Wash. Rev. Code » Title 10 · Chapter 10.79
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 10.79.050 (2026)

Restoration of stolen property to owner—Duties of officers

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
All property obtained by larceny, robbery or burglary, shall be restored to the owner; and no sale, whether in good faith on the part of the purchaser or not, shall divest the owner of his or her rights to such property; and it shall be the duty of the officer who shall arrest any person charged as principal or accessory in any robbery or larceny, to secure the property alleged to have been stolen, and he or she shall be answerable for the same, and shall annex a schedule thereof to his or her return of the warrant.
[ 2010 c 8 s 1063; Code 1881 s 851; 1873 p 192 s 57; 1854 p 84 s 51; RRS s 2129.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12 cases, 1973–2019 · leading case: State v. Mermis, 20 P.3d 1044 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Mermis, 20 P.3d 1044 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 2× “[26] RCW 10.79.050. [27] Voidable title is distinct from "valid title," which can be passed freely, and "void title," which cannot be passed to any buyer (regardless of good faith status) because of the nemo dat quod non habet ("he who hath not cannot give") rule.”
State v. Mermis, 105 Wash. App. 738 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 2× “RCW 10.79.050. Voidable title is distinct from “valid title,” which can be passed freely, and “void title,” which cannot be passed to any buyer (regardless of good faith status) because of the nemo dat quod non habet (“he who hath not cannot give”) rule.”
State v. Marks, 790 P.2d 138 (Wash. 1990). · cites it 2× “II Evidentiary Hearing Is Required Before Property Can Be Returned to Defendants Pursuant to CrR 2.”
Dimension Funding, LLC v. D.K. Assocs., Inc., 146 Wash. App. 653 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 28× “Dimension Funding argues that the trial court erred by (1) finding RCW 10.79.050 inapplicable and (2) applying the comparative innocence doctrine.”
State v. Hermann, 138 Wash. App. 596 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). “Reading the trafficking statute to prohibit only the transfer of title in stolen property would render the statute a nullity. Instead, the legislature clearly intended to prohibit any commercial transaction involving property known to be stolen.”
State v. Hermann, 158 P.3d 96 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). “3d 1044 (2001) (citing RCW 10.79.050). Therefore, a thief cannot transfer valid title to stolen property.”
Dimension Funding, LLC v. Dk Assocs., Inc., 191 P.3d 923 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 28× “Dimension argues that the trial court erred by (1) finding RCW 10.79.050 inapplicable and (2) applying the comparative innocence doctrine.”
Heinrich v. Titus-Will Sales, Inc., 868 P.2d 169 (Wash. Ct. App. 1994). “RCW 10.79.050; Anderson, supra § 2-403:26.”
State v. Swaite, 656 P.2d 520 (Wash. Ct. App. 1982). “" 3 It should be noted, however, that our holding suppressing the fruits of the unlawful arrest pertains only to this criminal action and in no way, of course, inhibits the rights of the true owner in recovering any of the property which was stolen.”
Newman v. Stuart, 597 So. 2d 609 (Miss. 1992). “§ 55-5-108 (1988); Wash. Rev. Code § 10.79.050 (1989).”
Stohr v. Randle, 505 P.2d 1281 (Wash. 1973). “Turning now to RCW 10.79.050, we find it reads as follows: 10.”
State Of Washington v. Jamie Allen Walls (Wash. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 2× “" Citing RCW 10.79.050, RCW 9.41.098(3), and RCW 63.”
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.