This bill amends existing Washington statutes governing civil commitment of sexually violent predators (amending RCW 71.09.020 and RCW 71.09.090 and listing additional RCWs to be amended), creates a new section, and includes an emergency clause making the act effective immediately. It changes procedures for petitioning the court for unconditional discharge or for conditional release to a less restrictive alternative, clarifies timelines for courts and state agencies, and adds findings and rules about “fair share” placement among counties and local authority to reject placements that do not comply with those principles. Substantive procedural changes include: the secretary may authorize a committed person to petition the court for discharge or conditional release and courts must schedule hearings within 45 days of petitions; the department generally has 90 days to identify a qualifying placement meeting RCW 71.09.092 criteria or must certify its efforts and allow the person to propose a placement under limited conditions; a show-cause hearing may be decided on affidavits or declarations, the prosecuting agency must make a prima facie showing on specified issues, and the committed person has the right to counsel and to present evidence and experts (with court-appointed experts for indigent defendants). At trial the state bears the burden beyond a reasonable doubt to prove continued commitment or that proposed conditional release is inappropriate; revocation hearings use a preponderance standard. The bill requires courts to make specific findings before ordering conditional release, including provider qualifications, secure housing and monitoring (including real-time electronic monitoring where feasible), DOC supervision, minimum proximity restrictions to child care and K–12 schools (500 feet), and consideration of fair share and tribal notice; DOC must investigate proposed placements and recommend additional individualized conditions within 60 days. The bill also revises many definitions in RCW 71.09.020 (for example, definitions for “fair share principles,” “less restrictive alternative,” “secure community transition facility,” and others), sets out discharge planning services and duties (including assignment of a social worker by DOC subject to appropriations, benefits assistance, and a clinical transition at least 15 days before release), requires regular reporting by service providers and annual court review after release, and specifies custody and hearing procedures when a person is taken into custody pending revocation. If a conditional release is revoked the person is remanded to total confinement and becomes eligible for future release only under the chapter’s procedures. Important textual material is missing from the extracted facts (notably the full text of RCW 71.09.092, some subsections cut off mid-sentence, and the exact text of the new section and other listed RCW amendments), so some implementation details and the specific criteria in RCW 71.09.092 are not available in these extracts.

If enacted, the bill would make it more likely that courts hold timely hearings on petitions for conditional release or discharge and would force the Department of Social and Health Services to try to identify community placements within 90 days or certify its efforts, after which committed people who have shown remorse and participated in treatment may propose placements themselves. Counties would get a stronger role: placements outside the committing county must meet “fair share” distribution rules and receiving counties’ elected officials can vote to deny placements that don’t comply, which could limit where people can be released, lengthen placement timelines, and shift where supervision and housing burdens fall. Courts would also require specific protections before release—qualified treatment providers, secure housing, DOC supervision, electronic monitoring and distance limits from schools and child care—which could reduce the number of eligible community placements. The practical cost and workload effects fall mainly on state and local agencies: DSHS and DOC must document placement searches, provide notices, and (subject to appropriation) assign social workers to handle discharge planning and care transitions; courts and prosecutors will handle more show-cause and release hearings and pay for state evaluations; public defense must fund one expert for indigent clients; service providers must submit regular reports and may be compelled to testify. Sheriffs and jails could see more short-term custody when people are taken into custody pending hearings. Key implementation details that will affect these impacts—most importantly the specific placement requirements in RCW 71.09.092 and the amount of any appropriations for social workers—are not included in the extracted text, so the exact scale of cost and placement effects is uncertain.