Wash. Rev. Code » Title 42 · Chapter 42.52
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 42.52.160 (2026)

Use of persons, money, or property for private gain

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) No state officer or state employee may employ or use any person, money, or property under the officer's or employee's official control or direction, or in his or her official custody, for the private benefit or gain of the officer, employee, or another.
(2) This section does not prohibit the use of public resources to benefit others as part of a state officer's or state employee's official duties. It is not a violation of this section for a legislator or employees under the jurisdiction of the legislative ethics board to engage in activities listed under RCW 42.52.822 or 42.52.175.
(3) This section does not prohibit de minimis use of state facilities to provide employees with information about (a) medical, surgical, and hospital care; (b) life insurance or accident and health disability insurance; or (c) individual retirement accounts, by any person, firm, or corporation administering such program as part of authorized payroll deductions pursuant to RCW 41.04.020.
(4) The appropriate ethics boards may adopt rules providing exceptions to this section for occasional use of the state officer or state employee, of de minimis cost and value, if the activity does not result in interference with the proper performance of official duties.
(5) This section does not apply to activities conducted by legislative employees authorized under RCW 44.90.110.
[ 2025 c 377 s 11; 2024 c 333 s 21; 2023 c 91 s 3; 2022 c 37 s 2; 2014 c 28 s 1; 1996 c 213 s 7; 1994 c 154 s 116; 1987 c 426 s 3. Formerly RCW 42.18.217.]

Notes:

Effective date—2024 c 333: See note following RCW 44.90.025.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 2003–2025 · leading case: Knudsen v. Washington State Exec. Ethics Bd., 156 Wash. App. 852 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Knudsen v. Washington State Exec. Ethics Bd., 156 Wash. App. 852 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 15× “Knudsen violated RCW 42.52.160(1), WAC 292-110--010, and RCW 42.”
Rahman v. State, 170 Wash. 2d 810 (Wash. 2011). · cites it 4× “¶23 The failure of the State to timely cite RCW 42.52.160 in the Court of Appeals does not foreclose its consideration, as an appellate court is entitled to consider relevant law in deciding an issue, regardless of whether any *824 party has cited it.”
Rahman v. State, 208 P.3d 566 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 5× “¶ 30 Finally, we decline the State's invitation to consider RCW 42.52.160 because the statute is not properly before us.”
Knudsen v. Wash. State Exec. Ethics Bd., 235 P.3d 835 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 15× “Knudsen violated RCW 42.52.160(1), WAC 292-110-010, and RCW 42.”
Clawson v. Grays Harbor Coll. Dist. No. 2, 61 P.3d 1130 (Wash. 2003). “’ ” 57 Respondent Green River cites RCW 42.52.160 which states that: (1) No state officer or state employee may employ or use any person, money, or property under the officer’s or employee’s official control or direction, or in his or her official custody, for the private…”
Rahman v. State, 246 P.3d 182 (Wash. 2011). · cites it 5× “¶ 23 The failure of the State to timely cite RCW 42.52.160 in the Court of Appeals does not foreclose its consideration, as an appellate court is entitled to consider relevant law in deciding an issue, regardless of *189 whether any party has cited it.”
Rahman v. State, 150 Wash. App. 345 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 5× “¶30 Finally, we decline the State’s invitation to consider RCW 42.52.160 because the statute is not properly before us.”
Clawson v. Grays Harbor Coll. Dist. No. 2, 61 P.3d 1130 (Wash. 2003). “'" [57] Respondent Green River cites RCW 42.52.160 which states that: (1) No state officer or state employee may employ or use any person, money, or property under the officer's or employee's official control or direction, or in his or her official custody, for the private…”
Roger Leishman V. Kathryn Nadine Reynolds (Wash. Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 2× “The provision of the EPSA at issue in Leishman’s complaints, RCW 42.52.160(1),7 provides, “No state officer or state employee may employ or use any person, money, or property under the officer’s or employee’s official control or direction, or in his or her official custody, for…”
Flaxman v. Ferguson (9th Cir. 2025). · cites it 2× “” Wash. Rev. Code § 42.52.160 (1). Another section of the statute prohibits the use of public resources for political campaigns, defined as acts taken “for the purpose of assisting a campaign for election of a person to an office or for the promotion of or opposition to a ballot…”
Alvarez v. Inslee, 186 F. Supp. 3d 1131 (W.D. Wash. 2016). “8 § 5 and RCW 42.52.160 by expending resources in favor of SEIU and receiving nothing in exchange.”
Flaxman v. Ferguson (W.D. Wash. 2024). “CODE §§ 42.52.160, 42.52.180. The 4 Executive Ethics Board is vested with the power to investigate complaints and impose sanctions 5 under the Ethics in Public Service Act.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 42.52.160(1) — 7 cases
Knudsen v. Washington State Exec. Ethics Bd., 156 Wash. App. 852 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010). “Knudsen violated RCW 42.52.160(1), WAC 292-110--010, and RCW 42.”
Knudsen v. Wash. State Exec. Ethics Bd., 235 P.3d 835 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010). “Knudsen violated RCW 42.52.160(1), WAC 292-110-010, and RCW 42.”
Rahman v. State, 170 Wash. 2d 810 (Wash. 2011). “¶23 The failure of the State to timely cite RCW 42.52.160 in the Court of Appeals does not foreclose its consideration, as an appellate court is entitled to consider relevant law in deciding an issue, regardless of whether any *824 party has cited it.”
Rahman v. State, 208 P.3d 566 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). “¶ 30 Finally, we decline the State's invitation to consider RCW 42.52.160 because the statute is not properly before us.”
Rahman v. State, 246 P.3d 182 (Wash. 2011). “¶ 23 The failure of the State to timely cite RCW 42.52.160 in the Court of Appeals does not foreclose its consideration, as an appellate court is entitled to consider relevant law in deciding an issue, regardless of *189 whether any party has cited it.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 42.52.160(2) — 1 case
Roger Leishman V. Kathryn Nadine Reynolds (Wash. Ct. App. 2023). “The provision of the EPSA at issue in Leishman’s complaints, RCW 42.52.160(1),7 provides, “No state officer or state employee may employ or use any person, money, or property under the officer’s or employee’s official control or direction, or in his or her official custody, for…”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 42.52.160(3) — 2 cases
Knudsen v. Washington State Exec. Ethics Bd., 156 Wash. App. 852 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010). “Knudsen violated RCW 42.52.160(1), WAC 292-110--010, and RCW 42.”
Knudsen v. Wash. State Exec. Ethics Bd., 235 P.3d 835 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010). “Knudsen violated RCW 42.52.160(1), WAC 292-110-010, and RCW 42.”
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.