Revised Code of Washington
Wash. Rev. Code § 10.93.070 (2026)
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
In addition to any other powers vested by law, a general authority Washington peace officer who possesses a certificate of basic law enforcement training or a certificate of equivalency or has been exempted from the requirement therefor by the Washington state criminal justice training commission may enforce the traffic or criminal laws of this state throughout the territorial bounds of this state, under the following enumerated circumstances:
(1) Upon the prior written consent of the sheriff or chief of police in whose primary territorial jurisdiction the exercise of the powers occurs;
(2) In response to an emergency involving an immediate threat to human life or property;
(3) In response to a request for assistance pursuant to a mutual law enforcement assistance agreement with the agency of primary territorial jurisdiction or in response to the request of a peace officer with enforcement authority;
(4) When the officer is transporting a prisoner;
(5) When the officer is executing an arrest warrant or search warrant; or
(6) When the officer is in fresh pursuit, as defined in RCW 10.93.120.
[ 1985 c 89 s 7.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 37
cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1990–2025 · leading case: State v. King, 219 P.3d 642 (Wash. 2009).
State v. King, 219 P.3d 642 (Wash. 2009). “RCW 10.93.070 provides in part, “[A] general authority Washington peace officer .”
State v. Plaggemeier, 969 P.2d 519 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999). “We conclude that the consent section of the agreement, which allows the police officers of each jurisdiction to exercise their police powers within the other four jurisdictions, is independently enforceable under the Washington Mutual Aid Peace Officers Powers Act of 1985, RCW…”
State v. Bustamante-Davila, 138 Wash. 2d 964 (Wash. 1999). “RCW 10.93.070 . . . should not be interpreted or used to circumvent the protections of the United States and Washington State Constitutions.”
State v. Bustamante-Davila, 983 P.2d 590 (Wash. 1999). “cannot avoid the warrant requirement by asking to `tag along' on another agency's warrant for its own purposes.”
City of Lynnwood v. $128 Cash, 810 P.2d 1377 (Wash. Ct. App. 1991). “RCW 10.93.070. These include: (1) Upon the prior written consent of the sheriff .”
State v. Rasmussen, 855 P.2d 1206 (Wash. Ct. App. 1993). “] RCW 10.93.070. Rasmussen argues that State v.”
Suarez v. Newquist, 855 P.2d 1200 (Wash. Ct. App. 1993). “See RCW 10.93.070, .080, .090. Tribal officers are mentioned in the definition section, RCW 10.”
City of Tacoma v. Durham, 978 P.2d 514 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999). “However, as discussed above, such a challenge would not have been successful because the arrest was valid under both the fresh pursuit and the emergency sections of RCW 10.93.070. Although this legal issue was not frivolous, Durham’s trial lawyer did not fall below the standard…”
State v. Knight, 904 P.2d 1159 (Wash. Ct. App. 1995). “The parties debate the effect of two 1991 notices of consent issued by the Skamania County Sheriff pursuant to RCW 10.93.070(1). 6 One documented "consent to the full exercise of peace officer powers within the unincorporated boundaries of Skamania County, Washington, by any and…”
Ghaffari v. Dep't of Licensing, 816 P.2d 66 (Wash. Ct. App. 1991). “In response, the Department maintains that Officer Bryant's action was authorized under the following provision of RCW 10.93.070: *874 In addition to any other powers vested by law, a general authority Washington peace officer who possesses a certificate of basic law enforcement…”
Commr. Eric Watness, Apps. v. The City Of Seattle, Res., 481 P.3d 570 (Wash. Ct. App. 2021). “Under RCW 10.93.070, police officers have the statutory authority to enforce state criminal laws.”
State v. Waters, 971 P.2d 538 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999). “An identification card was issued to Omak City Police Sergeant Frank Rogers by Tribal Chief of Police John Goss’s predecessor, John Dick, identifying Sergeant Rogers as a commissioned tribal police officer, and was “Good Until Revoked.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 10.93.070(1) — 9 cases
State v. Plaggemeier, 969 P.2d 519 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999). “We conclude that the consent section of the agreement, which allows the police officers of each jurisdiction to exercise their police powers within the other four jurisdictions, is independently enforceable under the Washington Mutual Aid Peace Officers Powers Act of 1985, RCW…”
State v. King, 219 P.3d 642 (Wash. 2009). “RCW 10.93.070 provides in part, “[A] general authority Washington peace officer .”
State v. Knight, 904 P.2d 1159 (Wash. Ct. App. 1995). “The parties debate the effect of two 1991 notices of consent issued by the Skamania County Sheriff pursuant to RCW 10.93.070(1). 6 One documented "consent to the full exercise of peace officer powers within the unincorporated boundaries of Skamania County, Washington, by any and…”
Ghaffari v. Dep't of Licensing, 816 P.2d 66 (Wash. Ct. App. 1991). “In response, the Department maintains that Officer Bryant's action was authorized under the following provision of RCW 10.93.070: *874 In addition to any other powers vested by law, a general authority Washington peace officer who possesses a certificate of basic law enforcement…”
State v. Barron, 160 P.3d 1077 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 10.93.070(2) — 7 cases
State v. King, 219 P.3d 642 (Wash. 2009). “RCW 10.93.070 provides in part, “[A] general authority Washington peace officer .”
State v. Plaggemeier, 969 P.2d 519 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999). “We conclude that the consent section of the agreement, which allows the police officers of each jurisdiction to exercise their police powers within the other four jurisdictions, is independently enforceable under the Washington Mutual Aid Peace Officers Powers Act of 1985, RCW…”
City of Tacoma v. Durham, 978 P.2d 514 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999). “However, as discussed above, such a challenge would not have been successful because the arrest was valid under both the fresh pursuit and the emergency sections of RCW 10.93.070. Although this legal issue was not frivolous, Durham’s trial lawyer did not fall below the standard…”
State v. King, 219 P.3d 642 (Wash. 2009).
Johnson v. State, 265 P.3d 199 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 10.93.070(3) — 8 cases
State v. Plaggemeier, 969 P.2d 519 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999). “We conclude that the consent section of the agreement, which allows the police officers of each jurisdiction to exercise their police powers within the other four jurisdictions, is independently enforceable under the Washington Mutual Aid Peace Officers Powers Act of 1985, RCW…”
State v. Bustamante-Davila, 138 Wash. 2d 964 (Wash. 1999). “RCW 10.93.070 . . . should not be interpreted or used to circumvent the protections of the United States and Washington State Constitutions.”
State v. Bustamante-Davila, 983 P.2d 590 (Wash. 1999). “cannot avoid the warrant requirement by asking to `tag along' on another agency's warrant for its own purposes.”
State v. Rasmussen, 855 P.2d 1206 (Wash. Ct. App. 1993). “] RCW 10.93.070. Rasmussen argues that State v.”
State v. Bartholomew, 784 P.2d 1276 (Wash. Ct. App. 1990).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 10.93.070(5) — 3 cases
State v. Bartholomew, 784 P.2d 1276 (Wash. Ct. App. 1990).
State Of Washington v. Kevin Joe Brunson (Wash. Ct. App. 2019).
State Of Washington, Resp-cr App V. Lavelle Kenneth Johnson, App-cross Resp (Wash. Ct. App. 2024).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 10.93.070(6) — 7 cases
State v. King, 219 P.3d 642 (Wash. 2009). “RCW 10.93.070 provides in part, “[A] general authority Washington peace officer .”
State v. Eriksen, 259 P.3d 1079 (Wash. 2011).
State v. Waters, 971 P.2d 538 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999). “An identification card was issued to Omak City Police Sergeant Frank Rogers by Tribal Chief of Police John Goss’s predecessor, John Dick, identifying Sergeant Rogers as a commissioned tribal police officer, and was “Good Until Revoked.”
City of Tacoma v. Durham, 978 P.2d 514 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999). “However, as discussed above, such a challenge would not have been successful because the arrest was valid under both the fresh pursuit and the emergency sections of RCW 10.93.070. Although this legal issue was not frivolous, Durham’s trial lawyer did not fall below the standard…”
State v. Eriksen, 216 P.3d 382 (Wash. 2009).
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.