Revised Code of Washington
Wash. Rev. Code § 9.94A.714 (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) The department may work with the Washington association of sheriffs and police chiefs to establish and operate an electronic monitoring program for offenders who violate the terms of their community custody.
(2) Local governments, their subdivisions and employees, the department and its employees, and the Washington association of sheriffs and police chiefs and its employees are immune from civil liability for damages arising from incidents involving offenders who are placed on electronic monitoring unless it is shown that an employee acted with gross negligence or bad faith.
Notes:
Effective date—2012 1st sp.s. c 6 ss 1, 3 through 9, and 11 through 14: See note following RCW 9.94A.631.
Application—2012 1st sp.s. c 6: See note following RCW 9.94A.631.
Intent—Application—Application of repealers—Effective date—2008 c 231: See notes following RCW 9.94A.701.
Severability—2008 c 231: See note following RCW 9.94A.500.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3
cases, 2012–2012 · leading case: In re the Pers. Restraint of Flint, 174 Wash. 2d 539 (Wash. 2012).
In re the Pers. Restraint of Flint, 174 Wash. 2d 539 (Wash. 2012). “This provision is now codified at RCW 9.94A.714(1). Laws of 2008, ch. 231, § 16 (effective Aug.”
In Re Flint, 277 P.3d 657 (Wash. 2012). “737(2) to RCW 9.94A.714(1), effective August 1, 2009.”
State v. Nelson, 281 P.3d 321 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012). “Former RCW 9.94A.714(1) (2008); 174 Wn.2d at 549-50 .”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.94A.714(1) — 3 cases
In re the Pers. Restraint of Flint, 174 Wash. 2d 539 (Wash. 2012). “This provision is now codified at RCW 9.94A.714(1). Laws of 2008, ch. 231, § 16 (effective Aug.”
In Re Flint, 277 P.3d 657 (Wash. 2012). “737(2) to RCW 9.94A.714(1), effective August 1, 2009.”
State v. Nelson, 281 P.3d 321 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012). “Former RCW 9.94A.714(1) (2008); 174 Wn.2d at 549-50 .”
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.