Wash. Rev. Code » Title 9 · Chapter 9.73
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 9.73.010 (2026)

Divulging telegram

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Every person who shall wrongfully obtain or attempt to obtain, any knowledge of a telegraphic message, by connivance with the clerk, operator, messenger, or other employee of a telegraph company, and every clerk, operator, messenger, or other employee of such company who shall willfully divulge to any but the person for whom it was intended, any telegraphic message or dispatch intrusted to him or her for transmission or delivery, or the nature or contents thereof, or shall willfully refuse, neglect, or delay duly to transmit or deliver the same, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.
[ 2011 c 336 s 323; 1909 c 249 s 410; Code 1881 s 2342; RRS s 2662.]

Notes:

Intercepting, delaying telegram: RCW 9A.48.070, 9A.48.080.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1980–2021 · leading case: State v. Boland, 800 P.2d 1112 (Wash. 1990).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Boland, 800 P.2d 1112 (Wash. 1990). · cites it 2× “In particular, RCW 9.73.010 made it a misdemeanor for anyone wrongfully to obtain knowledge of a telegraphic message.”
State v. Salinas, 829 P.2d 1068 (Wash. 1992). “090 was enacted in 1970, and allowed police, fire, emergency medical personnel, emergency communication centers, and poison control personnel to record incoming phone calls, exempting such personnel and places from the provisions of RCW 9.”
State v. Fjermestad, 791 P.2d 897 (Wash. 1990). · cites it 2× “The origin of Washington's privacy act dates back to 1909 when the Legislature enacted RCW 9.73.010 and *831 9.73.020. [2] In its original form, the privacy act made it unlawful to divulge information in regard to telegrams and also made it unlawful to open sealed letters.”
State v. Gunwall, 720 P.2d 808 (Wash. 1986). “For example, RCW 9.73.010, which makes it a misdemeanor for anyone to wrongfully obtain knowledge of a telegraphic message, was enacted in 1909 and is based on section 2342 of the Code of 1881.”
State v. Clark, 916 P.2d 384 (Wash. 2007). “RCW 9.73.010, .020. In 1967, the Legislature made it unlawful, with some statutory exceptions, to intercept or record by any device any private conversation or communication transmitted by telephone, telegraph, radio, or other device without the prior consent of all participants…”
State v. Christensen, 102 P.3d 789 (Wash. 2004). “For example [the privacy act], RCW 9.73.010, which makes it a misdemeanor for anyone to wrongfully obtain knowledge of a telegraphic message, was enacted in 1909 and is based on section 2342 of the Code of 1881.”
State v. Cunningham, 613 P.2d 1139 (Wash. 1980). “The Court of Appeals held that the tapes did not strictly conform to the statutory requirements of RCW 9.73.010 et seq., and thus were inadmissible.”
State v. Clark, 129 Wash. 2d 211 (Wash. 1996). “RCW 9.73.010, .020. In 1967, the Legislature made it unlawful, with some statutory exceptions, to intercept or record by any device any private conversation or communication transmitted by telephone, telegraph, radio, or other device without the prior consent of all participants…”
State v. Mullens, 650 S.E.2d 169 (W. Va. 2007). “535, et seq. (2005); Pa. Consol. Stat. tit. 18, § 5701, et seq.”
State v. Christensen, 102 P.3d 789 (Wash. 2005). “For example [the privacy act], RCW 9.73.010, which makes it a misdemeanor for anyone to wrongfully obtain knowledge of a telegraphic message, was enacted in 1909 and is based on section 2342 of the Code of 1881.”
Russo v. Microsoft Corp. (N.D. Cal. 2021). · cites it 3× “, (4) Washington Privacy Act (“WPA”), Wash. Rev. Code 9.73.010 et seq., and (5) 18 intrusion upon seclusion under Washington law.”
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.