Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 46.20.345 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Any resident or nonresident whose driver's license or right or privilege to operate a motor vehicle in this state has been suspended or revoked as provided in this title shall not operate a motor vehicle in this state under a license, permit, or registration certificate issued by any other jurisdiction or otherwise during such suspension or after such revocation until a new license is obtained when and as permitted under this chapter. A person who violates the provisions of this section is guilty of a gross misdemeanor.

[ 1990 c 210 s 6; 1985 c 302 s 5; 1967 c 32 s 35; 1961 c 134 s 2. Formerly RCW 46.20.420.]

Notes:

Rules of court: Bail in criminal traffic offense cases—Mandatory appearance—CrRLJ 3.2.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 6 cases, 2004–2015 · leading case: State v. Gaddy, 93 P.3d 872 (Wash. 2004).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

State v. Gaddy, 93 P.3d 872 (Wash. 2004). “Thus, the DOL information concerning Gaddy's record that was obtained via an MDT located in the arresting police officer's vehicle provided probable cause to arrest Gaddy for driving with a suspended license.”

Potter v. Washington State Patrol, 165 Wash. 2d 67 (Wash. 2008). “342 or RCW 46.20.345 and the impoundment is determined to be improper, then the law enforcement officer who directed impoundment and his or her government employer will not be liable for damages if the officer relied in good faith and *92 without gross negligence on the records…”

Potter v. Washington State Patrol, 196 P.3d 691 (Wash. 2008). “342 or RCW 46.20.345 and the impoundment is determined to be improper, then the law enforcement officer who directed impoundment and his or her government employer will not be liable for damages if the officer relied in good faith and without gross negligence on the records of…”

Potter v. Washington State Patrol, 166 P.3d 684 (Wash. 2007). “342 or RCW 46.20.345 and the impoundment is determined to be improper, then the law enforcement officer who directed impoundment and his or her government employer will not be liable for damages if the officer relied in good faith and without gross negligence on the records of…”

Potter v. Washington State Patrol, 161 Wash. 2d 335 (Wash. 2007). “342 or RCW 46.20.345 and the impoundment is determined to be improper, then the law enforcement officer who directed impoundment and his or her government employer will not be liable for damages if the officer relied in good faith and without gross negligence on the records of…”

State Of Washington, V April Jeanell Hancock, 360 P.3d 992 (Wash. Ct. App. 2015). “420 (1990), since recodified as RCW 46.20.345). ¶14 The legislative history is sparse regarding the above amendments, and it is silent about why the legislature removed the “highway” language from the DWLS statute in 1990.”

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.