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

Wash. Rev. Code § 9.73.050 (2026)

Admissibility of intercepted communication in evidence

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Any information obtained in violation of RCW 9.73.030 or pursuant to any order issued under the provisions of RCW 9.73.040 shall be inadmissible in any civil or criminal case in all courts of general or limited jurisdiction in this state, except with the permission of the person whose rights have been violated in an action brought for damages under the provisions of RCW 9.73.030 through 9.73.080, or in a criminal action in which the defendant is charged with a crime, the commission of which would jeopardize national security.
[ 1967 ex.s. c 93 s 3.]

Notes:

Severability—1967 ex.s. c 93: See note following RCW 9.73.030.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 126 cases (17 in the last 5 years), 1973–2025 · 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 30× “The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the case with instructions to omit a tape recording made by the Spokane Police Department of an emergency telephone call, on the basis that RCW 9.73.050 and RCW 9.73.090 which authorize the recording of such a call create an absolute…”
State v. Fjermestad, 791 P.2d 897 (Wash. 1990). · cites it 24× “040 was enacted, the Legislature added RCW 9.73.050 [4] which deals with admissibility of *832 intercepted communications into evidence.”
State v. O'NEILL, 700 P.2d 711 (Wash. 1985). · cites it 20× “) RCW 9.73.050. Defendants argue on the basis of Williams , and other authority of similar import, that information obtained by Pierce County law enforcement authorities from federal law enforcement authorities (based on FBI one party consent tape recordings obtained without a…”
State v. Williams, 617 P.2d 1012 (Wash. 1980). · cites it 8× “RCW 9.73.050. The State argues that the privacy act is not applicable because: (a) the language of the statute implicitly excludes federal agents from its statutory provisions; and (b) the federal wiretap law preempts the more rigorous requirements of the state privacy act.”
Kearney v. Kearney, 974 P.2d 872 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 11× “030 by recording the conversation and giving copies to Kiesel, who in turn, filed them in superior court, in violation of RCW 9.73.050; (2) Kiesel had violated his.”
Lewis v. State, Dept. of Licensing, 139 P.3d 1078 (Wash. 2006). · cites it 6× “Whether the proper remedy for an officer's failure to inform a detainee about the recording is the dismissal of all evidence related to the traffic stop ¶ 48 The drivers argue that because their conversations were private and recorded in violation of RCW 9.”
State v. Rupe, 683 P.2d 571 (Wash. 1984). · cites it 4× “RCW 9.73.050 provides that information obtained in violation of this statute is not admissible in any civil or criminal proceeding.”
State v. Fowler, 139 P.3d 342 (Wash. 2006). · cites it 9× “030 and were therefore inadmissible in court under RCW 9.73.050. We hold that the recording of conversations in Oregon did not violate RCW 9.”
State v. Salinas, 853 P.2d 439 (Wash. 1993). · cites it 11× “If none of the exceptions applies, "[a]ny information obtained in violation of RCW 9.”
State v. Clark, 916 P.2d 384 (Wash. 2007). · cites it 3× “[5] Such a broad license *399 to record private conversations is, in my judgment, beyond the pale of the privacy act.”
State v. Smith, 540 P.2d 424 (Wash. 1975). · cites it 8× “030(2), [1] and that RCW 9.73.050 [2] therefore renders *846 it inadmissible.”
State v. Fowler, 157 Wash. 2d 387 (Wash. 2006). · cites it 9× “030 and were therefore inadmissible in court under RCW 9.73.050. We hold that the recording of conversations in Oregon did not violate RCW 9.”
Show all 126 citing cases →
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.