Wash. Rev. Code » Title 66 · Chapter 66.44
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 66.44.365 (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) If a juvenile thirteen years of age or older and under the age of eighteen is found by a court to have committed any offense that is a violation of this chapter, the court shall notify the department of licensing within twenty-four hours after entry of the judgment, unless the offense is the juvenile's first offense in violation of this chapter and has not committed an offense while armed with a firearm, an unlawful possession of a firearm offense, or an offense in violation of chapter 69.41, 69.50, or 69.52 RCW.
(2) Except as otherwise provided in subsection (3) of this section, upon petition of a juvenile whose privilege to drive has been revoked pursuant to RCW 46.20.265, the court may notify the department of licensing that the juvenile's privilege to drive should be reinstated.
(3) If the conviction is for the juvenile's first violation of this chapter or chapter 69.41, 69.50, or 69.52 RCW, a juvenile may not petition the court for reinstatement of the juvenile's privilege to drive revoked pursuant to RCW 46.20.265 until the later of ninety days after the date the juvenile turns sixteen or ninety days after the judgment was entered. If the conviction was for the juvenile's second or subsequent violation of this chapter or chapter 69.41, 69.50, or 69.52 RCW, the juvenile may not petition the court for reinstatement of the juvenile's privilege to drive revoked pursuant to RCW 46.20.265 until the later of the date the juvenile turns seventeen or one year after the date judgment was entered.
[ 2016 c 136 s 9; 1989 c 271 s 118; 1988 c 148 s 3.]

Notes:

Severability—1989 c 271: See note following RCW 9.94A.510.
Legislative finding—Severability—1988 c 148: See notes following RCW 13.40.265.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12 cases, 1992–2006 · leading case: State v. Shawn P., 859 P.2d 1220 (Wash. 1993).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Shawn P., 859 P.2d 1220 (Wash. 1993). · cites it 15× “" [38] [6] There are a number of rational bases for the classification established by RCW 66.44.365, RCW 13.40.265 and RCW 46.20.”
Davis v. Dep't of Licensing, 977 P.2d 554 (Wash. 1999). · cites it 4× “265), alcohol crimes (RCW 66.44.365), or drug offenses (RCW 69.”
Amunrud v. Bd. of Appeals, 158 Wash. 2d 208 (Wash. 2006). “See RCW 66.44.365; RCW 13.40.265. Both the majority and the dissent recognized the same approach — that the license revocation must have a necessary relationship to driving.”
State v. Preston, 832 P.2d 513 (Wash. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 4× “RCW 66.44.365 .'. .. The revocation shall be imposed without hearing.”
Amunrud v. Bd. of Appeals, 143 P.3d 571 (Wash. 2006). “See RCW 66.44.365; RCW 13.40.265. Both the majority and the dissent recognized the same approach—that the license revocation must have a necessary relationship to driving.”
City of Redmond v. Bagby, 117 P.3d 1126 (Wash. 2005). “265, RCW 66.44.365(1), requires the judge to notify the Department within 24 hours of the suspension.”
City of Redmond v. Bagby, 155 Wash. 2d 59 (Wash. 2005). “265, RCW 66.44.365(1) requires the judge to notify the Department within 24 hours of the suspension.”
State v. R.J., 88 P.3d 411 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 2× “This is an untenable result, and undermines the goal of deterring minors from unlawfully consuming alcohol.”
State v. Weese, 834 P.2d 1099 (Wash. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 2× “265(1)(a) and RCW 66.44.365(1). The court rejected Weese's and Walker's arguments that the notification and revocation statutes violate equal protection, but it agreed to stay the transmittal of the notification until an appeal was considered.”
Davis v. Dep't of Licensing, 952 P.2d 197 (Wash. Ct. App. 1998). “” RCW 66.44.365(1) (relating to reporting of alcohol or drug violations) refers to “a juvenile thirteen years of age or older and under the age of eighteen.”
Davis v. Dep't of Licensing, 977 P.2d 554 (Wash. 1999). · cites it 4× “265), alcohol crimes (RCW 66.44.365), or drug offenses (RCW 69.”
State v. RJ, 88 P.3d 411 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 2× “This is an untenable result, and undermines the goal of deterring minors from unlawfully consuming alcohol.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 66.44.365(1) — 8 cases
State v. Shawn P., 859 P.2d 1220 (Wash. 1993). “" [38] [6] There are a number of rational bases for the classification established by RCW 66.44.365, RCW 13.40.265 and RCW 46.20.”
State v. Preston, 832 P.2d 513 (Wash. Ct. App. 1992). “RCW 66.44.365 .'. .. The revocation shall be imposed without hearing.”
City of Redmond v. Bagby, 117 P.3d 1126 (Wash. 2005). “265, RCW 66.44.365(1), requires the judge to notify the Department within 24 hours of the suspension.”
City of Redmond v. Bagby, 155 Wash. 2d 59 (Wash. 2005). “265, RCW 66.44.365(1) requires the judge to notify the Department within 24 hours of the suspension.”
State v. R.J., 88 P.3d 411 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). “This is an untenable result, and undermines the goal of deterring minors from unlawfully consuming alcohol.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 66.44.365(2) — 1 case
State v. Shawn P., 859 P.2d 1220 (Wash. 1993). “" [38] [6] There are a number of rational bases for the classification established by RCW 66.44.365, RCW 13.40.265 and RCW 46.20.”
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.