Wash. Rev. Code § 9.94A.030

A crime-related prohibition may restrict possession of other people’s identifying information when that conduct is reasonably connected to an identity theft conviction.

State Of Washington v. Hinkson · filed 2019-09-23(10)

A “[c]rime-related prohibition’ . . . prohibit[sJ conduct that directly relates to the circumstances of the crime for which the offender has been convicted.” RCW 9.94A.030(10). ... Some restriction on Hinkson’s possession of other people’s identifying information was plainly appropriate.

Section 9.94A.030(10) defines a crime-related prohibition as an order barring conduct directly related to the circumstances of the crime of conviction.

State Of Washington v. Gomez · filed 2019-10-07(10)

A “crime-related prohibition” is defined as “an order of a court prohibiting conduct that directly relates to the circumstances of the crime for which the offender has been convicted.” RCW 9.94A.030(10). ... The record supports imposition of condition 11, do not use or consume alcohol, as a crime-related condition.

Crime-related prohibitions restrict conduct directly related to the circumstances of the offense, including contact with a child the offender sought to harm during the crime.

State of Washington v. Talon Cutler-Flinn · filed 2019-10-08(10)

“Crime-related prohibitions” are orders “prohibiting conduct that directly relates to the circumstances of the crime for which the offender has been convicted.” RCW 9.94A.030(10). ... Given Mr. Cutler-Flinn’s stated intent to cause S.M. to miscarry when he struck her on New Year’s Day—when she was pregnant with C.A.M.—the prohibition is crime-related.

A community custody condition is crime related only if it reasonably relates to the circumstances of the offense of conviction; an offender’s drug history alone is insufficient.

State of Washington v. Alvarez · filed 2019-10-29(10)

While this may be true, community custody conditions must be “relate[d] to the circumstances of the crime for which the offender has been convicted.” RCW 9.94A.030(10) (emphasis added). ... Because there is no evidence that any type of controlled substance was related to the conviction at hand, community custody condition 5 is not crime related.

A crime-related prohibition must directly relate to the circumstances of the offense; without evidence linking the prohibited conduct to the offense, the condition is not crime related.

State of Washington v. Dallin D. Fort · filed 2019-10-29(12)

A “crime-related prohibition” is “an order of a court prohibiting conduct that directly relates to the circumstances of the crime for which the offender has been convicted.” Former RCW 9.94A.030(12) (2002). A condition is not crime related if there is no evidence linking the prohibited conduct to the offense.

Section 9.94A.030(10) defines a crime-related prohibition as an order barring conduct directly related to the offense; a restriction on entering bars can qualify when alcohol abuse contributed to the crime.

State Of Washington v. Guzman · filed 2019-11-13(10)

“‘A [c]rime-related prohibition means an order of a court prohibiting conduct that directly relates to the circumstances of the crime for which the offender has been convicted.’” Nguyen, 191 Wn.2d at 683 (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting RCW 9.94A.030(10)). ... The prohibition reasonably relates to the crimes. Therefore, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in imposing the condition.

A crime-related prohibition must directly relate to the crime of conviction.

State Of Washington v. Greer · filed 2019-11-18(10)

A crime-related prohibition directly relates to the crime of conviction.

Section 9.94A.030(10) requires a crime-related prohibition to directly relate to the offense; drug and alcohol testing cannot be imposed without evidence linking that use to the crime.

State Of Washington v. Monroy · filed 2020-01-21(10)

A “crime-related prohibition” is “an order of a court prohibiting conduct that directly relates to the circumstances of the crime for which the offender has been convicted.” RCW 9.94A.030(10). ... Here, unlike the probationer in Olsen, the State did not show and the court did not find that Monroy abused drugs or alcohol or that such use contributed to the crime for which he was convicted. Because special condition 12 is not crime related, we cannot say that it was narrowly tailored or reasonably necessary to achieve a compelling state interest. Accordingly, it must be stricken.

A crime-related prohibition must directly relate to the circumstances of the offense; an alcohol possession ban requires that connection.

State Of Washington v. Stone · filed 2020-02-19(10)

A “crime-related prohibition” is “an order of a court prohibiting conduct that directly relates to the circumstances of the crime for which the offender has been convicted.” RCW 9.94A.030(10). The trial court ordered Stone not to possess alcohol. Because prohibiting Stone from possessing alcohol does not directly relate to his crimes of first degree burglary and third degree assault, the trial court exceeded its authority in imposing the condition.

Section 9.94A.030(10) requires a crime-related community custody condition to relate to the circumstances of the conviction; an offender’s unrelated history is insufficient.

State of Washington v. Alvarez · filed 2019-09-17(10)

While this may be true, community custody conditions must be “relate[d] to the circumstances of the crime for which the offender has been convicted.” RCW 9.94A.030(10) (emphasis added). “‘Directly related’ includes conditions that are ‘reasonably related’ to the crime.” Irwin, 191 Wn. App. at 656 (quoting Kinzle, 181 Wn. App. at 785). The State’s argument revolves around Alvarez’s history, not the specific facts related to this conviction. Because there is no evidence that any type of controlled substance was related to the conviction at hand, community conditions 4 and 5 are not crime related.

Section 9.94A.030(10) defines a crime-related prohibition as one that directly relates to the circumstances of the offense; restrictions concerning minors do not qualify when the crimes did not involve a minor.

State Of Washington v. Boome · filed 2019-11-12(10)

A "crime-related prohibition" is defined as "an order of a court prohibiting conduct that directly relates to the circumstances of the crime for which the offender has been convicted." RCW 9.94A.030(10). ... The State concedes the court should strike condition 1 and condition 13 because the crimes did not involve a minor. ... We accept the State's concessions as well taken.

A crime-related prohibition must relate to the circumstances of the offense, with record evidence connecting the community custody condition to the crime.

State Of Washington v. Lee Ii · filed 2020-02-18(10)

A crime-related prohibition must relate ‘to the circumstances of the crime for which the offender has been convicted.” RCW 9.94A.030(10). Thus, there must be some evidence in the record connecting the community custody condition to the crime.

Crime-related prohibitions must directly relate to the circumstances of the crime, but need not be causally related to it.

Mecham v. State Of Washington · filed 2020-03-02(10)

Crime-related prohibitions are discretionary conditions that are directly related to the circumstances of the crime but need not be causally related to the crime.

A crime-related prohibition must directly relate to the circumstances of the offense of conviction.

In the Matter of the Personal Restraint of: JonPaul Vincent Solis · filed 2020-03-26(10)

“Crime-related prohibitions” are orders “prohibiting conduct that directly relates to the circumstances of the crime for which the offender has been convicted.” RCW 9.94A.030(10). ... Although the risk/needs portion identifies JonPaul Solis’s sex-related internet activity, nothing in the report or the remaining record links Solis’s criminal acts with internet use. Accordingly, we accept the State’s concession that condition 16 was not authorized by the SRA and agree that it should be struck.

A crime-related prohibition must relate to the circumstances of the offense; a condition restricting drug use or paraphernalia lacks that connection when the record shows no link to the offense.

State Of Washington v. Novcaski · filed 2020-04-07(10)

As discussed above, a crime-related prohibition must be related to the circumstances of the crime for which the offender is being sentenced. RCW 9.94A.030(10). Here, the State presented no evidence or argument that drug use or possession of drug paraphernalia bore any relation to Novcaski’s offense.

A crime-related community custody prohibition must directly relate to the circumstances of the offense.

State Of Washington v. Bryon · filed 2020-04-13(10)

The prohibition must directly relate to the circumstances of the crime for which the offender was convicted.

Crime-related prohibitions must be directly related to the circumstances of the crime, but they need not be causally related to it.

State Of Washington v. Terrones · filed 2020-04-27(10)

Crime-related prohibitions are discretionary conditions that are directly related to the circumstances of the crime but need not be causally related to the crime.

A crime-related prohibition must restrict conduct directly related to the circumstances of the offense of conviction.

State Of Washington v. Pemberton · filed 2020-06-08(10)

“A ‘crime-related prohibition’ means an order of a court prohibiting conduct that directly relates to the circumstances of the crime for which the offender has been convicted.” Nguyen, 191 Wn.2d at 683 (quoting RCW 9.94A.030(10)). ... Because no reasonable relationship exists between Pemberton’s crimes and the prohibition on him entering locations where alcohol is the primary product, the trial court abused its discretion by imposing it.

A crime-related community custody prohibition must directly relate to the circumstances of the offense.

Personal Restraint Petition Of Ryan Rocquin · filed 2020-06-23(10)

A “‘[c]rime-related prohibition’ means an order of a court prohibiting conduct that directly relates to the circumstances of the crime for which the offender has been convicted.” RCW 9.94A.030(10). ... We accept the State’s concession regarding drug paraphernalia; the purchase, possession or consumption of alcohol; and not entering any business where alcohol is the primary commodity for sale because these prohibitions do not directly relate to the circumstances of Rocquin’s crime.

A requirement for treatment provider approval of sexual contact can be a crime-related prohibition when paired with a sexual deviancy evaluation and treatment requirement.

In the Matter of the Personal Restraint of: Kyle Robert Sickels · filed 2020-08-04(10)

We are persuaded that the condition is crime-related in this case by State v. Sadler, an unpublished Division One decision in which the panel reasoned persuasively that when a companion condition requires the offender to obtain a sexual deviancy evaluation and comply with treatment recommendations, a requirement for treatment provider approval of sexual contact is crime-related.

Section 9.94A.030(10) defines a crime-related prohibition as a court order barring conduct directly related to the circumstances of the conviction.

In re Pers. Restraint of Winton · filed 2020-09-17(10)

“Crime-related prohibition” is defined as “an order of a court prohibiting conduct that directly relates to the circumstances of the crime for which the offender has been convicted.” RCW 9.94A.030(10) (emphasis added); see RCW 9.95.0001(3). ... The condition directly relates to the crime because Winton’s victims reside, work, and attend school within Clark County.

Section 9.94A.030(10) defines a crime-related prohibition to include a condition reasonably related to the crime.

State Of Washington v. Vazquez-santos · filed 2020-09-28(10)

A “crime-related prohibition” prohibits “conduct that directly relates to the circumstances of the crime for which the offender has been convicted.” RCW 9.94A.030(10). “Directly related” includes conditions that are “reasonably related” to the crime. ... The prohibition restricting him from unsupervised contact with minors reasonably relates to the crime.

Section 9.94A.030(10) defines a crime-related prohibition as one involving conduct directly related to the circumstances of the offense; a connection between substance use and the offense supported drug-related community custody conditions.

State Of Washington v. Hasseries · filed 2020-10-27(10)

A “crime-related prohibition” is one that involves “conduct that directly relates to the circumstances of the crime for which the offender has been convicted.” RCW 9.94A.030(10). ... Because there is some basis for the connection between Hasseries’s substance use and her crime, we hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by imposing drug related conditions or by ordering a substance use evaluation.

A ban on sexual contact in a relationship without treatment-provider approval was not a crime-related prohibition for this child-molestation offender.

State Of Washington v. Allen · filed 2020-11-02(10)

A “crime-related prohibition” is “an order of a court prohibiting conduct ... that directly relates to the circumstances of the crime for which the offender has been convicted.” RCW 9.94A.030(10). ... The State concedes that prohibiting sexual contact in a relationship without prior approval is not crime-related. We accept the State’s concession and remand to strike that portion of the condition.

A community custody condition is crime-related when it reasonably relates to the circumstances of the offense.

State Of Washington v. Gaspar · filed 2020-08-04(10)

“Crime-related” refers to conduct that “directly relates to the circumstances of the crime for which the offender has been convicted.” RCW 9.94A.030(10). ... We therefore accept the State’s concession, hold that this condition was not crime-related, and remand for the trial court to strike this condition.

Section 9.94A.030(10) requires crime-related community custody prohibitions to be reasonably related to the circumstances of the offense.

State Of Washington v. Ezra Danilo Wright · filed 2020-11-09(10)

These prohibitions must be reasonably related to the circumstances of the crime committed by the defendant. RCW 9.94A.030(10); State v. Kinzle, 181 Wn. App. 774, 785, 326 P.3d 870 (2014). ... Because the restriction reasonably relates to Wright’s crime, the court did not err by imposing it.

A crime-related prohibition must directly relate to the circumstances of the crime for which the offender was convicted.

State Of Washington v. Denbo · filed 2020-12-29(10)

A crime-related prohibition must directly relate to the circumstances of the crime for which the offender was convicted. RCW 9.94A.030(10). ... Here, the challenged portion of the community custody condition that prohibits Denbo from possessing photographs of minors is not crime related.

A restriction on sexual contact may be crime related after a child sex offense, but a prior approval requirement must exempt consensual sexual contact with the offender’s spouse when the concern underlying the restriction does not extend to that relationship.

State of Washington v. Sanders · filed 2021-02-02(10)

“Crime-related prohibitions” means an order of a court prohibiting conduct that directly relates to the circumstances of the crime for which the offender has been convicted. ... The State agrees, however, that this concern does not relate to Sanders’ marital relationship. Sanders’ spouse knows about his sexual assault conviction and remains in her relationship with him. ... We remand for the sentencing court to modify the community custody condition consistent with this opinion.

A no contact order protecting a witness is a crime-related prohibition when the witness has a sufficient connection to the crime, and it may last for that crime’s statutory maximum term.

State Of Washington v. Duran · filed 2021-02-23(10)

“Crime-related prohibitions” may include court orders “prohibiting conduct that directly relates to the circumstances of the crime for which the offender has been ... convicted.” RCW 9.94A.030(10). ... Under Armendariz, this provided a sufficient connection to the burglary for the statutory maximum for the burglary to apply to the no contact order protecting An. Thus, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in imposing a 10-year no contact order.

A restriction on computer, digital device, and internet access is crime related when the offender used them to facilitate the crime.

State Of Washington v. Moore · filed 2021-04-19(10)

Crime-related restriction on his access to the internet, computers, and other digital devices is merited.

A crime-related prohibition must directly relate to the circumstances of the offense; a condition requiring disclosure before sexual contact qualifies when the offender gained access to child victims through a relationship with their mother.

State Of Washington, V. Martinez-platero · filed 2021-06-01(10)

A “crime-related prohibition” is “an order of a court prohibiting conduct that directly relates to the circumstances of the crime for which the offender has been convicted.” RCW 9.94A.030(10). ... Here, this condition is plainly crime-related and sensitively imposed.

A crime-related prohibition must directly relate to the circumstances of the offense; an internet access ban is unauthorized when the internet played no role in the crimes.

State Of Washington, V. Johnson · filed 2021-06-15(10)

A crime-related prohibition is “an order of a court prohibiting conduct that directly relates to the circumstances of the crime for which the offender has been convicted.” ... Given the absence of any evidence that the internet played any role in Johnson’s crimes, the condition prohibiting access to the internet is not crime related. Therefore, we hold that the trial court erred in imposing the community custody condition prohibiting internet access because it is not crime related.

Section 9.94A.030(10) defines a crime-related prohibition as one related to the circumstances of the offense; an internet restriction does not qualify when internet use did not contribute to the crime.

State Of Washington, V. Spear · filed 2021-06-29(10)

A crime-related prohibition is one that is related to the circumstances of the crime for which the offender is being sentenced. ... There is no evidence in the record that this prohibition is crime-related. Therefore, we hold that the trial court erred in imposing the condition and remand to the trial court to strike the community condition.

Section 9.94A.030(10) defines a crime-related prohibition as one directly related to the circumstances of the offense; random drug and alcohol testing does not qualify without a connection to the offense.

State Of Washington, V. Daniels · filed 2021-08-03(10)

A “crime-related prohibition” is an “order of a court prohibiting conduct that directly relates to the circumstances of the crime for which the offender has been convicted.” RCW 9.94A.030(10). ... Unlike Olsen, Daniels cannot expect to be monitored for drug or alcohol consumption because drug or alcohol use does not relate to the essential facts of her ... conviction and is not causally connected to her conviction.

Section 9.94A.030(10) defines a crime-related prohibition as one related to the circumstances of the offense; an internet restriction is not crime-related when internet use did not contribute to the offense.

State Of Washington, V. Park · filed 2021-08-03(10)

Here, there was no evidence that internet use, including emails or any social media sites, contributed in any way to Park’s offenses. Therefore, this condition is not crime-related and the State was correct to concede it should be stricken.

A community custody condition is crime related only if it has a reasonable connection to the circumstances of the offense; a curfew without that connection requires another statutory basis.

State Of Washington, V. Occiano · filed 2021-09-21(10)

Because the curfew condition was not crime related and there is no statutory basis under which the superior court imposed the condition, the superior court abused its discretion when it imposed this condition.

Section 9.94A.030(10) defines a crime-related prohibition as one directly related to the circumstances of the conviction; viewing images before an offense does not justify a ban on producing photographs or videos.

State of Washington v. Geyer · filed 2021-09-28(10)

A crime-related prohibition is one that “directly relates to the circumstances of the crime for which [an individual] has been convicted.” RCW 9.94A.030(10). ... There is no evidence Mr. Geyer used photo or video equipment in the commission of his crime. ... As such, condition 10 is not crime related.

A crime-related prohibition can restrict access to sexually explicit materials and sex-related businesses when those restrictions are reasonably related to a sex offense.

State Of Washington, V Earl Owen Rosete De Dios · filed 2021-10-05(10)

A crime-related prohibition is “an order of a court prohibiting conduct that directly relates to the circumstances of the crime for which the offender ... has been convicted.” RCW 9.94A.030(10). ... Because “it is both logical and reasonable to conclude that a convicted person who cannot suppress sexual urges should be prohibited from accessing ‘sexually explicit materials,’” as well as prohibited from frequenting “sex related businesses,” the community custody conditions that De Dios challenges are crime related.

A crime related prohibition bars conduct directly related to the circumstances of the offense of conviction.

Personal Restraint Petition Of Marcus Jordan Carrillo · filed 2021-10-18(10)

A “crime related prohibition” means an order of a court prohibiting conduct that directly relates to the circumstances of the crime for which the offender has been convicted. RCW 9.94A.030(10). ... Requiring notification to the CCO and treatment provider to date and requiring the treatment provider to approve sexual contact relates directly to the crimes of conviction.

Section 9.94A.030(10) defines a crime-related prohibition as an order forbidding conduct that directly relates to the circumstances of the offense.

State Of Washington, V. Bluford · filed 2021-05-10(10)

Even though R.U. was not his romantic partner, this condition involves sexual intimacy which directly relates to Bluford’s offense.

Section 9.94A.030(10) defines “crime-related” conduct as conduct directly related to the circumstances of the offense.

State Of Washington v. Garza · filed 2021-02-02(10)

The prohibition on pictures of any minors is not “crime-related” as defined by RCW 9.94A.030(10).

A crime-related prohibition may restrict conduct directly related to the offense, including a child molestation offender’s visits to places frequented by children.

State Of Washington, V. Ilijah Antione Lamount Hudson · filed 2021-11-09(10)

A “crime-related prohibition” is an “order of a court prohibiting conduct that directly relates to the circumstances of the crime for which the offender has been convicted.” RCW 9.94A.030(10). ... Similarly, we conclude Hudson’s Condition 19 is crime related because Hudson was convicted of molesting a child, and the condition prohibits him from visiting locations frequented by children, where he could potentially find new victims.

A prohibition is crime-related when there is some basis connecting it to the circumstances of the offense.

State Of Washington, V Brazille · filed 2022-01-04(10)

A crime-related prohibition is one that is related to the circumstances of the crime for which the offender is being sentenced. RCW 9.94A.030(10). ... Because there is “‘some basis for the connection’” between Brazille’s crime of conviction, second degree rape of a child, and the prohibition on contact with Brazille’s minor siblings, the prohibition is crime-related.

A crime-related prohibition must relate to the circumstances of the offense for which the offender was convicted.

State Of Washington, V. Alvarez · filed 2022-02-08(10)

“A crime-related prohibition must relate ‘to the circumstances of the crime for which the offender has been convicted.’” Lee, 12 Wn. App. 2d at 401 (quoting RCW 9.94A.030(10)). Thus, where evidence in the record connects the crime to the community custody condition, the condition is crime-related and not unconstitutionally overbroad.

Section 9.94A.030(10) includes monitoring compliance with a drug prohibition when drug use directly relates to the crime.

State Of Washington V. Frederick · filed 2022-02-15(10)

A “crime-related prohibition” means an order prohibiting conduct that directly relates to the circumstances of the crime for which the offender was convicted, including affirmative acts necessary to monitor compliance with the order. RCW 9.94A.030(10). Mr. Frederick’s use of a mind-altering substance lowered his inhibitions and caused him to make the bad decision resulting in his arrest. Thus, monitoring compliance with the prohibition of drug use is crime related.

Section 9.94A.030(10) defines a crime-related prohibition as one related to the circumstances of the offense.

State Of Washington, V. Kingsley · filed 2022-03-15(10)

A crime-related prohibition is one that is related to the circumstances of the crime for which the offender is being sentenced. RCW 9.94A.030(10). ... But the prohibition on ... possessing or using drug paraphernalia is not sufficiently crime-related, as nothing in the record suggests that that drug paraphernalia had anything to do with Kingsley’s crime of conviction.

A crime-related prohibition is a court order barring conduct directly related to the offense of conviction; this definition does not govern conditions imposed by the Department.

State Of Washington, V. Ortega · filed 2022-03-29(10)

The SRA specifically defines a “crime-related prohibition” as “an order of a court prohibiting conduct that directly relates to the circumstances of the crime for which the offender has been convicted.” RCW 9.94A.030(10) (emphasis added); see also In re Pers. Restraint of Golden, 172 Wn. App. 426, 432, 290 P.3d 168 (2012) (noting that the definition of “‘crime-related prohibition’” refers specifically to “‘an order of a court,’” so it does not apply to the Department (quoting former RCW 9.94A.030(13) (2006))).

A crime-related prohibition must bar conduct directly related to the circumstances of the offense of conviction.

State Of Washington, V. Wolff · filed 2022-10-03(10)

A crime-related prohibition “means an order of a court prohibiting conduct that directly relates to the circumstances of the crime for which the offender has been convicted.” RCW 9.94A.030(10). ... The third sentence of Condition 6, “sexual contact in a relationship is prohibited until the treatment provider approves of such,” is a prohibition and, thus, must be crime-related. ... We accept the State’s concession and remand to strike only the third sentence of Condition 6.

A crime-related prohibition must be directly related to the circumstances of the crime; a blanket restriction on pornography requires a supported connection to the offense.

State of Washington v. Lowrey · filed 2022-10-04(10)

“Crime-related prohibitions” are orders directly related to “the circumstances of the crime.” RCW 9.94A.030(10). ... Lowrey was convicted of possession and dealing in child pornography. His sentencing condition restricted all access to pornography without narrowing it to images of children. Lowrey was also sentenced to sexual deviancy treatment. It is unclear from the record how the absolute prohibition on pornography would serve his treatment and by extension protect the public. Given, the parallels with the Padilla case, it is appropriate to accept the State’s concession. ... We affirm Lowrey’s conviction and remand to strike community custody conditions 11, 12, and 14 from the judgment and sentence.

A community custody condition is crime-related when it requires affirmative acts necessary to monitor compliance with valid conditions.

Personal Restraint Petition Of: Peter Daniel Ansell · filed 2022-01-18(10)

Under RCW 9.94A.030(10), a condition is “crime-related” when it imposes “affirmative acts necessary to monitor compliance” with valid community custody conditions.

A crime-related prohibition may restrict contact with minors and require disclosure of sex offender status when those conditions directly relate to the offense.

State Of Washington, V. Cruz-yon · filed 2022-07-11(10)

A crime-related prohibition “prohibit[s] conduct that directly relates to the circumstances of the crime for which the offender has been convicted.” RCW 9.94A.030(10). ... Rather, the relationships between the two conditions and Cruz Yon’s convictions are readily apparent and do not require further explanation. ... Accordingly, the sentencing court did not abuse its discretion when it imposed the two challenged crime-related conditions.

A crime-related prohibition can bar contact with a victim’s close family when the offender uses family members to reach the victim.

State Of Washington, V. Van Thrower · filed 2023-02-13(10)

Given Thrower’s persistent attempts to contact T.W. via third parties, it was reasonable for the resentencing court to include in the no-contact order other close familial parties. Doing so prevents Thrower from harassing or revictimizing T.W. and her family and therefore, is crime-related.

A crime-related prohibition must directly relate to the circumstances of the offense; restrictions on sex-related businesses and sexually explicit material can meet that definition for a person convicted of child rape.

Prp Of Lance Burnworth · filed 2023-03-07(10)

A crime-related prohibition must “directly relate[] to the circumstances of the crime for which the offender has been convicted . . . .” RCW 9.94A.030(10). ... We conclude that these conditions are crime related.

A crime-related prohibition under subsection (10) may bar contact with a witness whose testimony is relevant to the crime of conviction.

State Of Washington, V. Clayborn · filed 2023-06-20(10)

A “crime-related prohibition” is “an order of a court prohibiting conduct that directly relates to the circumstances of the crime for which the offender has been convicted.” RCW 9.94A.030(10). ... Accordingly, Bash was a witness who provided testimony relevant to the unlawful possession charge and the no-contact order was an authorized crime-related prohibition.

A crime-related prohibition must directly relate to the circumstances of the offender’s crime.

State Of Washington, V. Dotson · filed 2023-06-21(10)

Under RCW 9.94A.030(10), a “crime-related prohibition” is “an order of a court prohibiting conduct that directly relates to the circumstances of the crime for which the offender has been convicted.” ... Here, Dotson’s community custody condition prohibiting possession or consumption of “any mind or mood-altering substances” is unrelated to his convictions. The record does not suggest that mind or mood-altering substances were related to the circumstances of Dotson’s convictions. Accordingly, we hold that the trial court exceeded its authority in ordering Dotson to refrain from possessing or consuming mind or mood-altering substances.

A crime-related prohibition must restrict conduct directly related to the circumstances of the offense.

State of Washington v. Blanchard · filed 2023-07-06(10)

Crime-related prohibitions prohibit conduct that directly relates to the circumstances of the crime that the defendant is convicted of. Nguyen, 191 Wn.2d at 683 (citing RCW 9.94A.030(10)). ... Therefore, prohibiting him from entering places “where [alcohol is] the primary source of business” is not a crime related prohibition and should not have been imposed.

A crime-related prohibition may restrict conduct directly related to the circumstances of the offender’s crime, including contact with children who witnessed it.

State Of Washington, V. Brown · filed 2023-08-14(10)

Brown was convicted of committing domestic violence offenses and found by the jury of having committed those offenses in the presence of E.L.B. and Z.G. The no-contact orders imposed are thus directly related to the circumstances of the crime for which Brown was convicted. RCW 9.94A.030(10) (defining “crime-related prohibition”).

Subsection (10) defines a crime-related prohibition as one related to the circumstances of the offense, requiring a factual connection between a community custody condition and the offense.

State Of Washington, V. Amaro · filed 2023-08-15(10)

A crime-related prohibition is one that is related to the circumstances of the crime for which the offender is sentenced. RCW 9.94A.030(10). ... The stipulated facts do not provide details about the images’ sources or how they came to be on Amaro’s phone. Therefore, on remand, the trial court should also state the factual basis for the modified condition.

A no-contact order protecting a witness can qualify as a crime-related prohibition under section 9.94A.030(10).

State Of Washington, V. Cartwright · filed 2023-10-16(10)

A “crime-related prohibition” is “an order of a court prohibiting conduct that directly relates to the circumstances of the crime for which the offender has been convicted.” RCW 9.94A.030(10). ... No-contact orders that protect witnesses are also crime-related prohibitions.

A prohibition on internet use is not crime related when the record does not connect internet use to the offense.

State Of Washington, V. Lyon · filed 2023-12-05(10)

A “crime-related prohibition” is “an order of a court prohibiting conduct that directly relates to the circumstances of the crime for which the offender has been convicted.” RCW 9.94A.030(10). ... Here, there is no evidence in the record that Lyon used the internet before molesting S.H. or that internet usage contributed to Lyon’s crime. Therefore, community custody condition 11 is not crime related, and we remand to the trial court with instructions to strike the condition from Lyon’s judgment and sentence.

A community custody prohibition is crime related when it bears a reasonable relationship to the offense.

State Of Washington, V. Gantt · filed 2024-01-02(10)

He cites to RCW 9.94A.030(10) for the proposition that a “[c]rime-related prohibition” must be “directly relate[d] to the circumstances of the crime for which the offender has been convicted.” “‘Directly related’ includes conditions that are ‘reasonably related’ to the crime.” ... However, alcohol still bears a reasonable relationship to the ... crime as Gantt supplied alcohol and other controlled substances to K.G. during his long-term pattern of abuse. As such, this challenge fails.

Section 9.94A.030(10) defines a crime-related prohibition as an order barring conduct directly related to the circumstances of the conviction; an internet restriction without that connection must be stricken.

State Of Washington, V. Pressley · filed 2023-03-06(10)

A crime-related prohibition “means an order of a court prohibiting conduct that directly relates to the circumstances of the crime for which the offender has been convicted.” RCW 9.94A.030(10). A “reasonable relationship” must exist between the crime of conviction and the community custody condition. Nguyen, 191 Wn.2d at 684. The prohibited conduct need not be identical, but there must be some basis for the connection to the crime of conviction. Id. Here, the trial court did not consider whether a reasonable relationship existed between internet usage and the circumstances of Pressley’s crime. Therefore, we accept the State’s concession and remand to the trial court to strike the condition.

Section 9.94A.030(10) permits affirmative monitoring of compliance with crime-related community custody conditions.

In the Matter of the Personal Restraint of: Eric R. Lewis · filed 2023-05-23(10)

The ISRB may affirmatively monitor ... compliance with crime-related community custody conditions.

Section 9.94A.030(10) permits random urinalysis to monitor compliance with a valid court order prohibiting unlawful controlled substance use.

State of Washington v. Preble · filed 2023-03-09(10)

The Department of Corrections may require "affirmative acts necessary to monitor compliance with the order of a court" such as random urinalysis. RCW 9.94A.030(10). Mr. Preble is court ordered to refrain from consuming controlled substances without a lawful prescription, a condition that he does not challenge. See RCW 9.94A.030(2)(c); CP at 70. Random urinalysis testing is therefore a statutorily valid condition to monitor his compliance with the prohibition on illegal controlled substance use.

Subsection (10) permits random urinalysis to monitor compliance with a condition barring illegal controlled substance use.

In the Matter of the Personal Restraint of: Juan Luna Huezo · filed 2023-06-29(10)

The Department of Corrections may require “affirmative acts necessary to monitor compliance with the order of a court” such as random urinalysis or breath analysis. RCW 9.94A.030(10). Random urinalysis testing is therefore a statutorily valid condition ... to monitor his compliance with the prohibition on illegal controlled substance use.

Section 9.94A.030(12) includes acts necessary to monitor compliance with valid community custody conditions in its definition of a crime-related prohibition.

Personal Restraint Petition Of Sean Anthony Thompson · filed 2023-12-04(12)

A “crime-related prohibition” includes “affirmative acts necessary to monitor compliance” with validly imposed conditions. Former RCW 9.94A.030(12) (2004); see former RCW 9.95.0001(3) (2004) (stating that “‘[c]rime-related prohibition’ has the meaning defined in RCW 9.94A.030”). ... This condition, analogous to random drug testing, was authorized as a crime-related monitoring tool to assess Thompson’s compliance with a separate—and validly ... imposed—condition.

Section 9.94A.030(10) defines a crime-related prohibition as a restriction directly related to the circumstances of the offense; a condition without that link must be struck.

State of Washington v. Jasper James Nelson · filed 2024-02-13(10)

In addition to enumerated conditions, the court may craft crime-related prohibitions, which are “order[s] of a court prohibiting conduct that directly relates to the circumstances of the crime for which the offender has ... been convicted.” RCW 9.94A.030(10); see RCW 9.94A.703(3)(f). ... We will strike a crime-related condition if there is no evidence in the record linking the circumstance of the crime to the condition.

A crime-related prohibition is a court order barring conduct directly related to the offense of conviction; the definition does not govern DOC conditions imposed for community safety.

State Of Washington, V. Houser · filed 2024-03-05(10)

The SRA defines a “crime-related prohibition” as “an order of a court prohibiting conduct that directly relates to the circumstances of the crime ... for which the offender has been convicted.” ... But Houser’s argument confuses the trial court’s authority to impose crime-related conditions and DOC’s separate authority to impose conditions related to community safety.

Section 9.94A.030(10) defines a crime-related prohibition as an order barring conduct directly related to the circumstances of the offense of conviction.

State of Washington v. Rosales · filed 2024-03-12(10)

Under RCW 9.94A.030(10), a “crime-related prohibition” is “an order of a court prohibiting conduct that directly relates to the circumstances of the crime for which the offender has been convicted.” ... Rosales’s convictions had nothing to do with electronic media. Therefore, this condition is not crime related.

A no contact provision involving a victim’s family member must directly relate to the circumstances of the crime.

State Of Washington, V. Smith · filed 2024-03-19(10)

A crime-related prohibition is a court order “prohibiting conduct that directly relates to the ... circumstances of the crime for which the offender has been convicted.” RCW 9.94A.030(10). ... A trial court can impose a no contact provision prohibiting contact between the defendant and a victim’s family member if the order directly relates to the circumstances of the crime. ... Therefore, we conclude that the trial court erred in imposing the no contact provision regarding Rucker-Viera.

A crime-related prohibition must restrict conduct reasonably related to the circumstances of the offense.

Personal Restraint Petition of Wendell Maurice Clark · filed 2024-06-25(10)

Therefore, the “crime-related” prohibitions on entering an establishment where alcohol is the primary sale item or submitting to a urine and breath screening are not reasonably related to Clark’s crimes.

A condition requiring disclosure of sex offender status is a crime-related prohibition when it directly relates to the circumstances of the offense.

State Of Washington, V. Dominguez · filed 2025-01-06(10)

Disclosing his sex offender status protects the public from the risk ... he poses to minors. Condition 17 is crime-related and does not violate Dominguez’s constitutional rights.

A crime-related prohibition may bar contact with a witness whose testimony directly connects the witness to the circumstances of the crime.

State of Washington v. Silva · filed 2025-01-14(10)

A crime-related prohibition is “an order of a court prohibiting conduct that directly relates to the circumstances of the crime for which the offender has been convicted.” RCW 9.94A.030(10). ... Therefore, as a witness to the ... unlawful possession of a firearm charge, AR is directly connected to the circumstances of the crime and the no-contact order was an authorized crime-related prohibition.

A crime-related prohibition under § 9.94A.030(10) must directly relate to the circumstances of the offense.

Personal Restraint Petition Of: Kevin Lee Forler · filed 2024-03-04(10)

A court may, in its discretion impose “any crime- related prohibitions” that “directly relates to the circumstances of the crime for which the offender has been convicted.” RCW 9.94A.703(3)(f); RCW 9.94A.030(10). There must be a sufficient connection between the prohibition and the crime. State v. Nguyen, 191 Wn.2d 671, 685, 425 P.3d 847 (2018). Forler argues that this condition was improper as his crime did not involve drugs or alcohol. The State concedes that the condition should be stricken. We accept the State’s concession.

A crime-related community custody condition must have a reasonable connection to the circumstances of the offense.

State Of Washington, V. Norvell · filed 2024-03-11(10)

A crime-related prohibition “prohibit[s] conduct that directly relates to the circumstances of the crime for which the offender has been convicted.” RCW 9.94A.030(10). ... As the trial court correctly noted, these facts establish a proper basis to connect the condition to the crime. We hold that the court did not abuse its discretion.

Section 9.94A.030(10) permits polygraph testing to monitor compliance with a community custody order, but not to investigate other crimes.

State of Washington v. Hudak · filed 2025-03-04(10)

RCW 9.94A.703(3)(f) authorizes trial courts to order an offender to comply with crime-related prohibitions, including performing acts necessary to monitor an offender’s compliance with its orders. RCW 9.94A.030(10). This authority justifies polygraph testing limited to monitoring the offender’s compliance with the community placement order, it may not be used as a tool to discover evidence of other crimes, past or present.

Section 9.94A.030(10) defines a crime-related prohibition as one directly related to the circumstances of the offense of conviction.

State Of Washington, V. Dominguez · filed 2025-03-24(10)

RCW 9.94A.030(10) defines a crime-related prohibition as one that directly relates to the circumstances of the crime for which the offender has been convicted. ... Condition 17 is crime-related and does not violate Dominguez’s constitutional rights.

A crime-related prohibition must directly relate to the circumstances of the offender’s crime, which requires examining those circumstances.

Personal Restraint Petition Of John Sanford Miller · filed 2025-04-28(10)

But a determination as to whether a Condition is crime related requires an inquiry into whether the Condition “directly relates to the circumstances of the crime for which the offender has been convicted.” RCW 9.94A.030(10).

A crime-related prohibition must directly relate to the offense; a condition protecting the offense’s victims meets that definition.

In Re The Personal Restraint Petition Of Brian Strong · filed 2025-05-06(10)

A crime-related prohibition must “directly relate[ ] to the circumstances of the crime for which the offender has been convicted.” RCW 9.94A.030(10). ... Special condition 3 is clearly crime related because it protects the victims of Strong’s crimes.

A restriction on dating relationships is crime-related when those relationships could give the offender access to children in circumstances connected to the offense.

State Of Washington, V. Murillo-marquez · filed 2025-06-09(10)

A crime-related prohibition is “an order of a court prohibiting conduct that directly relates to the circumstances of the crime for which the offender has been convicted.” RCW 9.94A.030(10). ... Accordingly, regulating the ways in which Murillo Márquez engages in relationships that could lead to access to children is crime-related.

A crime-related prohibition must directly relate to the circumstances of the offense; an Internet restriction lacks that connection when the record does not link Internet use to the crimes.

State Of Washington, V. Lawrence Edward Balandran, Jr. · filed 2025-07-15(10)

A crime-related prohibition disallows “conduct that directly relates to the circumstances of the crime for which the offender has been convicted.” RCW 9.94A.030(10). ... The State does not point to any evidence in the record connecting the Internet to any of Balandran’s crimes. ... Accordingly, we reverse this condition and remand for the trial court to strike or modify the condition.

A crime-related prohibition must directly relate to the circumstances of the crime for which the offender was convicted.

Personal Restraint Petition Of: Matthew Dale Clark Reavis · filed 2025-07-22(10)

In general, a determination as to whether a condition is crime related requires an inquiry into whether the condition “directly relates to the circumstances of the crime for which the offender has been convicted.” RCW 9.94A.030(10). And an inquiry into the circumstances of the crimes underlying Reavis’s convictions involves “a matter of fact and trial judge discretion,” requiring elaboration beyond “the face of [his] judgment and sentence.” Swagerty, 186 Wn.2d at 814. Therefore, Reavis’s contention does not establish that condition 26 is facially invalid.

Section 9.94A.030(10) covers a chat room restriction as a crime-related prohibition when the offender used online forums to contact minors to entice sexual conduct.

State Of Washington, V. Peth · filed 2025-08-11(10)

Here, as in Reedy, the condition barring Peth from accessing chat rooms is crime-related. Peth used online forums to contact minors to entice sexual conduct.

Section 9.94A.030(10) defines a crime-related prohibition as one that directly relates to the circumstances of the offense; a restriction concerning minors lacks that connection when the offenses did not involve a minor.

State of Washington v. Braae · filed 2025-10-14(10)

A prohibition is “crime-related” if it prohibits “conduct that directly relates to the circumstances of the crime for which the offender has been convicted.”9 RCW 9.94A.030(10). ... Because there is no evidence connecting the circumstances of Braae’s crimes to a minor, this condition is not sufficiently crime-related and, thus, must be stricken.

A crime-related prohibition must directly relate to the circumstances of the offense; internet restrictions without that connection cannot be imposed as crime-related conditions.

State of Washington v. Hernandez · filed 2025-10-30(10)

A crime-related prohibition means “an order of a court prohibiting conduct that directly relates to the circumstances of the crime for which the offender has been convicted” and may include “affirmative acts necessary to monitor compliance with the order of a court.” RCW 9.94A.030(10). ... As the State notes, although the PSI discusses Hernandez’s alleged use of sexually explicit materials and the allegation that he exposed K.G. to some of those materials, there is nothing in the record discussing a factual basis that links Hernandez’s criminal acts with internet use. As such, the conditions are not crime-related and should be struck.

A crime-related prohibition must directly relate to the crime of conviction; an internet restriction lacks that connection when no evidence links internet use to the crime.

State Of Washington, V. Mcintyre · filed 2025-02-18(10)

A crime-related prohibition is one that “directly relates to the circumstances of the crime for which [an individual] has been convicted.” RCW 9.94A.030(10). ... The prohibitions on internet access are not crime related. There is no evidence that McIntyre used internet or video equipment in the commission of his crime. There is no basis for connecting the condition to McIntyre’s crime.

A community custody condition is crime related only if it directly relates to the circumstances of the crime of conviction.

State Of Washington, V. Clark · filed 2025-08-12(10)

To be crime related, a community custody condition must “directly relate[] to the circumstances of the crime for which the offender has been convicted.” RCW 9.94A.030(10). And there is no other statutory basis for imposing this condition. Clark’s crimes did not involve deadly or dangerous weapons, so this condition is therefore not crime related.

Section 9.94A.030(10) permits the Department of Corrections to require random breath and urine testing to monitor compliance with valid conditions prohibiting drug and alcohol use.

State v. Nelson · filed 2025-03-27(10)

Moreover, because the DOC “may require ‘affirmative acts necessary to monitor compliance with the order of a court,’” random BA and UA testing conditions are “statutorily valid.”

Section 9.94A.030(10) permits the Department to require affirmative acts necessary to monitor compliance with a court order.

State Of Washington, V. Freedom A. Dela-llana · filed 2025-08-18(10)

Additionally, RCW 9.94A.030(10) provided that “affirmative acts necessary to monitor compliance with the order of a court may be required by the department.” ... Similarly, the affirmative acts condition does not grant the Department unfettered discretion, as the affirmative acts are limited to monitoring compliance with other community custody conditions.

A crime related prohibition must directly relate to the circumstances of the offense; a ban on entering businesses that primarily sell alcohol or marijuana does not qualify when the offenses involved neither substance.

State Of Washington, V. Clark · filed 2025-12-09(10)

A crime related prohibition must “directly relate[] to the circumstances of the crime for which the offender has been convicted.” RCW 9.94A.030(10). ... There is no ... evidence in the record that Clark’s offenses involved alcohol or marijuana. Therefore, other condition 24 in appendix H is not directly related to Clark’s crimes.

Section 9.94A.030(10) requires a crime-related prohibition to relate to the circumstances of the offense of conviction.

State Of Washington, Resp/x-app. V. Anthony L. Ludlow, App/x-resp. · filed 2025-12-29(10)

A crime-related prohibition must relate “to the circumstances of the crime for which the offender has been convicted.” RCW 9.94A.030(10). ... We accept that concession and order the trial court to strike condition 10 on remand.

A crime-related prohibition must directly relate to the circumstances of the offense; a drug or alcohol evaluation condition lacks that connection when no evidence links substance use to the offense.

State of Washington v. Kiernan · filed 2026-01-06(10)

A “crime-related prohibition” is one that “directly relates to the circumstances of the crime for which the offender has been convicted.” RCW 9.94A.030(10). ... There is no evidence in the record that alcohol or drug use contributed to the charged offenses. Therefore, we remand for the sentencing court to strike this community custody condition from Kiernan’s judgment and sentence.

A crime-related prohibition covers an order restricting conduct directly related to the circumstances of the conviction, including contact with the clerk robbed and entry into Subway establishments.

State of Washington v. Smithingell · filed 2026-02-03(10)

The orders prohibiting Smithingell from having contact with the store clerk and Subway establishments directly relate to Smithingell’s robbery conviction. Therefore, they are crime-related prohibitions that may be imposed for up to the statutory maximum sentence for first degree robbery.

A crime-related prohibition must relate to the circumstances of the crime for which the offender is sentenced.

State of Washington v. Michael Joshua Berggren, Jr. · filed 2026-04-28(10)

A crime-related prohibition must be related to the circumstances of the crime for which the offender is being sentenced. RCW 9.94A.030(10).

Section 9.94A.030(10) defines a crime-related prohibition to include a condition directly related to the offense, such as a dating approval and disclosure condition that controls an offender’s access to minors through future partners.

State of Washington v. Rigoberto Gomez, Jr. · filed 2026-06-02(10)

A “crime-related prohibition” is “an order of a court prohibiting conduct that directly relates to the circumstances of the crime for which the offender has been convicted . . . .” RCW 9.94A.030(10). ... The condition bears a direct relationship to controlling Gomez’s access to minors through potential future adult partners.

A crime-related prohibition must directly relate to the circumstances of the offense; an employment restriction requires a connection between the job and the crime.

State Of Washington v. Burke · filed 2016-01-19(10)

A "crime-related prohibition" is one that "directly relates to the circumstances of the crime for which the offender has been convicted." RCW9.94A.030(10). ... Because the record indicates that the crimes were committed exclusively within Burke's home, and that he did not use his place of employment to further these crimes, we accept the State's concession that the condition was improperly imposed.

Section 9.94A.030 defines confinement for sentencing credit as either total or partial confinement.

State v. Hale · filed 1999-02-05

The Legislature has defined the type of confinement for which credit must be given; confinement is either total or partial. RCW 9.94A.030(8). ... “Total confinement” is for 24 hours a day within a state institution for more than one year. RCW 9.94A.030(35). ... But the SRA does not grant trial courts authority to credit drug treatment against confinement time or community service.

Under the definition of total confinement, incarceration for a community placement violation counts regardless of the reason for incarceration.

In Re Detention of Davis · filed 2002-01-07(41)

We cannot agree with the Albrecht majority's conclusion that incarceration for a community placement violation does not constitute "total confinement" under RCW 71.09.030(1) because the statutory definition of that term clearly includes incarceration for whatever reason.

Total confinement includes incarceration for a community placement violation when the person is confined in a government facility for twenty-four hours a day.

Davis v. State · filed 2002-01-07(41)

Davis’ incarceration for his community placement violation clearly falls within the statutory definition of “total confinement.”

Former subsection (35) defines total confinement to include confinement inside a jail for 24 hours a day.

In Re Albrecht · filed 2002-08-01(35)

Under a plain reading of the statute, Albrecht was totally confined because he was confined inside the physical boundaries of the jail 24 hours a day.

Section 9.94A.030 defines total confinement to include involuntary commitment as a sexually violent predator.

Capello v. State · filed 2002-12-30

And, the definition of "total confinement" in RCW 9.94A.030 includes confinement pursuant to an order directing a respondent's involuntary commitment as a sexually violent predator.

Section 9.94A.030 defines total confinement to include confinement under an order for involuntary commitment as a sexually violent predator.

In re the Detention of Capello · filed 2002-12-30

And, the definition of “total confinement” in RCW 9.94A.030 includes confinement pursuant to an order directing a respondent’s involuntary commitment as a sexually violent predator.

Electronically monitored home detention is partial confinement.

State v. Poston · filed 2003-08-05(31)

Total confinement includes 24-hour confinement in a county jail, ... and partial confinement includes electronically monitored home detention.

Total confinement under former subsection (35) includes secure, 24-hour hospital detention despite occasional escorted trips outside the facility.

In Re Detention of McGary · filed 2005-07-19(35)

Thus, the dispositive issue is former RCW 9.94A.030(35)'s requirement that an offender not physically leave the facility as applied to an involuntary civil commitment under chapter 71.09 RCW. ... Thus, we hold that McGary's nine months of involuntary detention at WSH under chapter 71.05 RCW was total confinement due to his 24-hour supervision in a highly secure environment. His escorted leave from WSH on three occasions was not materially different than the escorted leave allowed in the total confinement setting of a prison and under chapter 71.09 RCW.

Work release is a form of partial confinement; a day reporting program does not qualify.

State v. Dalseg · filed 2006-05-09(51)

In contrast, work release is “a program of partial confinement available to offenders who are employed or engaged as a student in a regular course of study at school.” RCW 9.94A.030(51) (formerly codified as RCW 9.94A.030(48)). Read as a whole, the judgment and sentences authorize Dalseg and Cestnik to serve their sentences in the Nisqually Tribal Jail’s partial confinement program, not its day reporting program.

Work release requires partial confinement; a day reporting program alone does not satisfy a work release sentence.

State v. Dalseg · filed 2006-07-05(51)

In contrast, work release is "a program of partial confinement available to offenders who are employed or engaged as a student in a regular course of study at school." (RCW 9.94A.030(51) (formerly 48)). Read as a whole, the judgment and sentences authorize Dalseg and Cestnik to serve their sentences in the Nisqually Tribal Jail's partial confinement program, not its day reporting program.

Section 9.94A.030 defines confinement as total or partial confinement; community custody is not confinement.

State v. Gartrell · filed 2007-05-29(6), (11), (32), (47)

Further, "confinement" is defined as "total or partial confinement." RCW 9.94A.030(11). "Total confinement" means confinement inside the physical boundaries of a state facility 24 hours a day. RCW 9.94A.030(47). "Partial confinement" means confinement for 12 months or less in a state facility for a substantial portion of each day, or, if home detention or work crew has been ordered, confinement in an approved residence for a substantial portion of each day. RCW 9.94A.030(32). Community custody is plainly not confinement.

Similarity to programs listed in former subsection (26) did not make CCAP Enhanced qualifying confinement for sentencing credit.

State Of Washington v. Ramos · filed 2013-05-13(26)

Medina also appears to argue that his participation in CCAP Enhanced in 2007 and after is sufficiently similar to the programs specified in former RCW 9.94A.030(26) (1991) to qualify as confinement for purposes of credit for time served. We again disagree.

Voluntary inpatient chemical dependency treatment before conviction and sentencing is not confinement under the section’s definition.

State Of Washington, Responent v. Dockins · filed 2014-04-21(8)

We affirm the trial court's determination that Dockins' voluntary participation in the chemical dependency treatment program was not total or partial confinement.

Former RCW 9.94A.030(26) excludes participation in CCAP programs from partial confinement, so that time does not earn mandatory presentence credit.

State v. Medina · filed 2014-04-17(26)

Former RCW 9.94A.030(26) (1991) defines "partial confinement" in a manner that equates "confinement" with "residence" as contrasted with "work." ... By extension, we do not think that participation in the educational, counseling, and service-oriented programs entailed in CCAP meets the statutory definition of "confinement."

Section 9.94A.030(35) does not classify residential inpatient treatment as partial confinement unless the program meets the statute’s requirements.

State Of Washington v. Hooper · filed 2014-09-29(35)

That sentence, however, merely reiterates the approved forms of residential partial confinement previously mentioned in the statute. Hooper presents no compelling authority, argument, or statutory interpretation supporting his claim that the statute authorizes credit for other programs such as inpatient treatment.

Section 9.94A.030(55) defines work crew as a program of partial confinement.

State of Washington v. Sanchez · filed 2015-08-11(55)

Consistent with Peters, we observe that "work crew" is defined as "partial confinement" and a "program" in RCW 9.94A.030(55). ... In view of the statutory definitions and case law, we hold that Javier Sanchez was in a detention facility when participating in the work crew program.

Section 9.94A.030 defines total and partial confinement; time in a drug treatment program qualifies only if the program meets the statutory conditions.

State Of Washington, V Ackerson · filed 2016-03-01(36), (52)

Ackerson’s argument fails because he failed to show that the drug court program confined him inside the physical boundaries of a facility for 24 hours a day. He has also failed to show that the inpatient program was operated by or utilized under contract by any governmental entity. Ackerson’s time in the residential program did not qualify as partial confinement either. Treatment facilities are not specifically included in the definition of either “total confinement” or “partial confinement.”

Section 9.94A.030 defines total confinement and community custody as separate terms; community custody is excluded from a standard range expressed in total confinement.

State of Washington v. Nicholas · filed 2016-03-15(5), (52)

It is clear from the above statutes that total confinement and community custody are considered as separate terms or time periods, and that the standard sentence range does not include community custody.

Release into the community ends total confinement, regardless of whether the release is called parole, outpatient release, community placement, or community custody.

In re the Detention of: James Edward Jones · filed 2016-04-26(51)

The distinction between release from parole and an outpatient release, on the one hand, and community custody on the other hand has no legitimate difference. Nor does the difference between community placement, the predecessor of community custody, and community custody establish a reason to distinguish the facts in Albrecht, Davis, and Broten from the circumstances of James Jones. Regardless of the label given the release into the community, the offender no longer sits in total confinement.

Section 9.94A.030(52) defines total confinement as confinement within a government-operated or contracted facility for 24 hours a day.

The State of Washington, Respondent, v. Dawn Marie Sullivan, Appellant · filed 2016-10-10(52)

With exceptions not applicable here, "'[t]otal confinement' means confinement inside the physical boundaries of a facility or institution operated or utilized under contract by the state or any other unit of government for twenty-four hours a day." ... Medina prohibited the trial court from allowing Sullivan to satisfy the deadly weapon enhancement with CCAP participation.

Under the pre-2015 definitions, electronic home monitoring counted as home detention, partial confinement, and confinement for felony sentencing credit.

State Of Washington v. Nemetz · filed 2018-04-10(8), (28), (35)

“Confinement” included “partial confinement,” which in turn included “work release” and “home detention.” Former RCW 9.94A.030(8), (35) (2012). “Home detention” meant a program of “partial confinement” available to offenders where the offender is confined in a private residence subject to electronic surveillance. Former RCW 9.94A.030(28). Thus, courts were required to credit felony defendants’ sentences for time served on EHM because EHM was included in the definition of “home detention,” “home detention” was a program of “partial confinement,” and “partial confinement” was included in the definition of “confinement.”

Time spent in residential DOSA treatment is equivalent to jail or prison time when applying concurrent sentences.

State of Washington v. Hughes · filed 2019-10-15(53)

Because time spent on a residential DOSA is equivalent to jail or prison time, see RCW 9.94A.030(53) and In re Postsentence Review of Bercier, 178 Wn. App. 148, 150-51, 313 P.3d 491 (2013), imposition of current sentences meant Mr. Hughes should have been released to treatment immediately ... following sentencing.

Pretrial release conditions requiring weekly contact with counsel, residence at a disclosed address, permission to leave the state or change address, and abstention from firearms, crime, and unauthorized drugs do not constitute partial confinement.

State of Washington v. Dalluge · filed 2020-12-10(36)

Conditioning Mr. Dalluge’s release on requirements that he contact appointed counsel weekly, reside at his disclosed address and not leave Washington or change that address without court permission, not use or possess a firearm or commit any criminal offense, and not use or possess any controlled substance except by prescription, is not “partial confinement” under the SRA.

Section 9.94A.030 defines confinement to include partial confinement, which includes work crew service.

State Of Washington v. Wheeler · filed 2020-09-08(8), (36)

But, because the SSOSA statute requires a credit for confinement, and confinement includes work crew service, and Wheeler’s sentence did not provide credit for work crew service, we remand to the trial court to correct this omission.

Section 9.94A.030 defines confinement to include partial confinement and partial confinement to include home detention, making electronic home monitoring a form of confinement.

Estate Of Heather Durham v. Pierce County And Dept. Of Corrections · filed 2021-02-09(8), (35)

RCW 9.94A.030(8)5 defines “confinement” as either total or partial confinement. RCW 9.94A.030(35) defines “partial confinement” to include home detention. Thus, by statute, EHM as ordered for Robinson is a form of confinement.

Electronic home monitoring is a program of partial confinement, which may last no more than one year.

State Of Washington, V. Gates · filed 2021-09-27(29), (35)

EHM is a “program of partial confinement.” RCW 9.94A.030(29). By definition, partial confinement may last “no more than one year.” RCW 9.94A.030(35). ... Based on these statutes, the 29 month sentence recommended as part of the plea deal made him ineligible for EHM.

Temporary release without electronic monitoring or home detention does not qualify as partial confinement under § 9.94A.030.

State Of Washington, V. Shelley · filed 2021-10-04(35)

“Confinement” includes “partial confinement,” which includes work release, home detention, work crew, electronic monitoring, and a combination of work crew, electronic monitoring, and home detention. RCW 9.94A.030(8), (35). ... Unlike the offenders in Speaks, Swiger, and Anderson, Shelley was not monitored by any device while on temporary release. The court did not place Shelley on home detention. Shelley fails to establish that he was in partial custody while temporarily released from custody.

Risk assessment under this definition requires assessing an offender's risk.

Citizens for Fair Share v. STATE, DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS · filed 2003-07-01(35)

First, RCW 72.09.590 is part of the Offender Accountability Act, also codified in part in RCW 9.94A, wherein "risk assessment" is defined to require "assessing an offender's risk."

Former RCW 9.94A.030(35) defines risk assessment and leaves DOC discretion to select an appropriate assessment instrument.

In re the Personal Restraint of Adams · filed 2006-05-01(35)

Although the legislature requires DOC to perform a risk assessment and provides guidance in former RCW 9.94A.030(35) as to the purpose and nature of the risk assessment, DOC is given discretion to select the appropriate risk assessment instrument.

Former § 9.94A.030(35) guides the purpose and nature of a risk assessment while leaving DOC discretion to choose an appropriate assessment instrument.

In Re Personal Restraint of Adams · filed 2006-07-18(35)

Although the Legislature requires DOC to perform a risk assessment and provides guidance in RCW 9.94A.030(35) as to the purpose and nature of the risk assessment, DOC is given discretion to select the appropriate risk assessment instrument.

A statute doubling the maximum punishment for a drug crime near a school bus stop establishes a new statutory maximum sentence under former subsection (41).

State v. Blade · filed 2005-03-03(41)

Under the definition of "statutory maximum sentence" in effect when Blade committed count one, the term meant "the maximum length of time for which an offender may be confined as punishment for a crime as prescribed in chapter 9A.20 RCW, RCW 9.92.010, the statute defining the crime, or other statute defining the maximum penalty for a crime." Former RCW 9.94A.030(41) (2001). The doubling provision in RCW 69.50.435 defines a new maximum penalty for the manufacture, sale, delivery, or possession with the intent to manufacture, sell, or deliver a controlled substance if the crime is committed in certain locations, including within 1,000 feet of a school bus stop.

Section 9.94A.030(41) defines a statutory maximum sentence to include a maximum penalty set by another statute, so a drug sentencing provision that doubles the permitted term creates a new statutory maximum.

State v. O'NEAL · filed 2005-03-15(41)

Like the school zone enhancement, the drug doubling statute creates a new statutory maximum. The definition of "statutory maximum sentence" supports this conclusion. RCW 9.94A.030(41) defines "statutory maximum sentence" as "the maximum length of time for which an offender may be confined as punishment for a crime as prescribed in ... the statute defining the crime, or other statute defining the maximum penalty for a crime." RCW 69.50.408 doubles the maximum length of time for which the offender may be confined, thereby defining a new statutory maximum.

Section 9.94A.030(51) directs courts to consult four statutory sources when determining the statutory maximum sentence.

State v. Cyr · filed 2020-04-16(51)

The SRA thus directs us to consult four statutory sources to determine a statutory maximum sentence: (1) chapter 9A.20 RCW, (2) RCW ... 9.92.010, (3) the statute defining the crime, and (4) any other statute defining the maximum penalty.

Section 9.94A.030(50) defines the statutory maximum sentence as the longest time an offender may be confined as punishment for a crime.

State Of Washington, V. Reed · filed 2025-05-27(50)

RCW 9.94A.030(50) defines “statutory maximum sentence” as “the maximum length of time for which an offender may be confined as punishment for a crime.” ... As both exceed the statutory maximum sentence for witness tampering, the no-contact order is unlawful.

Section 9.94A.030(34) defines restitution to include public and private costs without limiting damages to market value.

State v. Hughes · filed 2005-04-14(34)

RCW 9.94A.030(34) defines restitution for purposes of the SRA to be "a specific sum of money ordered by the sentencing court to be paid by the offender to the court over a specified period of time as payment of damages. The sum may include both public and private costs." It does not require the value to be based on market value. And it considers both private and public costs, which supports considering the real value of the trees and the harm to the environment.

Community service includes unpaid work for a 12-step program that directly benefits the community, but mere attendance at meetings does not qualify.

State v. Law · filed 2005-04-21(7)

While, according to former RCW 9.94A.030(7) Law's mere attendance at NA meetings is insufficient to satisfy her community service requirement, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in permitting Law's continued work in the NA program to count as community service. In addition, Law does not impermissibly receive compensation for this work. Accordingly, we reverse the Court of Appeals on this issue and now hold that Law's work in a 12-step program qualifies as community service.

The criminal street gang definition requires at least three people, so the State needed evidence of other gang members.

State of Washington v. Nieves · filed 2013-05-07(12)

The Locos is not a gang unless it is a "group of three or more persons." RCW 9.94A.030(12). Thus, the State needed to present evidence that the Locos had other members.

Section 9.94A.030(13) defines gang associates for purposes of limiting community custody restrictions on association.

State of Washington v. Weatherwax · filed 2016-05-03(13)

Limits on association must be confined to felons, gang members or gang associates in the sense defined by RCW 9.94A.030(13), or to other specifically described persons having a direct relation to the circumstances of the crimes.

Section 9.94A.030(42)(a)(ii) defines a nonfelony violation of a no contact order involving domestic violence as a repetitive domestic violence offense.

State of Washington v. Nolan · filed 2026-03-17(42)(a)(ii)

A conviction for VNCO—DV that is not a felony is a repetitive domestic violence offense.

Section 9.94A.030 defines domestic violence by reference to RCW 10.99.020 and 26.50.010 and defines a nonfelony domestic violence assault as a repetitive domestic violence offense.

State Of Washington v. Williams · filed 2014-07-21(20), (41)(a)(i)

Because the jury convicted Williams of domestic violence felony harassment, "domestic violence" has the same meaning in both RCW 10.99.020 and RCW 9.94A.030, the domestic violence assault offenses were not felonies, and Williams was an adult when he committed the assaults, we conclude that RCW 9.94A.525(21)(c) applied to Williams's offender score calculation.

An offense qualifies as domestic violence under RCW 9.94A.030(20) if it meets either the definition in RCW 10.99.020 or the definition in RCW 26.50.010.

State Of Washington, V Mcdonald · filed 2014-07-28(20)

A common sense reading of RCW 9.94A.030's plain meaning indicates that the legislature's use of the word "and" means that in order to qualify for enhanced sentencing, the crime must meet either the definition of domestic violence in RCW 10.99.020 or the definition in RCW 26.50.010. Both definitions are independently sufficient.

Section 9.94A.030(20) defines domestic violence for sentence enhancement to include conduct covered by either RCW 10.99.020 or RCW 26.50.010.

State Of Washington v. Kozey · filed 2014-09-16(20)

A disjunctive reading, therefore, is the only way to give meaning to all the language in RCW 9. 94A.030( 20).

Section 9.94A.030(41) defines a repetitive domestic violence offense by offense type, including a nonfelony domestic violence violation of a no-contact order, without requiring a pattern of conduct.

State v. Rodriguez · filed 2014-10-07(41)

RCW 9.94A.030(41) defines “repetitive domestic violence offense” as a DV assault that is not a felony, a DV-VNCO that is not a felony, a DV violation of a protection order that is not a felony, DV harassment that is not a felony, and DV stalking that is not a felony. RCW 9.94A.030(41) does not qualify the definition of “repetitive domestic violence offense” with anything other than the type of offense. Therefore, Rodriguez’s argument that the statute requires a repetitive pattern fails.

The definition of domestic violence in RCW 9.94A.030(20) includes conduct covered by either RCW 10.99.020 or RCW 26.50.010.

State Of Washington v. Robert Walls, Jr. · filed 2015-02-03(20)

Because Kozey requires a disjunctive interpretation of " domestic violence" in RCW 9. 94A.030( 20), the State only needed to prove that Walls' s second degree identity theft conviction was a " domestic violence" offense under either RCW 10. 99. 020 or RCW 26. 50. 010.

Domestic violence under § 9.94A.030(20) includes conduct covered by either RCW 10.99.020 or RCW 26.50.010.

State Of Washington v. Ross · filed 2015-07-06(20)

RCW 9.94A.030(20) leaves little doubt that, in this context, the legislature intended domestic violence to include the conduct described in either RCW 10.99.020 or RCW 26.50.010. Id, at 702. We conclude that the reasoning in Kozev and McDonald is sound.

Section 9.94A.030(20) defines domestic violence to include conduct covered by either RCW 10.99.020 or RCW 26.50.010.

State of Washington v. Hodgins · filed 2015-10-01(20)

We need not reach canons of construction, however, because we find that the legislature'S use of the language "has the same meaning as" is a plain indication that the legislature intended a definition of "domestic violence" that was a union of the two existing statutory definitions, not their intersection.

Domestic violence under RCW 9.94A.030(20) includes offenses meeting either the definition in RCW 10.99.020 or the definition in RCW 26.50.010.

State Of Washington v. Brian Allen Roberts, II · filed 2015-11-24(20)

Under State v. Kozey, ... the trial court properly interpreted RCW 9.94A.030(20) in the disjunctive.

Former RCW 9.94A.030(41)(a)(i) classifies fourth degree domestic violence assault as a repetitive domestic violence offense.

State Of Washington, Respondent-cross-appellant v. Adam Rambur, Appellant-cross-respondent · filed 2016-05-24(41)(a)(i)

Here, under former RCW 9.94A.030(41)(a)(i), a fourth degree domestic violence assault constitutes a “[r]epetitive domestic violence offense,” and this crime was pleaded and proven by the State as required under RCW 9.94A.525(21)(c).

Section 9.94A.030(41) defines a repetitive domestic violence offense to include violations of domestic violence protection orders, even if the offense was not part of a repeated pattern.

State Of Washington, V Cox · filed 2016-11-08(41)

Although in Rodriguez the defendant claimed her violation of a no-contact order was not “repetitive,” both VNCOs and VPOs are included within former RCW 9.94A.030(41)’s definition of “‘repetitive domestic violence offense.’”

Former RCW 9.94A.030(41) includes a nonfelony domestic violence violation of a protection order in its definition of a repetitive domestic violence offense, even without a pattern of repeated conduct.

State Of Washington, V Cox · filed 2016-11-22(41)(a)(iii)

Although in Rodriguez the defendant claimed her violation of a no-contact order was not “repetitive,” both VNCOs and VPOs are included within former RCW 9.94A.030(41)’s definition of “‘repetitive domestic violence offense.’” Thus, Rodriguez controls here, and we reject Cox’s argument regarding the plain language meaning of repetitive.

Section 9.94A.030(20) defines domestic violence as an offense against a family or household member; a platonic friendship does not establish a dating relationship.

State Of Washington v. Rudolph · filed 2017-11-21(20)

Neither the evidence nor the presentencing report support that the crime involved domestic violence because neither source provides facts showing that AS was in a dating relationship with Rudolph. See RCW 9.94A.030(20); RCW 10.99.020(3), (5)(t).

The definition of a repetitive domestic violence offense includes a domestic violence violation of a protection order that is not a felony.

State Of Washington, V Rouse · filed 2017-05-16(41)(a)(iii)

RCW 9.94A.030’s definition of a “repetitive domestic violence offense” includes a “[d]omestic violence violation of a protection order . . . that is not a felony offense.”

Subsection (42) includes the domestic violence misdemeanors in counts 2 and 3 within its definition of repetitive domestic violence offenses.

State Of Washington v. Konstantin v. Statovoy · filed 2018-01-09(42)

The superior court also noted on his misdemeanor judgment and sentence that domestic violence was pled and proved on counts 2 and 3. These misdemeanors also fall within the definition of “repetitive domestic violence offenses” in former RCW 9.94A.030(42).

Section 9.94A.030(42) excludes criminal trespass from the definition of a repetitive domestic violence offense.

Personal Restraint Petition Of Isaiah Jacob Schubert · filed 2019-01-08(42)

RCW 9.94A.030(42) does not include criminal trespass as a repetitive domestic violence offense and the State properly concedes that the criminal trespass should not have been included in Schubert’s offender score.