Wash. Rev. Code » Title 18 · Chapter 18.64
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 18.64.245 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) Every proprietor or manager of a pharmacy shall keep readily available a suitable record of prescriptions which shall preserve for a period of not less than two years the record of every prescription dispensed at such pharmacy which shall be numbered, dated, and filed, and shall produce the same in court or before any grand jury whenever lawfully required to do so. The record shall be maintained either separately from all other records of the pharmacy or in such form that the information required is readily retrievable from ordinary business records of the pharmacy. All recordkeeping requirements for controlled substances must be complied with. Such record of prescriptions shall be for confidential use in the pharmacy, only. The record of prescriptions shall be open for inspection by the commission or any officer of the law, who is authorized to enforce this chapter or chapter 69.41 or 69.50 RCW.
(2) When a pharmacy receives a prescription in digital or electronic format through facsimile equipment transmitting an exact visual image of the prescription, or through electronic communication of prescription information, the digital or electronic record of every such prescription dispensed at the pharmacy constitutes a suitable record of prescriptions, provided that the original or direct copy of the prescription is electronically or digitally numbered or referenced, dated, and filed in a form that permits the information required to be readily retrievable.
(3) A person violating this section is guilty of a misdemeanor.
[ 2016 c 148 s 17; 2013 c 19 s 17; 2003 c 53 s 135. Prior: 1989 1st ex.s. c 9 s 402; 1989 c 352 s 2; 1979 c 90 s 15; 1939 c 28 s 1; RRS s 6154-1. Formerly RCW 18.67.090.]

Notes:

Intent—Effective date—2003 c 53: See notes following RCW 2.48.180.
Effective date—Severability—1989 1st ex.s. c 9: See RCW 43.70.910 and 43.70.920.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7 cases, 1971–2016 · leading case: Murphy v. State, 62 P.3d 533 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Murphy v. State, 62 P.3d 533 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 4× “*536 Such records are required by RCW 18.64.245, which also requires pharmacists to make those records available for inspection by the Board or other law enforcement officers.”
Murphy v. State, 115 Wash. App. 297 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 4× “Such records are required by RCW 18.64.245, which also requires pharmacists to make those records available for inspection by the Board or other law enforcement officers.”
State v. Mines, 671 P.2d 273 (Wash. Ct. App. 1983). · cites it 4× “245 effectively superseded the physician-patient privilege codified in RCW 5.”
State v. Mark, 597 P.2d 406 (Wash. Ct. App. 1979). · cites it 3× “) RCW 18.64.245. WAC 360-16-260(2) does not purport to constrict the scope of the statute by equating confidentiality with immunity from judicial inquiry or process.”
State v. Mark, 675 P.2d 1250 (Wash. Ct. App. 1984). “RCW 18.64.245. The permissible inference drawn by the auditors and by the trial court was that Mark destroyed records which were false.”
Dale E. Alsager, D.o., Phd. v. Wa State Bd Of Osteopathic Med., 196 Wash. App. 653 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). “RCW 18.64.245 (formerly codified at RCW 18.”
City of Mountlake Terrace v. Stone, 492 P.2d 226 (Wash. Ct. App. 1971). “, RCW 18.64.245, 28 A.27.040, 48.30.120, 65.”
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.