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

Wash. Rev. Code § 9.73.080 (2026)

Penalties

✓ 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, any person who violates RCW 9.73.030 is guilty of a gross misdemeanor.
(2) Any person who knowingly alters, erases, or wrongfully discloses any recording in violation of RCW 9.73.090(1)(c) is guilty of a gross misdemeanor.
[ 2000 c 195 s 3; 1989 c 271 s 209; 1967 ex.s. c 93 s 6.]

Notes:

Intent—2000 c 195: See note following RCW 9.73.090.
Severability—1989 c 271: See note following RCW 9.94A.510.
Severability—1967 ex.s. c 93: See note following RCW 9.73.030.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 16 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1977–2023 · 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 12× “090(1) "for the purpose and only for the purpose of verifying the accuracy of reception of emergency calls" restrict the recording's use to verification only; therefore, these emergency recordings are still inadmissible under RCW 9.73.050. I disagree. This interpretation of RCW…”
State v. Clark, 916 P.2d 384 (Wash. 2007). “030 constitutes a gross misdemeanor, RCW 9.73.080, and may also result in civil liability.”
Fisher Broad.-Seattle TV LLC v. City of Seattle, 326 P.3d 688 (Wash. 2014). “070; and make violation of the act a gross misdemeanor, RCW 9.73.080. We note that RCW 9.73.090(1)(c) is not a complete bar to release of videos pertaining to ongoing litigation.”
State v. Modica, 186 P.3d 1062 (Wash. 2008). “RCW 9.73.080(1). RCW 9.73.060. In addition to allowing for recording of the calls, the statute institutes a series of safeguards to protect the rights of the inmate.”
State v. Roden, 321 P.3d 1183 (Wash. 2014). “And hapless is the concerned citizen who proactively sends a message to a stored contact in an effort to return the phone to its rightful owner, for he or she has almost certainly committed a misdemeanor.”
State v. Williams, 617 P.2d 1012 (Wash. 1980). “The State claims finally, that the federal statute preempts the application of state statutory requirements of *541 admissibility to evidence gathered by federal agents because the other two privacy act remedies for illegal interception and recording — criminal prosecution (RCW…”
State v. Clark, 129 Wash. 2d 211 (Wash. 1996). “030 constitutes a gross misdemeanor, RCW 9.73.080, and may also result in civil liability.”
State v. Faford, 910 P.2d 447 (Wash. 1996). “A violation of the privacy act is a gross misdemeanor, RCW 9.73.080, and the violator is liable for damages, including attorney fees, RCW 9.”
State v. Faford, 128 Wash. 2d 476 (Wash. 1996). “A violation of the privacy act is a gross misdemeanor, RCW 9.73.080, and the violator is liable for damages, including attorney fees, RCW 9.”
State v. Fowler, 139 P.3d 342 (Wash. 2006). “[3] RCW 9.73.080 provides that "[e]xcept as otherwise provided in this chapter, any person who violates RCW 9.”
State v. Johnson, 703 P.2d 1052 (Wash. 1985). “Defendant was convicted of a gross misdemeanor for violating RCW 9.73.080 by tape recording a telephone conversation without consent of the other party to the conversation.”
State v. Fowler, 157 Wash. 2d 387 (Wash. 2006). “RCW 9.73.080(1) provides that “[ejxcept as otherwise provided in this chapter, any person who violates RCW 9.”
Show all 16 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.73.080(1) — 4 cases
State v. Modica, 186 P.3d 1062 (Wash. 2008). “RCW 9.73.080(1). RCW 9.73.060. In addition to allowing for recording of the calls, the statute institutes a series of safeguards to protect the rights of the inmate.”
State v. Fowler, 157 Wash. 2d 387 (Wash. 2006). “RCW 9.73.080(1) provides that “[ejxcept as otherwise provided in this chapter, any person who violates RCW 9.”
State v. Modica, 186 P.3d 1062 (Wash. 2008).
State Of Washington, V. Christopher Miles Gates (Wash. Ct. App. 2023).
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.