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

Wash. Rev. Code § 10.93.090 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
A specially commissioned Washington peace officer who has successfully completed a course of basic training prescribed or approved for such officers by the Washington state criminal justice training commission may exercise any authority which the special commission vests in the officer, throughout the territorial bounds of the state, outside of the officer's primary territorial jurisdiction under the following circumstances:
(1) The officer is in fresh pursuit, as defined in RCW 10.93.120; or
(2) The officer is acting pursuant to mutual law enforcement assistance agreement between the primary commissioning agency and the agency with primary territorial jurisdiction.
[ 1985 c 89 s 9.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9 cases, 1999–2016 · leading case: State v. Barker, 25 P.3d 423 (Wash. 2001).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Barker, 25 P.3d 423 (Wash. 2001). · cites it 5× “On discretionary review sought by the State, the Court of Appeals agreed that the arrest violated RCW 10.93.090, part of the Washington mutual aid peace officer powers act of 1985, because the officer lacked training required by that statute.”
State v. Barker, 25 P.3d 423 (Wash. 2001). · cites it 5× “On discretionary review sought by the State, the Court of Appeals agreed that the arrest violated RCW 10.93.090, part of the Washington Mutual Aid Peace Officer Powers Act of 1985, because the officer lacked training required by that statute.”
Pruczinski v. Ashby, 374 P.3d 102 (Wash. 2016). · cites it 3× “” RCW 10.93.090. ¶24 Under our case law, it is unclear whether Officer Ashby would be a “specially commissioned Washington peace officer.”
State v. Barron, 160 P.3d 1077 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 6× “Violation of RCW 10.93.090 ¶ 12 Barron argues his counsel's performance was defective and prejudicial because counsel did not argue that the undercover reserve officer who bought the marijuana lacked jurisdiction under WMAPOPA.”
State v. Barron, 139 Wash. App. 266 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 6× “Violation of RCW 10.93.090 ¶12 Barron argues his counsel’s performance was defective and prejudicial because counsel did not argue that the undercover reserve officer who bought the marijuana lacked jurisdiction under WMAPOPA.”
State v. Barker, 990 P.2d 438 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 10× “” 14 It also concluded, however, that “[w]ithout proof that the Oregon State Police Officers’ basic training has been approved by the Wash. St. Crim. Just. Train. Comm., Officer Wall had no authority to stop and detain defendant .”
Pruczinski v. Ashby, 343 P.3d 382 (Wash. Ct. App. 2015). “RCW 10.93.090 authorizes a specially commissioned peace officer to make arrests in Washington, provided that such officer has successfully completed a course of basic training prescribed or approved by the Washington State Criminal Justice Training Commission.”
Pruczinski v. Ashby (Wash. 2016). · cites it 3× “" RCW 10.93.090. Under our case law, it is unclear whether Officer Ashby would be a "specially commissioned Washington peace officer.”
Kay L. Pruczinski et vir v. Allen Ashby et ux (Wash. Ct. App. 2015). “RCW 10.93.090 authorizes a specially commissioned peace officer to make arrests in Washington, provided that such officer has successfully completed a course of basic training prescribed or approved by the Washington state criminal justice training commission.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 10.93.090(1) — 2 cases
Pruczinski v. Ashby, 374 P.3d 102 (Wash. 2016). “” RCW 10.93.090. ¶24 Under our case law, it is unclear whether Officer Ashby would be a “specially commissioned Washington peace officer.”
Pruczinski v. Ashby (Wash. 2016). “" RCW 10.93.090. Under our case law, it is unclear whether Officer Ashby would be a "specially commissioned Washington peace officer.”
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.