Wash. Rev. Code » Title 69 · Chapter 69.41
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 69.41.020 (2026)

Prohibited acts—Information not privileged communication

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Legend drugs shall not be sold, delivered, dispensed or administered except in accordance with this chapter.
(1) No person shall obtain or attempt to obtain a legend drug, or procure or attempt to procure the administration of a legend drug:
(a) By fraud, deceit, misrepresentation, or subterfuge; or
(b) By the forgery or alteration of a prescription or of any written order; or
(c) By the concealment of a material fact; or
(d) By the use of a false name or the giving of a false address.
(2) Information communicated to a practitioner in an effort unlawfully to procure a legend drug, or unlawfully to procure the administration of any such drug, shall not be deemed a privileged communication.
(3) No person shall willfully make a false statement in any prescription, order, report, or record, required by this chapter.
(4) No person shall, for the purpose of obtaining a legend drug, falsely assume the title of, or represent himself or herself to be, a manufacturer, wholesaler, or any practitioner.
(5) No person shall make or utter any false or forged prescription or other written order for legend drugs.
(6) No person shall affix any false or forged label to a package or receptacle containing legend drugs.
(7) No person shall willfully fail to maintain the records required by RCW 69.41.042 and * 69.41.270.
(8) A violation of this section is a class B felony punishable according to chapter 9A.20 RCW.
[ 2003 c 53 s 322. Prior: 1989 1st ex.s. c 9 s 408; 1989 c 352 s 8; 1973 1st ex.s. c 186 s 2.]

Notes:

*Reviser's note: RCW 69.41.270 was repealed by 2003 c 275 s 5.
Intent—Effective date—2003 c 53: See notes following RCW 2.48.180.
Effective date—Severability—1989 1st ex.s. c 9: See RCW 43.70.910 and 43.70.920.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases, 2003–2015 · leading case: Protect the Peninsula's Future v. City of Port Angeles, 304 P.3d 914 (Wash. Ct. App. 2013).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Protect the Peninsula's Future v. City of Port Angeles, 304 P.3d 914 (Wash. Ct. App. 2013). “See RCW 69.41.020, .030, .040, .050, .170, .320(1), .”
Murphy v. State, 62 P.3d 533 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003). “In addition, our above conclusions dispose of all the issues raised by Murphy on cross-appeal, and we therefore affirm the trial court on those issues. [10] COX, A.C.J., and GROSSE, J.”
Murphy v. State, 115 Wash. App. 297 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003). “Murphy was in the process of running for reelection as Sheriff of Snohomish County, and Townsend was the political advisor and a financial contributor to one of Murphy’s opponents in the upcoming primary election.”
State Of Washington v. Douglas Gogel (Wash. Ct. App. 2015). “072, it erroneously charged Gogel under RCW 69.41.020(1 )(b) of the legend drug act when it should have charged the crime of prescription forgery under 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.