Wash. Rev. Code » Title 69 · Chapter 69.50
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 69.50.440 (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) It is unlawful for any person to possess ephedrine or any of its salts or isomers or salts of isomers, pseudoephedrine or any of its salts or isomers or salts of isomers, pressurized ammonia gas, or pressurized ammonia gas solution with intent to manufacture methamphetamine, including its salts, isomers, and salts of isomers.
(2) Any person who violates this section is guilty of a class B felony and may be imprisoned for not more than ten years, fined not more than twenty-five thousand dollars, or both. Three thousand dollars of the fine may not be suspended. As collected, the first three thousand dollars of the fine must be deposited with the law enforcement agency having responsibility for cleanup of laboratories, sites, or substances used in the manufacture of the methamphetamine, including its salts, isomers, and salts of isomers. The fine moneys deposited with that law enforcement agency must be used for such clean-up cost.
[ 2005 c 218 s 3; 2003 c 53 s 347; 2002 c 134 s 1; 2000 c 225 s 4; 1997 c 71 s 3; 1996 c 205 s 1.]

Notes:

Intent—Effective date—2003 c 53: See notes following RCW 2.48.180.
Effective date—2002 c 134: "This act is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety, or support of the state government and its existing public institutions, and takes effect immediately [March 26, 2002]." [ 2002 c 134 s 5.]
Severability—2000 c 225: See note following RCW 69.55.010.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 37 cases, 2000–2016 · leading case: State v. Montgomery, 183 P.3d 267 (Wash. 2008).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Montgomery, 183 P.3d 267 (Wash. 2008). · cites it 2× “[5] See RCW 69.50.440. [6] The jury instruction obviously did not infringe upon Montgomery's right to silence because he waived this right and testified at trial.”
State v. Montgomery, 163 Wash. 2d 577 (Wash. 2008). · cites it 2× “See RCW 69.50.440. The jury instruction obviously did not infringe upon Montgomery’s right to silence because he waived this right and testified at trial.”
State v. Thompson, 197 P.3d 355 (Kan. 2008). · cites it 3× “440 , one for possession of pseudoephedrine with the intent to manufacture methamphetamine and one for possession of anhydrous ammonia with the intent to manufacture methamphetamine. The defendant argued on appeal that where an accused possesses the precursors at the same time…”
State v. Brockob, 150 P.3d 59 (Wash. 2006). · cites it 2× “¶14 The State charged Gonzales with one count of possession of ephedrine, pseudoephedrine, or pressurized gas with intent to manufacture methamphetamine under former RCW 69.50.440 (2000) and one count of attempted manufacture of methamphetamine under RCW 69.”
State v. Morris, 123 Wash. App. 467 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 3× “*474 Former RCW 69.50.440 (2000): It is unlawful for any person to possess ephedrine, pseudoephedrine, or anhydrous ammonia with intent to manufacture methamphetamine.”
State v. Morris, 98 P.3d 513 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 3× “Former RCW 69.50.440: It is unlawful for any person to possess ephedrine, pseudoephedrine, or anhydrous ammonia with intent to manufacture methamphetamine.”
State v. Whalen, 126 P.3d 55 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 4× “Whalen argues that (1) under the corpus delicti rule, the trial court should have granted his motion to suppress his statements made to an Olympia police officer; (2) the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction; (3) the prosecutor's closing argument was improper; and…”
State v. Chenoweth, 158 P.3d 595 (Wash. 2007). “RCW 69.50.440. Former RCW 69.50.401(a)(l)(ii) (2002).”
State v. Halsten, 108 Wash. App. 759 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 3× “Jagmin said that the pseudoephedrine, toluene, alcohol, filters and red phosphorous indicated “the ability or at least the starting ability” to manufacture methamphetamine.”
State v. Halsten, 33 P.3d 751 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 3× “He also testified that pseudoephedrine hydrochloride is pseudoephedrine. Jagmin said that the pseudoephedrine, toluene, alcohol, filters and red phosphorous indicated "the ability or at least the starting ability" to manufacture methamphetamine.”
State v. Whalen, 131 Wash. App. 58 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 3× “— Victor Albert Lyle Whalen appeals his conviction for unlawful possession of ephedrine or pseudoephedrine with intent to manufacture methamphetamine, RCW 69.50.440. Whalen argues that (1) under the corpus delicti rule, the trial court should have granted his motion to suppress…”
State v. Cromwell, 157 Wash. 2d 529 (Wash. 2006). · cites it 2× “Thus, they contend their charging document was insufficient and warrants reversal of their respective convictions. ¶7 The Cromwells support their argument with a line of cases from Division Two, cases that conflict with Division One’s decision in this case.”
Show all 37 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 69.50.440(1) — 11 cases
State v. Montgomery, 183 P.3d 267 (Wash. 2008). “[5] See RCW 69.50.440. [6] The jury instruction obviously did not infringe upon Montgomery's right to silence because he waived this right and testified at trial.”
State v. Montgomery, 163 Wash. 2d 577 (Wash. 2008). “See RCW 69.50.440. The jury instruction obviously did not infringe upon Montgomery’s right to silence because he waived this right and testified at trial.”
State v. Brockob, 150 P.3d 59 (Wash. 2006). “¶14 The State charged Gonzales with one count of possession of ephedrine, pseudoephedrine, or pressurized gas with intent to manufacture methamphetamine under former RCW 69.50.440 (2000) and one count of attempted manufacture of methamphetamine under RCW 69.”
State v. Gaworski, 156 P.3d 288 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007).
State v. Brewer, 148 Wash. App. 666 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009).
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.