Wash. Rev. Code » Title 9 · Chapter 9.94A
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 9.94A.607 (2026)

Chemical dependency

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) Where the court finds that the offender has any chemical dependency that has contributed to his or her offense, the court may, as a condition of the sentence and subject to available resources, order the offender to participate in rehabilitative programs or otherwise to perform affirmative conduct reasonably related to the circumstances of the crime for which the offender has been convicted and reasonably necessary or beneficial to the offender and the community in rehabilitating the offender. A rehabilitative program may include a directive that the offender obtain an evaluation as to the need for chemical dependency treatment related to the use of alcohol or controlled substances, regardless of the particular substance that contributed to the commission of the offense. The court may also impose a prohibition on the use or possession of alcohol or controlled substances regardless of whether a chemical dependency evaluation is ordered.
(2) This section applies to sentences which include any term other than, or in addition to, a term of total confinement, including suspended sentences.
[ 2015 c 81 s 2; 1999 c 197 s 2. Formerly RCW 9.94A.129.]

Notes:

Severability—1999 c 197: See note following RCW 9.94A.030.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 47 cases (6 in the last 5 years), 2005–2025 · leading case: State v. Warnock, 299 P.3d 1173 (Wash. Ct. App. 2013).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Warnock, 299 P.3d 1173 (Wash. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 4× “¶1 — The trial court has authority under RCW 9.94A.607(1) to order an offender, as a condition of community custody, to obtain a chemical dependency evaluation and to comply with recommended treatment only if it finds that the offender has a chemical dependency that contributed…”
State v. Kinzle, 326 P.3d 870 (Wash. Ct. App. 2014). “RCW 9.94A.607(1); State v. Warnock, 174 Wn.”
State v. Motter, 162 P.3d 1190 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). “As this finding is located on page two of the form, while the related community custody conditions begin on page six, it seems all too likely that a sentencing court would overlook the relationship between this finding and its authority to sentence a defendant to affirmative…”
State v. Medina, 324 P.3d 682 (Wash. 2014). “n an available county supervised community option and may authorize county jails to convert jail confinement to an available county supervised community option, may authorize the time spent in the community option to be reduced by earned release credit consistent with local…”
State v. Motter, 139 Wash. App. 797 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). “As this finding is located on page two of the form, while the related community custody conditions begin on page six, it seems all too likely that a sentencing court would overlook the relationship between this finding and its authority to sentence a defendant to affirmative…”
In re the Postsentence Review of Childers, 143 P.3d 831 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). “RCW 9.94A.607(1) authorizes the court to impose affirmative conditions such as participation in chemical dependency treatment when it sentences offenders to a term of community custody under RCW 9.”
State v. Powell, 162 P.3d 1180 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). “607 permits the sentencing court to impose substance abuse treatment if the court finds that chemical dependency contributed to the offense: Where the court finds that the offender has a chemical dependency that has contributed to his or her offense, the court may, as a…”
State v. Powell, 139 Wash. App. 808 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). “607 permits the sentencing court to impose substance abuse treatment if the court finds that chemical dependency contributed to the offense: Where the court finds that the offender has a chemical dependency that has contributed to his or her offense, the court may, as a…”
In re the Sentence of Jones, 129 Wash. App. 626 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 5× “The statute the State relies upon, RCW 9.94A.607, was last amended in 1999, prior to the 2003 amendment of RCW 9.”
State v. Button, 339 P.3d 182 (Wash. Ct. App. 2014). “670(5), (6) (court may impose affirmative conditions as part of special sex offender sentencing alternative); RCW 9.”
State Of Washington v. Randall Blackman (Wash. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 8× “Former RCW 9.94A.607(1) (1999).4 For this statute to apply, the sentencing court must first find that the 2 Since 2009, the legislature has renumbered this subsection and added language to it.”
State of Washington v. Jason Michael Tait (Wash. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 9× “Relying on RCW 9.94A.607, Mr. Tait argues that the sentencing court was not authorized to impose the condition without making a finding that he was chemically dependent.”
Show all 47 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.94A.607(1) — 34 cases
State v. Warnock, 299 P.3d 1173 (Wash. Ct. App. 2013). “¶1 — The trial court has authority under RCW 9.94A.607(1) to order an offender, as a condition of community custody, to obtain a chemical dependency evaluation and to comply with recommended treatment only if it finds that the offender has a chemical dependency that contributed…”
State v. Kinzle, 326 P.3d 870 (Wash. Ct. App. 2014). “RCW 9.94A.607(1); State v. Warnock, 174 Wn.”
In re the Postsentence Review of Childers, 143 P.3d 831 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). “RCW 9.94A.607(1) authorizes the court to impose affirmative conditions such as participation in chemical dependency treatment when it sentences offenders to a term of community custody under RCW 9.”
In re the Sentence of Jones, 129 Wash. App. 626 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). “The statute the State relies upon, RCW 9.94A.607, was last amended in 1999, prior to the 2003 amendment of RCW 9.”
State v. Button, 339 P.3d 182 (Wash. Ct. App. 2014). “670(5), (6) (court may impose affirmative conditions as part of special sex offender sentencing alternative); RCW 9.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.94A.607(2) — 3 cases
State Of Washington v. David M. Gardner (Wash. Ct. App. 2020).
State Of Washington v. Dwayne Marcum (Wash. Ct. App. 2016).
State of Washington v. Jaime Leyva-Blanco (Wash. Ct. App. 2025).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.94A.607(l)(1999) — 1 case
State of Washington v. Jason Michael Tait (Wash. Ct. App. 2015). “Relying on RCW 9.94A.607, Mr. Tait argues that the sentencing court was not authorized to impose the condition without making a finding that he was chemically dependent.”
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.