Revised Code of Washington
Wash. Rev. Code § 43.06A.080 (2026)
Inapplicability of privilege in RCW 43.06A.060
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
The privilege described in RCW 43.06A.060 does not apply when:
(1) The ombuds or ombuds's staff member has direct knowledge of an alleged crime, and the testimony, evidence, or discovery sought is relevant to that allegation;
(2) The ombuds or a member of the ombuds's staff has received a threat of, or becomes aware of a risk of, imminent serious harm to any person, and the testimony, evidence, or discovery sought is relevant to that threat or risk;
(3) The ombuds has been asked to provide general information regarding the general operation of, or the general processes employed at, the ombuds's office; or
Notes:
Severability—Effective date—1998 c 288: See notes following RCW 43.06A.020.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2
cases, 2003–2003 · leading case: Braam v. State, 150 Wash. 2d 689 (Wash. 2003).
Braam v. State, 150 Wash. 2d 689 (Wash. 2003). “RCW 43.06A.080 has four exclusions. It allows the ombudsman to report crimes, threats of imminent serious harm, general information regarding the operation of the ombudsman’s office, and failures of those required to report child abuse under RCW 26.”
Braam Ex Rel. Braam v. State, 81 P.3d 851 (Wash. 2003). “RCW 43.06A.080 has four exclusions. It allows the ombudsman to report crimes, threats of imminent serious harm, general information regarding the operation of the ombudsman's office, and failures of those required to report child abuse under RCW 26.”
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.