Wash. Rev. Code » Title 9 · Chapter 9.95
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 9.95.220 (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) Except as provided in subsection (2) of this section, whenever the state parole officer or other officer under whose supervision the probationer has been placed shall have reason to believe such probationer is violating the terms of his or her probation, or engaging in criminal practices, or is abandoned to improper associates, or living a vicious life, he or she shall cause the probationer to be brought before the court wherein the probation was granted. For this purpose any peace officer or state parole officer may rearrest any such person without warrant or other process. The court may thereupon in its discretion without notice revoke and terminate such probation. In the event the judgment has been pronounced by the court and the execution thereof suspended, the court may revoke such suspension, whereupon the judgment shall be in full force and effect, and the defendant shall be delivered to the sheriff to be transported to the penitentiary or reformatory as the case may be. If the judgment has not been pronounced, the court shall pronounce judgment after such revocation of probation and the defendant shall be delivered to the sheriff to be transported to the penitentiary or reformatory, in accordance with the sentence imposed.
(2) If a probationer is being supervised by the department of corrections pursuant to RCW 9.95.204, the department shall have authority to issue a warrant for the arrest of an offender who violates a condition of community custody, as provided in RCW 9.94A.716. Any sanctions shall be imposed by the department pursuant to RCW 9.94A.737. The department shall provide a copy of the violation hearing report to the sentencing court in a timely manner. Nothing in this subsection is intended to limit the power of the sentencing court to respond to a probationer's violation of conditions.
[ 2009 c 375 s 11; 1957 c 227 s 5. Prior: 1939 c 125 s 1, part; RRS s 10249-5c.]

Notes:

Application—2009 c 375: See note following RCW 9.94A.501.
Severability—1939 c 125: See note following RCW 9.95.200.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 27 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1954–2024 · leading case: In Re Mempa v. Rhay, 416 P.2d 104 (Wash. 1966).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In Re Mempa v. Rhay, 416 P.2d 104 (Wash. 1966). · cites it 6× “[2] The above outlined judicial views about the general nature of probation are re-enforced by the following language of RCW 9.95.220, which sets out certain legislative policy determinations made with respect to the operation of our probation system.”
State v. Shannon, 376 P.2d 646 (Wash. 1962). · cites it 3× “(d) Fair play, due process, and the intent of our statute, in requiring that a defendant be “brought before the court wherein probation was granted” (RCW 9.95.220), entitle such defendant to be reasonably informed of the allegations of probation violation, and an opportunity to…”
State v. Hultman, 600 P.2d 1291 (Wash. 1979). · cites it 2× “Our statute, RCW 9.95.220, provides that "[i]n the event the judgment has been pronounced by the court and the execution thereof suspended, the court may revoke such suspension, whereupon the judgment shall be in full force and effect .”
State v. Wills, 416 P.2d 124 (Wash. 1966). · cites it 6× “After an admittedly somewhat peremptory hearing in the Superior Court for Pierce County, Dale Wills' probation was revoked, the suspension of his sentence was vacated, and the imposition of his sentence for forgery followed promptly, in accordance with the provisions of RCW…”
State v. Hall, 666 P.2d 930 (Wash. Ct. App. 1983). · cites it 2× “210, and revoking probation, RCW 9.95.220. Presumably, the Legislature intended to distinguish the reporting requirement, making it mandatory, from the other discretionary ("may") requirements.”
In Re the Pers. Restraint of Phelan, 647 P.2d 1026 (Wash. 1982). “The same argument is now advanced *596 to this court based on RCW 9.95.220. Neither provision supports the argument.”
State v. Hubbard, 679 P.2d 391 (Wash. Ct. App. 1984). · cites it 2× “220 grants extensive arrest powers to probation and parole officers and reflects the intention of the Legislature that they be considered law enforcement officers: Whenever the state parole officer or other officer under whose supervision the probationer has been placed shall…”
State v. Kuhn, 503 P.2d 1061 (Wash. 1972). “In the case before us the record indicates that, in addition to the allegedly stolen items found in the July 6, 1971, search of the appellant’s apartment which appellant contends constituted “tainted evidence”, the court received evidence which indicated that the appellant had…”
State Ex Rel. Woodhouse v. Dore, 416 P.2d 670 (Wash. 1966). “If the record discloses sufficient facts warranting a judicial officer to reasonably conclude that the probation has been a failure or in the words of the statute (RCW 9.95.220) that the probationer is “violating the terms of his probation, or engaging in criminal practices, or…”
State v. Riddell, 449 P.2d 97 (Wash. 1968). “200 and RCW 9.95.220, which constitute the express legislative authority for both the granting and revocation of probation by the superior court judges of this state.”
State v. Monday, 540 P.2d 416 (Wash. 1975). “See RCW 9.95.220. This, it seems to us, is sufficient flexibility for sentencing judges, and, if not, it is the function of the *910 legislature and not of the judiciary to alter the sentencing process.”
State v. Cook, 679 P.2d 413 (Wash. Ct. App. 1984). “The Hultman court cited RCW 9.95.220 which reads in part: "[i]n the event the judgment has been pronounced by the court and the execution thereof suspended, the court may revoke such suspension, whereupon the judgment shall be in full force and effect .”
Show all 27 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.95.220(2) — 1 case
State of Washington v. Kelly Jay Balles, 556 P.3d 698 (Wash. Ct. App. 2024).
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.