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

Wash. Rev. Code § 69.51A.045 (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) A qualifying patient or designated provider in possession of plants, cannabis concentrates, useable cannabis, or cannabis-infused products exceeding the limits set forth in this chapter but otherwise in compliance with all other terms and conditions of this chapter may establish an affirmative defense to charges of violations of state law relating to cannabis through proof at trial, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the qualifying patient's necessary medical use exceeds the amounts set forth in RCW 69.51A.040.
(2) An investigating law enforcement officer may seize plants, cannabis concentrates, useable cannabis, or cannabis-infused products exceeding the amounts set forth in this chapter. In the case of plants, the qualifying patient or designated provider shall be allowed to select the plants that will remain at the location. The officer and his or her law enforcement agency may not be held civilly liable for failure to seize cannabis in this circumstance.
[ 2022 c 16 s 120; 2015 c 70 s 29; 2011 c 181 s 405.]

Notes:

Intent—Finding—2022 c 16: See note following RCW 69.50.101.
Short title—Findings—Intent—References to Washington state liquor control board—Draft legislation—2015 c 70: See notes following RCW 66.08.012.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases, 2014–2014 · leading case: State v. Reis, 322 P.3d 1238 (Wash. Ct. App. 2014).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Reis, 322 P.3d 1238 (Wash. Ct. App. 2014). “043, RCW 69.51A.045, and RCW 69.51A.047 always governed those who are not registered, the affirmative defense provisions are “meaningful even though section 901 has been vetoed.”
State v. Browne, 327 P.3d 63 (Wash. Ct. App. 2014). “We do not opine on the necessity of medical testimony for establishing Mr.”
State Of Washington v. William Michael Reis (Wash. Ct. App. 2014). “043, RCW 69.51A.045, and RCW 69.51A.047 always governed those who are not registered, the affirmative defense provisions are "meaningful even though section 901 has been vetoed.”
State of Washington v. Paul Desmond Browne (Wash. Ct. App. 2014). “040 and RCW 69.51A.045. 6 \ I i ., \ No. 311S6-2-III State v.”
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.