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

Wash. Rev. Code § 9.73.030 (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 otherwise provided in this chapter, it shall be unlawful for any individual, partnership, corporation, association, or the state of Washington, its agencies, and political subdivisions to intercept, or record any:
(a) Private communication transmitted by telephone, telegraph, radio, or other device between two or more individuals between points within or without the state by any device electronic or otherwise designed to record and/or transmit said communication regardless how such device is powered or actuated, without first obtaining the consent of all the participants in the communication;
(b) Private conversation, by any device electronic or otherwise designed to record or transmit such conversation regardless how the device is powered or actuated without first obtaining the consent of all the persons engaged in the conversation.
(2) Notwithstanding subsection (1) of this section, wire communications or conversations (a) of an emergency nature, such as the reporting of a fire, medical emergency, crime, or disaster, or (b) which convey threats of extortion, blackmail, bodily harm, or other unlawful requests or demands, or (c) which occur anonymously or repeatedly or at an extremely inconvenient hour, or (d) which relate to communications by a hostage holder or barricaded person as defined in RCW 70.85.100, whether or not conversation ensues, may be recorded with the consent of one party to the conversation.
(3) Where consent by all parties is needed pursuant to this chapter, consent shall be considered obtained whenever one party has announced to all other parties engaged in the communication or conversation, in any reasonably effective manner, that such communication or conversation is about to be recorded or transmitted: PROVIDED, That if the conversation is to be recorded that said announcement shall also be recorded.
(4) An employee of any regularly published newspaper, magazine, wire service, radio station, or television station acting in the course of bona fide news gathering duties on a full-time or contractual or part-time basis, shall be deemed to have consent to record and divulge communications or conversations otherwise prohibited by this chapter if the consent is expressly given or if the recording or transmitting device is readily apparent or obvious to the speakers. Withdrawal of the consent after the communication has been made shall not prohibit any such employee of a newspaper, magazine, wire service, or radio or television station from divulging the communication or conversation.
(5) This section does not apply to the recording of custodial interrogations pursuant to RCW 10.122.040.
[ 2021 c 329 s 21. Prior: 1986 c 38 s 1; 1985 c 260 s 2; 1977 ex.s. c 363 s 1; 1967 ex.s. c 93 s 1.]

Notes:

Severability—1967 ex.s. c 93: "If any provision of this act, or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the act, or the application of the provision to other persons or circumstances is not affected." [ 1967 ex.s. c 93 s 7.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 232 cases (47 in the last 5 years), 1972–2026 · leading case: State v. Wanrow, 559 P.2d 548 (Wash. 1977).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Wanrow, 559 P.2d 548 (Wash. 1977). · cites it 39× “050 makes any information obtained in violation of RCW 9.73.030 inadmissible in a civil or criminal case.”
State v. Williams, 617 P.2d 1012 (Wash. 1980). · cites it 35× “RCW 9.73.030. Thus, if the state privacy act is applicable, the recordings must be suppressed.”
Lewis v. State, Dept. of Licensing, 139 P.3d 1078 (Wash. 2006). · cites it 25× “030 states: (1) Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, it shall be unlawful for any individual . . . or the state of Washington, its agencies, and political subdivisions to intercept, or record any: .”
State v. Townsend, 57 P.3d 255 (Wash. 2002). · cites it 14× “In relevant part, RCW 9.73.030 states, (1)... it shall be unlawful for any individual, partnership, corporation, association, or the state of Washington, its agencies, and political subdivisions to intercept, or record any: (a) Private communication transmitted by telephone,…”
State v. Fowler, 139 P.3d 342 (Wash. 2006). · cites it 31× “Based on Washington's privacy act, Petitioner claims that the recordings of the conversations in Oregon were unlawful under RCW 9.73.030 and were therefore inadmissible in court under RCW 9.”
State v. Rupe, 683 P.2d 571 (Wash. 1984). · cites it 13× “Cunningham, 93 Wn.2d 823 , 613 P.2d 1139 (1980), we indicated that recordings must strictly conform to the statutes so as to "ensure that waiver by consent authorized by RCW 9.”
State v. Fjermestad, 791 P.2d 897 (Wash. 1990). · cites it 15× “73, at the time of the conduct in question, prohibited the interception or recording of private conversations unless consent was obtained (a) by all the parties involved in the conversation (RCW 9.73.030) or (b) if judicial authorization was obtained (RCW 9.”
State v. Roden, 321 P.3d 1183 (Wash. 2014). · cites it 11× “RCW 9.73.030, .040, .090(2). Overall, the act “significantly expands the minimum standards of the federal statute [, Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, 18 U.”
State Of Washington v. John Smith, 382 P.3d 721 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 21× “He appeals these convictions and the enhancements, arguing that the trial court erred when it ruled that a voice mail recording containing part of a domestic dispute between him and his spouse, Sheryl Smith, was admissible and not in violation of Washington’s privacy act, RCW…”
State v. Fowler, 157 Wash. 2d 387 (Wash. 2006). · cites it 31× “Based on Washington’s privacy act, petitioner claims that the recordings of the conversations in Oregon *389 were unlawful under RCW 9.73.030 and were therefore inadmissible in court under RCW 9.”
State v. Mankin, 241 P.3d 421 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 17× “The State charged Flora with violating RCW 9.73.030. Flora, 68 Wash.App. at 805 , 845 P.”
State v. Cunningham, 613 P.2d 1139 (Wash. 1980). · cites it 8× “090, however, is one of the exceptions "otherwise provided" for in RCW 9.73.030. RCW 9.73.090(2) (since amended by Laws of 1977, 1st Ex.”
Show all 232 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.73.030(1) — 47 cases
State v. Wanrow, 559 P.2d 548 (Wash. 1977). “050 makes any information obtained in violation of RCW 9.73.030 inadmissible in a civil or criminal case.”
State v. Williams, 617 P.2d 1012 (Wash. 1980). “RCW 9.73.030. Thus, if the state privacy act is applicable, the recordings must be suppressed.”
State v. Bonilla, 598 P.2d 783 (Wash. Ct. App. 1979).
State v. Fowler, 139 P.3d 342 (Wash. 2006). “Based on Washington's privacy act, Petitioner claims that the recordings of the conversations in Oregon were unlawful under RCW 9.73.030 and were therefore inadmissible in court under RCW 9.”
State v. Modica, 186 P.3d 1062 (Wash. 2008).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.73.030(1)(A) — 1 case
State v. Fowler, 111 P.3d 1264 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.73.030(1)(a) — 39 cases
State v. Riley, 846 P.2d 1365 (Wash. 1993).
State v. Fowler, 111 P.3d 1264 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005).
State v. Fowler, 127 Wash. App. 676 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005).
State v. Racus, 433 P.3d 830 (Wash. Ct. App. 2019).
State v. Fowler, 139 P.3d 342 (Wash. 2006). “Based on Washington's privacy act, Petitioner claims that the recordings of the conversations in Oregon were unlawful under RCW 9.73.030 and were therefore inadmissible in court under RCW 9.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.73.030(1)(b) — 29 cases
State v. Mankin, 241 P.3d 421 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010). “The State charged Flora with violating RCW 9.73.030. Flora, 68 Wash.App. at 805 , 845 P.”
State v. Corliss, 870 P.2d 317 (Wash. 1994).
State v. Racus, 433 P.3d 830 (Wash. Ct. App. 2019).
State v. Fjermestad, 791 P.2d 897 (Wash. 1990). “73, at the time of the conduct in question, prohibited the interception or recording of private conversations unless consent was obtained (a) by all the parties involved in the conversation (RCW 9.73.030) or (b) if judicial authorization was obtained (RCW 9.”
State Of Washington v. John Smith, 382 P.3d 721 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). “He appeals these convictions and the enhancements, arguing that the trial court erred when it ruled that a voice mail recording containing part of a domestic dispute between him and his spouse, Sheryl Smith, was admissible and not in violation of Washington’s privacy act, RCW…”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.73.030(2) — 26 cases
State v. Williams, 617 P.2d 1012 (Wash. 1980). “RCW 9.73.030. Thus, if the state privacy act is applicable, the recordings must be suppressed.”
State v. Cunningham, 613 P.2d 1139 (Wash. 1980). “090, however, is one of the exceptions "otherwise provided" for in RCW 9.73.030. RCW 9.73.090(2) (since amended by Laws of 1977, 1st Ex.”
State Of Washington, Resp. v. Alan J. Sinclair Ii, App.27, 367 P.3d 612 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016).
State v. Gunwall, 720 P.2d 808 (Wash. 1986).
State v. Cunningham, 598 P.2d 756 (Wash. Ct. App. 1979).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.73.030(2)(a) — 4 cases
Dillon v. Seattle Deposition Reporters, LLC, 179 Wash. App. 41 (Wash. Ct. App. 2014).
State v. Ish, 208 P.3d 1281 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009).
State v. Ish, 150 Wash. App. 775 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009).
Jason Dillon, App. v. Seattle Deposition Reporters, Et Ano., Resps. (Wash. Ct. App. 2014).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.73.030(2)(b) — 11 cases
State v. Caliguri, 664 P.2d 466 (Wash. 1983).
State v. Williams, 617 P.2d 1012 (Wash. 1980). “RCW 9.73.030. Thus, if the state privacy act is applicable, the recordings must be suppressed.”
State v. Robinson, 691 P.2d 213 (Wash. Ct. App. 1984).
State v. Faford, 910 P.2d 447 (Wash. 1996).
State v. Faford, 128 Wash. 2d 476 (Wash. 1996).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.73.030(2)(c) — 1 case
State v. Riley, 846 P.2d 1365 (Wash. 1993).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.73.030(2)(d) — 2 cases
State v. Pejsa, 876 P.2d 963 (Wash. Ct. App. 1994).
State Of Washington, V. Morris Kamara, 539 P.3d 48 (Wash. Ct. App. 2023).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.73.030(3) — 16 cases
State v. Rupe, 683 P.2d 571 (Wash. 1984). “Cunningham, 93 Wn.2d 823 , 613 P.2d 1139 (1980), we indicated that recordings must strictly conform to the statutes so as to "ensure that waiver by consent authorized by RCW 9.”
State v. Townsend, 57 P.3d 255 (Wash. 2002). “In relevant part, RCW 9.73.030 states, (1)... it shall be unlawful for any individual, partnership, corporation, association, or the state of Washington, its agencies, and political subdivisions to intercept, or record any: (a) Private communication transmitted by telephone,…”
State v. Johnson, 699 P.2d 221 (Wash. Ct. App. 1985).
State v. Townsend, 20 P.3d 1027 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001).
State v. Townsend, 105 Wash. App. 622 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.73.030(b) — 1 case
In re the Marriage of Liliia v. Kozniuk & George Medison Slaughter (Wash. Ct. App. 2013).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.73.030(l)(a) — 23 cases
State v. Townsend, 57 P.3d 255 (Wash. 2002). “In relevant part, RCW 9.73.030 states, (1)... it shall be unlawful for any individual, partnership, corporation, association, or the state of Washington, its agencies, and political subdivisions to intercept, or record any: (a) Private communication transmitted by telephone,…”
State Of Washington v. John Smith, 382 P.3d 721 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). “He appeals these convictions and the enhancements, arguing that the trial court erred when it ruled that a voice mail recording containing part of a domestic dispute between him and his spouse, Sheryl Smith, was admissible and not in violation of Washington’s privacy act, RCW…”
State v. Gunwall, 720 P.2d 808 (Wash. 1986).
State v. Roden, 279 P.3d 461 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012).
State v. Townsend, 105 Wash. App. 622 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.73.030(l)(b) — 14 cases
State v. Mankin, 158 Wash. App. 111 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010).
State Of Washington v. John Smith, 382 P.3d 721 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). “He appeals these convictions and the enhancements, arguing that the trial court erred when it ruled that a voice mail recording containing part of a domestic dispute between him and his spouse, Sheryl Smith, was admissible and not in violation of Washington’s privacy act, RCW…”
State v. Brown, 940 P.2d 546 (Wash. 1997).
Cowell v. Good Samaritan Cmty. Health Care, 225 P.3d 294 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009).
State v. Fjermestad, 791 P.2d 897 (Wash. 1990). “73, at the time of the conduct in question, prohibited the interception or recording of private conversations unless consent was obtained (a) by all the parties involved in the conversation (RCW 9.73.030) or (b) if judicial authorization was obtained (RCW 9.”
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.