Wash. Rev. Code » Title 72 · Chapter 72.02
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 72.02.045 (2026)

Superintendent's authority

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
The superintendent of each institution has the powers, duties, and responsibilities specified in this section.
(1) Subject to the rules of the department, the superintendent is responsible for the supervision and management of the institution, the grounds and buildings, the subordinate officers and employees, and the prisoners committed, admitted, or transferred to the institution.
(2) Subject to the rules of the department and the director of the division of prisons or his or her designee and the Washington personnel resources board, the superintendent shall appoint all subordinate officers and employees.
(3) The superintendent, subject to approval by the secretary, has the authority to determine the types and amounts of property that convicted persons may possess in department facilities. This authority includes the authority to determine the types and amounts that the department will transport at the department's expense whenever a convicted person is transferred between department institutions or to other jurisdictions. Convicted persons are responsible for the costs of transporting their excess property. If a convicted person fails to pay the costs of transporting any excess property within ninety days from the date of transfer, such property shall be presumed abandoned and may be disposed of in the manner allowed by RCW 63.42.040 (1) through (3). The superintendent shall be the custodian of all funds and valuable personal property of convicted persons as may be in their possession upon admission to the institution, or which may be sent or brought in to such persons, or earned by them while in custody, or which shall be forwarded to the superintendent on behalf of convicted persons. All such funds shall be deposited in the personal account of the convicted person and the superintendent shall have authority to disburse moneys from such person's personal account for the personal and incidental needs of the convicted person as may be deemed reasonably necessary. When convicted persons are released from the custody of the department either on parole, community placement, community custody, community supervision, or discharge, all funds and valuable personal property in the possession of the superintendent belonging to such convicted persons shall be delivered to them. In no case shall the state of Washington, or any state officer, including state elected officials, employees, or volunteers, be liable for the loss of such personal property, except upon a showing that the loss was occasioned by the intentional act, gross negligence, or negligence of the officer, official, employee, or volunteer, and that the actions or omissions occurred while the person was performing, or in good faith purporting to perform, his or her official duties. Recovery of damages for loss of personal property while in the custody of the superintendent under this subsection shall be limited to the lesser of the market value of the item lost at the time of the loss, or the original purchase price of the item or, in the case of hand-made goods, the materials used in fabricating the item.
(4) The superintendent, subject to the approval of the director of the division of prisons and the secretary, shall make, amend, and repeal rules for the administration, supervision, discipline, and security of the institution.
(5) When in the superintendent's opinion an emergency exists, the superintendent may promulgate temporary rules for the governance of the institution, which shall remain in effect until terminated by the director of the division of prisons or the secretary.
(6) The superintendent shall perform such other duties as may be prescribed.
[ 2005 c 382 s 1; 1993 c 281 s 63; 1988 c 143 s 2.]

Notes:

Effective date—2005 c 382: "This act is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety, or support of the state government and its existing public institutions, and takes effect immediately [May 10, 2005]." [ 2005 c 382 s 2.]
Effective date—1993 c 281: See note following RCW 41.06.022.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 15 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 2003–2025 · leading case: Burton v. Lehman, 103 P.3d 1230 (Wash. 2005).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Burton v. Lehman, 103 P.3d 1230 (Wash. 2005). · cites it 28× “000 violates RCW 72.02.045. RCW 72.02.045(3) states that “[w]hen convicted persons are released from the confines of the institution either on parole, transfer, or discharge, all.”
Burton v. Lehman, 118 Wash. App. 307 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 17× “RCW 72.02.045 begins with a reference to the “superintendent of each institution.”
Burton v. Lehman, 76 P.3d 271 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 19× “RCW 72.02.045 begins with a reference to the "superintendent of each institution.”
Greenhalgh v. Dep't of Corr., 324 P.3d 771 (Wash. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 28× “045(3) controls, we rely solely on the plain language arguments presented in the parties’ briefing.”
Brown v. Vail, 169 Wash. 2d 318 (Wash. 2010). “” RCW 72.02.045(4). Finally, “[a]ll executions .”
Dep't of Soc. & Health Servs. v. Zamora, 392 P.3d 1124 (Wash. Ct. App. 2017). “The unchallenged testimony and findings establish Zamora had not been a management problem during his 20 months at SOU and was doing better than he had been at WSH.”
Brown v. Vail, 237 P.3d 263 (Wash. 2010). “" RCW 72.02.045(4). Finally, "[a]ll executions .”
Burton v. Lehman, 103 P.3d 1230 (Wash. 2005). · cites it 28× “000 violates RCW 72.02.045. RCW 72.02.045(3) states that "[w]hen convicted persons are released from the confines of the institution either on parole, transfer, or discharge, all .”
Corbray v. Herzog (W.D. Wash. 2022). · cites it 2× “at 3–4; Wash. Rev. Code § 72.02.045 (3); Wash. Rev.”
State Of Wa/dept. Of Corr., Resp/cross-app v. Isaac Zamora, App/cross-resp. (Wash. Ct. App. 2017). “The unchallenged testimony and findings establish Zamora had not been a management problem during his 20 months at SOU and was doing better than he had been at WSH.”
Littlefield v. Doe (W.D. Wash. 2021). “(See R&R at 5 (citing RCW 72.02.045; RCW 12 4.92.090-100; and collecting cases).”
Baqi v. Campbell (W.D. Wash. 2021). “RCW 72.02.045; RCW 4.92.090–100; see Franklin v.”
Show all 15 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 72.02.045(1) — 3 cases
Dep't of Soc. & Health Servs. v. Zamora, 392 P.3d 1124 (Wash. Ct. App. 2017). “The unchallenged testimony and findings establish Zamora had not been a management problem during his 20 months at SOU and was doing better than he had been at WSH.”
State Of Wa/dept. Of Corr., Resp/cross-app v. Isaac Zamora, App/cross-resp. (Wash. Ct. App. 2017). “The unchallenged testimony and findings establish Zamora had not been a management problem during his 20 months at SOU and was doing better than he had been at WSH.”
State Of Washington V. Steven Champeau (Wash. Ct. App. 2025).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 72.02.045(3) — 5 cases
Burton v. Lehman, 103 P.3d 1230 (Wash. 2005). “000 violates RCW 72.02.045. RCW 72.02.045(3) states that “[w]hen convicted persons are released from the confines of the institution either on parole, transfer, or discharge, all.”
Burton v. Lehman, 118 Wash. App. 307 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003). “RCW 72.02.045 begins with a reference to the “superintendent of each institution.”
Burton v. Lehman, 76 P.3d 271 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003). “RCW 72.02.045 begins with a reference to the "superintendent of each institution.”
Greenhalgh v. Dep't of Corr., 324 P.3d 771 (Wash. Ct. App. 2014). “045(3) controls, we rely solely on the plain language arguments presented in the parties’ briefing.”
Burton v. Lehman, 103 P.3d 1230 (Wash. 2005). “000 violates RCW 72.02.045. RCW 72.02.045(3) states that "[w]hen convicted persons are released from the confines of the institution either on parole, transfer, or discharge, all .”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 72.02.045(4) — 3 cases
Brown v. Vail, 169 Wash. 2d 318 (Wash. 2010). “” RCW 72.02.045(4). Finally, “[a]ll executions .”
Brown v. Vail, 237 P.3d 263 (Wash. 2010). “" RCW 72.02.045(4). Finally, "[a]ll executions .”
Greenhalgh v. Dep't of Corr., 324 P.3d 771 (Wash. Ct. App. 2014). “045(3) controls, we rely solely on the plain language arguments presented in the parties’ briefing.”
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.