Wash. Rev. Code » Title 4 · Chapter 4.24
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 4.24.410 (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) As used in this section:
(a) "Police dog" means a dog used by a law enforcement agency specially trained for law enforcement work and under the control of a dog handler.
(b) "Accelerant detection dog" means a dog used exclusively for accelerant detection by the state fire marshal or a fire department and under the control of the state fire marshal or his or her designee or a fire department handler.
(c) "Dog handler" means a law enforcement officer who has successfully completed training as prescribed by the Washington state criminal justice training commission in police dog handling, or in the case of an accelerant detection dog, the state fire marshal's designee or an employee of the fire department authorized by the fire chief to be the dog's handler.
(d) "Lawful application of a police dog" means employment or specific use of a police dog as allowed by law.
(2) Any dog handler who uses a police dog in the line of duty in good faith is immune from civil action for damages arising out of such use of the police dog or accelerant detection dog.
(3) A state or local government or law enforcement agency is not strictly liable for damages resulting from the lawful application of a police dog.
[ 2024 c 305 s 2; 1993 c 180 s 1; 1989 c 26 s 1; 1982 c 22 s 1.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13 cases (7 in the last 5 years), 1989–2025 · leading case: Finch v. Thurston Cnty., 381 P.3d 46 (Wash. 2016).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Finch v. Thurston Cnty., 381 P.3d 46 (Wash. 2016). · cites it 10× “Under the exemption, strict liability “does not apply to the lawful application of a police dog, as defined in RCW 4.24.410.” RCW 16.08.040(2). RCW 4.24.”
Sofie v. Fibreboard Corp., 780 P.2d 260 (Wash. 1989). · cites it 2× “400 (immunity from liability of building warden assisting evacuation or attempting to control hazard); RCW 4.24.410 (immunity from liability of dog handler using police dog in line of duty); RCW 5.”
State v. Kisor, 844 P.2d 1038 (Wash. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 3× “) In order to sustain a conviction for the offense, the State had to prove that Kisor knew or had reason to know that Lucky was a police dog.”
State v. Kisor, 916 P.2d 978 (Wash. Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 4× “Training a replacement police dog necessarily involves a law enforcement officer who will act as the dog’s handler. RCW 4.24.410(l)(c).”
Finch v. Thurston Cnty. (Wash. 2016). · cites it 8× “Under the exemption, strict liability "does not apply to the lawful application of a police dog, as defined in RCW 4.24.410." RCW 16.08.040(2). RCW 4.24.”
Ellis v. Pierce Cnty. (W.D. Wash. 2024). · cites it 8× “19 9 Redding and Pierce County also assert that the strict liability dog bite statute “‘does not 20 apply to the lawful application of a police dog, as defined in RCW 4.24.410.’” Dkt. 78 at 7 (quoting RCW 16.”
Ellis v. Pierce Cnty. (W.D. Wash. 2023). · cites it 3× “Redding contends that he is 16 entitled to summary judgment on the negligence claim because RCW 4.24.410, which 17 grants immunity to dog handlers who use police dogs in the line of duty in good faith, 18 categorically precludes negligence claims.”
Ellis v. Pierce Cnty. (W.D. Wash. 2022). · cites it 2× “He argues that he is immune from this claim under RCW 4.24.410(2)—a statute 14 providing immunity to dog handlers who use police dogs in the line of duty in good faith.”
Ellis v. Cnty. of Pierce (9th Cir. 2025). · cites it 2× “See Wash. Rev. Code § 4.24.410 (2); Finch v. Thurston County, 381 P.”
Vargas v. Whatcom Cnty. Sheriff's Off. (W.D. Wash. 2020). “The Court, having 19 reviewed the motion and proposed amended answer, hereby ORDERS as follows: 20 (1) Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 provides that the Court “should freely give leave 21 [to amend a pleading] when justice so requires.”
Lundy v. Pierce Cnty. Sheriff's Dep't (W.D. Wash. 2023). “RCW 4.24.410. Plaintiffs specifically allege that Deputy 3 Baker did not use K9 Dan in good faith.”
Sims v. City of Lakewood (W.D. Wash. 2023). “Code § 4.24.410 : “[a]ny dog handler who uses a police dog in the line of duty in good faith 9 is immune from civil action for damages arising out of such use of the police dog or accelerant 10 detection dog.”
Show all 13 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 4.24.410(1)(a) — 3 cases
Finch v. Thurston Cnty., 381 P.3d 46 (Wash. 2016). “Under the exemption, strict liability “does not apply to the lawful application of a police dog, as defined in RCW 4.24.410.” RCW 16.08.040(2). RCW 4.24.”
Finch v. Thurston Cnty. (Wash. 2016). “Under the exemption, strict liability "does not apply to the lawful application of a police dog, as defined in RCW 4.24.410." RCW 16.08.040(2). RCW 4.24.”
Ellis v. Pierce Cnty. (W.D. Wash. 2024). “19 9 Redding and Pierce County also assert that the strict liability dog bite statute “‘does not 20 apply to the lawful application of a police dog, as defined in RCW 4.24.410.’” Dkt. 78 at 7 (quoting RCW 16.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 4.24.410(2) — 4 cases
Finch v. Thurston Cnty., 381 P.3d 46 (Wash. 2016). “Under the exemption, strict liability “does not apply to the lawful application of a police dog, as defined in RCW 4.24.410.” RCW 16.08.040(2). RCW 4.24.”
Ellis v. Pierce Cnty. (W.D. Wash. 2024). “19 9 Redding and Pierce County also assert that the strict liability dog bite statute “‘does not 20 apply to the lawful application of a police dog, as defined in RCW 4.24.410.’” Dkt. 78 at 7 (quoting RCW 16.”
Ellis v. Pierce Cnty. (W.D. Wash. 2022). “He argues that he is immune from this claim under RCW 4.24.410(2)—a statute 14 providing immunity to dog handlers who use police dogs in the line of duty in good faith.”
Ellis v. Pierce Cnty. (W.D. Wash. 2023). “Redding contends that he is 16 entitled to summary judgment on the negligence claim because RCW 4.24.410, which 17 grants immunity to dog handlers who use police dogs in the line of duty in good faith, 18 categorically precludes negligence claims.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 4.24.410(l)(a) — 2 cases
State v. Kisor, 916 P.2d 978 (Wash. Ct. App. 1996). “Training a replacement police dog necessarily involves a law enforcement officer who will act as the dog’s handler. RCW 4.24.410(l)(c).”
Finch v. Thurston Cnty. (Wash. 2016). “Under the exemption, strict liability "does not apply to the lawful application of a police dog, as defined in RCW 4.24.410." RCW 16.08.040(2). RCW 4.24.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 4.24.410(l)(b) — 1 case
State v. Kisor, 844 P.2d 1038 (Wash. Ct. App. 1993). “) In order to sustain a conviction for the offense, the State had to prove that Kisor knew or had reason to know that Lucky was a police dog.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 4.24.410(l)(c) — 1 case
State v. Kisor, 916 P.2d 978 (Wash. Ct. App. 1996). “Training a replacement police dog necessarily involves a law enforcement officer who will act as the dog’s handler. RCW 4.24.410(l)(c).”
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.