Wash. Rev. Code » Title 71 · Chapter 71.09
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 71.09.092 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Before the court may enter an order directing conditional release to a less restrictive alternative, it must find the following: (1) The person will be treated by a treatment provider who is qualified to provide such treatment in the state of Washington under chapter 18.155 RCW; (2) the treatment provider has presented a specific course of treatment and has agreed to assume responsibility for such treatment and will report progress to the court on a regular basis, and will report violations immediately to the court, the prosecutor, the supervising community corrections officer, and the superintendent of the special commitment center; (3) housing exists in Washington that complies with distance restrictions, is sufficiently secure to protect the community, and the person or agency providing housing to the conditionally released person has agreed in writing to accept the person, to provide the level of security required by the court, and immediately to report to the court, the prosecutor, the supervising community corrections officer, and the superintendent of the special commitment center if the person leaves the housing to which he or she has been assigned without authorization; (4) if the department has proposed housing that is outside of the county of commitment, a documented effort was made by the department to ensure that placement is consistent with fair share principles of release; (5) the person is willing to comply with the treatment provider and all requirements imposed by the treatment provider and by the court; and (6) the person will be under the supervision of the department of corrections and is willing to comply with supervision requirements imposed by the department of corrections.
[ 2021 c 236 s 5; 2009 c 409 s 9; 1995 c 216 s 10.]

Notes:

Findings—2021 c 236: See note following RCW 71.09.020.
Application—Effective date—2009 c 409: See notes following RCW 71.09.020.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 37 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1999–2025 · leading case: In re the Det. of Skinner, 122 Wash. App. 620 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In re the Det. of Skinner, 122 Wash. App. 620 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 8× “Skinner which meets the criteria articulated in RCW 71.09.092.” The court also ordered the Department of Corrections “to investigate the less restrictive alternative proposed by the parties and *626 DSHS and recommend any additional conditions to the court.”
In re the Det. of Petersen, 145 Wash. 2d 789 (Wash. 2002). · cites it 2× “Less Restrictive Alternative (LRA) In Thorell, the State argues the trial court erred in its order on reconsideration and in prior orders by not requiring that probable cause be present as to each of the elements of RCW 71.09.092, the LRA statute, before ordering a new trial…”
Det. of Petersen v. State, 42 P.3d 952 (Wash. 2002). · cites it 2× “Less Restrictive Alternative (LRA) In Thorell, the State argues the trial court erred in its order on reconsideration and in prior orders by not requiring that probable cause be present as to each of the elements of RCW 71.09.092, the LRA statute, before ordering a new trial…”
State v. McCuistion, 275 P.3d 1092 (Wash. 2012). · cites it 2× “ry finds beyond a reasonable doubt that the individual is a SVP, he must be committed to the custody of the Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS) "until such time as: (a) The person's condition has so changed such that the person no longer meets the definition of a…”
In Re Det. of Jones, 201 P.3d 1066 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 24× “Because Jones did not propose an LRA satisfying the five conditions mandated by RCW 71.09.092, we hold that the trial court erred in determining that Jones established probable cause entitling him to an LRA trial.”
In re the Det. of Thorell, 72 P.3d 708 (Wash. 2003). “Second, the legislature restricted the definition of LRAs to “court-ordered treatment in a setting less restrictive than total confinement which satisfies the conditions set forth in RCW 71.09.092 [the annual LRA petition provision].”
In re the Det. of Campbell, 124 P.3d 670 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 6× “If the court determines that no reasonable jury could find that the conditions of RCW 71.09.092 are satisfied, the court shall grant a motion by the State for a judgment as a matter of law on the issue of conditional release to an LRA.”
In Re Det. of Skinner, 94 P.3d 981 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 8× “Skinner which meets the criteria articulated in RCW 71.09.092." The court also ordered the Department of Corrections (DOC) "to investigate the less restrictive alternative proposed by the parties and DSHS and recommend any additional conditions to the court.”
In Re Det. of Thorell, 72 P.3d 708 (Wash. 2003). “Second, the legislature restricted the definition of LRAs to "court-ordered treatment in a setting less restrictive than total confinement which satisfies the conditions set forth in RCW 71.09.092 [the annual LRA petition provision].”
State v. Donaghe, 152 Wash. App. 97 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 4× “Donaghe also argues that, under the SVP civil commitment scheme, the State has authority to release him to a supervised period in the community under RCW 71.09.092 (conditional release to a less restrictive alternative).”
In Re Det. of Petersen, 980 P.2d 1204 (Wash. 1999). “[5] Moreover, such commitments are of an indefinite duration, persisting "until such time as the person's mental abnormality or personality disorder has so changed that the person is safe either (a) to be at large, or (b) to be released to a less restrictive alternative as set…”
In re the Det. of Petersen, 138 Wash. 2d 70 (Wash. 1999). “The Legislature specifically found “the treatment needs of [the sexually violent predator] population are very long term,” thereby implying the statute contemplates a prolonged period of treatment.”
Show all 37 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 71.09.092(1) — 7 cases
In Re Det. of Jones, 201 P.3d 1066 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). “Because Jones did not propose an LRA satisfying the five conditions mandated by RCW 71.09.092, we hold that the trial court erred in determining that Jones established probable cause entitling him to an LRA trial.”
In Re The Det. Of Robert Lough, 533 P.3d 1184 (Wash. Ct. App. 2023).
In Re The Det. Of Bruce Rafford, V. Dshs (Wash. Ct. App. 2021).
In re the Det. of Jones, 149 Wash. App. 16 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009).
In re Det. of Marcum (Wash. 2017).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 71.09.092(2) — 1 case
In Re The Det. Of: Damon Lee (Wash. Ct. App. 2020).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 71.09.092(3) — 4 cases
In re the Det. of Enright, 128 P.3d 1266 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006).
In Re The Det. Of David James Lewis (Wash. Ct. App. 2020).
In Re The Det. Of Bradley B. Ward (Wash. Ct. App. 2016).
In Re The Det. Of David James Lewis (Wash. Ct. App. 2021).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 71.09.092(4) — 2 cases
In Re The Det. Of: Damon Lee (Wash. Ct. App. 2020).
In Re The Det. Of Richard A. Rude, Jr. (Wash. Ct. App. 2015).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 71.09.092(5) — 3 cases
In re the Det. of Campbell, 124 P.3d 670 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). “If the court determines that no reasonable jury could find that the conditions of RCW 71.09.092 are satisfied, the court shall grant a motion by the State for a judgment as a matter of law on the issue of conditional release to an LRA.”
In Re Det. of Jones, 201 P.3d 1066 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). “Because Jones did not propose an LRA satisfying the five conditions mandated by RCW 71.09.092, we hold that the trial court erred in determining that Jones established probable cause entitling him to an LRA trial.”
In re the Det. of Jones, 149 Wash. App. 16 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009).
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.