Wash. Rev. Code » Title 46 · Chapter 46.20
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 46.20.289 (2026)

Suspension for failure to respond, appear, etc

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) Except for traffic violations committed under RCW 46.61.165, the department shall suspend all driving privileges of a person when the department receives notice from a court under RCW 46.63.070(6), 46.63.110(6), or 46.64.025 that the person has failed to respond to a notice of traffic infraction for a moving violation, failed to appear at a hearing for a moving violation, or failed to comply with the terms of a criminal complaint or criminal citation for a moving violation.
(2) The department shall suspend all driving privileges of a person when the department receives notice from another state under Article IV of the nonresident violator compact under RCW 46.23.010 or from a jurisdiction that has entered into an agreement with the department under RCW 46.23.020, other than for a standing, stopping, or parking violation, provided that the traffic infraction or traffic offense is committed on or after July 1, 2005.
(3) A suspension under this section takes effect pursuant to the provisions of RCW 46.20.245, and remains in effect until the department has received a certificate from the court showing that the case has been adjudicated, and until the person meets the requirements of RCW 46.20.311.
(4) A suspension under this section does not take effect if, prior to the effective date of the suspension, the department receives a certificate from the court showing that the case or cases have been adjudicated.
[ 2021 c 240 s 5; 2019 c 467 s 2; 2016 c 203 s 6; 2012 c 82 s 3; 2005 c 288 s 5; 2002 c 279 s 4; 1999 c 274 s 1; 1995 c 219 s 2; 1993 c 501 s 1.]

Notes:

Effective date—2021 c 240: See note following RCW 46.63.060.
Finding—Intent—2019 c 467: "The legislature finds that individuals who engage in contrived or repeated violations of the state's high occupancy vehicle lane restrictions frustrate the state's congestion management, and justifiably incite indignation and anger among fellow transportation system users. The legislature intends the escalating penalties prescribed in this act to rebuke and discourage such conduct within Washington's transportation system." [ 2019 c 467 s 1.]
Effective date—Contingency—2012 c 82: See note following RCW 46.63.110.
Effective date—2005 c 288: See note following RCW 46.20.245.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 45 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1997–2023 · leading case: City of Redmond v. Moore, 91 P.3d 875 (Wash. 2004).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
City of Redmond v. Moore, 91 P.3d 875 (Wash. 2004). · cites it 38× “In both cases the district court concluded mandatory suspension of their licenses pursuant to RCW 46.20.289 violated procedural due process because Moore and Wilson were not afforded an administrative hearing by the Department of Licensing (DOL) before or after the effective…”
City of Redmond v. Moore, 151 Wash. 2d 664 (Wash. 2004). · cites it 35× “We affirm the district court and hold RCW 46.20.289 and .324(1) violate due process.”
State v. Johnson, 315 P.3d 1090 (Wash. 2014). · cites it 24× “(iv) the person has failed to respond to a notice of traffic infraction, failed to appear at a requested hearing, violated a written promise to appear in court, or has failed to comply with the terms of a notice of traffic infraction or citation, as provided in [former] RCW…”
State v. Brockob, 150 P.3d 59 (Wash. 2006). · cites it 4× “Warrantless vehicle search incident to Gonzales’ arrest ¶73 Gonzales challenges the validity of his arrest under former RCW 46.20.289 (1999) 18 because this court subsequently struck down that statute as unconstitutional and argues that the evidence obtained from the vehicle…”
Amunrud v. Bd. of Appeals, 158 Wash. 2d 208 (Wash. 2006). · cites it 3× “¶15 In Moore, this court examined a procedural due process challenge to former RCW 46.20.289 (2002), which provided for mandatory license suspension for failing to respond to a notice of traffic infraction, and former RCW 46.”
City of Bellevue v. Lee, 210 P.3d 1011 (Wash. 2009). · cites it 4× “FACTS ¶2 Under RCW 46.20.289, the DOL suspends a driver’s license when it receives notice from a court that the driver *584 has failed to respond, appear, or pay, or otherwise failed to comply with the terms of a traffic citation.”
State v. Olinger, 121 P.3d 724 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 4× “Moore , the Supreme Court invalidated two license suspension statutes (RCW 46.20.289; RCW 46.20.324(1)) because they provided for the suspension of a driver's license without an administrative hearing.”
State v. Potter, 119 P.3d 877 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 4× “¶ 7 The court in Moore held two license suspension statutes unconstitutional—former RCW 46.20.289 (2002) (mandatory suspension of a driver's license) and former RCW 46.”
State v. Potter, 129 Wash. App. 494 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 4× “17 The court in Moore held two license suspension statutes unconstitutional — former RCW 46.20.289 (2002) (mandatory suspension of a driver’s license) and former RCW 46.”
State v. Olinger, 121 P.3d 724 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 3× “Moore, the Supreme Court invalidated two license suspension statutes (RCW 46.20.289, .324(1)) because they provided for the suspension of a driver’s license without an administrative hearing.”
State v. Carnahan, 130 Wash. App. 159 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 2× “ANALYSIS Validity of DWLS Arrest ¶8 In Moore, the Washington Supreme Court held that RCW 46.20.289 and .324(1) were unconstitutional because those provisions did not provide for a hearing prior to the suspension of a driver’s license.”
Amunrud v. Bd. of Appeals, 143 P.3d 571 (Wash. 2006). · cites it 3× “¶ 15 In Moore, this court examined a procedural due process challenge to former RCW 46.20.289 (2002), which provided for mandatory license suspension for failing to respond to a notice of traffic infraction, and former RCW 46.”
Show all 45 citing cases →
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.