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

Wash. Rev. Code § 9.94A.631 (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) If an offender violates any condition or requirement of a sentence, a community corrections officer may arrest or cause the arrest of the offender without a warrant, pending a determination by the court or by the department. If there is reasonable cause to believe that an offender has violated a condition or requirement of the sentence, a community corrections officer may require an offender to submit to a search and seizure of the offender's person, residence, automobile, or other personal property.
(2) For the safety and security of department staff, an offender may be required to submit to pat searches, or other limited security searches, by community corrections officers, correctional officers, and other agency approved staff, without reasonable cause, when in or on department premises, grounds, or facilities, or while preparing to enter department premises, grounds, facilities, or vehicles. Pat searches of offenders shall be conducted only by staff who are the same gender as the offender, except in emergency situations.
(3) A community corrections officer may also arrest an offender for any crime committed in his or her presence. The facts and circumstances of the conduct of the offender shall be reported by the community corrections officer, with recommendations, to the court, local law enforcement, or local prosecution for consideration of new charges. The community corrections officer's report shall serve as the notice that the department will hold the offender for not more than three days from the time of such notice for the new crime, except if the offender's underlying offense is a felony offense listed in RCW 9.94A.737(5), in which case the department will hold the offender for thirty days from the time of arrest, until a prosecuting attorney charges the offender with a crime, or until a prosecuting attorney provides written notice to the department that new charges will not be filed, whichever occurs first. This does not affect the department's authority under RCW 9.94A.737.
If a community corrections officer arrests or causes the arrest of an offender under this section, the offender shall be confined and detained in the county jail of the county in which the offender was taken into custody, and the sheriff of that county shall receive and keep in the county jail, where room is available, all prisoners delivered to the jail by the community corrections officer, and such offenders shall not be released from custody on bail or personal recognizance, except upon approval of the court or authorized department staff, pursuant to a written order.
[ 2020 c 82 s 2; 2012 1st sp.s. c 6 s 1; 2009 c 390 s 1; 1984 c 209 s 11. Formerly RCW 9.94A.195.]

Notes:

Retroactive application—2020 c 82 ss 1-3: See note following RCW 9.94A.737.
Appropriation—Report—2020 c 82: See note following RCW 9.94A.737.
Effective date—2012 1st sp.s. c 6 ss 1, 3 through 9, and 11 through 14: "Sections 1, 3 through 9, and 11 through 14 of this act are necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety, or support of the state government and its existing public institutions, and take effect June 1, 2012." [ 2012 1st sp.s. c 6 s 15.]
Application—2012 1st sp.s. c 6: "This act applies retroactively and prospectively regardless of the date of an offender's underlying offense." [ 2012 1st sp.s. c 6 s 12.]
Effective dates—1984 c 209: See note following RCW 9.94A.030.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 76 cases (34 in the last 5 years), 2003–2026 · leading case: State v. Cornwell, 412 P.3d 1265 (Wash. 2018).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Cornwell, 412 P.3d 1265 (Wash. 2018). · cites it 32× “In addition, both the State and Cornwell discussed the meaning of RCW 9.94A.631, the legislature's codification of the probation exception to the warrant requirement.”
State v. Jardinez, 338 P.3d 292 (Wash. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 9× “1997). Since we hold the statute gave no authority to Roger Martinez to search the iPod, we need not address the constitutionality of the statute.”
State v. Cates, 354 P.3d 832 (Wash. 2015). · cites it 4× “¶12 On appeal, Cates argued that the community custody condition violated article I, section 7 and the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution because it permitted Cates’ CCO to conduct a search without reasonable cause in violation of RCW 9.”
State v. Parris, 163 Wash. App. 110 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 6× “631 provides: (1) If an offender violates any condition or requirement of a sentence, a community corrections officer may arrest or cause the arrest of the offender without a warrant, pending a determination by the court or a department of corrections hearing officer.”
State Of Washington v. Norman Granvel Rooney, 360 P.3d 913 (Wash. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 8× “2 RCW 9.94A.631( 1) provides in relevant part that “[i]f there is reasonable cause to believe that an offender has violated a condition or requirement of [community custody], a [CCO] may require an offender to submit to a search and seizure of the offender’s person, residence,…”
Joyce v. State, Dept. of Corr., 119 P.3d 825 (Wash. 2005). · cites it 3× “RCW 9.94A.631. The judge is authorized to fashion an appropriate response.”
United States v. Jennings, 515 F.3d 980 (9th Cir. 2008). · cites it 4× “The court found that the arrest was valid based on legal authority under Wash. Rev.Code § 9.94A.631 and/or § 9.94A.”
Joyce v. Dep't of Corr., 155 Wash. 2d 306 (Wash. 2005). · cites it 3× “RCW 9.94A.631. The judge is authorized to fashion an appropriate response.”
State v. Reichert, 158 Wash. App. 374 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 4× “RCW 9.94A.631. In fact, the Ninth *385 Circuit has upheld RCW 9.”
State v. Winterstein, 220 P.3d 1226 (Wash. 2009). · cites it 2× “" Former RCW 9.94A.631 (1984) (emphasis added). We have never decided whether it is enough that a probation officer reasonably believes a probationer lives at a certain residence prior to performing a search of that residence.”
State v. Bahl, 193 P.3d 678 (Wash. 2008). “See RCW 9.94A.631 (a community corrections officer may arrest or cause the arrest of an offender without a warrant if he or she suspects the offender has violated a condition; if arrested, the offender must be jailed).”
State v. Bahl, 164 Wash. 2d 739 (Wash. 2008). “See RCW 9.94A.631 (a commu *752 nity corrections officer may arrest or cause the arrest of an offender without a warrant if he or she suspects the offender has violated a condition; if arrested, the offender must be jailed).”
Show all 76 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.94A.631(1) — 56 cases
State v. Cornwell, 412 P.3d 1265 (Wash. 2018). “In addition, both the State and Cornwell discussed the meaning of RCW 9.94A.631, the legislature's codification of the probation exception to the warrant requirement.”
State v. Jardinez, 338 P.3d 292 (Wash. Ct. App. 2014). “1997). Since we hold the statute gave no authority to Roger Martinez to search the iPod, we need not address the constitutionality of the statute.”
State Of Washington v. Norman Granvel Rooney, 360 P.3d 913 (Wash. Ct. App. 2015). “2 RCW 9.94A.631( 1) provides in relevant part that “[i]f there is reasonable cause to believe that an offender has violated a condition or requirement of [community custody], a [CCO] may require an offender to submit to a search and seizure of the offender’s person, residence,…”
State v. Parris, 163 Wash. App. 110 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011). “631 provides: (1) If an offender violates any condition or requirement of a sentence, a community corrections officer may arrest or cause the arrest of the offender without a warrant, pending a determination by the court or a department of corrections hearing officer.”
State Of Washington v. Darian Livingston, 389 P.3d 753 (Wash. Ct. App. 2017).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.94A.631(l) — 2 cases
State v. Cornwell, 412 P.3d 1265 (Wash. 2018). “In addition, both the State and Cornwell discussed the meaning of RCW 9.94A.631, the legislature's codification of the probation exception to the warrant requirement.”
State of Washington v. Felipe Ronaldo Jardinez, Jr. (Wash. Ct. App. 2014).
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.