Wash. Rev. Code » Title 10 · Chapter 10.96
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 10.96.020 (2026)

Production of records

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
This section shall apply to any criminal process allowing for search of or commanding production of records that are in the actual or constructive possession of a recipient who receives service outside Washington, regardless of whether the recipient or the records are physically located within the state.
(1) When properly served with criminal process issued under this section, the recipient shall provide the applicant all records sought pursuant to the criminal process. The records shall be produced within twenty business days of receipt of the criminal process, unless the process requires earlier production. An applicant may consent to a recipient's request for additional time to comply with the criminal process.
(2) Criminal process issued under this section must contain the following language in bold type on the first page of the document: "This [warrant, subpoena, order] is issued pursuant to RCW [insert citation to this statute]. A response is due within twenty business days of receipt, unless a shorter time is stated herein, or the applicant consents to a recipient's request for additional time to comply."
(3) If the judge finds reason to suspect that failure to produce records within twenty business days would cause an adverse result, the criminal process may require production of records within less than twenty business days. A court may reasonably extend the time required for production of the records upon finding that the recipient has shown good cause for that extension and that an extension of time would not cause an adverse result.
(4) When properly served with criminal process issued under this section, a recipient who seeks to quash the criminal process must seek relief from the court where the criminal process was issued, within the time originally required for production of records. The court shall hear and decide the motion no later than five court days after the motion is filed. An applicant's consent, under subsection (1) of this section, to a recipient's request for additional time to comply with the criminal process does not extend the date by which a recipient must seek the relief designated in this section.
(5) The issuance of criminal process is prohibited if such process is related to criminal liability that is based on the provision, receipt, attempted provision or receipt, assistance in the provision or receipt, or attempted assistance in the provision or receipt of protected health care services as defined in RCW 7.115.010 that are lawful in the state of Washington.
[ 2023 c 193 s 11; 2008 c 21 s 3.]

Notes:

Effective date—2023 c 193: See note following RCW 7.115.020.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases, 1970–2016 · leading case: State of Washington v. Daniel Blizzard, 381 P.3d 1241 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State of Washington v. Daniel Blizzard, 381 P.3d 1241 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 2× “Blizzard next argues the superior court warrant was invalid because it lacked the following statutorily mandated language: “ ‘This warrant is issued pursuant to RCW 10.96.020. A response is due within 20 business days of receipt unless a shorter time is stated herein or the…”
State of Washington v. Ray Leny Betancourth (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 7× “RCW 10.96.020 reads: Production of records.”
State of Washington v. Ray Leny Betancourth (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). “The warrant did not contain language required by RCW 10.96.020(2). Verizon never produced the records again.”
Canteen Serv., Inc. v. City of Seattle, 467 P.2d 845 (Wash. 1970). “Asserting that sections 10.96.020 and 10.96.030 of the Seattle License Code, 1 as applied, violate the antimonopoly provisions of *871 our state constitution and the due process provisions and equal protection provisions of our federal constitution, Can *872 teen filed this…”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 10.96.020(2) — 3 cases
State of Washington v. Daniel Blizzard, 381 P.3d 1241 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). “Blizzard next argues the superior court warrant was invalid because it lacked the following statutorily mandated language: “ ‘This warrant is issued pursuant to RCW 10.96.020. A response is due within 20 business days of receipt unless a shorter time is stated herein or the…”
State of Washington v. Ray Leny Betancourth (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). “RCW 10.96.020 reads: Production of records.”
State of Washington v. Ray Leny Betancourth (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). “The warrant did not contain language required by RCW 10.96.020(2). Verizon never produced the records again.”
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.