Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 10.98.050 (2025)

Officials' duties

✓ laws through the 2025 session: 2026 session laws are not yet included
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) It is the duty of the chief law enforcement officer or the local director of corrections to transmit within seventy-two hours from the time of arrest to the section fingerprints together with other identifying data as may be prescribed by the section, and statutory violations of any person lawfully arrested, fingerprinted, and photographed under RCW 43.43.735. The disposition report shall be transmitted to the prosecuting attorney, county clerk, or appropriate court of limited jurisdiction, whichever is responsible for transmitting the report to the section under RCW 10.98.010.
(2) At the preliminary hearing or the arraignment of a felony case, the judge shall ensure that the felony defendants have been fingerprinted and an arrest and fingerprint form transmitted to the section. In cases where fingerprints have not been taken, the judge shall order the chief law enforcement officer of the jurisdiction or the local director of corrections, or, in the case of a juvenile, the juvenile court administrator to initiate an arrest and fingerprint form and transmit it to the section. The disposition report shall be transmitted to the prosecuting attorney.
[ 1999 c 49 s 2; 1989 c 6 s 1; 1987 c 450 s 6; 1985 c 201 s 2; 1984 c 17 s 5.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 1 case (1 in the last 5 years), 2025–2025 · leading case: State v. Evans, 572 P.3d 1172 (Wash. 2025).
State v. Evans, 572 P.3d 1172 (Wash. 2025). · cites it 13× “RCW 10.98.050 authorizes the collection of fingerprints and other identifying information from any person alleged to have committed a State v.”
Wash. Rev. Code § 10.98.050(2): 1 case
State v. Evans, 572 P.3d 1172 (Wash. 2025). “RCW 10.98.050 authorizes the collection of fingerprints and other identifying information from any person alleged to have committed a State v.”
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.