Wash. Rev. Code » Title 16 · Chapter 16.08
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 16.08.100 (2026)

Dangerous dogs—Confiscation—Conditions—Duties of animal control authority—Penalties and affirmative defenses for owners of dogs that attack

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) Any dangerous dog shall be immediately confiscated by an animal control authority if the: (a) Dog is not validly registered under RCW 16.08.080; (b) owner does not secure the liability insurance coverage required under RCW 16.08.080; (c) dog is not maintained in the proper enclosure; or (d) dog is outside of the dwelling of the owner, or outside of the proper enclosure and not under physical restraint of the responsible person. The owner must pay the costs of confinement and control. The animal control authority must serve notice upon the dog owner in person or by regular and certified mail, return receipt requested, specifying the reason for the confiscation of the dangerous dog, that the owner is responsible for payment of the costs of confinement and control, and that the dog will be destroyed in an expeditious and humane manner if the deficiencies for which the dog was confiscated are not corrected within twenty days. The animal control authority shall destroy the confiscated dangerous dog in an expeditious and humane manner if any deficiencies required by this subsection are not corrected within twenty days of notification. In addition, the owner shall be guilty of a gross misdemeanor punishable in accordance with RCW 9A.20.021.
(2) If a dangerous dog of an owner with a prior conviction under this chapter attacks or bites a person or another domestic animal, the dog's owner is guilty of a class C felony, punishable in accordance with RCW 9A.20.021. It is an affirmative defense that the defendant must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he or she was in compliance with the requirements for ownership of a dangerous dog pursuant to this chapter and the person or domestic animal attacked or bitten by the defendant's dog trespassed on the defendant's real or personal property or provoked the defendant's dog without justification or excuse. In addition, the dangerous dog shall be immediately confiscated by an animal control authority, placed in quarantine for the proper length of time, and thereafter destroyed in an expeditious and humane manner.
(3) The owner of any dog that aggressively attacks and causes severe injury or death of any human, whether or not the dog has previously been declared potentially dangerous or dangerous, shall, upon conviction, be guilty of a class C felony punishable in accordance with RCW 9A.20.021. It is an affirmative defense that the defendant must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the human severely injured or killed by the defendant's dog: (a) Trespassed on the defendant's real or personal property which was enclosed by fencing suitable to prevent the entry of young children and designed to prevent the dog from escaping and marked with clearly visible signs warning people, including children, not to trespass and to beware of dog; or (b) provoked the defendant's dog without justification or excuse on the defendant's real or personal property which was enclosed by fencing suitable to prevent the entry of young children and designed to prevent the dog from escaping and marked with clearly visible signs warning people, including children, not to trespass and to beware of dog. In such a prosecution, the state has the burden of showing that the owner of the dog either knew or should have known that the dog was potentially dangerous as defined in this chapter. The state may not meet its burden of proof that the owner should have known the dog was potentially dangerous solely by showing the dog to be a particular breed or breeds. In addition, the dog shall be immediately confiscated by an animal control authority, quarantined, and upon conviction of the owner destroyed in an expeditious and humane manner.
[ 2020 c 158 s 1; 2002 c 244 s 3; 1987 c 94 s 4.]

Notes:

Severability—1987 c 94: See note following RCW 16.08.070.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 16 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1996–2025 · leading case: State v. Bash, 925 P.2d 978 (Wash. 1996).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Bash, 925 P.2d 978 (Wash. 1996). · cites it 40× “*599 RCW 16.08.100 is one of those statutes. To place the statute in context, an overview of the 1987 legislation is helpful.”
Rabon v. City of Seattle, 135 Wash. 2d 278 (Wash. 1998). · cites it 8× “080; RCW 16.08.100. The statute first requires classification of dogs into two categories: “potentially dangerous” and “dangerous.”
Rabon v. City of Seattle, 957 P.2d 621 (Wash. 1998). · cites it 8× “080; RCW 16.08.100. The statute first requires classification of dogs into two categories: "potentially dangerous" and "dangerous.”
State v. Richards, 559 P.3d 107 (Wash. 2024). · cites it 12× “050(F) 5 and RCW 16.08.100, 6 4 Owners of dangerous dogs must have a valid certificate of registration, received on showing of (1) a proper enclosure with a conspicuous warning sign, (2) a surety bond issued by an insurer in the sum of at least $50,000 payable to any person…”
State Of Washington v. Jennifer A. Richards, 537 P.3d 1118 (Wash. Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 25× “” The definition of “dangerous dog” that applies for purposes of RCW 16.08.100 states that a dangerous dog is any dog that severely injures “a human being without provocation,” “kills a domestic animal without provocation while the dog is off the owner’s property, or .”
State v. Semakula, 946 P.2d 795 (Wash. Ct. App. 1997). “Bash considered RCW 16.08.100(3), which provides that the owner of a dog that aggressively attacks and causes severe injury or death of a human being is guilty of a class C felony.”
State v. Bash, 925 P.2d 978 (Wash. 1996). · cites it 38× “RCW 16.08.100 is one of those statutes. To place the statute in context, an overview of the 1987 legislation is helpful.”
Spokane Cnty. v. Bates, 982 P.2d 642 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 4× “The owners of the dogs were charged and convicted under RCW 16.08.100(3) which states: The owner of any dog that aggressively attacks and causes severe injury or death of any human, whether the dog has previously been declared potentially dangerous or dangerous, shall be guilty…”
Spokane Cnty. v. Bates, 982 P.2d 642 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 4× “The owners of the dogs were charged and convicted under RCW 16.08.100(3) which states: The owner of any dog that aggressively attacks and causes severe injury or death of any human, whether the dog has previously been declared potentially dangerous or dangerous, shall be guilty…”
Kary L. Caldwell, Respondent, v. the City of Hoquiam, Appellant, 373 P.3d 271 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). “¶48 RCW 16.08.100 requires animal control officers to confiscate “dangerous dogs” if their owners fail to comply with certain conditions.”
Rabon v. City of Seattle, 932 P.2d 646 (Wash. Ct. App. 1996). “Under RCW 16.08.100 an owner must maintain his or her dangerous dog in the proper enclosure and restrain a dog *309 when it is outside the enclosure or the owner’s dwelling.”
State of Washington v. Tiffany R. Denney (Wash. Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 8× “BACKGROUND Tiffany Denney lives in rural Endicott, Washington. Denney’s property consists of a single-story house, surrounded by a chain link fence that is between three and five feet tall with a gate that closes with a latch.”
Show all 16 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 16.08.100(1) — 7 cases
State v. Richards, 559 P.3d 107 (Wash. 2024). “050(F) 5 and RCW 16.08.100, 6 4 Owners of dangerous dogs must have a valid certificate of registration, received on showing of (1) a proper enclosure with a conspicuous warning sign, (2) a surety bond issued by an insurer in the sum of at least $50,000 payable to any person…”
State v. Bash, 925 P.2d 978 (Wash. 1996). “*599 RCW 16.08.100 is one of those statutes. To place the statute in context, an overview of the 1987 legislation is helpful.”
State Of Washington v. Jennifer A. Richards, 537 P.3d 1118 (Wash. Ct. App. 2023). “” The definition of “dangerous dog” that applies for purposes of RCW 16.08.100 states that a dangerous dog is any dog that severely injures “a human being without provocation,” “kills a domestic animal without provocation while the dog is off the owner’s property, or .”
Rabon v. City of Seattle, 135 Wash. 2d 278 (Wash. 1998). “080; RCW 16.08.100. The statute first requires classification of dogs into two categories: “potentially dangerous” and “dangerous.”
Rabon v. City of Seattle, 957 P.2d 621 (Wash. 1998). “080; RCW 16.08.100. The statute first requires classification of dogs into two categories: "potentially dangerous" and "dangerous.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 16.08.100(1)(d) — 1 case
State Of Washington v. Jennifer A. Richards, 537 P.3d 1118 (Wash. Ct. App. 2023). “” The definition of “dangerous dog” that applies for purposes of RCW 16.08.100 states that a dangerous dog is any dog that severely injures “a human being without provocation,” “kills a domestic animal without provocation while the dog is off the owner’s property, or .”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 16.08.100(2) — 5 cases
Rabon v. City of Seattle, 135 Wash. 2d 278 (Wash. 1998). “080; RCW 16.08.100. The statute first requires classification of dogs into two categories: “potentially dangerous” and “dangerous.”
Rabon v. City of Seattle, 957 P.2d 621 (Wash. 1998). “080; RCW 16.08.100. The statute first requires classification of dogs into two categories: "potentially dangerous" and "dangerous.”
State v. Bash, 925 P.2d 978 (Wash. 1996). “*599 RCW 16.08.100 is one of those statutes. To place the statute in context, an overview of the 1987 legislation is helpful.”
State Of Washington v. Jennifer A. Richards, 537 P.3d 1118 (Wash. Ct. App. 2023). “” The definition of “dangerous dog” that applies for purposes of RCW 16.08.100 states that a dangerous dog is any dog that severely injures “a human being without provocation,” “kills a domestic animal without provocation while the dog is off the owner’s property, or .”
State v. Bash, 925 P.2d 978 (Wash. 1996). “RCW 16.08.100 is one of those statutes. To place the statute in context, an overview of the 1987 legislation is helpful.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 16.08.100(3) — 11 cases
State v. Bash, 925 P.2d 978 (Wash. 1996). “*599 RCW 16.08.100 is one of those statutes. To place the statute in context, an overview of the 1987 legislation is helpful.”
Rabon v. City of Seattle, 135 Wash. 2d 278 (Wash. 1998). “080; RCW 16.08.100. The statute first requires classification of dogs into two categories: “potentially dangerous” and “dangerous.”
Rabon v. City of Seattle, 957 P.2d 621 (Wash. 1998). “080; RCW 16.08.100. The statute first requires classification of dogs into two categories: "potentially dangerous" and "dangerous.”
State v. Semakula, 946 P.2d 795 (Wash. Ct. App. 1997). “Bash considered RCW 16.08.100(3), which provides that the owner of a dog that aggressively attacks and causes severe injury or death of a human being is guilty of a class C felony.”
Spokane Cnty. v. Bates, 982 P.2d 642 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999). “The owners of the dogs were charged and convicted under RCW 16.08.100(3) which states: The owner of any dog that aggressively attacks and causes severe injury or death of any human, whether the dog has previously been declared potentially dangerous or dangerous, shall be guilty…”
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.