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

Wash. Rev. Code § 46.20.324 (2026)

Persons not entitled to interview or hearing

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Unless otherwise provided by law, a person shall not be entitled to a driver improvement interview or formal hearing under the provisions of RCW 46.20.322 through 46.20.333 when the person:
(1) Has been granted the opportunity for an administrative review, informal settlement, or formal hearing under RCW 46.20.245, 46.20.308, 46.25.120, 46.65.065, 74.20A.320, or by rule of the department; or
(2) Has refused or neglected to submit to an examination as required by RCW 46.20.305.
[ 2023 c 35 s 9; 2005 c 288 s 6; 1965 ex.s. c 121 s 31.]

Notes:

Effective date—2023 c 35: See note following RCW 46.25.010.
Effective date—2005 c 288: See note following RCW 46.20.245.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 22 cases, 1978–2009 · 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 2× “By implication the district court's orders also invalidated RCW 46.20.324(1), which provides that a person shall not be entitled to an administrative hearing when the license suspension or revocation is mandatory.”
City of Redmond v. Moore, 151 Wash. 2d 664 (Wash. 2004). · cites it 2× “By implication the district court’s orders also invalidated RCW 46.20.324(1), which provides that a person shall not be entitled to an administrative hearing when the license suspension or revocation is mandatory.”
Amunrud v. Bd. of Appeals, 158 Wash. 2d 208 (Wash. 2006). “289 (2002), which provided for mandatory license suspension for failing to respond to a notice of traffic infraction, and former RCW 46.20.324(1) (1965), which denied an administrative hearing when the license suspension or revocation was mandatory.”
State v. Olinger, 121 P.3d 724 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 3× “289; RCW 46.20.324(1)) because they provided for the suspension of a driver's license without an administrative hearing.”
State v. Potter, 132 P.3d 1089 (Wash. 2006). “289 (2002), which authorized the mandatory suspension of a driver's license without an opportunity for an administrative hearing, and former RCW 46.20.324(1) (1965), which provided that a person shall not be entitled to a driver improvement interview or formal hearing, failed to…”
State v. Olinger, 121 P.3d 724 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 2× “The defendants also, by extension, challenged the constitutionality of RCW 46.20.324(1). Id. RCW 46.20.324(1) denies a driver the right to a formal hearing in cases of a mandatory license suspension.”
State v. Hearn, 131 Wash. App. 601 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). “289 (2002) and former RCW 46.20.324(1) (1965), the statutes declared unconstitutional in Moore.”
State v. Potter, 119 P.3d 877 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 2× “289 (2002) (mandatory suspension of a driver's license) and former RCW 46.20.324(1) (1965) (no formal hearing for a mandatory suspension of a driver's license).”
State v. Potter, 129 Wash. App. 494 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 2× “289 (2002) (mandatory suspension of a driver’s license) and former RCW 46.20.324(1) (1965) (no formal hearing for a mandatory suspension of a driver’s license).”
City of Bellevue v. Lee, 210 P.3d 1011 (Wash. 2009). “289 (2002) and former RCW 46.20.324(1) (1965) were unconstitutional because they violated procedural due process.”
Amunrud v. Bd. of Appeals, 143 P.3d 571 (Wash. 2006). “289 (2002), which provided for mandatory license suspension for failing to respond to a notice of traffic infraction, and former RCW 46.20.324(1) (1965), which denied an administrative hearing when the license suspension or revocation was mandatory.”
City of Redmond v. Bagby, 117 P.3d 1126 (Wash. 2005). “A corollary statute (RCW 46.20.324(1)) denied the driver the possibility of a hearing to correct any errors.”
Show all 22 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 46.20.324(1) — 20 cases
City of Redmond v. Moore, 91 P.3d 875 (Wash. 2004). “By implication the district court's orders also invalidated RCW 46.20.324(1), which provides that a person shall not be entitled to an administrative hearing when the license suspension or revocation is mandatory.”
City of Redmond v. Moore, 151 Wash. 2d 664 (Wash. 2004). “By implication the district court’s orders also invalidated RCW 46.20.324(1), which provides that a person shall not be entitled to an administrative hearing when the license suspension or revocation is mandatory.”
Amunrud v. Bd. of Appeals, 158 Wash. 2d 208 (Wash. 2006). “289 (2002), which provided for mandatory license suspension for failing to respond to a notice of traffic infraction, and former RCW 46.20.324(1) (1965), which denied an administrative hearing when the license suspension or revocation was mandatory.”
State v. Olinger, 121 P.3d 724 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). “289; RCW 46.20.324(1)) because they provided for the suspension of a driver's license without an administrative hearing.”
State v. Potter, 132 P.3d 1089 (Wash. 2006). “289 (2002), which authorized the mandatory suspension of a driver's license without an opportunity for an administrative hearing, and former RCW 46.20.324(1) (1965), which provided that a person shall not be entitled to a driver improvement interview or formal hearing, failed to…”
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.