hardgrove, 225 P.3d 357 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010). “RCW 10.93.001. ¶13 Legislation has also addressed university police forces.”
State v. King, 219 P.3d 642 (Wash. 2009). · cites it 2× “4 (quoting RCW 10.93.001(3)). ANALYSIS I. Officer Starks' Opinion Testimony ¶ 11 King argues that Starks opined he was guilty of reckless driving, and the Court of Appeals erred by ruling that such an opinion on guilt cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.”
Show all 13 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 10.93.001(2) — 7 cases
State v. Plaggemeier, 969 P.2d 519 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999). “*477 RCW 10.93.001(2); 2 Rasmussen, 70 Wn. App.”
Vance v. Dep't of Licensing, 65 P.3d 668 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003). “RCW 10.93.001(2), (3). Under the statute, “courts are not limited by the common law definition, but may consider the Legislature’s overall intent to use practical considerations in deciding whether a particular arrest across jurisdictional lines was reasonable.”
State v. Barron, 160 P.3d 1077 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). “RCW 10.93.001(2) states that WMAPOPA should be liberally construed to effectuate the legislature's intent to modify "current artificial barriers to mutual aid and cooperative enforcement of the laws.”
State v. Barker, 990 P.2d 438 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999). “41 RCW 10.93.001(2). 42 RCW 10.93.001(4).”
State v. Rasmussen, 855 P.2d 1206 (Wash. Ct. App. 1993). “RCW 10.93.001(2). The Act allows an officer to enforce criminal and traffic laws outside the officer's jurisdiction.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 10.93.001(3) — 7 cases
State v. King, 219 P.3d 642 (Wash. 2009). “4 (quoting RCW 10.93.001(3)). ANALYSIS I. Officer Starks’ Opinion Testimony ¶11 King argues that Starks opined he was guilty of reckless driving, and the Court of Appeals erred by ruling that such an opinion on guilt cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.”
State v. Plaggemeier, 969 P.2d 519 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999). “*477 RCW 10.93.001(2); 2 Rasmussen, 70 Wn. App.”
State v. Rasmussen, 855 P.2d 1206 (Wash. Ct. App. 1993). “RCW 10.93.001(2). The Act allows an officer to enforce criminal and traffic laws outside the officer's jurisdiction.”
State v. Eriksen, 216 P.3d 382 (Wash. 2009). “120(1) must not be read in isolation from the rest of the Washington Mutual Aid Peace Officers Powers Act of 1985 — especially the legislature's statement of intent and construction in RCW 10.93.001. Indeed, RCW 10.93.120(1) refers to "[a]ny peace officer who has authority under…”
Sheimo v. Bengston, 825 P.2d 343 (Wash. Ct. App. 1992). “RCW 10.93.001(2), (3). The Act expanded the authority of law enforcement officers to act throughout the state in a variety of circumstances including: (2) In response to an emergency involving an immediate threat to human life or property; (3) In response to a request for…”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 10.93.001(4) — 1 case
State v. Barker, 990 P.2d 438 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999). “41 RCW 10.93.001(2). 42 RCW 10.93.001(4).”
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.