Wash. Rev. Code » Title 28A · Chapter 28A.635
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 28A.635.020 (2025)

Willfully disobeying school administrative personnel or refusing to leave public property, violations, when—Penalty

✓ laws through the 2025 session: 2026 session laws are not yet included
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) It shall be unlawful for any person to willfully disobey the order of the chief administrative officer of a public school district, or of an authorized designee of any such administrator, to leave any motor vehicle, building, grounds or other property which is owned, operated or controlled by the school district if the person so ordered is under the influence of alcohol or drugs, or is committing, threatens to imminently commit or incites another to imminently commit any act which would disturb or interfere with or obstruct any lawful task, function, process or procedure of the school district or any lawful task, function, process or procedure of any student, official, employee or invitee of the school district. The order of a school officer or designee acting pursuant to this subsection shall be valid if the officer or designee reasonably believes a person ordered to leave is under the influence of alcohol or drugs, is committing acts, or is creating a disturbance as provided in this subsection.
(2) It shall be unlawful for any person to refuse to leave public property immediately adjacent to a building, grounds or property which is owned, operated or controlled by a school district when ordered to do so by a law enforcement officer if such person is engaging in conduct which creates a substantial risk of causing injury to any person, or substantial harm to property, or such conduct amounts to disorderly conduct under RCW 9A.84.030.
(3) Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit or penalize activity consisting of the lawful exercise of freedom of speech, freedom of press and the right to peaceably assemble and petition the government for a redress of grievances: PROVIDED, That such activity neither does or threatens imminently to materially disturb or interfere with or obstruct any lawful task, function, process or procedure of the school district, or any lawful task, function, process or procedure of any student, official, employee or invitee of the school district: PROVIDED FURTHER, That such activity is not conducted in violation of a prohibition or limitation lawfully imposed by the school district upon entry or use of any motor vehicle, building, grounds or other property which is owned, operated or controlled by the school district.
(4) Any person guilty of violating this section shall be deemed guilty of a gross misdemeanor punishable as provided in chapter 9A.20 RCW.
[ 1997 c 266 s 6; 1981 c 36 s 1; 1975-'76 2nd ex.s. c 100 s 1. Formerly RCW 28A.87.055.]

Notes:

Findings—Intent—Severability—1997 c 266: See notes following RCW 28A.600.455.
Severability—1975-'76 2nd ex.s. c 100: "If any provision of this 1976 amendatory act, or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the act, or the application of the provision to other persons or circumstances is not affected." [1975-'76 2nd ex.s. c 100 s 3.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases, 1991–2010 · leading case: State v. Green, 157 Wash. App. 833 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Green, 157 Wash. App. 833 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 2× “Green alleges her due process rights were violated due to the lack of procedures available to challenge the notice of trespass and due to the vagueness of RCW 28A.635.020. She also alleges the State failed to prove a lawful underlying basis existed for the notice of trespass.”
State v. Green, 239 P.3d 1130 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 2× “Green alleges her due process rights were violated due to the lack of procedures available to challenge the notice of trespass and due to the vagueness of RCW 28A.635.020. She also alleges the State failed to prove a lawful underlying basis existed for the notice of trespass.”
State v. Shelby, 811 P.2d 682 (Wash. Ct. App. 1991). “Recodified as RCW 28A.635.020 by Laws of 1990, ch. 33, § 4.”
Wash. Rev. Code § 28A.635.020(3): 2 cases
State v. Green, 157 Wash. App. 833 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010). “Green alleges her due process rights were violated due to the lack of procedures available to challenge the notice of trespass and due to the vagueness of RCW 28A.635.020. She also alleges the State failed to prove a lawful underlying basis existed for the notice of trespass.”
State v. Green, 239 P.3d 1130 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010). “Green alleges her due process rights were violated due to the lack of procedures available to challenge the notice of trespass and due to the vagueness of RCW 28A.635.020. She also alleges the State failed to prove a lawful underlying basis existed for the notice of trespass.”
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.