Wash. Rev. Code » Title 7 · Chapter 7.80
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 7.80.120 (2025)

Monetary penalties—Restitution

✓ laws through the 2025 session: 2026 session laws are not yet included
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) A person found to have committed a civil infraction shall be assessed a monetary penalty.
(a) The maximum penalty and the default amount for a class 1 civil infraction shall be $250, not including statutory assessments, except for an infraction of state law involving (i) potentially dangerous litter as specified in RCW 70A.200.060(5), in which case the maximum penalty and default amount is $500; (ii) a person's refusal to submit to a test or tests pursuant to RCW 79A.60.040 and 79A.60.700, in which case the maximum penalty and default amount is $1,000; (iii) the misrepresentation of service animals under RCW 49.60.214, in which case the maximum penalty and default amount is $500; (iv) untraceable firearms pursuant to RCW 9.41.326 or unfinished frames or receivers pursuant to RCW 9.41.327, in which case the maximum penalty and default amount is $500; (v) the failure to report the loss or theft of a firearm under RCW 9.41.368, in which case the maximum penalty and default amount is $1,000; or (vi) unlawful construction of a mausoleum or columbarium on a family burial ground, as provided in RCW 68.74.020, in which case the penalty is $500;
(b) The maximum penalty and the default amount for a class 2 civil infraction shall be $125, not including statutory assessments;
(c) The maximum penalty and the default amount for a class 3 civil infraction shall be $50, not including statutory assessments; and
(d) The maximum penalty and the default amount for a class 4 civil infraction shall be $25, not including statutory assessments.
(2) The supreme court shall prescribe by rule the conditions under which local courts may exercise discretion in assessing fines for civil infractions.
(3)(a) Whenever a monetary penalty is imposed by a court under this chapter it is immediately payable. If the person is unable to pay at that time the court may grant an extension of the period in which the penalty may be paid. If the penalty is not paid on or before the time established for payment, the court may proceed to collect the penalty in the same manner as other civil judgments and may notify the prosecuting authority of the failure to pay.
(b) A person may request a payment plan at any time for the payment of any monetary penalty, fee, cost, assessment, or other monetary obligation associated with an infraction.
(i) Mandatory. If the court determines that the person does not have the ability to pay the monetary obligation in full, the person has not previously been granted a payment plan for the same monetary obligation, and the court has not authorized its collections agency to take civil legal enforcement action, the court shall enter into a payment plan with the individual.
(ii) Discretionary. Where the court has authorized its collections agency to take civil legal enforcement action, the court may, at its discretion, enter into a payment plan.
(4) The court may also order a person found to have committed a civil infraction to make restitution.
[ 2026 c 173 s 9; 2026 c 151 s 4; 2024 c 286 s 2; 2023 c 102 s 13; 2022 c 105 s 1; 2021 c 65 s 8; 2018 c 176 s 5; 2013 c 278 s 3. Prior: 2003 c 365 s 3; 2003 c 337 s 4; 1997 c 159 s 2; 1987 c 456 s 20.]

Notes:

Reviser's note: This section was amended by 2026 c 151 s 4 and by 2026 c 173 s 9, each without reference to the other. Both amendments are incorporated in the publication of this section under RCW 1.12.025(2). For rule of construction, see RCW 1.12.025(1).
Intent—2026 c 173: See note following RCW 68.74.010.
Effective date—2022 c 105: "This act takes effect July 1, 2022." [ 2022 c 105 s 9.]
Explanatory statement—2021 c 65: See note following RCW 53.54.030.
Declaration—Finding—Purpose—Effective date—2018 c 176: See notes following RCW 49.60.215.
Findings—2003 c 365: "The legislature finds that there has been an increase in studies showing a correlation between exposure to violent video and computer games and various forms of hostile and antisocial behavior. The entertainment software industry's ratings and content descriptors of video and computer games reflect that some video and computer games are suitable only for adults due to graphic depictions of sex and/or violence. Furthermore, some video and computer games focus on violence specifically against public law enforcement officers such as police and firefighters. The legislature encourages retailers and parents to utilize the rating system.
In addition, the legislature finds there is a compelling interest to curb hostile and antisocial behavior in Washington's youth and to foster respect for public law enforcement officers." [ 2003 c 365 s 1.]
Findings—2003 c 337: See note following RCW 70A.200.060.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases, 2009–2019 · leading case: State v. Kirwin, 203 P.3d 1044 (Wash. 2009).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Kirwin, 203 P.3d 1044 (Wash. 2009). · cites it 3× “060(2)(a) ("[I]t is a class 3 civil infraction as provided in RCW 7.80.120 for a person to litter in an amount less than or equal to one cubic foot.”
State v. Kirwin, 165 Wash. 2d 818 (2009). · cites it 2× “060(2)(a) (“[I]t is a class 3 civil infraction as provided in RCW 7.80.120 for a person to litter in an amount less than or equal to one cubic foot.”
Post v. City of Tacoma, 217 P.3d 1179 (Wash. 2009). “[11] Post also argues that the MBSC's penalty provisions exceed Tacoma's statutory authority under RCW 7.80.120, that the MBSC's penalty provisions violate the excessive fines clause, and that the accumulation of penalties violates substantive due process.”
Post v. City of Tacoma, 167 Wash. 2d 300 (2009). “Post also argues that the MBSC’s penalty provisions exceed Tacoma’s statutory authority under RCW 7.80.120, that the MBSC’s penalty provisions *313 violate the excessive fines clause, and that the accumulation of penalties violates substantive due process.”
State Of Washington v. Rodney E. Mans, No. 77321-6 (Wash. Ct. App. Mar. 11, 2019). “060(2)(a); RCW 7.80.120(1)(c). Terry stops are permissible only when there is reasonable suspicion of criminal activity; this exception to the warrant requirement does not apply to non-traffic civil infractions.”
Wash. Rev. Code § 7.80.120(1)(c): 2 cases
State v. Kirwin, 203 P.3d 1044 (Wash. 2009). “060(2)(a) ("[I]t is a class 3 civil infraction as provided in RCW 7.80.120 for a person to litter in an amount less than or equal to one cubic foot.”
State Of Washington v. Rodney E. Mans, No. 77321-6 (Wash. Ct. App. Mar. 11, 2019). “060(2)(a); RCW 7.80.120(1)(c). Terry stops are permissible only when there is reasonable suspicion of criminal activity; this exception to the warrant requirement does not apply to non-traffic civil infractions.”
Wash. Rev. Code § 7.80.120(l)(c): 1 case
State v. Kirwin, 165 Wash. 2d 818 (2009). “060(2)(a) (“[I]t is a class 3 civil infraction as provided in RCW 7.80.120 for a person to litter in an amount less than or equal to one cubic foot.”
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.