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

Wash. Rev. Code § 42.52.420 (2026)

Investigation

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) After the filing of any complaint, except as provided in RCW 42.52.450, the staff of the appropriate ethics board shall investigate the complaint. The ethics board may request the assistance of the office of the attorney general or a contract investigator in conducting its investigation.
(2) The results of the investigation shall be reduced to writing and the staff shall either make a determination that the complaint should be dismissed pursuant to RCW 42.52.425, or recommend to the board that there is or that there is not reasonable cause to believe that a violation of this chapter or rules adopted under it has been or is being committed.
(3) The board's determination on reasonable cause shall be provided to the complainant and to the person named in such complaint.
(4) The identity of a person filing a complaint under RCW 42.52.410(1) is exempt from public disclosure, as provided in RCW 42.56.240.
[ 2013 c 190 s 4; 2000 c 211 s 1; 1994 c 154 s 212.]

Notes:

Finding—2013 c 190: See note following RCW 42.52.410.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 2023–2025 · leading case: Brady Horenstein v. Exec. Ethics Bd. (Wash. Ct. App. 2025).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Brady Horenstein v. Exec. Ethics Bd. (Wash. Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 7× “” RCW 42.52.420. The Ethics Board’s promulgated rules define the “investigation” as “fact 1 The “legislative ethics board,” also created under the EPSA, is responsible for enforcing the chapter and any rules adopted under it with respect to members and employees of the…”
Does 1, 2, 4, 5, Appellants/cross-respondents V. Sam Sueoka, Respondents/cross-appellants (Wash. Ct. App. 2023). “240(9) 2012 c 288 s 1 alarm system programs and vacation crime watch victims programs Identity of state employee or officer who files a Investigative, law complaint with an ethics board under RCW 42.52.420 126 enforcement and crime 42.”
Roger Leishman V. Kathryn Nadine Reynolds (Wash. Ct. App. 2023). “RCW 42.52.420(1). But even after filing, “[t]he complainant is not a party to an ethics case for any purpose.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 42.52.420(1) — 1 case
Roger Leishman V. Kathryn Nadine Reynolds (Wash. Ct. App. 2023). “RCW 42.52.420(1). But even after filing, “[t]he complainant is not a party to an ethics case for any purpose.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 42.52.420(2) — 1 case
Brady Horenstein v. Exec. Ethics Bd. (Wash. Ct. App. 2025). “” RCW 42.52.420. The Ethics Board’s promulgated rules define the “investigation” as “fact 1 The “legislative ethics board,” also created under the EPSA, is responsible for enforcing the chapter and any rules adopted under it with respect to members and employees of the…”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 42.52.420(3) — 1 case
Brady Horenstein v. Exec. Ethics Bd. (Wash. Ct. App. 2025). “” RCW 42.52.420. The Ethics Board’s promulgated rules define the “investigation” as “fact 1 The “legislative ethics board,” also created under the EPSA, is responsible for enforcing the chapter and any rules adopted under it with respect to members and employees of the…”
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.