This bill makes procedural changes to how the Department of Corrections (DOC) handles alleged community custody violations by amending RCW 9.94A.737, adding a new section to chapter 72.09 RCW, and amending RCW 72.09.130. It requires DOC to adopt rules establishing a structured violation process that defines low level and high level violations, presumptive sanctions, and aggravating and mitigating factors, and it sets administrative limits and procedures for sanctions, hearings, and appeals. The act takes effect January 1, 2026. Under the bill, low level violations may be sanctioned with nonconfinement sanctions or up to three days total confinement, with rules to ensure opportunity to respond and a written appeal to a three-officer panel filed within seven days. High level violations carry up to 30 days total confinement per hearing, require a pre-sanction hearing (which may be preceded by confinement that must be credited to any sanction), and have shorter hearing timelines. After five sanctioned low level violations, subsequent violations may be considered high level under DOC rules. For offenders whose underlying conviction is one of a specified list of serious felonies (identified by statute citations), alleged new crimes trigger mandatory total confinement pending a sanction hearing and until sanction expiration, prosecution is filed, or the prosecutor provides written notice that charges will not be filed. The bill is primarily a procedural change to administrative disciplinary processes: it creates a new statutory section, prescribes burdens of proof (allegations in total or partial confinement hearings must be proven by a preponderance of the evidence), prohibits reliance on unconfirmed or unconfirmable allegations, requires hearings not subject to chapter 34.05 RCW, and requires DOC to link inmate behavior and program participation to earned early release and provide at least annual written explanations. It also provides that state actors are not civilly or criminally liable for elevation decisions unless they acted with reckless disregard. Important details are left to DOC rulemaking and are not included here: the bill does not provide the specific rule language, the statutory text of the modified prior provisions is not provided, and the exact definitions of “low level violation,” “high level violation,” and other terms are not in the extracted facts.

If enacted, the Department of Corrections will need to build a new, rule-driven process for handling community custody violations that sets clear definitions, presumptive sanctions, aggravating and mitigating factors, and separate hearing procedures. Offenders will face two levels of sanctions: short nonconfinement or up to three days for low-level violations, and hearings that can lead to up to 30 days confinement for high-level violations; after five sanctioned low-level infractions, later misconduct may be treated as high-level. People with certain serious underlying convictions who are accused of a new misdemeanor, gross misdemeanor, or felony will likely be held in total confinement pending a sanction hearing and until prosecutors act. The law also guarantees faster hearing timelines, a preponderance-of-evidence standard, written notice and appeal rights, and at least annual written explanations about earned early release days; it takes effect January 1, 2026. The practical winners and losers are clear: DOC bears the biggest shift in responsibility and likely additional costs for rulemaking, staff training, running more formal hearings, creating a separate chain of command for hearing officers, and producing required notices and reports; its officials gain legal protection from most liability unless they act with reckless disregard. Offenders on community custody will have more predictable procedures and appeal routes but also face quicker confinement and stricter escalation rules that could reduce their options. Community corrections officers, hearing panels, and prosecuting attorneys will see altered duties and time pressures; key implementation details and exact definitions remain uncertain because the department must adopt the specific rules.