Revised Code of Washington
Wash. Rev. Code § 9.95.204 (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 a superior court places a defendant convicted of a misdemeanor or gross misdemeanor on probation and orders supervision under RCW 9.92.060 or 9.95.210, the department of corrections has responsibility for supervision of defendants pursuant to RCW 9.94A.501 and * 9.94A.5011.
(2) A county legislative authority may assume responsibility for the supervision of defendants within its jurisdiction who have been convicted of a misdemeanor or gross misdemeanor and sentenced to probation by a superior court. If a county legislative authority chooses to assume responsibility for defendants supervised by the department, the assumption of responsibility shall be made by contract with the department of corrections on a biennial basis.
(3) The state of Washington, the department of corrections and its employees, community corrections officers, and volunteers who assist community corrections officers are not liable for any harm caused by the actions of a superior court misdemeanant probationer who is under the supervision of a county. A county, its probation department and employees, probation officers, and volunteers who assist probation officers are not liable for any harm caused by the actions of a superior court misdemeanant probationer who is under the supervision of the department of corrections.
(4) The state of Washington, the department of corrections and its employees, community corrections officers, any county providing supervision services pursuant to this section and its employees, probation officers, and volunteers who assist community corrections officers and probation officers in the superior court misdemeanant probation program are not liable for civil damages resulting from any act or omission in the rendering of superior court misdemeanant probation activities unless the act or omission constitutes gross negligence. For purposes of this section, "volunteers" is defined according to RCW 51.12.035.
(5)(a) If a misdemeanant probationer requests permission to travel or transfer to another state, the assigned probation officer employed or contracted for by the county shall determine whether such request is subject to RCW 9.94A.745, the interstate compact for adult offender supervision. If such request is subject to the compact, the probation officer shall:
(i) Notify the department of corrections of the probationer's request;
(ii) Provide the department of corrections with the supporting documentation it requests for processing an application for transfer;
(iii) Cease supervision of the probationer while another state supervises the probationer pursuant to the compact;
(iv) Resume supervision if the probationer returns to this state before the term of probation expires.
(b) The probationer shall receive credit for time served while being supervised by another state.
Notes:
*Reviser's note: RCW 9.94A.5011 expired August 1, 2014.
Housing voucher program outcome evaluation and benefit-cost analysis—Transfer of residual funds to the general fund—2022 c 29: See notes following RCW 9.94A.729.
Application—Recalculation of community custody terms—2011 1st sp.s. c 40: See note following RCW 9.94A.501.
Effective date—2011 1st sp.s. c 40 ss 1-9, 42: See note following RCW 9.94A.501.
Application—Effective date—2005 c 400: See notes following RCW 9.94A.74504.
Effective date—2005 c 362: See note following RCW 9.94A.501.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7
cases, 2002–2019 · leading case: Beltran-Serrano v. City of Tacoma, 442 P.3d 608 (Wash. 2019).
Beltran-Serrano v. City of Tacoma, 442 P.3d 608 (Wash. 2019). “040 (failure to provide notice of rights to a child witness or victim); RCW 9.95.204 (supervision of misdemeanant offenders); RCW 4.”
Harper v. State, 429 P.3d 1071 (Wash. 2018). “¶ 3 The question here is whether DOC is liable for Patricelli's death, despite Patricelli's, Miller's, and his mother's active and successful efforts to prevent DOC from knowing that Miller was in contact with Patricelli.”
Whitehall v. King Cnty., 167 P.3d 1184 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). “f 18 RCW 9.95.204 was enacted in 1996. The act authorized counties to contract with the DOC for the supervision of misdemeanant probationers.”
Couch v. Dep't of Corr., 54 P.3d 197 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002). “320, enacted in 1988, and RCW 9.95.204(7), enacted in 1996. Taggart v.”
Couch v. Wa. Dep't of Corr., 54 P.3d 197 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002). “320, enacted in 1988, and RCW 9.95.204(7), enacted in 1996. [22] Taggart v.”
State v. Davis, 138 P.3d 132 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). “This is permissible under RCW 9.95.204. ¶51 Mr. Davis also contests his serving three years’ probation instead of two.”
State v. Davis, 138 P.3d 132 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). “This is permissible under RCW 9.95.204. ¶ 51 Mr. Davis also contests his serving three years probation instead of two.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.95.204(4) — 1 case
Harper v. State, 429 P.3d 1071 (Wash. 2018). “¶ 3 The question here is whether DOC is liable for Patricelli's death, despite Patricelli's, Miller's, and his mother's active and successful efforts to prevent DOC from knowing that Miller was in contact with Patricelli.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.95.204(7) — 3 cases
Couch v. Dep't of Corr., 54 P.3d 197 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002). “320, enacted in 1988, and RCW 9.95.204(7), enacted in 1996. Taggart v.”
Couch v. Wa. Dep't of Corr., 54 P.3d 197 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002). “320, enacted in 1988, and RCW 9.95.204(7), enacted in 1996. [22] Taggart v.”
Whitehall v. King Cnty., 167 P.3d 1184 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). “f 18 RCW 9.95.204 was enacted in 1996. The act authorized counties to contract with the DOC for the supervision of misdemeanant probationers.”
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.