Revised Code of Washington
Wash. Rev. Code § 13.40.740 (2026)
Juvenile access to an attorney
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) Except as provided in subsection (4) of this section, law enforcement shall provide a juvenile with access to an attorney for consultation, which may be provided in person, by telephone, or by videoconference, before the juvenile waives any constitutional rights if a law enforcement officer:
(a) Questions a juvenile during a custodial interrogation;
(b) Detains a juvenile based on probable cause of involvement in criminal activity; or
(c) Requests that the juvenile provide consent to an evidentiary search of the juvenile or the juvenile's property, dwellings, or vehicles under the juvenile's control.
(2) The consultation required by subsection (1) of this section may not be waived.
(3) Statements made by a juvenile after the juvenile is contacted by a law enforcement officer in a manner described under subsection (1) of this section are not admissible in a juvenile offender or adult criminal court proceeding, unless:
(a) The juvenile has been provided with access to an attorney for consultation; and the juvenile provides an express waiver knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily made by the juvenile after the juvenile has been fully informed of the rights being waived as required under RCW 13.40.140;
(b) The statement is for impeachment purposes; or
(c) The statement was made spontaneously.
(4) A law enforcement officer may question a juvenile without following the requirement in subsection (1) of this section if:
(a) The law enforcement officer believes the juvenile is a victim of trafficking as defined in RCW 9A.40.100; however, any information obtained from the juvenile by law enforcement pursuant to this subsection cannot be used in any prosecution of that juvenile; or
(b)(i) The law enforcement officer believes that the information sought is necessary to protect an individual's life from an imminent threat;
(ii) A delay to allow legal consultation would impede the protection of an individual's life from an imminent threat; and
(iii) Questioning by the law enforcement officer is limited to matters reasonably expected to obtain information necessary to protect an individual's life from an imminent threat.
(5) After the juvenile has consulted with legal counsel, the juvenile may advise, direct a parent or guardian to advise, or direct legal counsel to advise the law enforcement officer that the juvenile chooses to assert a constitutional right. Any assertion of constitutional rights by the juvenile through legal counsel must be treated by a law enforcement officer as though it came from the juvenile. The waiver of any constitutional rights of the juvenile may only be made according to the requirements of RCW 13.40.140.
(6) For purposes of this section, the following definitions apply:
(a) "Juvenile" means any individual who is under the chronological age of 18 years; and
(b) "Law enforcement officer" means any general authority, limited authority, or specially commissioned Washington peace officer or federal peace officer as those terms are defined in RCW 10.93.020, including school resource officers as defined in RCW 28A.320.124 and other public officers who are responsible for enforcement of fire, building, zoning, and life and safety codes.
[ 2021 c 328 s 1.]
Notes:
Effective date—2021 c 328: "This act takes effect January 1, 2022." [ 2021 c 328 s 7.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6
cases (6 in the last 5 years), 2023–2025 · leading case: State v. Luna (Wash. 2025).
State v. Luna (Wash. 2025). “Luna challenges several evidentiary rulings and argues that the court should have applied newly enacted RCW 13.40.740 to exclude evidence from the interrogation.”
State Of Washington, V. E.O. (Wash. Ct. App. 2025). “In her motion to suppress, defense counsel asserted that the statements EO made were illegally obtained under RCW 13.40.740, which provides that a juvenile cannot waive any constitutional rights before consulting with an attorney when they are subject to custodial interrogation.”
State of Washington v. A.A.S.-M. (Wash. Ct. App. 2025). “-M’s concession that he sought a fight or that he possessed a firearm under ER 404(b) or RCW 13.40.740. Law enforcement never recovered a firearm or a facemask.”
State Of Washington, V. Lola Felipa Luna (Wash. Ct. App. 2024). “The statute provides that children cannot knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waive their Miranda rights until they have consulted with an attorney. RCW 13.40.740(3)(a).”
State Of Washington, V. L.d.e.p. (Wash. Ct. App. 2023). “is essentially asking this court to apply RCW 13.40.740 to this case despite the fact it was not yet in effect at the time of L.”
109oag3 (Md. Att'y Gen. 2024). “11 (1)(a) & (2) (providing that a child taken into custody for an alleged delinquent act that constitutes a serious or aggravated misdemeanor or a felony and is within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court has a right to be represented by counsel, which a child under 16 may not…”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 13.40.740(1) — 3 cases
State Of Washington, V. E.O. (Wash. Ct. App. 2025). “In her motion to suppress, defense counsel asserted that the statements EO made were illegally obtained under RCW 13.40.740, which provides that a juvenile cannot waive any constitutional rights before consulting with an attorney when they are subject to custodial interrogation.”
State Of Washington, V. L.d.e.p. (Wash. Ct. App. 2023). “is essentially asking this court to apply RCW 13.40.740 to this case despite the fact it was not yet in effect at the time of L.”
State of Washington v. A.A.S.-M. (Wash. Ct. App. 2025). “-M’s concession that he sought a fight or that he possessed a firearm under ER 404(b) or RCW 13.40.740. Law enforcement never recovered a firearm or a facemask.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 13.40.740(1)(a) — 1 case
State Of Washington, V. E.O. (Wash. Ct. App. 2025). “In her motion to suppress, defense counsel asserted that the statements EO made were illegally obtained under RCW 13.40.740, which provides that a juvenile cannot waive any constitutional rights before consulting with an attorney when they are subject to custodial interrogation.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 13.40.740(1)(b) — 1 case
State of Washington v. A.A.S.-M. (Wash. Ct. App. 2025). “-M’s concession that he sought a fight or that he possessed a firearm under ER 404(b) or RCW 13.40.740. Law enforcement never recovered a firearm or a facemask.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 13.40.740(2) — 2 cases
State Of Washington, V. L.d.e.p. (Wash. Ct. App. 2023). “is essentially asking this court to apply RCW 13.40.740 to this case despite the fact it was not yet in effect at the time of L.”
State of Washington v. A.A.S.-M. (Wash. Ct. App. 2025). “-M’s concession that he sought a fight or that he possessed a firearm under ER 404(b) or RCW 13.40.740. Law enforcement never recovered a firearm or a facemask.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 13.40.740(3) — 2 cases
State v. Luna (Wash. 2025). “Luna challenges several evidentiary rulings and argues that the court should have applied newly enacted RCW 13.40.740 to exclude evidence from the interrogation.”
State Of Washington, V. E.O. (Wash. Ct. App. 2025). “In her motion to suppress, defense counsel asserted that the statements EO made were illegally obtained under RCW 13.40.740, which provides that a juvenile cannot waive any constitutional rights before consulting with an attorney when they are subject to custodial interrogation.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 13.40.740(3)(a) — 1 case
State Of Washington, V. Lola Felipa Luna (Wash. Ct. App. 2024). “The statute provides that children cannot knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waive their Miranda rights until they have consulted with an attorney. RCW 13.40.740(3)(a).”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 13.40.740(3)(b) — 1 case
State Of Washington, V. E.O. (Wash. Ct. App. 2025). “In her motion to suppress, defense counsel asserted that the statements EO made were illegally obtained under RCW 13.40.740, which provides that a juvenile cannot waive any constitutional rights before consulting with an attorney when they are subject to custodial interrogation.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 13.40.740(3)(c) — 1 case
State of Washington v. A.A.S.-M. (Wash. Ct. App. 2025). “-M’s concession that he sought a fight or that he possessed a firearm under ER 404(b) or RCW 13.40.740. Law enforcement never recovered a firearm or a facemask.”
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.