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

Wash. Rev. Code § 9.94A.740 (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) When an offender is arrested pursuant to RCW 9.94A.631 or 9.94A.716, the department shall compensate the local jurisdiction at the office of financial management's adjudicated rate, in accordance with RCW 70.48.440, until the department releases its detainer.
(2) Inmates, as defined in RCW 72.09.015, who have been transferred to community custody and who are detained in a local correctional facility are the financial responsibility of the department of corrections, except as provided in subsection (3) of this section.
(3) For confinement sanctions imposed by the department under RCW 9.94A.670, the local correctional facility shall be financially responsible.
(4) The department, in consultation with the Washington association of sheriffs and police chiefs and those counties in which the sheriff does not operate a correctional facility, shall establish a methodology for determining the department's local correctional facilities bed utilization rate, for each county in calendar year 1998, for offenders being held for violations of conditions of community custody.
(5) Except as provided in subsections (1) and (2) of this section, the local correctional facility shall continue to be financially responsible to the extent of the calendar year 1998 bed utilization rate for confinement sanctions imposed by the department pursuant to RCW 9.94A.737. If the department's use of bed space in local correctional facilities of any county for such confinement sanctions exceeds the 1998 bed utilization rate for the county, the department shall compensate the county for the excess use at the per diem rate equal to the lowest rate charged by the county under its contract with a municipal government during the year in which the use occurs.
[ 2012 1st sp.s. c 6 s 8; 2008 c 231 s 22; 1999 c 196 s 9; 1996 c 275 s 4; 1988 c 153 s 5. Formerly RCW 9.94A.207.]

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.
Construction—Short title—1999 c 196: See RCW 72.09.904 and 72.09.905.
Severability—1999 c 196: See note following RCW 9.94A.010.
Finding—1996 c 275: See note following RCW 9.94A.505.
Application—1996 c 275 ss 1-5: See note following RCW 9.94A.505.
Effective date—Application of increased sanctions—1988 c 153: See notes following RCW 9.94A.030.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11 cases, 2008–2020 · leading case: State v. Stone, 268 P.3d 226 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Stone, 268 P.3d 226 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 2× “737 and RCW 9.94A.740, which address community custody violations.”
State v. Barker, 256 P.3d 463 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 3× “¶9 Former RCW 9.94A.740 (2009) 3 justified the issuance of the warrant here and implicates an administrative rather than judicial warrant.”
In Re Albritton, 180 P.3d 790 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 2× “However, if an offender is detained pursuant to RCW 9.94A.740 or 9.94A.631 [5] and is later found not to have violated a condition or requirement of community custody, community placement, or community supervision, time spent in confinement due to such detention shall not toll…”
In re the Pers. Restraint of Albritton, 143 Wash. App. 584 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 2× “However, if an offender is detained pursuant to RCW 9.94A.740 or 9.94A-.631[ 4 ] and is later found not to have violated a condition or requirement of community custody, community placement, or community supervision, time spent in confinement due to such detention shall not toll…”
State v. Olson, 262 P.3d 828 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 3× ““Reasonable suspicion” must still be shown under former RCW 9.94A.740, which is in line with our Supreme Court’s approach as it relates to probation violation warrants.”
In re the Pers. Restraint of Knippling, 144 Wash. App. 639 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008). “However, if an offender is detained pursuant to RCW 9.94A.740 or 9.94A.631 and is later found not to have violated a condition or requirement of community custody, community placement, or community supervision, time spent in confinement due to such detention shall not toll the…”
In Re Knippling, 183 P.3d 365 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008). “However, if an offender is detained pursuant to RCW 9.94A.740 or 9.94A.631 and is later found not to have violated a condition or requirement of community custody, community placement, or community supervision, time spent in confinement due to such detention shall not toll the…”
State of Washington v. Ernest James Sorrell (Wash. Ct. App. 2018). “737, or RCW 9.94A.740 pursuant to RCW 9.94A.760(10).”
Donnie Durrett v. Stephen Sinclair (Wash. Ct. App. 2019). “171(3)(a) provides, in relevant part: [A}ny period of community custody shall be tolled during any period of time the offender is in confinement for any reason unless the offender is detained pursuant to RCW 9.94A.740 or 9.94A.631 for the period of time prior to the hearing or…”
State of Washington v. Amel William Dalluge (Wash. Ct. App. 2020). “171(3)(a), which provides: any period of community custody shall be tolled during any period of time the offender is in confinement for any reason unless the offender is detained pursuant to RCW 9.94A.740 or 9.94A.631 for the period of time prior to the hearing or for…”
Wa State Dept. Of Corr., App. v. Esmond Holmes Aka William Henry Saffo, Res. (Wash. Ct. App. 2013). “If an offender is "detained pursuant to RCW 9.94A.740 or 9.94A.631 for the period of time prior to the hearing or for confinement pursuant to sanctions imposed for violation of sentence conditions .”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.94A.740(1) — 1 case
State v. Olson, 262 P.3d 828 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011). ““Reasonable suspicion” must still be shown under former RCW 9.94A.740, which is in line with our Supreme Court’s approach as it relates to probation violation warrants.”
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.