Revised Code of Washington
Wash. Rev. Code § 77.15.620 (2026)
Engaging in fish dealing activity without a license—Penalty
✓ 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 person is guilty of engaging in fish dealing activity without a license in the second degree if the activity involves fish or shellfish worth less than two hundred fifty dollars and the person:
(a) Engages in any fish dealing activity requiring a fish dealer license under RCW 77.65.280 without first obtaining the license;
(b) Engages in any fish buying or selling activity requiring a wholesale fish buyer endorsement under RCW 77.65.340 without first obtaining the endorsement; or
(c) Engages in any fish selling activity as a fisher that requires a limited fish seller endorsement under RCW 77.65.510 without first obtaining the endorsement.
(2) A person is guilty of engaging in fish dealing activity without a license in the first degree if the person commits the act described by subsection (1) of this section and the violation involves fish or shellfish worth two hundred fifty dollars or more.
(3)(a) Engaging in fish dealing activity without a license in the second degree is a gross misdemeanor.
(b) Engaging in fish dealing activity without a license in the first degree is a class C felony.
[ 2017 3rd sp.s. c 8 s 12; 2012 c 176 s 30; 2009 c 333 s 20; 2002 c 301 s 7; 2000 c 107 s 253; 1998 c 190 s 43.]
Notes:
Finding—Intent—Effective date—2017 3rd sp.s. c 8: See notes following RCW 77.08.010.
Finding—Effective date—2002 c 301: See notes following RCW 77.65.510.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3
cases, 2009–2019 · leading case: State Of Wa v. Keovilayvanh Rinthalukay Aka Ricky K. Moore (Wash. Ct. App. 2019).
State Of Wa v. Keovilayvanh Rinthalukay Aka Ricky K. Moore (Wash. Ct. App. 2019). “The State charged Rinthalukay with one count of unlicensed first degree fish dealing in violation of RCW 77.15.620,~ one count of first degree unlawful ~ This charge was based on the fact that Sea Native’s and Rinthalukay’s wholesale icenses lapsed for a short period of time…”
State v. Guidry, 153 Wash. App. 774 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). “RCW 77.15.620(3). In order to convict Guidry of first degree trafficking in fish, the State had to prove, among other elements, that the fish were worth $250 or more.”
State v. Guidry, 223 P.3d 533 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). “RCW 77.15.620(3). In order to convict Guidry of first degree trafficking in fish, the State had to prove, among other elements, that the fish were worth $250 or more.”
Wash. Rev. Code § 77.15.620(3): 2 cases
State v. Guidry, 153 Wash. App. 774 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). “RCW 77.15.620(3). In order to convict Guidry of first degree trafficking in fish, the State had to prove, among other elements, that the fish were worth $250 or more.”
State v. Guidry, 223 P.3d 533 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). “RCW 77.15.620(3). In order to convict Guidry of first degree trafficking in fish, the State had to prove, among other elements, that the fish were worth $250 or more.”
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.