Wash. Rev. Code » Title 46 · Chapter 46.65
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 46.65.060 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
If the department finds that such person is not an habitual offender under this chapter, the proceeding shall be dismissed, but if the department finds that such person is an habitual offender, the department shall revoke the operator's license for a period of seven years: PROVIDED, That the department may stay the date of the revocation if it finds that the traffic offenses upon which it is based were caused by or are the result of alcoholism and/or drug addiction as evaluated by a program approved by the department of social and health services, and that since his or her last offense he or she has undertaken and followed a course of treatment for alcoholism and/or drug treatment in a program approved by the department of social and health services; such stay shall be subject to terms and conditions as are deemed reasonable by the department. Said stay shall continue as long as there is no further conviction for any of the offenses listed in RCW 46.65.020(1). Upon a subsequent conviction for any offense listed in RCW 46.65.020(1) or violation of any of the terms or conditions of the original stay order, the stay shall be removed and the department shall revoke the operator's license for a period of seven years.
[ 1999 c 274 s 7; 1985 c 101 s 2; 1981 c 188 s 2; 1979 c 62 s 3; 1973 1st ex.s. c 83 s 1; 1971 ex.s. c 284 s 8.]

Notes:

Severability—1979 c 62: See note following RCW 46.65.020.
Severability—1971 ex.s. c 284: See note following RCW 46.65.010.
PDF

RCW 46.65.060

Department findings—Revocation of license—Stay by department. (Effective October 1, 2025.)

If the department finds that such person is not an habitual offender under this chapter, the proceeding shall be dismissed, but if the department finds that such person is an habitual offender, the department shall revoke the operator's license for a period of seven years: PROVIDED, That the department may stay the date of the revocation if it finds that the traffic offenses upon which it is based were caused by or are the result of alcoholism and/or drug addiction as evaluated by a program approved by the department of health, and that since his or her last offense he or she has undertaken and followed a course of treatment for alcoholism and/or drug treatment in a program approved by the department of health; such stay shall be subject to terms and conditions as are deemed reasonable by the department. Said stay shall continue as long as there is no further conviction for any of the offenses listed in RCW 46.65.020(1). Upon a subsequent conviction for any offense listed in RCW 46.65.020(1) or violation of any of the terms or conditions of the original stay order, the stay shall be removed and the department shall revoke the operator's license for a period of seven years.
[ 2025 c 23 s 12; 1999 c 274 s 7; 1985 c 101 s 2; 1981 c 188 s 2; 1979 c 62 s 3; 1973 1st ex.s. c 83 s 1; 1971 ex.s. c 284 s 8.]

Notes:

Effective date—2025 c 23 ss 1-4 and 6-14: See note following RCW 46.04.480.
Severability—1979 c 62: See note following RCW 46.65.020.
Severability—1971 ex.s. c 284: See note following RCW 46.65.010.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 15 cases, 1973–2020 · leading case: State v. Kent, 549 P.2d 721 (Wash. 1976).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Kent, 549 P.2d 721 (Wash. 1976). · cites it 10× “The defendants contend RCW 46.65.060 denies them equal protection of the laws in violation of the equal protection clause of the federal constitution and privileges and immunities clause of our constitution.”
Dep't of Licensing v. Ramirez, 661 P.2d 1009 (Wash. Ct. App. 1983). · cites it 11× “The relevant statutes which we set out in the margin 1 *432 are RCW 46.65.060 and .065. RCW 46.65.060 provides that if the Department finds a driver licensee to be a habitual *433 traffic offender as defined by RCW 46.”
State v. Heath, 532 P.2d 621 (Wash. 1975). · cites it 4× “This order stayed revocation of the driver’s license of Robert Heath, revoked under the provisions of RCW 46.65.060, the Washington Habitual Traffic Offenders Act.”
State Of Washington v. Alan D. Jenks, 459 P.3d 389 (Wash. Ct. App. 2020). “In Heath, the defendant was found to be a habitual traffic offender and his license to drive was revoked under the Habitual Traffic Offenders Act, RCW 46.65.060. 85 Wn.2d at 197 . A year later, the Act was amended to allow a revocation order to be stayed if the offenses were the…”
State v. Scheffel, 514 P.2d 1052 (Wash. 1973). “The hearing is governed by RCW 46.65.060, which basically limits the hearing to determining whether or not the person named in the complaint is the person named in the transcript and whether or not the person is an habitual offender as defined.”
State v. Perry, 975 P.2d 6 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 2× “RCW 46.65.060. Any notice regarding the revocation of a driver’s license that is mailed to the licensee’s address of record is effective regardless of whether the notice is received.”
Thurston Cnty. v. Gorton, 530 P.2d 309 (Wash. 1975). “RCW 46.65.060. The fact that the complaint is filed by the County’s prosecuting attorney pursuant to RCW 46.”
State v. Ponce, 611 P.2d 407 (Wash. 1980). · cites it 4× “RCW 46.65.060. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court, holding that a habitual traffic offender proceeding under RCW 46.”
State v. Malone, 511 P.2d 67 (Wash. Ct. App. 1973). “RCW 46.65.060 provides in pertinent part: If the court finds that such person is not the same person named in the aforesaid transcript or abstract or that he is not an habitual offender under this chapter, the proceeding shall be dismissed but if the court finds that such person…”
Upward v. Dep't of Licensing, 689 P.2d 415 (Wash. Ct. App. 1984). “A copy of the order, together with a request for hearing form, was forwarded to Upward by certified mail. The return mail stub indicates that Upward received the notice, but he did not request a hearing.”
State v. Danner, 900 P.2d 1126 (Wash. Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 5× “*149 Danner and Campbell contend that the plain language of RCW 46.65.060 1 controls and that there is no need to reconcile the applicable statutes.”
State v. Perry, 975 P.2d 6 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 2× “RCW 46.65.060. Any notice regarding the revocation of a driver's license that is mailed to the licensee's address of record is effective regardless of whether the notice is received.”
Show all 15 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.