Revised Code of Washington
Wash. Rev. Code § 9.68A.090 (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) Except as provided in subsection (2) of this section, a person who communicates with a minor for immoral purposes, or a person who communicates with someone the person believes to be a minor for immoral purposes, is guilty of a gross misdemeanor.
(2) A person who communicates with a minor for immoral purposes is guilty of a class C felony punishable according to chapter 9A.20 RCW if the person has previously been convicted under this section or of a felony sexual offense under chapter 9.68A, 9A.44, or 9A.64 RCW or of any other felony sexual offense in this or any other state or if the person communicates with a minor or with someone the person believes to be a minor for immoral purposes, including the purchase or sale of commercial sex acts and sex trafficking, through the sending of an electronic communication.
(3) For the purposes of this section, "electronic communication" has the same meaning as defined in *RCW 9.61.260.
[ 2013 c 302 s 1; 2006 c 139 s 1. Prior: 2003 c 53 s 42; 2003 c 26 s 1; 1989 c 32 s 7; 1986 c 319 s 2; 1984 c 262 s 8.]
Notes:
Effective date—2013 c 302: "This act takes effect August 1, 2013." [ 2013 c 302 s 13.]
Intent—Effective date—2003 c 53: See notes following RCW 2.48.180.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 141
cases (16 in the last 5 years), 1989–2026 · leading case: State v. Hosier, 133 P.3d 936 (Wash. 2006).
State v. Hosier, 133 P.3d 936 (Wash. 2006). “Additionally, he claims that the Court of Appeals' "foreseeability analysis" rewrites former RCW 9.68A.090 (1989), unconstitutionally adding an element not included by the legislature and chilling possession of protected materials.”
State v. Hosier, 157 Wash. 2d 1 (Wash. 2006). “Additionally, he claims that the Court of Appeals’ “foreseeability analysis” rewrites former RCW 9.68A.090 (1989), unconstitutionally adding an element not included by the legislature and chilling possession of protected materials.”
State, Dept. of Pub. Saf. v. Doe I, 425 P.3d 115 (Alaska 2018). “Because RCW 9.68A.090 is a misdemeanor, under Washington law his registration information was to be “used only for law enforcement purposes” and was not available “on the publicly accessible Washington sex offender website.”
State v. Jackman, 156 Wash. 2d 736 (Wash. 2006). “040(l)(a) and (b) require that a person take action to compel a minor to engage in sexually explicit conduct, while RCW 9.68A.090 merely requires that a person communicate with the minor for an immoral purpose.”
State v. Jackman, 132 P.3d 136 (Wash. 2006). “040(1)(a) and (b) require that a person take action to compel a minor to engage in sexually explicit conduct, while RCW 9.68A.090 merely requires that a person communicate with the minor for an immoral purpose.”
State v. Pietrzak, 997 P.2d 947 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000). “The question before the court is whether the language of RCW 9.68A.090 is so vague as to be unenforceable.”
State v. Luther, 830 P.2d 674 (Wash. Ct. App. 1992). “020, a predecessor version of RCW 9.68A.090, was to proscribe communications about immoral sexual conduct made criminal by other statutes, and that construed in light of such intent RCW 9A.”
State v. Wissing, 833 P.2d 424 (Wash. Ct. App. 1992). “In this case, we decide that RCW 9.68A.090, which proscribes communication with a minor for immoral purposes, is unconstitutionally vague as applied to the defendant's conduct, and therefore reverse.”
State v. Roswell, 165 Wash. 2d 186 (Wash. 2008). “Under RCW 9.68A.090(1), a person who communicates with a minor for immoral purposes is guilty of a gross misdemeanor.”
Ireneo P. Parrilla v. Alberto R. Gonzales , Attorney Gen., 414 F.3d 1038 (9th Cir. 2005). “Wash. Rev.Code § 9.68A.090 (2000) (current version at Wash.”
State v. Roswell, 196 P.3d 705 (Wash. 2008). “Under RCW 9.68A.090(1) a person who communicates with a minor for immoral purposes is guilty of a gross misdemeanor.”
State v. Aljutily, 149 Wash. App. 286 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). “ANALYSIS f 10 The sole issue on appeal is whether RCW 9.68A.090 is overbroad and infringes on constitutionally protected areas of speech under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and article I, section 5 of the Washington Constitution.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.68A.090(1) — 27 cases
State v. Roswell, 165 Wash. 2d 186 (Wash. 2008). “Under RCW 9.68A.090(1), a person who communicates with a minor for immoral purposes is guilty of a gross misdemeanor.”
State v. Roswell, 196 P.3d 705 (Wash. 2008). “Under RCW 9.68A.090(1) a person who communicates with a minor for immoral purposes is guilty of a gross misdemeanor.”
In Re the Det. of Danforth, 264 P.3d 783 (Wash. 2011).
State v. Pryor, 782 P.2d 1076 (Wash. Ct. App. 1989).
State v. Langstead, 155 Wash. App. 448 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.68A.090(2) — 44 cases
State v. Roswell, 165 Wash. 2d 186 (Wash. 2008). “Under RCW 9.68A.090(1), a person who communicates with a minor for immoral purposes is guilty of a gross misdemeanor.”
State v. Roswell, 196 P.3d 705 (Wash. 2008). “Under RCW 9.68A.090(1) a person who communicates with a minor for immoral purposes is guilty of a gross misdemeanor.”
State v. Langstead, 155 Wash. App. 448 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010).
State v. Navarro, 354 P.3d 22 (Wash. Ct. App. 2015).
State v. Aljutily, 149 Wash. App. 286 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). “ANALYSIS f 10 The sole issue on appeal is whether RCW 9.68A.090 is overbroad and infringes on constitutionally protected areas of speech under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and article I, section 5 of the Washington Constitution.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.68A.090(3) — 2 cases
State Of Washington v. Jose Rene Gomez (Wash. Ct. App. 2019).
Pers. Restraint Petition Of: Kenneth Paul Zimmerman, Jr (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.