Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 66.32.020 (2026)

Search warrant—Search and seizure

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
If, upon the sworn complaint of any person, it is made to appear to any judge of the superior court or district court, that there is probable cause to believe that intoxicating liquor is being manufactured, sold, bartered, exchanged, given away, furnished, or otherwise disposed of or kept in violation of the provisions of this title, such judge shall, with or without the approval of the prosecuting attorney, issue a warrant directed to a civil officer of the state duly authorized to enforce or assist in enforcing any law thereof, or to an inspector of the board, commanding the civil officer or inspector to search the premises, room, house, building, boat, vehicle, structure or place designated and described in the complaint and warrant, and to seize all intoxicating liquor there found, together with the vessels in which it is contained, and all implements, furniture, and fixtures used or kept for the illegal manufacture, sale, barter, exchange, giving away, furnishing, or otherwise disposing of the liquor, and to safely keep the same, and to make a return of the warrant within ten days, showing all acts and things done thereunder, with a particular statement of all articles seized and the name of the person or persons in whose possession they were found, if any, and if no person is found in the possession of the articles, the return shall so state.
[ 1987 c 202 s 220; 1955 c 288 s 1; 1955 c 39 s 4. Prior: 1943 c 216 s 3(2), part; 1933 ex.s. c 62 s 33(2), part; Rem. Supp. 1943 s 7306-33(2), part.]

Notes:

Intent1987 c 202: See note following RCW 2.04.190.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases, 1994–2013 · leading case: Protect the Peninsula's Future v. City of Port Angeles, 304 P.3d 914 (Wash. Ct. App. 2013).
Protect the Peninsula's Future v. City of Port Angeles, 304 P.3d 914 (Wash. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 4× “6 This language apparently originated in the oldest of the three statutes, which was first enacted as part of Washington’s prohibition law and which is presently codified at RCW 66.32.020. 7 ¶24 Kailin contends that any person may apply for a legend drug warrant under RCW 69.”
City of Seattle v. McCready, 868 P.2d 134 (Wash. 1994). “200 (certain tax laws); RCW 66.32.020 (liquor laws); *273 RCW 69.”
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.