Wash. Rev. Code § 49.17.070

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) Subject to subsections (2) through (5) of this section, the director, or his or her authorized representative, in carrying out his or her duties under this chapter, upon the presentation of appropriate credentials to the owner, manager, operator, or on-site person in charge of the worksite, is authorized:
(a) To enter without delay and at all reasonable times the factory, plant, establishment, construction site, or other area, workplace, or environment where work is performed by an employee of an employer; and
(b) To inspect, survey, and investigate during regular working hours and at other reasonable times, and within reasonable limits and in a reasonable manner, any such workplace and all pertinent conditions, structures, machines, apparatus, devices, equipment, and materials therein, and to question privately any such employer, owner, operator, agent, or employee.
(2) In making inspections and making investigations under this chapter the director may require the attendance and testimony of witnesses and the production of evidence under oath. Witnesses shall be paid the same fees and mileage that are paid witnesses in the superior courts. In the case of contumacy, failure, or refusal of any person to obey such an order, any superior court within the jurisdiction of which such person is found, or resides, or transacts business, upon the application of the director, shall have jurisdiction to issue to such person an order requiring such person to appear to produce evidence if, as, and when so ordered, and to give testimony relating to the matter under investigation or in question, and any failure to obey such order of the court may be punished by said court as a contempt thereof.
(3) Except as provided in subsection (4) of this section or RCW 49.17.075, the director or his or her authorized representative shall obtain consent from the owner, manager, operator, or his or her on-site person in charge of the worksite when entering any worksite located on private property to carry out his or her duties under this chapter. Solely for the purpose of requesting the consent required by this section, the director or his or her authorized representative shall, in a safe manner, enter a worksite at an entry point designated by the employer or, in the event no entry point has been designated, at a reasonably recognizable entry point.
(4) This section does not prohibit the director or his or her authorized representative from taking action consistent with a recognized exception to the warrant requirements of the federal and state Constitutions.
(5) This section does not require advance notice of an inspection.
[ 2006 c 31 s 2; 1973 c 80 s 7.]

Notes:

Intent2006 c 31: "The legislature intends that inspections performed under the Washington industrial safety and health act ensure safe and healthful working conditions for every person working in the state of Washington. Inspections must follow the mandates of Article II, section 35 of the state Constitution, and equal or exceed the requirements prescribed by the occupational safety and health act of 1970 (Public Law 91-596, 84 Stat. 1590). The legislature also intends that the inspections comply with the fourth and fourteenth amendments to the United States Constitution and Article I, section 7 of the state Constitution." [ 2006 c 31 s 1.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1992–2025 · leading case: National Electrical Contractors Ass'n v. Riveland
National Electrical Contractors Ass'n v. Riveland (1999) wash “040; RCW 49.17.070. The trial court ruled that NECA/IBEW does not have standing to bring an action against DOC for a violation of RCW 49.”
Inlandboatmen's Union of the Pacific v. Department of Transportation (1992) wash “27 RCW 49.17.070, .120. 28 Flanders v. Morris, 88 Wn.”
Superior Asphalt & Concrete Co. v. Department of Labor & Industries (2004) washctapp “RCW 49.17.070, .120, .180. Employers are statutorily mandated to comply with WISHA promulgated rules and regulations.”
Superior Asphalt and Concrete Co. Inc. v. Dept. of Labor and Industries (2004) washctapp “RCW 49.17.070, .120, .180. Employers are statutorily mandated to comply with WISHA promulgated rules and regulations.”
Department of Labor and Industries v. Geo Secure Services LLC (2024) wawd · cites it 34× “L&I seeks such an injunction pursuant to both HB 1470 § 33 2 (a law requiring L&I to “conduct routine, unannounced inspections of workplace 3 conditions at private detention facilities, including work undertaken by detained 4 persons”) and RCW 49.17.070 (a statute authorizing…”
Bradshaw Development, Inc. d/b/a Anytime Fitness v. Dep't of Labor & Industries (2025) washctapp · cites it 18× “In answering this question, we interpret RCW 49.17.070, which authorizes inspectors to enter commercial premises at “a reasonably recognizable entry point.”
NATIONAL ELEC. CONTRACTORS v. Riveland (1999) wash “040; RCW 49.17.070. The trial court ruled that NECA/IBEW does not have standing to bring an action against DOC for a violation of RCW *489 49.”
The GEO Group Inc v. Inslee (2024) wawd · cites it 5× “170; RCW 49.17.070; WAC 296-900-12005). 4 Although GEO does not clearly explain how HB 1470 § 3 itself discriminates 5 against it, GEO asserts that “the State does not and cannot identify any State statutes, 6 regulations, or policies that subject other similarly situated…”
State of Washington Department of Health v. The GEO Group Inc (2024) wawd “In a separate order in a related case, the Court expressly rejected GEO’s 14 “derivative sovereign immunity” defense as related to a different, yet similar, generally- 15 applicable state safety and health law, RCW 49.17.070. See Dkt. 50 at 19–23, in Dep’t of 16 Labor and Indus.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 49.17.070(1)(a) — 2 cases
Department of Labor and Industries v. Geo Secure Services LLC (2024) wawd “L&I seeks such an injunction pursuant to both HB 1470 § 33 2 (a law requiring L&I to “conduct routine, unannounced inspections of workplace 3 conditions at private detention facilities, including work undertaken by detained 4 persons”) and RCW 49.17.070 (a statute authorizing…”
Bradshaw Development, Inc. d/b/a Anytime Fitness v. Dep't of Labor & Industries (2025) washctapp “In answering this question, we interpret RCW 49.17.070, which authorizes inspectors to enter commercial premises at “a reasonably recognizable entry point.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 49.17.070(3) — 1 case
Bradshaw Development, Inc. d/b/a Anytime Fitness v. Dep't of Labor & Industries (2025) washctapp “In answering this question, we interpret RCW 49.17.070, which authorizes inspectors to enter commercial premises at “a reasonably recognizable entry point.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 49.17.070(4) — 2 cases
Bradshaw Development, Inc. d/b/a Anytime Fitness v. Dep't of Labor & Industries (2025) washctapp “In answering this question, we interpret RCW 49.17.070, which authorizes inspectors to enter commercial premises at “a reasonably recognizable entry point.”
The GEO Group Inc v. Inslee (2024) wawd “170; RCW 49.17.070; WAC 296-900-12005). 4 Although GEO does not clearly explain how HB 1470 § 3 itself discriminates 5 against it, GEO asserts that “the State does not and cannot identify any State statutes, 6 regulations, or policies that subject other similarly situated…”
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.