Wash. Rev. Code » Title 42 · Chapter 42.56
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 42.56.050 (2026)

Invasion of privacy, when

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
A person's "right to privacy," "right of privacy," "privacy," or "personal privacy," as these terms are used in this chapter, is invaded or violated only if disclosure of information about the person: (1) Would be highly offensive to a reasonable person, and (2) is not of legitimate concern to the public. The provisions of this chapter dealing with the right to privacy in certain public records do not create any right of privacy beyond those rights that are specified in this chapter as express exemptions from the public's right to inspect, examine, or copy public records.
[ 1987 c 403 s 2. Formerly RCW 42.17.255.]

Notes:

Intent—1987 c 403: "The legislature intends to restore the law relating to the release of public records largely to that which existed prior to the Washington Supreme Court decision in "In Re Rosier," 105 Wn.2d 606 (1986). The intent of this legislation is to make clear that: (1) Absent statutory provisions to the contrary, agencies possessing records should in responding to requests for disclosure not make any distinctions in releasing or not releasing records based upon the identity of the person or agency which requested the records, and (2) agencies having public records should rely only upon statutory exemptions or prohibitions for refusal to provide public records. Further, to avoid unnecessary confusion, "privacy" as used in RCW 42.17.255 is intended to have the same meaning as the definition given that word by the Supreme Court in "Hearst v. Hoppe," 90 Wn.2d 123, 135 (1978)." [ 1987 c 403 s 1.]
Severability—1987 c 403: "If any provision of this 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." [ 1987 c 403 s 7.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 56 cases (6 in the last 5 years), 2007–2025 · leading case: Bainbridge Police Guild v. City of Puyallup, 259 P.3d 190 (Wash. 2011).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Bainbridge Police Guild v. City of Puyallup, 259 P.3d 190 (Wash. 2011). · cites it 14× “We are not persuaded *197 that a person's right to privacy, as interpreted under the PRA, should be forever lost because of media coverage.”
Bainbridge Island Police Guild v. City of Puyallup, 172 Wash. 2d 398 (Wash. 2011). · cites it 14× “We are not persuaded that a person’s right to privacy, as interpreted under the PRA, should be forever lost because of media coverage.”
DeLong v. Parmelee, 236 P.3d 936 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 8× “The PRA statute does exempt from disclosure documents that, if released, would constitute an unreasonable invasion of privacy, RCW 42.56.050, and specific intelligence information compiled by law investigative, law enforcement, and penology agencies that is essential to…”
DeLong v. Parmelee, 157 Wash. App. 119 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 8× “The PRA statute does exempt from disclosure documents that, if released, would constitute an unreasonable invasion of privacy, RCW 42.56.050, and specific intelligence information compiled by law investigative, law enforcement, and penal agencies that is essential to effective…”
Bellevue John Does 1-11 v. Bellevue Sch. Dist. No. 405, 164 Wash. 2d 199 (Wash. 2008). · cites it 6× “Under the PDA, are the identities of public school teachers who are the subjects of unsubstantiated allegations of sexual misconduct exempt from disclosure? 9 2.”
Bellevue John Does 1-11 v. Bellevue Sch. Dist., 189 P.3d 139 (Wash. 2008). · cites it 6× “255 (1987), recodified as RCW 42.56.050 (LAWS OF 2005, ch. 274, § 103), unconstitutional because it defines privacy more restrictively than the constitutional right to privacy? [10] III.”
Koenig v. Thurston Cnty., 287 P.3d 523 (Wash. 2012). · cites it 4× “” RCW 42.56.050. a. VIS ¶35 Instead of engaging in an analysis of either the effective law enforcement or privacy prongs of the PRA *851 investigative records exception, the majority holds that the VIS and SSOSA evaluation are not investigative records.”
City of Lakewood v. Koenig, 343 P.3d 335 (Wash. 2014). · cites it 3× “These redactions are made pursuant to RCW 42.56.050, RCW 42.56-.240, RCW 46.52.”
Kitsap Cnty. Prosecuting Attorney's Guild v. Kitsap Cnty., 156 Wash. App. 110 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 2× “250 and RCW 42.56.050, input from employees will help us determine whether the County should take action under RCW 42.”
Seiu Local 925, Appellant/cross-respondent v. Freedom Found., Respondent/cross-appellant, 389 P.3d 641 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 3× “6 SEIU 925 notes that where disclosure of a public record is prohibited by constitutional privacy protections, it is also necessarily exempt under the PRA privacy exemption, RCW 42.56.050. RCW 42.56.050 addresses the right to privacy in certain public records and states such a…”
Fisher Broad.-Seattle TV LLC v. City of Seattle, 326 P.3d 688 (Wash. 2014). “We note that neither the statute nor even the bill reports mention the PRA or its predecessor.”
Predisik v. Spokane Sch. Dist. No. 81, 346 P.3d 737 (Wash. 2015). · cites it 2× “See RCW 42.56.050 (providing the test for determining when disclosure violates the right to privacy if such a right exists).”
Show all 56 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 42.56.050(1) — 1 case
O'Neill v. City of Shoreline, 170 Wash. 2d 138 (Wash. 2010).
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.