Wash. Rev. Code » Title 40 · Chapter 40.16
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 40.16.010 (2026)

Injury to public record

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Every person who shall willfully and unlawfully remove, alter, mutilate, destroy, conceal, or obliterate a record, map, book, paper, document, or other thing filed or deposited in a public office, or with any public officer, by authority of law, is guilty of a class C felony and shall be punished by imprisonment in a state correctional facility for not more than five years, or by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars, or by both.
[ 2003 c 53 s 214; 1992 c 7 s 34; 1909 c 249 s 95; RRS s 2347.]

Notes:

Intent—Effective date—2003 c 53: See notes following RCW 2.48.180.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 2008–2026 · leading case: In re the Disciplinary Proceeding Against Kamb, 305 P.3d 1091 (Wash. 2013).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In re the Disciplinary Proceeding Against Kamb, 305 P.3d 1091 (Wash. 2013). · cites it 3× “Did Kamb commit a felony by writing on the filed court order? ¶21 Kamb challenges the hearing officer’s finding that he committed a felony under RCW 40.16.010 by willfully altering a court order.”
Kitsap Cnty. v. Smith, 143 Wash. App. 893 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 2× “RCW 40.16.010. Additionally, [e]very officer who shall mutilate, destroy, conceal, erase, obliterate, or falsify any record or paper appertaining to the officer’s office, or who shall fraudulently appropriate to the officer’s own use or to the use of another person, or secrete…”
O'Neill v. City of Shoreline, 187 P.3d 822 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008). “RCW 40.16.010. Clerk’s Papers at 34 (Shenk declaration).”
Kitsap Cnty. v. Smith, 180 P.3d 834 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 2× “RCW 40.16.010. Additionally, [e]very officer who shall mutilate, destroy, conceal, erase, obliterate, or falsify any record or paper appertaining to the officer's office, or who shall fraudulently appropriate to the officer's own use or to the use of another person, or secrete…”
In re Disciplinary Proceeding Against Kamb (Wash. 2013). · cites it 4× “Did Kamb commit a felony by writing on the filed court order? Kamb challenges the hearing officer's finding that he committed a felony under RCW 40.16.010 by willfully altering a court order.”
Alex May v. Spokane Cnty. (Wash. Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 2× “010 states: Every person who shall willfully and unlawfully remove, alter, mutilate, destroy, conceal, or obliterate a record, map, book, paper, document, or other thing filed or deposited in a public office, or with any public officer, by authority of law, is guilty of a class…”
O'NEIL v. City of Shoreline, 187 P.3d 822 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008). “Deputy Mayor Fimia did not state in her declaration that she sent a copy of the e-mail to herself on September 26, a day after she sent it to the city attorney. Nevertheless, the record contains the metadata from such an e-mail with a date stamp of September 26.”
John Worthington v. City Of Bremerton (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). “Worthington sought “remedies for concealing, and altering public records under RCW 40.16.010,” and an order that would require the sued jurisdictions “to comply with the [PRA] and the Washington State Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA), and pay fines for the violations of those…”
Jamie Nixon, V. State Of Washington (Wash. Ct. App. 2026). “16 RCW RCW 40.16.010 states in part, Every person who shall willfully and unlawfully remove, alter, mutilate, destroy, conceal, or obliterate a record, map, book, paper, document, or other thing filed or deposited in a public office, or with any public officer, by authority of…”
In re Recall of Weyrich, 554 P.3d 1202 (Wash. 2024). “He cites to two statutes: RCW 40.16.010, which criminalizes intentional destruction of items filed or deposited in a public office or with any public officer, and 52 U.”
James Barstad v. Wa State Dep't Of Corr. (Wash. Ct. App. 2015). “Because it is uncontested that the record Barstad sought did not exist when he requested it, and because the destruction of a document prior to a PRA request is not actionable under the 2 In support of his argument that the legislature intended to incorporate the records…”
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.