Wash. Rev. Code » Title 36 · Chapter 36.28
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 36.28.010 (2026)

General duties

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
*** CHANGE IN 2026 *** (SEE 5974-S2.SL) ***
The sheriff is the chief executive officer and conservator of the peace of the county. In the execution of his or her office, he or she and his or her deputies:
(1) Shall arrest and commit to prison all persons who break the peace, or attempt to break it, and all persons guilty of public offenses;
(2) Shall defend the county against those who, by riot or otherwise, endanger the public peace or safety;
(3) Shall execute the process and orders of the courts of justice or judicial officers, when delivered for that purpose, according to law;
(4) Shall execute all warrants delivered for that purpose by other public officers, according to the provisions of particular statutes;
(5) Shall attend the sessions of the courts of record held within the county, and obey their lawful orders or directions;
(6) Shall keep and preserve the peace in their respective counties, and quiet and suppress all affrays, riots, unlawful assemblies and insurrections, for which purpose, and for the service of process in civil or criminal cases, and in apprehending or securing any person for felony or breach of the peace, they may call to their aid such persons, or power of their county as they may deem necessary.
[ 2009 c 549 s 4050; 1965 c 92 s 1; 1963 c 4 s 36.28.010. Prior: (i) 1891 c 45 s 1; RRS s 4157. (ii) Code 1881 s 2769; 1862 p 557 s 4; 1854 p 434 s 4; RRS s 4168.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 39 cases (11 in the last 5 years), 1957–2025 · leading case: Munich v. Skagit Emergency Commc'ns Ctr., 288 P.3d 328 (Wash. 2012).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Munich v. Skagit Emergency Commc'ns Ctr., 288 P.3d 328 (Wash. 2012). · cites it 4× “In this case, the County owed a statutory duty to the general public, under RCW 36.28.010, to preserve the peace and arrest those who disturb it.”
Chambers-Castanes v. King Cnty., 669 P.2d 451 (Wash. 1983). · cites it 4× “Appellants contend law enforcement agencies have a statutory duty to provide police protection ( see RCW 36.28.010 requiring that the sheriff and deputies "[s]hall keep and preserve the peace" and "arrest .”
Kitsap Deputy Sheriff's Guild v. Kitsap Co., 219 P.3d 675 (Wash. 2009). · cites it 5× “Whether the Arbitrator's Decision Violates an Explicit, Well Defined, and Dominant Public Policy ¶ 12 The lower court adopted the public policy exception and vacated the arbitration award, holding that reinstating LaFrance would violate RCW 36.28.010—a statute describing the…”
Kitsap Cnty. Deputy Sheriff's Guild v. Kitsap Cnty., 167 Wash. 2d 428 (Wash. 2009). · cites it 5× “Whether the Arbitrator’s Decision Violates an Explicit, Well Defined, and Dominant Public Policy ¶10 The lower court adopted the public policy exception and vacated the arbitration award, holding that reinstating LaFrance would violate RCW 36.28.010 — a statute describing the…”
In re Recall of Fortney, 478 P.3d 1061 (Wash. 2021). · cites it 7× “Adam Fortney endangered the peace and safety of the community and violated his statutory duties under RCW 36.28.010 and/or 36.28.011 and/or oath of office by declaring that he has not and will not enforce Governor Inslee's “Stay Home – Stay Healthy” proclamation; 2.”
In re Recall of Fortney, 503 P.3d 556 (Wash. 2022). · cites it 6× “In that petition, Shavlik alleged those actions (a) violated the sheriff’s statutory duties under RCW 36.28.010 and 36.28.011, (b) constituted wrongful conduct that affects, interrupts, or interferes with COVID-19 prevention efforts, (c) constituted performance of a duty in an…”
Auto. Drivers & Demonstrators Union Local No. 882 v. Dep't of Ret. Sys., 598 P.2d 379 (Wash. 1979). · cites it 2× “RCW 36.28.010 and .020. Port police jurisdiction is restricted to port properties.”
Boyles v. Dep't of Ret. Sys., 716 P.2d 869 (Wash. 1986). · cites it 2× “NOTES [1] The statutory duties of a sheriff are codified in RCW 36.28.010: "The sheriff is the chief executive officer and conservator of the peace of the county.”
Boyles v. Washington Law Enf't Officers' & Fire Fighters' Ret. Bd., 649 P.2d 646 (Wash. Ct. App. 1982). · cites it 5× “Boyles belongs — the office of sheriff — are listed in RCW 36.28.010: The sheriff is the chief executive officer and conservator of the peace of the county.”
State v. Sanchez, 146 Wash. 2d 339 (Wash. 2002). “”); RCW 36.28.010(1) (“The sheriff is the chief executive officer and conservator of the peace of the county.”
City Of Seattle, V. Delaura & Fred B. Norg, 491 P.3d 237 (Wash. Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 2× “The Supreme Court identified duties at issue in that case as arising from two statutes, RCW 36.28.010, requiring county sheriffs to preserve the peace, and RCW 38.”
Commonwealth v. Leet, 585 A.2d 1033 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1991). · cites it 2× “§ 8-8-213 (1988)); Washington, (Wash.Rev.Code Ann. § 36.28.010 (West 1964 & Supp.”
Show all 39 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.28.010(1) — 9 cases
Munich v. Skagit Emergency Commc'ns Ctr., 288 P.3d 328 (Wash. 2012). “In this case, the County owed a statutory duty to the general public, under RCW 36.28.010, to preserve the peace and arrest those who disturb it.”
State v. Sanchez, 146 Wash. 2d 339 (Wash. 2002). “”); RCW 36.28.010(1) (“The sheriff is the chief executive officer and conservator of the peace of the county.”
In Re Recall of Snaza, 480 P.3d 404 (Wash. 2021).
John v. Berry, 469 F. Supp. 2d 922 (W.D. Wash. 2006).
Strange v. Spokane Cnty., 287 P.3d 710 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.28.010(2) — 2 cases
In re Recall of Fortney, 478 P.3d 1061 (Wash. 2021). “Adam Fortney endangered the peace and safety of the community and violated his statutory duties under RCW 36.28.010 and/or 36.28.011 and/or oath of office by declaring that he has not and will not enforce Governor Inslee's “Stay Home – Stay Healthy” proclamation; 2.”
Snaza v. State, 534 P.3d 1181 (Wash. 2023).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.28.010(3) — 1 case
Excelsior Mortg. Equity Fund II, LLC v. Schroeder, 287 P.3d 21 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.28.010(6) — 5 cases
Kitsap Deputy Sheriff's Guild v. Kitsap Co., 219 P.3d 675 (Wash. 2009). “Whether the Arbitrator's Decision Violates an Explicit, Well Defined, and Dominant Public Policy ¶ 12 The lower court adopted the public policy exception and vacated the arbitration award, holding that reinstating LaFrance would violate RCW 36.28.010—a statute describing the…”
Kitsap Cnty. Deputy Sheriff's Guild v. Kitsap Cnty., 167 Wash. 2d 428 (Wash. 2009). “Whether the Arbitrator’s Decision Violates an Explicit, Well Defined, and Dominant Public Policy ¶10 The lower court adopted the public policy exception and vacated the arbitration award, holding that reinstating LaFrance would violate RCW 36.28.010 — a statute describing the…”
Strachan v. Kitsap Cnty., 616 P.2d 1251 (Wash. Ct. App. 1980).
Johnson v. State, 265 P.3d 199 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011).
Snaza v. State, 534 P.3d 1181 (Wash. 2023).
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.