House Bill 1465 (69th Legislature, 2025 Regular Session) amends RCW 9.95.204, 9.94A.702, and 9.92.060 and makes several changes to supervision, sentencing, restitution, and liability rules for superior court misdemeanant probationers. Under the bill, counties must reimburse the Department of Corrections (DOC) for 25 percent of the cost of supervision for any defendant the superior court orders supervised by DOC unless the county assumes supervision responsibility by contracting with DOC on a biennial basis. Courts may impose up to one year of community custody for offenders sentenced to confinement of one year or less for listed offenses, and superior courts may stay and suspend many sentences and place the person under the charge of a DOC community corrections officer or a county-employed or contracted probation officer if the county has elected to assume supervision. The bill limits civil liability related to supervision of superior court misdemeanant probationers by barring civil damages against the state, DOC and its employees, community corrections officers, counties providing supervision services, county probation departments and employees, probation officers, and volunteers assisting them for acts or omissions in superior court misdemeanant probation activities unless the conduct constitutes gross negligence. It requires county probation officers to follow interstate compact procedures when a probationer requests transfer to another state, including notifying DOC, providing documentation, ceasing supervision while another state supervises, and resuming supervision if the probationer returns; the probationer receives credit for time supervised by the other state. If restitution is ordered and supervision is imposed, the supervising officer must verify restitution and notify the prosecutor at least three months before termination of a suspended sentence if restitution has not been made. The bill also allows conditions of a suspended sentence to include family support payments, restitution, fines, court costs (including extradition reimbursement), and contributions to a county or interlocal drug fund, and permits courts to relieve offenders of restitution owed to insurers or state agencies if the offender lacks current or likely future ability to pay (with "insurer," "state agency," "volunteer," and "indigent" defined by cross-reference to other RCWs). This is a modification of existing law that makes procedural and fiscal changes, adjusts sentencing and restitution procedures, and changes civil liability standards. Important context is missing from the extracted text: the bill relies on other statutes for definitions and scope (for example RCW 9.94A.501, 9.94A.5011, and 9.94A.745) and the extracted facts do not include how the 25 percent reimbursement is calculated, any fiscal notes, or the full implementing language.

If enacted, the bill will shift real costs and control between counties and the state: counties will either pay DOC 25% of the cost to supervise superior-court misdemeanant probationers or take on full supervision themselves by signing a contract with DOC every two years. That gives counties a clear choice to absorb supervision duties (with the staffing and budget responsibility that implies) or to budget for ongoing reimbursements to DOC; DOC and county probation offices will each know they can be the supervising authority depending on the county’s decision. Courts gain clearer authority to suspend short jail sentences and place people under community custody with either DOC officers or county probation officers, and supervising officers are now required to monitor restitution and alert prosecutors at least three months before a suspended sentence ends. The bill also narrows liability for the state, DOC, counties, their officers, and volunteers for harms caused by supervised misdemeanant probationers except in cases of gross negligence, which lowers legal risk for those agencies but may affect victims’ ability to recover civil damages. Prosecutors, superior courts, probation officers, and insurers/state agencies dealing with restitution will see changes in practice: courts can relieve restitution to insurers or state agencies if the offender is indigent, and supervisors must track and report unpaid restitution. Important details are missing here—how the 25% reimbursement is calculated and implemented, and how overlapping rules in the other cited statutes will apply—so the exact fiscal impacts and operational procedures for counties and DOC remain unclear.