Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 46.61.502 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026

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

(1) A person is guilty of driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, cannabis, or any drug if the person drives a vehicle within this state:

(a) And the person has, within two hours after driving, an alcohol concentration of 0.08 or higher as shown by analysis of the person's breath or blood made under RCW 46.61.506; or

(b) The person has, within two hours after driving, a THC concentration of 5.00 or higher as shown by analysis of the person's blood made under RCW 46.61.506; or

(d) While the person is under the combined influence of or affected by intoxicating liquor, cannabis, and any drug.

(2) The fact that a person charged with a violation of this section is or has been entitled to use a drug under the laws of this state shall not constitute a defense against a charge of violating this section.

(3)(a) It is an affirmative defense to a violation of subsection (1)(a) of this section, which the defendant must prove by a preponderance of the evidence, that the defendant consumed a sufficient quantity of alcohol after the time of driving and before the administration of an analysis of the person's breath or blood to cause the defendant's alcohol concentration to be 0.08 or more within two hours after driving. The court shall not admit evidence of this defense unless the defendant notifies the prosecution prior to the omnibus or pretrial hearing in the case of the defendant's intent to assert the affirmative defense.

(b) It is an affirmative defense to a violation of subsection (1)(b) of this section, which the defendant must prove by a preponderance of the evidence, that the defendant consumed a sufficient quantity of cannabis after the time of driving and before the administration of an analysis of the person's blood to cause the defendant's THC concentration to be 5.00 or more within two hours after driving. The court shall not admit evidence of this defense unless the defendant notifies the prosecution prior to the omnibus or pretrial hearing in the case of the defendant's intent to assert the affirmative defense.

(4)(a) Analyses of blood or breath samples obtained more than two hours after the alleged driving may be used as evidence that within two hours of the alleged driving, a person had an alcohol concentration of 0.08 or more in violation of subsection (1)(a) of this section, and in any case in which the analysis shows an alcohol concentration above 0.00 may be used as evidence that a person was under the influence of or affected by intoxicating liquor or any drug in violation of subsection (1)(c) or (d) of this section.

(b) Analyses of blood samples obtained more than two hours after the alleged driving may be used as evidence that within two hours of the alleged driving, a person had a THC concentration of 5.00 or more in violation of subsection (1)(b) of this section, and in any case in which the analysis shows a THC concentration above 0.00 may be used as evidence that a person was under the influence of or affected by cannabis in violation of subsection (1)(c) or (d) of this section.

(5) Except as provided in subsection (6) of this section, a violation of this section is a gross misdemeanor.

(6) It is a class B felony punishable under chapter 9.94A RCW, or chapter 13.40 RCW if the person is a juvenile, if:

(a) The person has three or more prior offenses within ten years as defined in RCW 46.61.5055; or

(b) The person has ever previously been convicted of:

(i) Vehicular homicide while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or any drug, RCW 46.61.520(1)(a);

(ii) Vehicular assault while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or any drug, RCW 46.61.522(1)(b);

(iii) An out-of-state offense comparable to the offense specified in (b)(i) or (ii) of this subsection; or

(iv) A violation of this subsection (6) or RCW 46.61.504(6).

[ 2022 c 16 s 40; 2017 c 335 s 1; 2016 c 87 s 1; 2013 c 3 s 33 (Initiative Measure No. 502, approved November 6, 2012); 2011 c 293 s 2; 2008 c 282 s 20; 2006 c 73 s 1; 1998 c 213 s 3; 1994 c 275 s 2; 1993 c 328 s 1; 1987 c 373 s 2; 1986 c 153 s 2; 1979 ex.s. c 176 s 1.]

Notes:

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

Intent—Finding—2022 c 16: See note following RCW 69.50.101.

Intent—2013 c 3 (Initiative Measure No. 502): See note following RCW 69.50.101.

Effective date—2011 c 293 ss 1-9: See note following RCW 46.20.385.

Effective date—2006 c 73: "This act takes effect July 1, 2007." [ 2006 c 73 s 19.]

Effective date—1998 c 213: See note following RCW 46.20.308.

Short title—Effective date—1994 c 275: See notes following RCW 46.04.015.

Legislative finding, purpose—1987 c 373: "The legislature finds the existing statutes that establish the criteria for determining when a person is guilty of driving a motor vehicle under the influence of intoxicating liquor or drugs are constitutional and do not require any additional criteria to ensure their legality. The purpose of this act is to provide an additional method of defining the crime of driving while intoxicated. This act is not an acknowledgment that the existing breath alcohol standard is legally improper or invalid." [ 1987 c 373 s 1.]

Severability—1987 c 373: "If any provision of this act or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the act or the application of the provision to other persons or circumstances is not affected." [ 1987 c 373 s 8.]

Severability—1979 ex.s. c 176: "If any provision of this act or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the act or the application of the provision to other persons or circumstances is not affected." [ 1979 ex.s. c 176 s 8.]

Business operation of vessel or vehicle while intoxicated: RCW 9.91.020.

Criminal history and driving record: RCW 46.61.513.

Operating aircraft recklessly or under influence of intoxicants or drugs: RCW 47.68.220.

Use of vessel in reckless manner or while under influence of alcohol or drugs prohibited: RCW 79A.60.040.

(1) A person is guilty of driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, cannabis, or any drug if the person drives a vehicle within this state:

(a) And the person has, within two hours after driving, an alcohol concentration of 0.08 or higher as shown by analysis of the person's breath or blood made under RCW 46.61.506; or

(b) The person has, within two hours after driving, a THC concentration of 5.00 or higher as shown by analysis of the person's blood made under RCW 46.61.506; or

(d) While the person is under the combined influence of or affected by intoxicating liquor, cannabis, and any drug.

(5) Except as provided in subsection (6) of this section, a violation of this section is a gross misdemeanor.

(6) It is a class B felony punishable under chapter 9.94A RCW, or chapter 13.40 RCW if the person is a juvenile, if:

(a) The person has three or more prior offenses within 15 years as defined in RCW 46.61.5055; or

(b) The person has ever previously been convicted of:

(i) Vehicular homicide while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or any drug, RCW 46.61.520(1)(a);

(ii) Vehicular assault while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or any drug, RCW 46.61.522(1)(b);

(iii) An out-of-state offense comparable to the offense specified in (b)(i) or (ii) of this subsection; or

(iv) A violation of this subsection (6) or RCW 46.61.504(6).

[ 2024 c 306 s 30; 2022 c 16 s 40; 2017 c 335 s 1; 2016 c 87 s 1; 2013 c 3 s 33 (Initiative Measure No. 502, approved November 6, 2012); 2011 c 293 s 2; 2008 c 282 s 20; 2006 c 73 s 1; 1998 c 213 s 3; 1994 c 275 s 2; 1993 c 328 s 1; 1987 c 373 s 2; 1986 c 153 s 2; 1979 ex.s. c 176 s 1.]

Notes:

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

Effective date—2024 c 306: See note following RCW 9.94A.661.

Intent—Finding—2022 c 16: See note following RCW 69.50.101.

Intent—2013 c 3 (Initiative Measure No. 502): See note following RCW 69.50.101.

Effective date—2011 c 293 ss 1-9: See note following RCW 46.20.385.

Effective date—2006 c 73: "This act takes effect July 1, 2007." [ 2006 c 73 s 19.]

Effective date—1998 c 213: See note following RCW 46.20.308.

Short title—Effective date—1994 c 275: See notes following RCW 46.04.015.

Business operation of vessel or vehicle while intoxicated: RCW 9.91.020.

Criminal history and driving record: RCW 46.61.513.

Operating aircraft recklessly or under influence of intoxicants or drugs: RCW 47.68.220.

Use of vessel in reckless manner or while under influence of alcohol or drugs prohibited: RCW 79A.60.040.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 524 cases (53 in the last 5 years), 1980–2026 · leading case: State v. Crediford, 927 P.2d 1129 (Wash. 1996).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

State v. Crediford, 927 P.2d 1129 (Wash. 1996). · cites it 43× “*751 In the fall of 1993, Crediford was charged in 'Whatcom County District Court with driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicants, in violation of RCW 46.61.502. Before trial, Crediford challenged the constitutionality of the statute and moved to dismiss…”

State v. Sandholm, 364 P.3d 87 (Wash. 2015). · cites it 21× “¶1 — This case involves an interpretation of former RCW 46.61.502 (2008), driving under the influence (DUI), and a determination of the' number of alternative means of committing an offense established by the statute.”

State v. Chambers, 237 P.3d 352 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 24× “¶7 The State charged Chambers with the crime of felony DUI in violation of former RCW 46.61.502. The State alleged that Chambers had a blood alcohol level of at least 0.”

State v. Robbins, 138 Wash. 2d 486 (Wash. 1999). · cites it 42× “Following administration of these tests, Heyen issued Robbins a ticket for DUI in violation of RCW 46.61.502. Prior to trial at the Okanogan County District Court, Robbins moved to suppress the results of the Breathalyzer tests.”

State v. Franco, 639 P.2d 1320 (Wash. 1982). · cites it 13× “RCW 46.61.502 states: Driving while under influence of intoxicating liquor or drug What constitutes.”

State v. McClendon, 935 P.2d 1334 (Wash. 1997). · cites it 18× “The parties and a judge of the Whitman County Superior Court jointly seek review of a Whitman County District Court decision granting the respondents' motion to dismiss charges of driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor in violation of RCW 46.61.502. We granted…”

State v. McClendon, 131 Wash. 2d 853 (Wash. 1997). · cites it 18× “The parties and a judge of the Whitman County Superior Court jointly seek review of a Whitman County District Court decision granting the respondents’ motion to dismiss charges of driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor in violation of RCW 46.61.502. We granted…”

State v. Robbins, 980 P.2d 725 (Wash. 1999). · cites it 42× “Following administration of these tests, Heyen issued Robbins a ticket for DUI in violation of RCW 46.61.502. Prior to trial at the Okanogan County District Court, Robbins moved to suppress the results of the Breathalyzer tests.”

State v. Wittenbarger, 880 P.2d 517 (Wash. 1994). · cites it 12× “The admissibility of DataMaster breath test results has been widely challenged in recent DWI prosecutions under RCW 46.61.502, Washington's driving while under the influence of intoxicants (DWI) statute.”

Town of Repub. v. Brown, 652 P.2d 955 (Wash. 1982). · cites it 28× “These substantive provisions were recodified at RCW 46.61.502. The Town of Republic did *917 not pass a new ordinance which recognized this change in the state statute.”

State v. Curran, 804 P.2d 558 (Wash. 1991). · cites it 14× “II Curran next argues that amendments to RCW 46.61.502 and RCW 46.61.506 made blood alcohol evidence irrelevant and inadmissible to prove vehicular homicide at the time of his arrest.”

State v. Donahue, 18 P.3d 608 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 16× “RCW 46.61.502 AND STANDARDS FOR BLOOD ALCOHOL EVIDENCE Donahue was charged with vehicular homicide by driving under the influence contrary to RCW 46.”

Show all 524 citing cases →

— Wash. Rev. Code § 46.61.502(1) — 69 cases

State v. Wittenbarger, 880 P.2d 517 (Wash. 1994). “The admissibility of DataMaster breath test results has been widely challenged in recent DWI prosecutions under RCW 46.61.502, Washington's driving while under the influence of intoxicants (DWI) statute.”

State v. Brayman, 751 P.2d 294 (Wash. 1988).

State v. Franco, 639 P.2d 1320 (Wash. 1982). “RCW 46.61.502 states: Driving while under influence of intoxicating liquor or drug What constitutes.”

State v. Crediford, 927 P.2d 1129 (Wash. 1996). “*751 In the fall of 1993, Crediford was charged in 'Whatcom County District Court with driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicants, in violation of RCW 46.61.502. Before trial, Crediford challenged the constitutionality of the statute and moved to dismiss…”

State v. Rich, 365 P.3d 746 (Wash. 2016).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 46.61.502(1)(a) — 41 cases

State v. Keller, 545 P.3d 790 (Wash. 2024).

City of Seattle v. Williams, 908 P.2d 359 (Wash. 1995).

State v. Donahue, 18 P.3d 608 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). “RCW 46.61.502 AND STANDARDS FOR BLOOD ALCOHOL EVIDENCE Donahue was charged with vehicular homicide by driving under the influence contrary to RCW 46.”

State v. Robbins, 980 P.2d 725 (Wash. 1999). “Following administration of these tests, Heyen issued Robbins a ticket for DUI in violation of RCW 46.61.502. Prior to trial at the Okanogan County District Court, Robbins moved to suppress the results of the Breathalyzer tests.”

Gerlach v. The Cove Apts., LLC, 471 P.3d 181 (Wash. 2020).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 46.61.502(1)(a)(b)(c) — 1 case

State Of Washington, V. Jessica A. Turnbough (Wash. Ct. App. 2021).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 46.61.502(1)(a)(c) — 1 case

— Wash. Rev. Code § 46.61.502(1)(b) — 17 cases

State Of Washington, V. Jeremy Ian Frieday, 565 P.3d 139 (Wash. Ct. App. 2025).

State v. Baity, 991 P.2d 1151 (Wash. 2000).

Tamisha Pearson v. City Of Seattle, 192 Wash. App. 802 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016).

State v. Grant, 17 P.3d 674 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 46.61.502(1)(c) — 19 cases

Gerlach v. The Cove Apts., LLC, 471 P.3d 181 (Wash. 2020).

State v. Keller, 545 P.3d 790 (Wash. 2024).

State Of Washington, V. Jeremy Ian Frieday, 565 P.3d 139 (Wash. Ct. App. 2025).

City of Seattle v. Williams, 908 P.2d 359 (Wash. 1995).

Gerlach v. Cove Apts., LLC, 446 P.3d 624 (Wash. Ct. App. 2019).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 46.61.502(1)(c)(2011) — 1 case

State Of Washington v. Robert Terrance Jackson Jr. (Wash. Ct. App. 2018).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 46.61.502(2) — 9 cases

State v. Curran, 804 P.2d 558 (Wash. 1991). “II Curran next argues that amendments to RCW 46.61.502 and RCW 46.61.506 made blood alcohol evidence irrelevant and inadmissible to prove vehicular homicide at the time of his arrest.”

State v. MacMaster, 778 P.2d 1037 (Wash. 1989).

State v. Perez, 847 P.2d 532 (Wash. Ct. App. 1993).

State v. Melcher, 655 P.2d 1169 (Wash. Ct. App. 1982).

State v. Entzel, 805 P.2d 228 (Wash. 1991).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 46.61.502(2008) — 2 cases

State v. Sandholm, 364 P.3d 87 (Wash. 2015). “¶1 — This case involves an interpretation of former RCW 46.61.502 (2008), driving under the influence (DUI), and a determination of the' number of alternative means of committing an offense established by the statute.”

State v. Barboza-Cortes, 451 P.3d 707 (Wash. 2019).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 46.61.502(3) — 9 cases

State v. Robbins, 138 Wash. 2d 486 (Wash. 1999). “Following administration of these tests, Heyen issued Robbins a ticket for DUI in violation of RCW 46.61.502. Prior to trial at the Okanogan County District Court, Robbins moved to suppress the results of the Breathalyzer tests.”

State v. MacMaster, 778 P.2d 1037 (Wash. 1989).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 46.61.502(4) — 1 case

State v. Morales, 269 P.3d 263 (Wash. 2012).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 46.61.502(4)(a) — 2 cases

State Of Washington, V. Jeremy Ian Frieday, 565 P.3d 139 (Wash. Ct. App. 2025).

State of Washington v. Gloria Marie Mathyer (Wash. Ct. App. 2018).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 46.61.502(5) — 16 cases

State v. Eriksen, 259 P.3d 1079 (Wash. 2011).

State v. Nguyen, 197 P.3d 673 (Wash. 2008).

State v. Huyen Bich Nguyen, 165 Wash. 2d 428 (Wash. 2008).

State v. Chambers, 237 P.3d 352 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010). “¶7 The State charged Chambers with the crime of felony DUI in violation of former RCW 46.61.502. The State alleged that Chambers had a blood alcohol level of at least 0.”

State of Washington v. Brian Clifford Allen, 425 P.3d 529 (Wash. Ct. App. 2018).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 46.61.502(6) — 55 cases

State v. Cochrane, 253 P.3d 95 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011).

State v. Mashek, 312 P.3d 774 (Wash. Ct. App. 2013).

State v. Roswell, 165 Wash. 2d 186 (Wash. 2008).

State v. Roswell, 196 P.3d 705 (Wash. 2008).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 46.61.502(6)(2007) — 1 case

State v. Chambers, 237 P.3d 352 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 46.61.502(6)(a) — 16 cases

State v. Wu, 453 P.3d 975 (Wash. 2019).

State v. Mullen, 345 P.3d 26 (Wash. Ct. App. 2015).

State v. Chandler, 240 P.3d 159 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010).

State v. Santos, 260 P.3d 982 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 46.61.502(6)(a)(2016) — 1 case

State v. Wu, 453 P.3d 975 (Wash. 2019).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 46.61.502(6)(b) — 1 case

State Of Washington, V. Amos Carmona Cruz (Wash. Ct. App. 2021).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 46.61.502(6)(b)(i) — 3 cases

State v. Quaale, 340 P.3d 213 (Wash. 2014).

State Of Washington v. Dwight Lloyd Casady (Wash. Ct. App. 2014).

State v. Quaale (Wash. 2014).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 46.61.502(6)(b)(ii) — 12 cases

State Of Washington, V. Jeremy Ian Frieday, 565 P.3d 139 (Wash. Ct. App. 2025).

State v. Martines, 355 P.3d 1111 (Wash. 2015).

State of Washington v. Brian Clifford Allen, 425 P.3d 529 (Wash. Ct. App. 2018).

State v. Wu, 453 P.3d 975 (Wash. 2019).

State v. Martines, 331 P.3d 105 (Wash. Ct. App. 2014).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 46.61.502(DUI) — 2 cases

City of Auburn v. Hedlund, 201 P.3d 315 (Wash. 2009).

State v. Nguyen, 197 P.3d 673 (Wash. 2008).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 46.61.502(a) — 2 cases

City of Seattle v. Williams, 128 Wash. 2d 341 (Wash. 1995).

State v. Walker, 920 P.2d 605 (Wash. Ct. App. 1996).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 46.61.502(b) — 2 cases

State v. Barboza-Cortes, 451 P.3d 707 (Wash. 2019).

Webb v. City of Vancouver (W.D. Wash. 2020).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 46.61.502(c) — 2 cases

Austin K. Fite, V. City Of Puyallup (Wash. Ct. App. 2021).

State Of Washington, V Trelane Hugh Hunter (Wash. Ct. App. 2017).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 46.61.502(l)(a) — 23 cases

State v. Johnson, 315 P.3d 1090 (Wash. 2014).

State v. Donahue, 105 Wash. App. 67 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 46.61.502(l)(b) — 12 cases

State v. Arndt, 320 P.3d 104 (Wash. Ct. App. 2014).

State v. Grant, 104 Wash. App. 715 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001).

State v. Morales, 269 P.3d 263 (Wash. 2012).

State v. Baity, 140 Wash. 2d 1 (Wash. 2000).

City of Seattle v. Williams, 128 Wash. 2d 341 (Wash. 1995).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 46.61.502(l)(c) — 7 cases

State v. Quaale, 340 P.3d 213 (Wash. 2014).

Peralta v. State, 389 P.3d 596 (Wash. 2017).

City of Seattle v. Williams, 128 Wash. 2d 341 (Wash. 1995).

State v. Goggin, 339 P.3d 983 (Wash. Ct. App. 2014).

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.

Wash. Rev. Code § 46.61.502 (2026)

Notes:

RCW 46.61.502

Driving Under the Influence. (Effective January 1, 2026.)

Notes: