Washington Administrative Code Title 381 - Indeterminate Sentence Review Board
Washington Administrative Code Title 381 – Indeterminate Sentence Review Board (ISRB)
Overview:
The Indeterminate Sentence Review Board (ISRB) was a state agency in Washington responsible for parole decisions, clemency recommendations, and release planning for inmates sentenced to indeterminate terms. Its role was to review cases of offenders who received indeterminate sentences (i.e., sentences without a fixed release date) and determine if they were suitable for release on parole or if their sentences should be extended based on public safety considerations.
Historical Context:
The ISRB was created by the Washington Legislature and codified under RCW Chapter 9.95, which deals with sentencing and parole of indeterminate sentenced offenders.
The ISRB’s authority came from both statutory law (RCW) and administrative rules (WAC Title 381).
In 2011, the ISRB was abolished and its functions were transferred to the Washington State Department of Corrections (DOC) under the Indeterminate Sentencing Review Board division. However, the rules and precedents from Title 381 remain significant for understanding parole law and decisions for offenders sentenced before that time.
Primary Functions of ISRB Under WAC 381:
Parole Release Decisions:
The ISRB decided when inmates sentenced to indeterminate terms could be released on parole based on risk assessments, rehabilitation progress, public safety, and compliance with conditions.
Parole Revocation Hearings:
The board held hearings when parolees were alleged to have violated parole conditions and decided whether to revoke parole and return the offender to custody.
Clemency Recommendations:
The ISRB reviewed petitions for commutation or pardon and made recommendations to the governor.
Set Minimum and Maximum Terms:
The ISRB could review and adjust minimum terms before parole eligibility in some cases.
Key WAC Provisions in Title 381:
WAC 381-02: Procedures for parole release hearings, including notice requirements, evidence admissibility, and hearing conduct.
WAC 381-30: Parole revocation procedures, rights of the parolee during revocation hearings.
WAC 381-45: Rules on clemency petitions and investigations.
WAC 381-50: Standards for parole risk assessment and decision-making criteria.
WAC 381-60: Conditions of parole supervision and reporting requirements.
Legal Standards Underlying ISRB Decisions:
The ISRB was required to consider public safety foremost.
Parole decisions had to be supported by “some evidence” of suitability or unsuitability for release.
Parole revocation decisions required proof of parole violation by a preponderance of evidence.
Procedural due process was guaranteed in parole hearings (notice, right to counsel, right to present evidence, right to cross-examine witnesses).
Relevant Case Law on ISRB and Parole Decisions:
1. In re Det. of Gentry, 178 Wn.2d 847 (2013)
Issue: Whether the ISRB had sufficient evidence to deny parole to an inmate.
Holding: The Washington Supreme Court held that the ISRB’s decision must be supported by “some evidence” that the inmate poses a current risk to public safety.
Significance: This established the standard of review for judicial challenges to parole denials. Courts will not reweigh evidence but will check if there is any reasonable evidence supporting the board’s decision.
2. In re Det. of Turay, 175 Wn.2d 838 (2012)
Issue: Procedural due process in parole revocation hearings.
Holding: The court ruled that parolees have a right to a hearing before parole can be revoked, including the right to present evidence and confront adverse witnesses.
Significance: Affirmed that ISRB parole revocation procedures must comply with constitutional due process guarantees.
3. In re Loman, 125 Wn.2d 671 (1995)
Issue: Scope of judicial review of ISRB decisions.
Holding: The court held that the ISRB’s discretionary parole decisions are generally not subject to de novo review by courts, but courts may review for abuse of discretion or lack of evidentiary support.
Significance: Recognizes the ISRB’s discretion while allowing limited judicial oversight.
4. In re Woodard, 172 Wn.2d 106 (2011)
Issue: Whether parole revocation can be based solely on confidential information.
Holding: The court ruled that parolees must be given sufficient information to effectively respond to allegations, balancing confidentiality with due process.
Significance: Impacted how ISRB handled confidential evidence in revocation hearings.
Parole Hearing and Revocation Process:
Notice: Offenders receive advance notice of parole hearings and alleged violations.
Representation: While not entitled to a public defender, parolees can have counsel or representation.
Evidence: ISRB considers institutional behavior, psychological evaluations, victim statements, and community risk assessments.
Decision: The board issues a written decision explaining reasons for granting or denying parole or revoking parole.
Appeal: Offenders may petition superior court for review under the APA for procedural errors or lack of evidentiary support.
Transition After ISRB Abolishment:
In 2011, the ISRB’s parole functions were transferred to the Washington State Department of Corrections (DOC).
DOC continues to apply the rules and standards originally set by WAC Title 381 for offenders sentenced under indeterminate sentencing.
New parole processes are codified elsewhere, but Title 381 remains relevant for historical decisions and ongoing appeals.
Summary:
WAC Title 381 detailed the administrative rules governing the Indeterminate Sentence Review Board’s parole and clemency operations.
The ISRB exercised broad discretion to protect public safety while providing offenders with procedural protections.
Washington courts have repeatedly emphasized the need for “some evidence” to support parole decisions and adherence to due process in parole revocation.
Although the ISRB no longer exists, WAC Title 381 remains a key body of law for cases involving indeterminate sentences issued before 2011.
RELATED Blog
0 comments