Wash. Rev. Code » Title 69 · Chapter 69.51A
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 69.51A.040 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
The medical use of cannabis in accordance with the terms and conditions of this chapter does not constitute a crime and a qualifying patient or designated provider in compliance with the terms and conditions of this chapter may not be arrested, prosecuted, or subject to other criminal sanctions or civil consequences for possession, manufacture, or delivery of, or for possession with intent to manufacture or deliver, cannabis under state law, or have real or personal property seized or forfeited for possession, manufacture, or delivery of, or for possession with intent to manufacture or deliver, cannabis under state law, and investigating law enforcement officers and agencies may not be held civilly liable for failure to seize cannabis in this circumstance, if:
(1)(a)(i) The qualifying patient or designated provider has been entered into the medical cannabis authorization database and holds a valid recognition card or the qualifying patient or designated provider holds a valid authorization if the qualifying patient or designated provider has not been entered into the medical cannabis authorization database and has not been issued a recognition card, and the qualifying patient or designated provider possesses no more than the amount of cannabis concentrates, useable cannabis, plants, or cannabis-infused products authorized under RCW 69.51A.210.
(ii) If a person is both a qualifying patient and a designated provider for another qualifying patient, the person may possess no more than twice the amounts described in RCW 69.51A.210 for the qualifying patient and designated provider, whether the plants, cannabis concentrates, useable cannabis, or cannabis-infused products are possessed individually or in combination between the qualifying patient and his or her designated provider. However, in accordance with RCW 69.51A.260, no more than 15 plants may be grown or located in any one housing unit other than a cooperative established pursuant to RCW 69.51A.250;
(b) The qualifying patient or designated provider presents his or her recognition card or, if the qualifying patient or designated provider does not have a recognition card, then his or her authorization, to any law enforcement officer who questions the patient or provider regarding his or her medical use of cannabis;
(c) The qualifying patient or designated provider keeps a copy of his or her recognition card if the qualifying patient or designated provider has a recognition card, or keeps a copy of his or her authorization if the qualifying patient or designated provider does not have a recognition card, and keeps a copy of the qualifying patient or designated provider's contact information posted prominently next to any plants, cannabis concentrates, cannabis-infused products, or useable cannabis located at his or her residence;
(d) The investigating law enforcement officer does not possess evidence that:
(i) The designated provider has converted cannabis produced or obtained for the qualifying patient for his or her own personal use or benefit; or
(ii) The qualifying patient sold, donated, or supplied cannabis to another person; and
(e) The designated provider has not served as a designated provider to more than one qualifying patient within a fifteen-day period; or
(2) The qualifying patient or designated provider participates in a cooperative as provided in RCW 69.51A.250.
[ 2023 c 254 s 1; 2022 c 16 s 118; 2015 c 70 s 24; 2011 c 181 s 401; 2007 c 371 s 5; 1999 c 2 s 5 (Initiative Measure No. 692, approved November 3, 1998).]

Notes:

Intent—Finding—2022 c 16: See note following RCW 69.50.101.
Effective date—2015 c 70 ss 12, 19, 20, 23-26, 31, 35, 40, and 49: See note following RCW 69.50.357.
Short title—Findings—Intent—References to Washington state liquor control board—Draft legislation—2015 c 70: See notes following RCW 66.08.012.
Intent—2007 c 371: See note following RCW 69.51A.005.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 72 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2002–2025 · leading case: State v. Fry, 228 P.3d 1 (Wash. 2010).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Fry, 228 P.3d 1 (Wash. 2010). · cites it 20× “The motion also indicated Fry would assert the affirmative defense of medical marijuana authorization (compassionate use defense) pursuant to former RCW 69.51A.040 (1999). ¶ 8 After hearing arguments, the superior court judge denied Fry's motion to suppress.”
State v. Reis, 351 P.3d 127 (Wash. 2015). · cites it 30× “¶2 The 2011 amendments to RCW 69.51A.040 provide in relevant part that the “medical use of cannabis in accordance with the terms and conditions of this chapter does not constitute a crime .”
State v. Fry, 168 Wash. 2d 1 (Wash. 2010). · cites it 17× “The motion also indicated Fry would assert the affirmative defense of medical marijuana authorization (compassionate use defense) pursuant to former RCW 69.51A.040 (1999). ¶8 After hearing arguments, the superior court judge denied Fry’s motion to suppress.”
Cannabis Action Coalition v. City of Kent, 322 P.3d 1246 (Wash. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 10× “085(3) refers are found in RCW 69.51A.040 and 69.51A.043. RCW 69.51A.”
Roe v. TeleTech Customer Care Mgmt., 257 P.3d 586 (Wash. 2011). · cites it 7× “Specifically, Roe argues RCW 69.51A.040's protection against a denial of "any right or privilege" protects an employee from being denied the privilege of employment due to authorized medical marijuana use.”
Roe v. TeleTech Customer Care Mgmt. (Colorado) LLC, 171 Wash. 2d 736 (Wash. 2011). · cites it 7× “RCW 69.51A.040(1). ¶12 The only reference to employment in MUMA as passed by the voters in the initiative provided, “Nothing in this chapter requires any accommodation of any medical marijuana use in any place of employment, in any school bus or on any school grounds, or in any…”
State v. Reis, 322 P.3d 1238 (Wash. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 11× “*443 ¶7 Whether the search warrant in this case was supported by probable cause involves the interpretation of RCW 69.51A.040. This court’s purpose when interpreting a statute is to enforce the intent of the legislature.”
State v. Ginn, 117 P.3d 1155 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 6× “¶ 15 Under RCW 69.51A.040(1): If charged with a violation of state law relating to marijuana, any qualifying patient who is engaged in the medical use of marijuana, or any designated primary caregiver who assists a qualifying patient in the medical use of marijuana, will be…”
State v. Shepherd, 41 P.3d 1235 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 6× “RCW 69.51A.040. STANDARD OF REVIEW This conviction rests upon stipulated facts and exhibits.”
State v. Shepherd, 110 Wash. App. 544 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 6× “RCW 69.51A.040. *550 STANDARD OF REVIEW This conviction rests upon stipulated facts and exhibits.”
State v. Ginn, 128 Wash. App. 872 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 5× “¶20 RCW 69.51A.040(1) states “any qualifying patient who is engaged in the medical use of marijuana .”
State v. Ellis, 315 P.3d 1170 (Wash. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 7× “RCW 69.51A.040. Still, this provision’s reach is narrow: “Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to supersede Washington state law prohibiting the .”
Show all 72 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 69.51A.040(1) — 32 cases
State v. Fry, 228 P.3d 1 (Wash. 2010). “The motion also indicated Fry would assert the affirmative defense of medical marijuana authorization (compassionate use defense) pursuant to former RCW 69.51A.040 (1999). ¶ 8 After hearing arguments, the superior court judge denied Fry's motion to suppress.”
State v. Fry, 168 Wash. 2d 1 (Wash. 2010). “The motion also indicated Fry would assert the affirmative defense of medical marijuana authorization (compassionate use defense) pursuant to former RCW 69.51A.040 (1999). ¶8 After hearing arguments, the superior court judge denied Fry’s motion to suppress.”
Roe v. TeleTech Customer Care Mgmt., 257 P.3d 586 (Wash. 2011). “Specifically, Roe argues RCW 69.51A.040's protection against a denial of "any right or privilege" protects an employee from being denied the privilege of employment due to authorized medical marijuana use.”
Roe v. TeleTech Customer Care Mgmt. (Colorado) LLC, 171 Wash. 2d 736 (Wash. 2011). “RCW 69.51A.040(1). ¶12 The only reference to employment in MUMA as passed by the voters in the initiative provided, “Nothing in this chapter requires any accommodation of any medical marijuana use in any place of employment, in any school bus or on any school grounds, or in any…”
State v. Ginn, 117 P.3d 1155 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). “¶ 15 Under RCW 69.51A.040(1): If charged with a violation of state law relating to marijuana, any qualifying patient who is engaged in the medical use of marijuana, or any designated primary caregiver who assists a qualifying patient in the medical use of marijuana, will be…”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 69.51A.040(2) — 18 cases
Roe v. TeleTech Customer Care Mgmt. (Colorado) LLC, 171 Wash. 2d 736 (Wash. 2011). “RCW 69.51A.040(1). ¶12 The only reference to employment in MUMA as passed by the voters in the initiative provided, “Nothing in this chapter requires any accommodation of any medical marijuana use in any place of employment, in any school bus or on any school grounds, or in any…”
State v. Fry, 228 P.3d 1 (Wash. 2010). “The motion also indicated Fry would assert the affirmative defense of medical marijuana authorization (compassionate use defense) pursuant to former RCW 69.51A.040 (1999). ¶ 8 After hearing arguments, the superior court judge denied Fry's motion to suppress.”
State v. Reis, 351 P.3d 127 (Wash. 2015). “¶2 The 2011 amendments to RCW 69.51A.040 provide in relevant part that the “medical use of cannabis in accordance with the terms and conditions of this chapter does not constitute a crime .”
State v. Butler, 126 Wash. App. 741 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005).
State v. Reis, 322 P.3d 1238 (Wash. Ct. App. 2014). “*443 ¶7 Whether the search warrant in this case was supported by probable cause involves the interpretation of RCW 69.51A.040. This court’s purpose when interpreting a statute is to enforce the intent of the legislature.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 69.51A.040(2)(C) — 1 case
State v. Adams, 198 P.3d 1057 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 69.51A.040(2)(a) — 1 case
State v. Hanson, 157 P.3d 438 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 69.51A.040(2)(b) — 4 cases
State v. Fry, 228 P.3d 1 (Wash. 2010). “The motion also indicated Fry would assert the affirmative defense of medical marijuana authorization (compassionate use defense) pursuant to former RCW 69.51A.040 (1999). ¶ 8 After hearing arguments, the superior court judge denied Fry's motion to suppress.”
State v. Fry, 168 Wash. 2d 1 (Wash. 2010). “The motion also indicated Fry would assert the affirmative defense of medical marijuana authorization (compassionate use defense) pursuant to former RCW 69.51A.040 (1999). ¶8 After hearing arguments, the superior court judge denied Fry’s motion to suppress.”
State v. Ginn, 128 Wash. App. 872 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). “¶20 RCW 69.51A.040(1) states “any qualifying patient who is engaged in the medical use of marijuana .”
State v. Ginn, 117 P.3d 1155 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). “¶ 15 Under RCW 69.51A.040(1): If charged with a violation of state law relating to marijuana, any qualifying patient who is engaged in the medical use of marijuana, or any designated primary caregiver who assists a qualifying patient in the medical use of marijuana, will be…”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 69.51A.040(2)(c) — 8 cases
State v. Fry, 228 P.3d 1 (Wash. 2010). “The motion also indicated Fry would assert the affirmative defense of medical marijuana authorization (compassionate use defense) pursuant to former RCW 69.51A.040 (1999). ¶ 8 After hearing arguments, the superior court judge denied Fry's motion to suppress.”
State v. Fry, 168 Wash. 2d 1 (Wash. 2010). “The motion also indicated Fry would assert the affirmative defense of medical marijuana authorization (compassionate use defense) pursuant to former RCW 69.51A.040 (1999). ¶8 After hearing arguments, the superior court judge denied Fry’s motion to suppress.”
State v. Ginn, 128 Wash. App. 872 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). “¶20 RCW 69.51A.040(1) states “any qualifying patient who is engaged in the medical use of marijuana .”
State v. Ginn, 117 P.3d 1155 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). “¶ 15 Under RCW 69.51A.040(1): If charged with a violation of state law relating to marijuana, any qualifying patient who is engaged in the medical use of marijuana, or any designated primary caregiver who assists a qualifying patient in the medical use of marijuana, will be…”
State v. Tracy, 147 P.3d 559 (Wash. 2006).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 69.51A.040(3) — 4 cases
Cannabis Action Coalition v. City of Kent, 322 P.3d 1246 (Wash. Ct. App. 2014). “085(3) refers are found in RCW 69.51A.040 and 69.51A.043. RCW 69.51A.”
State v. Constantine, 330 P.3d 226 (Wash. Ct. App. 2014).
State of Washington v. Adriane Constantine (Wash. Ct. App. 2014).
Cannatonics & Dr. Chambers Llc, V City Of Tacoma (Wash. Ct. App. 2015).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 69.51A.040(3)(b) — 4 cases
State v. Shupe, 289 P.3d 741 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012).
State v. Browne, 327 P.3d 63 (Wash. Ct. App. 2014).
State Of Washington v. Tonya Lynn Carlson (Wash. Ct. App. 2013).
State of Washington v. Paul Desmond Browne (Wash. Ct. App. 2014).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 69.51A.040(3)(c) — 1 case
State Of Washington v. Tonya Lynn Carlson (Wash. Ct. App. 2013).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 69.51A.040(4) — 9 cases
State v. Ginn, 128 Wash. App. 872 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). “¶20 RCW 69.51A.040(1) states “any qualifying patient who is engaged in the medical use of marijuana .”
State v. Ginn, 117 P.3d 1155 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). “¶ 15 Under RCW 69.51A.040(1): If charged with a violation of state law relating to marijuana, any qualifying patient who is engaged in the medical use of marijuana, or any designated primary caregiver who assists a qualifying patient in the medical use of marijuana, will be…”
State v. Mullins, 116 P.3d 441 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005).
State v. Mullins, 128 Wash. App. 633 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005).
State v. Phelps, 77 P.3d 678 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 69.51A.040(4)(a) — 2 cases
State v. McCarty, 215 P.3d 1036 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009).
State v. McCarty, 152 Wash. App. 351 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 69.51A.040(4)(b) — 4 cases
State v. Shepherd, 41 P.3d 1235 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002). “RCW 69.51A.040. STANDARD OF REVIEW This conviction rests upon stipulated facts and exhibits.”
State v. Shepherd, 110 Wash. App. 544 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002). “RCW 69.51A.040. *550 STANDARD OF REVIEW This conviction rests upon stipulated facts and exhibits.”
State v. Otis, 213 P.3d 613 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009).
State v. Otis, 151 Wash. App. 572 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 69.51A.040(4)(c) — 9 cases
State v. Shepherd, 41 P.3d 1235 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002). “RCW 69.51A.040. STANDARD OF REVIEW This conviction rests upon stipulated facts and exhibits.”
State v. Shepherd, 110 Wash. App. 544 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002). “RCW 69.51A.040. *550 STANDARD OF REVIEW This conviction rests upon stipulated facts and exhibits.”
State v. Phelps, 77 P.3d 678 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003).
State v. Phelps, 118 Wash. App. 740 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003).
State v. Otis, 213 P.3d 613 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 69.51A.040(5) — 2 cases
State v. Shupe, 289 P.3d 741 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012).
State v. Brown, 269 P.3d 359 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 69.51A.040(l) — 1 case
State Of Washington v. Andre Stratton (Wash. Ct. App. 2014).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 69.51A.040(l)(a)(i) — 1 case
State v. Reis, 351 P.3d 127 (Wash. 2015). “¶2 The 2011 amendments to RCW 69.51A.040 provide in relevant part that the “medical use of cannabis in accordance with the terms and conditions of this chapter does not constitute a crime .”
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.