Wash. Rev. Code » Title 10 · Chapter 10.99
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 10.99.050 (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) When a defendant is found guilty of a crime and a condition of the sentence restricts the defendant's ability to have contact with the victim, such condition shall be recorded and a written certified copy of that order shall be provided to the victim.
(2)(a) Willful violation of a court order issued under this section is punishable under RCW 7.105.450.
(b) The written order shall contain the court's directives and shall bear the legend: Violation of this order is a criminal offense under chapter 7.105 RCW and will subject a violator to arrest; any assault, drive-by shooting, or reckless endangerment that is a violation of this order is a felony.
(c) An order issued pursuant to this section in conjunction with a misdemeanor or gross misdemeanor sentence or juvenile disposition remains in effect for a fixed period of time determined by the court, which may not exceed five years from the date of sentencing or disposition.
(d) An order issued pursuant to this section in conjunction with a felony sentence or juvenile disposition remains in effect for a fixed period of time determined by the court, which may not exceed the adult maximum sentence established in RCW 9A.20.021.
(3) Whenever an order prohibiting contact is issued pursuant to this section, the clerk of the court shall forward a copy of the order on or before the next judicial day to the appropriate law enforcement agency specified in the order. Upon receipt of the copy of the order the law enforcement agency shall enter the order for one year or until the expiration date specified on the order into any computer-based criminal intelligence information system available in this state used by law enforcement agencies to list outstanding warrants. Entry into the computer-based criminal intelligence information system constitutes notice to all law enforcement agencies of the existence of the order. The order is fully enforceable in any jurisdiction in the state.
(4) If an order prohibiting contact issued pursuant to this section is modified or terminated, the clerk of the court shall notify the law enforcement agency specified in the order on or before the next judicial day. Upon receipt of notice that an order has been terminated, the law enforcement agency shall remove the order from any computer-based criminal intelligence system.
[ 2021 c 215 s 123; 2019 c 263 s 303; 2000 c 119 s 20; 1997 c 338 s 55; 1996 c 248 s 8; 1991 c 301 s 5; 1985 c 303 s 12; 1984 c 263 s 24; 1979 ex.s. c 105 s 5.]

Notes:

Effective date—2022 c 268; 2021 c 215: See note following RCW 7.105.900.
Findings—Intent—Domestic violence no-contact orders—2019 c 263 ss 302 and 303: "(1) The legislature believes the existing language of RCW 10.99.050 has always authorized courts to issue domestic violence no-contact orders in adult and juvenile cases that last up to the adult statutory maximum in felony cases and up to the maximum period for which an adult sentence can be suspended or deferred in nonfelony cases. However, in State v. Granath, 200 Wn. App. 26, 401 P.3d 405 (2017), aff'd, 190 Wn.2d 548, 415 P.3d 1179 (2018), the court of appeals and supreme court recently interpreted this provision to limit domestic violence no-contact orders in nonfelony sentences to the duration of the defendant's conditions of sentence. The legislature finds that this interpretation inadequately protects victims of domestic violence. The legislature intends to clarify the trial courts' authority to issue no-contact orders that remain in place in adult and juvenile nonfelony cases for the maximum period of time that an adult sentence could be suspended, and in adult and juvenile felony cases for the adult statutory maximum.
(2) The legislature further finds that there is a discrepancy in which sentences for nonfelony domestic violence offenses can be suspended for up to five years in district and municipal courts, but only for up to two years in superior courts in most cases, creating inconsistent protection for victims. The legislature intends to rectify this discrepancy to allow nonfelony domestic violence sentences to be suspended for up to five years in all courts." [ 2019 c 263 s 301.]
Findings—Intent—2019 c 263 ss 202-803: See note following RCW 10.01.240.
Application—2000 c 119: See note following RCW 10.31.100.
Finding—Evaluation—Report—1997 c 338: See note following RCW 13.40.0357.
Severability—Effective dates—1997 c 338: See notes following RCW 5.60.060.
Finding—1991 c 301: See note following RCW 10.99.020.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 91 cases (16 in the last 5 years), 1992–2026 · leading case: State v. Granath, 415 P.3d 1179 (Wash. 2018).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Granath, 415 P.3d 1179 (Wash. 2018). · cites it 140× “The court issued a separate no-contact order pursuant to RCW 10.99.050 reflecting the directive not to contact her estranged husband.”
State v. Schultz, 48 P.3d 301 (Wash. 2002). · cites it 44× “040, RCW 10.99.050, EMC 10.22.010 and EMC 10.22.”
State v. Schultz, 146 Wash. 2d 540 (Wash. 2002). · cites it 43× “040, RCW 10.99.050, EMC 10.22.010 and EMC 10.22.”
State v. Hogan, 145 Wash. App. 210 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 12× “110(1) to define Hogan’s crimes when it should have relied on RCW 10.”
State v. Clowes, 104 Wash. App. 935 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 6× “The State charged Clowes by information with felony violation of a no-contact order in violation of RCW 10.99.050, count I, and with interfering with the reporting of domestic violence, RCW 9A.”
State v. Clowes, 18 P.3d 596 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 6× “The State charged Clowes by information with felony violation of a no-contact order in violation of RCW 10.99.050, count I, and with interfering with the reporting of domestic violence, RCW 9A.”
State v. Hogan, 192 P.3d 915 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 11× “110(1) to define Hogan's crimes when it should have relied on RCW 10.”
State v. W.S., 309 P.3d 589 (Wash. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 8× “concedes the juvenile court had the authority to enter the DVNCO under RCW 10.99.050 but contends the juvenile court did not have the authority to enter a DVNCO that will remain in effect beyond his 18th birthday.”
State v. Vant, 186 P.3d 1149 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 3× “[2] No address was listed on the protection order. The jury was instructed that if Vant, knowing of these provisions, willfully violated the order by knowingly entering or coming within one mile of Carter's residence, he should be convicted of the offense.”
State v. Vant, 145 Wash. App. 592 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 3× “2 No address was listed on the protection order. The jury was instructed that if Vant, knowing of these provisions, willfully violated the order by knowingly enter *599 ing or coining within one mile of Carter’s residence, he should be convicted of the offense.”
State v. Foster, 128 Wash. App. 932 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 7× “As a condition of Foster’s sentence, the trial court entered a no-contact order under RCW 10.99.050. 2 The order prohibited Foster from having contact with Christie.”
State Of Washington v. Adrian Munoz Rivera, 361 P.3d 182 (Wash. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 2× “In this context, "family or household member" means spouses, former spouses, persons who have a child in common regardless of whether they have been married or have lived together at any time, adult persons related by blood or marriage, adult persons who are presently residing…”
Show all 91 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 10.99.050(1) — 18 cases
State v. Granath, 415 P.3d 1179 (Wash. 2018). “The court issued a separate no-contact order pursuant to RCW 10.99.050 reflecting the directive not to contact her estranged husband.”
State v. Schultz, 48 P.3d 301 (Wash. 2002). “040, RCW 10.99.050, EMC 10.22.010 and EMC 10.22.”
State v. Schultz, 146 Wash. 2d 540 (Wash. 2002). “040, RCW 10.99.050, EMC 10.22.010 and EMC 10.22.”
State Of Washington v. Adrian Munoz Rivera, 361 P.3d 182 (Wash. Ct. App. 2015). “In this context, "family or household member" means spouses, former spouses, persons who have a child in common regardless of whether they have been married or have lived together at any time, adult persons related by blood or marriage, adult persons who are presently residing…”
Donaldson v. City of Seattle, 831 P.2d 1098 (Wash. Ct. App. 1992).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 10.99.050(2) — 27 cases
State v. Granath, 415 P.3d 1179 (Wash. 2018). “The court issued a separate no-contact order pursuant to RCW 10.99.050 reflecting the directive not to contact her estranged husband.”
State v. Schultz, 48 P.3d 301 (Wash. 2002). “040, RCW 10.99.050, EMC 10.22.010 and EMC 10.22.”
State v. Goss, 378 P.3d 154 (Wash. 2016).
State v. Hogan, 145 Wash. App. 210 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008). “110(1) to define Hogan’s crimes when it should have relied on RCW 10.”
State v. Clowes, 104 Wash. App. 935 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). “The State charged Clowes by information with felony violation of a no-contact order in violation of RCW 10.99.050, count I, and with interfering with the reporting of domestic violence, RCW 9A.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 10.99.050(2)(B) — 1 case
State v. Hogan, 192 P.3d 915 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008). “110(1) to define Hogan's crimes when it should have relied on RCW 10.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 10.99.050(2)(a) — 16 cases
State v. Granath, 415 P.3d 1179 (Wash. 2018). “The court issued a separate no-contact order pursuant to RCW 10.99.050 reflecting the directive not to contact her estranged husband.”
State v. Sisemore, 55 P.3d 1178 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002).
State v. Vant, 186 P.3d 1149 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008). “[2] No address was listed on the protection order. The jury was instructed that if Vant, knowing of these provisions, willfully violated the order by knowingly entering or coming within one mile of Carter's residence, he should be convicted of the offense.”
State v. Vant, 145 Wash. App. 592 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008). “2 No address was listed on the protection order. The jury was instructed that if Vant, knowing of these provisions, willfully violated the order by knowingly enter *599 ing or coining within one mile of Carter’s residence, he should be convicted of the offense.”
State v. Sisemore, 55 P.3d 1178 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 10.99.050(2)(b) — 2 cases
State v. Hogan, 145 Wash. App. 210 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008). “110(1) to define Hogan’s crimes when it should have relied on RCW 10.”
State v. Hogan, 192 P.3d 915 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008). “110(1) to define Hogan's crimes when it should have relied on RCW 10.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 10.99.050(2)(c) — 1 case
State of Washington v. Daniel Silva (Wash. Ct. App. 2025).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 10.99.050(2)(d) — 4 cases
State Of Washington, V. Lawrence Dunbar Smalley, 522 P.3d 1037 (Wash. Ct. App. 2023).
State of Washington v. James Thomas Cardon (Wash. Ct. App. 2025).
State Of Washington, Res/cross-app. V. Marc Richard Vanslyke, App/cross-res., 536 P.3d 1155 (Wash. Ct. App. 2023).
State Of Washington, V. Michael Paulson (Wash. Ct. App. 2022).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 10.99.050(3) — 2 cases
State v. Granath, 415 P.3d 1179 (Wash. 2018). “The court issued a separate no-contact order pursuant to RCW 10.99.050 reflecting the directive not to contact her estranged husband.”
State Of Washington v. Wendy Granath (Wash. Ct. App. 2017).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 10.99.050(4) — 1 case
State v. Granath, 415 P.3d 1179 (Wash. 2018). “The court issued a separate no-contact order pursuant to RCW 10.99.050 reflecting the directive not to contact her estranged husband.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 10.99.050(l) — 1 case
State v. Granath, 415 P.3d 1179 (Wash. 2018). “The court issued a separate no-contact order pursuant to RCW 10.99.050 reflecting the directive not to contact her estranged husband.”
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.