Wash. Rev. Code » Title 9 · Chapter 9.35
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 9.35.001 (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) The legislature finds that means of identification and financial information are personal and sensitive information such that if unlawfully obtained, possessed, used, or transferred by others may result in significant harm to a person's privacy, financial security, and other interests. The legislature finds that unscrupulous persons find ever more clever ways, including identity theft, to improperly obtain, possess, use, and transfer another person's means of identification or financial information. The legislature intends to penalize for each unlawful act of improperly obtaining, possessing, using, or transferring means of identification or financial information of an individual person. The unit of prosecution for identity theft by use of a means of identification or financial information is each individual unlawful use of any one person's means of identification or financial information. Unlawfully obtaining, possessing, or transferring each means of identification or financial information of any individual person, with the requisite intent, is a separate unit of prosecution for each victim and for each act of obtaining, possessing, or transferring of the individual person's means of identification or financial information.
(2) The people find that additional measures are needed to protect seniors and vulnerable individuals from identity theft because such individuals often have less ability to protect themselves and such individuals can be targeted using information available through public sources, including publicly available information that identifies such individuals or their in-home caregivers.
[ 2017 c 4 s 4 (Initiative Measure No. 1501, approved November 8, 2016); 2008 c 207 s 3; 1999 c 368 s 1.]

Notes:

Short title—Intent—Construction—2017 c 4 (Initiative Measure No. 1501): See notes following RCW 9.35.005.
Finding—Intent—2008 c 207 ss 3 and 4: "The legislature enacts sections 3 and 4 of this act to expressly reject the interpretation of State v. Leyda, 157 Wn.2d 335, 138 P.3d 610 (2006), which holds that the unit of prosecution in identity theft is any one act of either knowingly obtaining, possessing, using, or transferring a single piece of another's identification or financial information, including all subsequent proscribed conduct with that single piece of identification or financial information, when the acts are taken with the requisite intent. The legislature finds that proportionality of punishment requires the need for charging and punishing for obtaining, using, possessing, or transferring any individual person's identification or financial information, with the requisite intent. The legislature specifically intends that each individual who obtains, possesses, uses, or transfers any individual person's identification or financial information, with the requisite intent, be classified separately and punished separately as provided in chapter 9.94A RCW." [ 2008 c 207 s 1.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 14 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2002–2024 · leading case: State v. Evans, 298 P.3d 724 (Wash. 2013).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Evans, 298 P.3d 724 (Wash. 2013). · cites it 2× “RCW 9.35.001; see, e.g., United States v.”
Michigan Fed'n of Teachers & Sch. Related Pers. v. Univ. of Michigan, 753 N.W.2d 28 (Mich. 2008). · cites it 2× “3; Wash. Rev. Code 9.35.001 et seq.; W. Va. Code 61-3-54; Wis.”
State v. Leyda, 138 P.3d 610 (Wash. 2006). · cites it 2× “[8] The identity theft statute and the accompanying findings section both speak in terms punishing a criminal defendant for "obtaining" and/or "using" another's means of identification or financial information.”
State v. Leyda, 157 Wash. 2d 335 (Wash. 2006). · cites it 2× “RCW 9.35.001, .020. Thus, because the plain words of the statute can be reasonably interpreted in more than one way, the only legal conclusion that is clear from reading the language of RCW 9.”
State v. Presba, 131 Wash. App. 47 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). “In support of this claim, Presba cites the general statement of intent found in RCW 9.35.001: “The legislature intends to penalize unscrupulous people for improperly obtaining financial information.”
State v. Presba, 126 P.3d 1280 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). “In support of this claim, Presba cites the general statement of intent found in RCW 9.35.001: "The Legislature intends to penalize unscrupulous people for improperly obtaining financial information.”
State v. Baldwin, 45 P.3d 1093 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002). “She points to the statement of legislative intent found in RCW 9.35.001: The legislature finds that financial information is personal and sensitive information that if unlawfully obtained by others may do significant harm to a person's privacy, financial security, and other…”
State v. Baldwin, 111 Wash. App. 631 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002). “She points to the statement of legislative intent found in RCW 9.35.001: The legislature finds that financial information is personal and sensitive information that if unlawfully obtained by others may *646 do significant harm to a person’s privacy, financial security, and other…”
State v. K.R., 282 P.3d 1112 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012). “” RCW 9.35.001; Laws of 2008, ch. 207, § 3.”
State Of Washington v. Tiffany L. Martin (Wash. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 3× “RCW 9.35.001. Martin maintains that by creating separate "units of prosecution" for each unlawful act involving a person's identification of financial information, the legislature intended that identify theft be an alternative means crime.”
State v. Evans (Wash. 2013). · cites it 2× “RCW 9.35.001; see, e.g., United States v.”
State Of Washington v. Bobby A. Norman (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). “" RCW 9.35.001. The statute by its terms prohibits such conduct only when committed with the requisite mens rea—intent to commit a crime—as defined therein.”
Show all 14 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.35.001(1) — 1 case
Sarah Nunley v. Chelan-Douglas Health Dist. (Wash. Ct. App. 2024).
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.