Wash. Rev. Code » Title 46 · Chapter 46.20

Wash. Rev. Code § 46.20.329

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Upon receiving a request for a formal hearing as provided in RCW 46.20.328, the department shall fix a time and place for hearing as early as may be arranged in the county where the applicant or licensee resides, and shall give ten days' notice of the hearing to the applicant or licensee, except that the hearing may be set for a different place with the concurrence of the applicant or licensee and the period of notice may be waived.
Any decision by the department suspending or revoking a person's driving privilege shall be stayed and shall not take effect while a formal hearing is pending as herein provided or during the pendency of a subsequent appeal to superior court: PROVIDED, That this stay shall be effective only so long as there is no conviction of a moving violation or a finding that the person has committed a traffic infraction which is a moving violation during pendency of hearing and appeal: PROVIDED FURTHER, That nothing in this section shall be construed as prohibiting the department from seeking an order setting aside the stay during the pendency of such appeal in those cases where the action of the department is based upon physical or mental incapacity, or a failure to successfully complete an examination required by this chapter.
A formal hearing shall be conducted by the director or by a person or persons appointed by the director from among the employees of the department.
[ 1982 c 189 s 4; 1981 c 67 s 28; 1979 ex.s. c 136 s 61; 1972 ex.s. c 29 s 1; 1965 ex.s. c 121 s 36.]

Notes:

Effective date—1982 c 189: See note following RCW 34.12.020.
Effective dates—Severability—1981 c 67: See notes following RCW 34.12.010.
Effective date—Severability—1979 ex.s. c 136: See notes following RCW 46.63.010.
PDF

RCW 46.20.329

Formal Hearing—Procedures, Notice, Stay. (Effective October 1, 2025.)

Upon receiving a request for a formal hearing as provided in RCW 46.20.328, the department shall fix a time and place for hearing, including a remote hearing or an in-person hearing in the county where the applicant or licensee resides, with the concurrence of the applicant or the licensee, as early as may be arranged, and shall give 10 days' notice of the hearing to the applicant or licensee.
Any decision by the department suspending or revoking a person's driving privilege shall be stayed and shall not take effect while a formal hearing is pending as herein provided or during the pendency of a subsequent appeal to superior court: PROVIDED, That this stay shall be effective only so long as there is no conviction of a moving violation or a finding that the person has committed a traffic infraction that is a moving violation during pendency of hearing and appeal: PROVIDED FURTHER, That nothing in this section shall be construed as prohibiting the department from seeking an order setting aside the stay during the pendency of such appeal in those cases where the action of the department is based upon physical or mental incapacity, or a failure to successfully complete an examination required by this chapter.
A formal hearing shall be conducted by a person or persons appointed by the director from among the employees of the department.
[ 2025 c 23 s 9; 1982 c 189 s 4; 1981 c 67 s 28; 1979 ex.s. c 136 s 61; 1972 ex.s. c 29 s 1; 1965 ex.s. c 121 s 36.]

Notes:

Effective date—2025 c 23 ss 1-4 and 6-14: See note following RCW 46.04.480.
Effective date—1982 c 189: See note following RCW 34.12.020.
Effective dates—Severability—1981 c 67: See notes following RCW 34.12.010.
Effective date—Severability—1979 ex.s. c 136: See notes following RCW 46.63.010.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 20 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1972–2021 · leading case: Prostov v. Department of Licensing
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Prostov v. Department of Licensing (2015) washctapp · cites it 3× “RCW 46.20.329. Yuri requested a de novo hearing in superior court under RCW 46.”
State v. Vasquez (2002) wash · cites it 2× “Furthermore, under RCW 46.20.329, which governs the license suspension hearing, the hearing officer may be the director of the Department of Licensing or one of the employees of the agency—legal training is not required.”
State v. Vasquez (2002) wash · cites it 2× “Furthermore, under RCW 46.20.329, which governs the license suspension hearing, the hearing officer may be the director of the Department of Licensing or one of the employees of the agency— legal training is not required.”
Cannon v. Department of Licensing (2002) wash “308(8); see also RCW 46.20.329, .332. RCW 46.”
Thompson v. Department of Licensing (1999) wash “090, subject to the hearing provisions of RCW 46.20.329 and 46.20.332. The hearing shall be conducted in the county of the arrest.”
Thompson v. State Dept. of Licensing (1999) wash “090, subject to the hearing provisions of RCW 46.20.329 and 46.20.332. The hearing shall be conducted in the county of the arrest.”
State v. Fitzsimmons (1980) wash “We need not, and do not, reach the question whether the right to counsel would apply in an administrative proceeding under RCW 46.20.329 to determine whether revocation of the defendant's driver's license for refusal to take a chemical sobriety test is justified.”
Devine v. Department of Licensing (2005) washctapp “” RCW 46.20.329. The department’s failure to offer Devine a hearing until after the revocation of his license conflicted with the statute.”
Binckley v. Department of Motor Vehicles (1976) washctapp “After a “formal hearing” pursuant to RCW 46.20.329, RCW 46.20.332, and RCW 46.”
State Department of Motor Vehicles v. McElwain (1972) wash “The Department of Motor Vehicles, after a hearing which was requested by the appellant pursuant to RCW 46.20.329, ordered his license revoked for a period of 6 months.”
Devine v. STATE, DEPT. OF LICENSING (2005) washctapp “RCW 46.20.329. The Department's failure to offer Devine a hearing until after the revocation of his license conflicted with the statute.”
Mentor v. Nelson (1982) washctapp · cites it 4× “RCW 46.20.329. 2 While that appeal was pend *617 ing in superior court, the department received notice that Mr.”
Show all 20 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.