Wash. Rev. Code » Title 46 · Chapter 46.64
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 46.64.015 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Whenever any person is arrested for any violation of the traffic laws or regulations which is punishable as a misdemeanor or by imposition of a fine, the arresting officer may serve upon him or her a traffic citation and notice to appear in court. Such citation and notice shall conform to the requirements of RCW 46.64.010, and in addition, shall include spaces for the name and address of the person arrested, the license number of the vehicle involved, the driver's license number of such person, if any, the offense or violation charged, and the time and place where such person shall appear in court. Such spaces shall be filled with the appropriate information by the arresting officer. An officer may not serve or issue any traffic citation or notice for any offense or violation except either when the offense or violation is committed in his or her presence or when a person may be arrested pursuant to RCW 10.31.100, as now or hereafter amended. The detention arising from an arrest under this section may not be for a period of time longer than is reasonably necessary to issue and serve a citation and notice, except that the time limitation does not apply under any of the following circumstances:
(1) Where the arresting officer has probable cause to believe that the arrested person has committed any of the offenses enumerated in RCW 10.31.100(3);
(2) When the arrested person is a nonresident and is being detained for a hearing under RCW 46.64.035.
[ 2006 c 270 s 3; 2004 c 43 s 5; 1987 c 345 s 2; 1985 c 303 s 11; 1979 ex.s. c 28 s 2; 1975-'76 2nd ex.s. c 95 s 2; 1975 c 56 s 1; 1967 c 32 s 70; 1961 c 12 s 46.64.015. Prior: 1951 c 175 s 1.]

Notes:

Effective date—2004 c 43: See note following RCW 7.80.150.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 56 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1956–2024 · leading case: State v. Reding, 835 P.2d 1019 (Wash. 1992).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Reding, 835 P.2d 1019 (Wash. 1992). · cites it 26× “100 and RCW 46.64.015. We conclude that that legislation codified our rule in Hehman that officers generally may not p'erform custodial arrests for minor traffic offenses.”
State v. Ladson, 979 P.2d 833 (Wash. 1999). · cites it 7× “2d 1019 (1992) ("[T]he amendments to RCW 46.64.015 were essentially designed to codify Hehman.”
State v. Ladson, 138 Wash. 2d 343 (Wash. 1999). · cites it 7× “2d 1019 (1992) (“[T]he amendments to RCW 46.64.015 were essentially designed to codify Hehman.”
Brooks v. City of Seattle, 599 F.3d 1018 (9th Cir. 2010). · cites it 7× “See Wash. Rev.Code § 46.64.015 (2004) (“The arrested person, in order to secure release, and when permitted by the arresting officer, must give his or her written promise to appear in court as required by the citation and notice by singing in the appropriate place .”
State v. Hehman, 578 P.2d 527 (Wash. 1978). · cites it 6× “017, which applies when there has been an accident, prohibits a law enforcement officer from holding a person "for a period of time longer than is reasonably necessary to issue and serve a citation and notice," except in two carefully defined instances: (1) when the person is…”
State v. Pulfrey, 111 P.3d 1162 (Wash. 2005). · cites it 6× “¶ 7 On appeal, Pulfrey argued that Alvarez failed to exercise discretion in violation of RCW 46.64.015 and Criminal Rule for Courts of Limited Jurisdiction (CrRLJ) 2.”
State v. Brockob, 150 P.3d 59 (Wash. 2006). · cites it 2× “Discretion to cite and release rather than arrest ¶86 Gonzales next claims that his attorney erred by not arguing that Officer Black failed to use discretion to issue a citation or make a full custodial arrest for driving with a suspended license as required by former RCW…”
State v. Pulfrey, 154 Wash. 2d 517 (Wash. 2005). · cites it 6× “¶7 On appeal, Pulfrey argued that Alvarez failed to exercise discretion in violation of RCW 46.64.015 and Criminal Rule for Courts of Limited Jurisdiction (CrRLJ) *522 2.”
State v. Radka, 83 P.3d 1038 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 4× “RCW 46.64.015. To secure release, the arrested person must give a written promise to appear in court as required by the citation.”
State v. Radka, 120 Wash. App. 43 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 4× “RCW 46.64.015. To secure release, the arrested person must give a written promise to appear in court as required by the citation.”
State v. Richards, 109 Wash. App. 648 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 4× “RCW 46.64.015. Such a citation “shall include .”
State v. Terrazas, 863 P.2d 75 (Wash. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 5× “RCW 46.64.015 and RCW 10.31.100 now control when an officer may make a custodial arrest for traffic violations.”
Show all 56 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 46.64.015(1) — 3 cases
State v. Richards, 109 Wash. App. 648 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). “RCW 46.64.015. Such a citation “shall include .”
State v. Terrazas, 863 P.2d 75 (Wash. Ct. App. 1993). “RCW 46.64.015 and RCW 10.31.100 now control when an officer may make a custodial arrest for traffic violations.”
State v. Richards, 36 P.3d 1119 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 46.64.015(2) — 6 cases
State v. Radka, 83 P.3d 1038 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). “RCW 46.64.015. To secure release, the arrested person must give a written promise to appear in court as required by the citation.”
State v. Radka, 120 Wash. App. 43 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). “RCW 46.64.015. To secure release, the arrested person must give a written promise to appear in court as required by the citation.”
State v. Reding, 835 P.2d 1019 (Wash. 1992). “100 and RCW 46.64.015. We conclude that that legislation codified our rule in Hehman that officers generally may not p'erform custodial arrests for minor traffic offenses.”
State v. Pulfrey, 111 P.3d 1162 (Wash. 2005). “¶ 7 On appeal, Pulfrey argued that Alvarez failed to exercise discretion in violation of RCW 46.64.015 and Criminal Rule for Courts of Limited Jurisdiction (CrRLJ) 2.”
State v. Pulfrey, 154 Wash. 2d 517 (Wash. 2005). “¶7 On appeal, Pulfrey argued that Alvarez failed to exercise discretion in violation of RCW 46.64.015 and Criminal Rule for Courts of Limited Jurisdiction (CrRLJ) *522 2.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 46.64.015(3) — 1 case
State v. Terrazas, 863 P.2d 75 (Wash. Ct. App. 1993). “RCW 46.64.015 and RCW 10.31.100 now control when an officer may make a custodial arrest for traffic violations.”
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.