Revised Code of Washington
Wash. Rev. Code § 71.09.098 (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) Any service provider submitting reports pursuant to RCW 71.09.096(7), the supervising community corrections officer, the prosecuting agency, or the secretary's designee may petition the court for an immediate hearing for the purpose of revoking or modifying the terms of the person's conditional release to a less restrictive alternative if the petitioner believes the released person: (a) Violated or is in violation of the terms and conditions of the court's conditional release order; or (b) is in need of additional care, monitoring, supervision, or treatment.
(2) The community corrections officer or the secretary's designee may restrict the person's movement in the community until the petition is determined by the court. The person may be taken into custody if:
(a) The supervising community corrections officer, the secretary's designee, or a law enforcement officer reasonably believes the person has violated or is in violation of the court's conditional release order; or
(b) The supervising community corrections officer or the secretary's designee reasonably believes that the person is in need of additional care, monitoring, supervision, or treatment because the person presents a danger to himself or herself or others if his or her conditional release under the conditions imposed by the court's release order continues.
(3)(a) Persons taken into custody pursuant to subsection (2) of this section shall:
(i) Not be released until such time as a hearing is held to determine whether to revoke or modify the person's conditional release order and the court has issued its decision; and
(ii) Be held in the county jail, at a secure community transition facility, or at the total confinement facility, at the discretion of the secretary's designee.
(b) The court shall be notified before the close of the next judicial day that the person has been taken into custody and shall promptly schedule a hearing.
(4) Before any hearing to revoke or modify the person's conditional release order, both the prosecuting agency and the released person shall have the right to request an immediate mental examination of the released person. If the conditionally released person is indigent, the court shall, upon request, assist him or her in obtaining a qualified expert or professional person to conduct the examination.
(5) At any hearing to revoke or modify the conditional release order:
(a) The prosecuting agency shall represent the state, including determining whether to proceed with revocation or modification of the conditional release order;
(b) Hearsay evidence is admissible if the court finds that it is otherwise reliable; and
(c) The state shall bear the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the person has violated or is in violation of the court's conditional release order or that the person is in need of additional care, monitoring, supervision, or treatment.
(6)(a) If the court determines that the state has met its burden referenced in subsection (5)(c) of this section, and the issue before the court is revocation of the court's conditional release order, the court shall consider the evidence presented by the parties and the following factors relevant to whether continuing the person's conditional release is in the person's best interests or adequate to protect the community:
(i) The nature of the condition that was violated by the person or that the person was in violation of in the context of the person's criminal history and underlying mental conditions;
(ii) The degree to which the violation was intentional or grossly negligent;
(iii) The ability and willingness of the released person to strictly comply with the conditional release order;
(iv) The degree of progress made by the person in community-based treatment; and
(v) The risk to the public or particular persons if the conditional release continues under the conditional release order that was violated.
(b) Any factor alone, or in combination, shall support the court's determination to revoke the conditional release order.
(7) If the court determines the state has met its burden referenced in subsection (5)(c) of this section, and the issue before the court is modification of the court's conditional release order, the court shall modify the conditional release order by adding conditions if the court determines that the person is in need of additional care, monitoring, supervision, or treatment. The court has authority to modify its conditional release order by substituting a new treatment provider, requiring new housing for the person, or imposing such additional supervision conditions as the court deems appropriate.
(8) A person whose conditional release has been revoked shall be remanded to the custody of the secretary for control, care, and treatment in a total confinement facility as designated in RCW 71.09.060(1). The person is thereafter eligible for conditional release only in accord with the provisions of RCW 71.09.090 and related statutes.
Notes:
Explanatory note—2025 c 58: See note following RCW 1.16.050.
Application—Effective date—2009 c 409: See notes following RCW 71.09.020.
Recommendations—Application—Effective date—2001 c 286: See notes following RCW 71.09.015.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2010–2021 · leading case: In Re the Det. of Jeffrey Anderson, Jeffrey Anderson, 895 N.W.2d 131 (Iowa 2017).
In Re the Det. of Jeffrey Anderson, Jeffrey Anderson, 895 N.W.2d 131 (Iowa 2017). “Wash. Rev. Code Ann. § 71.09.098 (5)(c) (West, Westlaw current through 2016 Reg.”
In re Det. of McHatton, 485 P.3d 322 (Wash. 2021). “We hold that it is not; rather, such orders are subject to discretionary review in accordance with RAP 2.3(a). Thus, we affirm the Court of Appeals.”
In re the Det. of John H. Marcum, 360 P.3d 888 (Wash. Ct. App. 2015). “The detainee may, on his or her own initiative, seek relocation to the less restrictive 16 No.”
In re the Det. of Wrathall, 232 P.3d 569 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010). “Pinedo, the Respondent shall, consistent with RCW 71.09.098 (2), immediately be taken into custody and a hearing scheduled to determine whether the Respondent’s LRA will be revoked.”
In Re The Det. Of Bradley B. Ward (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). “In 2014, the State filed a motion to revoke Ward's LRA pursuant to RCW 71.09.098. Ward II. 2015 WL 4232058 at *3.”
In re Det. of Marcum (Wash. 2017). “His attorney certified that he had spoken with Marcum about "potential alternatives to revocation" pursuant to RCW 71.09.098, which allows for either revocation or modification ofLRA 5 In re Det.”
In the Matter of the Det. of: Michael A. McHatton (Wash. Ct. App. 2020). “RCW 71.09.098. The State has the option of pursuing either modification or revocation of the existing LRA, and bears the burden of establishing a violation of the conditional release order by a preponderance of the evidence.”
In Re Wrathall, 232 P.3d 569 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010). “[27] Under RCW 71.09.098(1), this ground alone is sufficient for revocation.”
In Re The Det. Of Bradley B. Ward v. State Of Washington (Wash. Ct. App. 2015). “A motion to revoke a conditional release order (LRA) is governed by RCW 71.09.098. A hearing to revoke a conditional release order involves two steps: first, the State must prove "by a preponderance of the evidence that the person has violated or is in violation of the court's…”
In Re The Det. Of: Damon Lee (Wash. Ct. App. 2020). “While it is possible that Lee’s movement might be restricted or that he could be taken into custody pending a hearing, the court must “promptly schedule a hearing” if he is taken into custody.”
Amended July 25, 2017 In RE the Det. of Jeffrey Anderson, Jeffrey Anderson (Iowa 2017). “Wash. Rev. Code Ann. § 71.09.098 (5)(c) (West, Westlaw current through 2016 Reg.”
In Re The Det. Of Bradley B. Ward v. State Of Washington (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). “In 2014, the State filed a motion to revoke Ward's LRA status pursuant to RCW 71.09.098. The trial court denied the motion and ordered Ward returned to the SCTF.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 71.09.098(1) — 4 cases
In re the Det. of Wrathall, 232 P.3d 569 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010). “Pinedo, the Respondent shall, consistent with RCW 71.09.098 (2), immediately be taken into custody and a hearing scheduled to determine whether the Respondent’s LRA will be revoked.”
In Re Wrathall, 232 P.3d 569 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010). “[27] Under RCW 71.09.098(1), this ground alone is sufficient for revocation.”
In Re The Det. Of Bradley B. Ward (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). “In 2014, the State filed a motion to revoke Ward's LRA pursuant to RCW 71.09.098. Ward II. 2015 WL 4232058 at *3.”
In Re The Det. Of Bradley B. Ward v. State Of Washington (Wash. Ct. App. 2015). “A motion to revoke a conditional release order (LRA) is governed by RCW 71.09.098. A hearing to revoke a conditional release order involves two steps: first, the State must prove "by a preponderance of the evidence that the person has violated or is in violation of the court's…”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 71.09.098(2) — 1 case
In Re Wrathall, 232 P.3d 569 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010). “[27] Under RCW 71.09.098(1), this ground alone is sufficient for revocation.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 71.09.098(3)(b) — 1 case
In Re The Det. Of: Damon Lee (Wash. Ct. App. 2020). “While it is possible that Lee’s movement might be restricted or that he could be taken into custody pending a hearing, the court must “promptly schedule a hearing” if he is taken into custody.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 71.09.098(5) — 2 cases
In re Det. of Marcum (Wash. 2017). “His attorney certified that he had spoken with Marcum about "potential alternatives to revocation" pursuant to RCW 71.09.098, which allows for either revocation or modification ofLRA 5 In re Det.”
In the Matter of the Det. of: Michael A. McHatton (Wash. Ct. App. 2020). “RCW 71.09.098. The State has the option of pursuing either modification or revocation of the existing LRA, and bears the burden of establishing a violation of the conditional release order by a preponderance of the evidence.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 71.09.098(5)(c) — 3 cases
In Re The Det. Of Bradley B. Ward (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). “In 2014, the State filed a motion to revoke Ward's LRA pursuant to RCW 71.09.098. Ward II. 2015 WL 4232058 at *3.”
In Re The Det. Of: Damon Lee (Wash. Ct. App. 2020). “While it is possible that Lee’s movement might be restricted or that he could be taken into custody pending a hearing, the court must “promptly schedule a hearing” if he is taken into custody.”
In Re The Det. Of Bradley B. Ward v. State Of Washington (Wash. Ct. App. 2015). “A motion to revoke a conditional release order (LRA) is governed by RCW 71.09.098. A hearing to revoke a conditional release order involves two steps: first, the State must prove "by a preponderance of the evidence that the person has violated or is in violation of the court's…”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 71.09.098(6) — 1 case
In re Det. of Marcum (Wash. 2017). “His attorney certified that he had spoken with Marcum about "potential alternatives to revocation" pursuant to RCW 71.09.098, which allows for either revocation or modification ofLRA 5 In re Det.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 71.09.098(6)(a) — 3 cases
In Re The Det. Of Bradley B. Ward (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). “In 2014, the State filed a motion to revoke Ward's LRA pursuant to RCW 71.09.098. Ward II. 2015 WL 4232058 at *3.”
In the Matter of the Det. of: Michael A. McHatton (Wash. Ct. App. 2020). “RCW 71.09.098. The State has the option of pursuing either modification or revocation of the existing LRA, and bears the burden of establishing a violation of the conditional release order by a preponderance of the evidence.”
In Re The Det. Of Bradley B. Ward v. State Of Washington (Wash. Ct. App. 2015). “A motion to revoke a conditional release order (LRA) is governed by RCW 71.09.098. A hearing to revoke a conditional release order involves two steps: first, the State must prove "by a preponderance of the evidence that the person has violated or is in violation of the court's…”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 71.09.098(6)(a)(i) — 1 case
In the Matter of the Det. of: Michael A. McHatton (Wash. Ct. App. 2020). “RCW 71.09.098. The State has the option of pursuing either modification or revocation of the existing LRA, and bears the burden of establishing a violation of the conditional release order by a preponderance of the evidence.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 71.09.098(6)(b) — 1 case
In the Matter of the Det. of: Michael A. McHatton (Wash. Ct. App. 2020). “RCW 71.09.098. The State has the option of pursuing either modification or revocation of the existing LRA, and bears the burden of establishing a violation of the conditional release order by a preponderance of the evidence.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 71.09.098(6)(i) — 1 case
In re Det. of Marcum (Wash. 2017). “His attorney certified that he had spoken with Marcum about "potential alternatives to revocation" pursuant to RCW 71.09.098, which allows for either revocation or modification ofLRA 5 In re Det.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 71.09.098(7) — 2 cases
In Re The Det. Of Bradley B. Ward (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). “In 2014, the State filed a motion to revoke Ward's LRA pursuant to RCW 71.09.098. Ward II. 2015 WL 4232058 at *3.”
In Re The Det. Of Bradley B. Ward v. State Of Washington (Wash. Ct. App. 2015). “A motion to revoke a conditional release order (LRA) is governed by RCW 71.09.098. A hearing to revoke a conditional release order involves two steps: first, the State must prove "by a preponderance of the evidence that the person has violated or is in violation of the court's…”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 71.09.098(8) — 2 cases
In re Det. of McHatton, 485 P.3d 322 (Wash. 2021). “We hold that it is not; rather, such orders are subject to discretionary review in accordance with RAP 2.3(a). Thus, we affirm the Court of Appeals.”
In re Det. of Marcum (Wash. 2017). “His attorney certified that he had spoken with Marcum about "potential alternatives to revocation" pursuant to RCW 71.09.098, which allows for either revocation or modification ofLRA 5 In re Det.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 71.09.098(b) — 1 case
In Re The Det. Of Bradley B. Ward v. State Of Washington (Wash. Ct. App. 2015). “A motion to revoke a conditional release order (LRA) is governed by RCW 71.09.098. A hearing to revoke a conditional release order involves two steps: first, the State must prove "by a preponderance of the evidence that the person has violated or is in violation of the court's…”
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.