Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

RCW 72.09.450

Limitation on denial of access to services and supplies—Recoupment of assessments—Collections.

Applied in 5 court decisions — leading case Dean v. Lehman (2001)

Most recently applied in Thomas v. Lehman (May 2007)

2015 c 225 s 113; 1996 c 277 s 1; 1995 1st sp.s. c 19 s 4.

How often courts cite this section

2001200720
citing decisions per year

Court decisions citing this, by year. The dip in the last several years is a data-coverage gap, not a real trend — our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so recent citations are undercounted.

(1) An inmate shall not be denied access to services or supplies required by state or federal law solely on the basis of his or her inability to pay for them.

(2) The department shall record all lawfully authorized assessments for services or supplies as a debt to the department. The department shall recoup the assessments when the inmate's institutional account exceeds the indigency standard, and may pursue other remedies to recoup the assessments after the period of incarceration.

(3) The department shall record as a debt any costs assessed by a court against an inmate plaintiff where the state is providing defense pursuant to chapter 4.92 RCW. The department shall recoup the debt when the inmate's institutional account exceeds the indigency standard and may pursue other remedies to recoup the debt after the period of incarceration.

(4) In order to maximize the cost-efficient collection of unpaid offender debt existing after the period of an offender's incarceration, the department is authorized to use the following nonexclusive options: (a) Use the collection services available through the department of enterprise services, or (b) notwithstanding any provision of chapter 41.06 RCW, contract with collection agencies for collection of the debts. The costs for enterprise services or collection agency services shall be paid by the debtor. Any contract with a collection agency shall only be awarded after competitive bidding. Factors the department shall consider in awarding a collection contract include but are not limited to a collection agency's history and reputation in the community; and the agency's access to a local database that may increase the efficiency of its collections. The servicing of an unpaid obligation to the department does not constitute assignment of a debt, and no contract with a collection agency may remove the department's control over unpaid obligations owed to the department.

Official source: Washington State Legislature. Reproduced from public-domain Washington statutes; confirm against the official source for the current text. Not legal advice.