Revised Code of Washington
Wash. Rev. Code § 10.79.040 (2026)
Search without warrant unlawful—Penalty
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) It shall be unlawful for any police officer or other peace officer to enter and search any private dwelling house or place of residence without the authority of a search warrant issued upon a complaint as by law provided.
(2) Any police officer or other peace officer violating the provisions of this section is guilty of a gross misdemeanor.
[ 2010 c 8 s 1062; 2003 c 53 s 95; 1921 c 71 s 1; RRS s 2240-1. FORMER PART OF SECTION: 1921 c 71 s 2; RRS s 2240-2, now codified as RCW 10.79.045.]
Notes:
Intent—Effective date—2003 c 53: See notes following RCW 2.48.180.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 32
cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1952–2025 · leading case: State v. Groom, 947 P.2d 240 (Wash. 1997).
State v. Groom, 947 P.2d 240 (Wash. 1997). “The Grant County Superior Court affirmed dismissal of the criminal trespass and official misconduct charges, but reversed as to the unlawful search charge. The Court of Appeals held that none of the charges were properly dismissed, and remanded for trial.”
State v. Groom, 133 Wash. 2d 679 (Wash. 1997). “— The State seeks to prosecute Defendant Larry Groom for criminal trespass, official misconduct, and unlawful search without a warrant under RCW 10.79.040 and .045. The trial court dismissed the charges on a Knapstad motion.”
State v. Ettenhofer, 79 P.3d 478 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003). “3(c), RCW 10.79.040, and article I, section 7 of the Washington State Constitution.”
Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961). “53, 621.17; Mo. Ann. Stat., 1953, § 558.190; Mont.”
State v. Ettenhofer, 79 P.3d 478 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003). “3(c), RCW 10.79.040, and article 1, section 7 of the Washington State Constitution.”
State v. Ferrier, 960 P.2d 927 (Wash. 1998). “" RCW 10.79.040. We find that preexisting state law, the fourth Gunwall factor, amply supports independent review of this case under article I, section 7.”
Scott v. State, 782 A.2d 862 (Md. 2001). “The crux of the court's holding, however, was that the "knock and talk" procedure violated the defendant's State Constitutional right to privacy "because she was not advised, prior to giving her consent to the search of her home, that she could refuse to consent.”
State v. Ferrier, 136 Wash. 2d 103 (Wash. 1998). “” RCW 10.79.040. We find that preexisting state law, the fourth Gunwall factor, amply supports independent review of this case under article I, section 7.”
State v. Sanders, 506 P.2d 892 (Wash. Ct. App. 1973). “On appeal defendant contends that the officers’ entry into his apartment violated the Fourth Amendment’s 1 restriction against unreasonable searches and seizures, article 1, section 7 of the Washington State Constitution 2 and RCW 10.”
State v. Budd, 347 P.3d 49 (Wash. Ct. App. 2015). “RCW 10.79.040 creates the misdemeanor of a law enforcement officer entering and searching a private dwelling without the authority of a search warrant.”
State v. Campbell, 547 P.2d 295 (Wash. Ct. App. 1976). “The question presented is whether the warrantless search of the defendant’s apartment and the seizure of the marijuana plants violated the constitutional and statutory prohibitions against unreasonable searches and seizures contained in the fourth amendment to the United States…”
State v. Duarte, 484 P.2d 1156 (Wash. Ct. App. 1971). “These conclusions become apparent when one considers the reason for the admissibility of the evidence in the case of an express invitation. The objections to evidence obtained in the course of a non-consensual search is based upon the claimed violation of the Fourth Amendment…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.