Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 9.73.090 (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) The provisions of RCW 9.73.030 through 9.73.080 shall not apply to police, fire, emergency medical service, emergency communication center, and poison center personnel in the following instances:

(a) Recording incoming telephone calls to police and fire stations, licensed emergency medical service providers, emergency communication centers, and poison centers;

(b) Video and/or sound recordings may be made of arrested persons by police officers responsible for making arrests or holding persons in custody before their first appearance in court. Such video and/or sound recordings shall conform strictly to the following:

(i) The arrested person shall be informed that such recording is being made and the statement so informing him or her shall be included in the recording;

(ii) The recording shall commence with an indication of the time of the beginning thereof and terminate with an indication of the time thereof;

(iii) At the commencement of the recording the arrested person shall be fully informed of his or her constitutional rights, and such statements informing him or her shall be included in the recording;

(iv) The recordings shall only be used for valid police or court activities;

(c) Sound recordings that correspond to video images recorded by video cameras mounted in law enforcement vehicles. All law enforcement officers wearing a sound recording device that makes recordings corresponding to videos recorded by video cameras mounted in law enforcement vehicles must be in uniform. A sound recording device that makes a recording pursuant to this subsection (1)(c) must be operated simultaneously with the video camera when the operating system has been activated for an event. No sound recording device may be intentionally turned off by the law enforcement officer during the recording of an event. Once the event has been captured, the officer may turn off the audio recording and place the system back into "pre-event" mode.

No sound or video recording made under this subsection (1)(c) may be duplicated and made available to the public by a law enforcement agency subject to this section until final disposition of any criminal or civil litigation which arises from the event or events which were recorded. Such sound recordings shall not be divulged or used by any law enforcement agency for any commercial purpose.

A law enforcement officer shall inform any person being recorded by sound under this subsection (1)(c) that a sound recording is being made and the statement so informing the person shall be included in the sound recording, except that the law enforcement officer is not required to inform the person being recorded if the person is being recorded under exigent circumstances. A law enforcement officer is not required to inform a person being recorded by video under this subsection (1)(c) that the person is being recorded by video.

(2) It shall not be unlawful for a law enforcement officer acting in the performance of the officer's official duties to intercept, record, or disclose an oral communication or conversation where the officer is a party to the communication or conversation or one of the parties to the communication or conversation has given prior consent to the interception, recording, or disclosure: PROVIDED, That prior to the interception, transmission, or recording the officer shall obtain written or telephonic authorization from a judge or magistrate, who shall approve the interception, recording, or disclosure of communications or conversations with a nonconsenting party for a reasonable and specified period of time, if there is probable cause to believe that the nonconsenting party has committed, is engaged in, or is about to commit a felony: PROVIDED HOWEVER, That if such authorization is given by telephone the authorization and officer's statement justifying such authorization must be electronically recorded by the judge or magistrate on a recording device in the custody of the judge or magistrate at the time transmitted and the recording shall be retained in the court records and reduced to writing as soon as possible thereafter.

Any recording or interception of a communication or conversation incident to a lawfully recorded or intercepted communication or conversation pursuant to this subsection shall be lawful and may be divulged.

All recordings of communications or conversations made pursuant to this subsection shall be retained for as long as any crime may be charged based on the events or communications or conversations recorded.

(3) Communications or conversations authorized to be intercepted, recorded, or disclosed by this section shall not be inadmissible under RCW 9.73.050.

(4) Authorizations issued under subsection (2) of this section shall be effective for not more than seven days, after which period the issuing authority may renew or continue the authorization for additional periods not to exceed seven days.

(5) If the judge or magistrate determines that there is probable cause to believe that the communication or conversation concerns the unlawful manufacture, delivery, sale, or possession with intent to manufacture, deliver, or sell, controlled substances as defined in chapter 69.50 RCW, or legend drugs as defined in chapter 69.41 RCW, or imitation controlled substances as defined in chapter 69.52 RCW, the judge or magistrate may authorize the interception, transmission, recording, or disclosure of communications or conversations under subsection (2) of this section even though the true name of the nonconsenting party, or the particular time and place for the interception, transmission, recording, or disclosure, is not known at the time of the request, if the authorization describes the nonconsenting party and subject matter of the communication or conversation with reasonable certainty under the circumstances. Any such communication or conversation may be intercepted, transmitted, recorded, or disclosed as authorized notwithstanding a change in the time or location of the communication or conversation after the authorization has been obtained or the presence of or participation in the communication or conversation by any additional party not named in the authorization.

Authorizations issued under this subsection shall be effective for not more than fourteen days, after which period the issuing authority may renew or continue the authorization for an additional period not to exceed fourteen days.

[ 2011 c 336 s 325; 2006 c 38 s 1; 2000 c 195 s 2; 1989 c 271 s 205; 1986 c 38 s 2; 1977 ex.s. c 363 s 3; 1970 ex.s. c 48 s 1.]

Notes:

Intent—2000 c 195: "The legislature intends, by the enactment of this act, to provide a very limited exception to the restrictions on disclosure of intercepted communications." [ 2000 c 195 s 1.]

Severability—1989 c 271: See note following RCW 9.94A.510.

Severability—1970 ex.s. c 48: "If a court of competent jurisdiction shall adjudge to be invalid or unconstitutional any clause, sentence, paragraph, section or part of this act, such judgment or decree shall not affect, impair, invalidate or nullify the remainder of this act, but the effect thereof shall be confined to the clause, sentence, paragraph, section or part of this chapter so adjudged to be invalid or unconstitutional." [ 1970 ex.s. c 48 s 3.]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 102 cases (10 in the last 5 years), 1975–2025 · 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 60× “050 and RCW 9.73.090 which authorize the recording of such a call create an absolute bar to its admission into evidence.”

Fisher Broad.-Seattle TV LLC v. City of Seattle, 326 P.3d 688 (Wash. 2014). · cites it 63× “Prior to that time, RCW 9.73.090 had authorized certain law enforcement and emergency recordings and restricted their use to “valid police or court activities.”

Lewis v. State, Dept. of Licensing, 139 P.3d 1078 (Wash. 2006). · cites it 53× “First, the "for the purpose and only the purpose of" language in former RCW 9.73.090 limits the exemption from the privacy act for calls to police stations to a particular circumstance.”

State v. Salinas, 829 P.2d 1068 (Wash. 1992). · cites it 10× “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 9.73.030 through 9.73.”

State v. O'NEILL, 700 P.2d 711 (Wash. 1985). · cites it 27× “83-2-02945-2 AUTHORIZATION TO INTERCEPT | AND RECORD COMMUNICATIONS ORDER AUTHORIZING OR CONVERSATIONS PURSUANT | INTERCEPT AND TO RCW 9.73.090 | RECORDING To: [Deputy] #42 and members of the Pierce County Sheriff's Office Special Investigations Unit.”

State v. Rupe, 683 P.2d 571 (Wash. 1984). · cites it 14× “Do technical violations of RCW 9.73.090 require exclusions of defendant's taped statements to police? 4.”

State v. Clark, 916 P.2d 384 (Wash. 2007). · cites it 13× “RCW 9.73.090(2). Authorizations under this section are effective for a maximum of seven days.”

State v. Fjermestad, 791 P.2d 897 (Wash. 1990). · cites it 12× “Section 2 of RCW 9.73.090, enacted in 1977, [5] is referred to as the "one party consent statute".”

State v. Clark, 129 Wash. 2d 211 (Wash. 1996). · cites it 13× “RCW 9.73.090(2). Authorizations under this section are effective for a maximum of seven days.”

State v. Brown, 940 P.2d 546 (Wash. 1997). · cites it 7× “133 Recording of Appellant’s Custodial Statements and RCW 9.73.090 (7) Whether Appellant’s statements to Palm Springs, California police, which were recorded without his knowledge as permitted by California law, violated Washington’s Privacy Act, RCW 9.”

State v. Cunningham, 613 P.2d 1139 (Wash. 1980). · cites it 9× “RCW 9.73.090, however, is one of the exceptions "otherwise provided" for in RCW 9.”

Lewis v. Dep't of Licensing, 125 Wash. App. 666 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 21× “10 RCW 9.73.090 exempts law enforcement personnel from the prohibitions of the general rule in certain instances.”

Show all 102 citing cases →

— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.73.090(1) — 24 cases

State v. Wanrow, 559 P.2d 548 (Wash. 1977). “050 and RCW 9.73.090 which authorize the recording of such a call create an absolute bar to its admission into evidence.”

Lewis v. State, Dept. of Licensing, 139 P.3d 1078 (Wash. 2006). “First, the "for the purpose and only the purpose of" language in former RCW 9.73.090 limits the exemption from the privacy act for calls to police stations to a particular circumstance.”

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 9.73.030 through 9.73.”

State v. O'NEILL, 700 P.2d 711 (Wash. 1985). “83-2-02945-2 AUTHORIZATION TO INTERCEPT | AND RECORD COMMUNICATIONS ORDER AUTHORIZING OR CONVERSATIONS PURSUANT | INTERCEPT AND TO RCW 9.73.090 | RECORDING To: [Deputy] #42 and members of the Pierce County Sheriff's Office Special Investigations Unit.”

Fisher Broad.-Seattle TV LLC v. City of Seattle, 326 P.3d 688 (Wash. 2014). “Prior to that time, RCW 9.73.090 had authorized certain law enforcement and emergency recordings and restricted their use to “valid police or court activities.”

— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.73.090(1)(a) — 5 cases

State v. Fjermestad, 791 P.2d 897 (Wash. 1990). “Section 2 of RCW 9.73.090, enacted in 1977, [5] is referred to as the "one party consent statute".”

Lewis v. State, Dept. of Licensing, 105 P.3d 1029 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005).

State Of Washington, V. Raymond Walter Sanchez (Wash. Ct. App. 2024).

State of Washington v. Darin R. Barry (Wash. Ct. App. 2025).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.73.090(1)(b) — 17 cases

State v. Rupe, 683 P.2d 571 (Wash. 1984). “Do technical violations of RCW 9.73.090 require exclusions of defendant's taped statements to police? 4.”

State v. Courtney, 153 P.3d 238 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007).

State v. Brown, 940 P.2d 546 (Wash. 1997).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.73.090(1)(b)(i) — 1 case

State v. Jones, 628 P.2d 472 (Wash. 1981).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.73.090(1)(b)(ii) — 3 cases

State v. Hutchinson, 938 P.2d 336 (Wash. Ct. App. 1997).

State v. Demery, 100 Wash. App. 416 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000).

State Of Washington, V Damian Bradley Belander (Wash. Ct. App. 2022).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.73.090(1)(b)(iii) — 2 cases

State of Washington v. Francisco Javier Munoz Quintero (Wash. Ct. App. 2018).

State Of Washington v. Wayne H. Alpert (Wash. Ct. App. 2020).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.73.090(1)(b)(iv) — 1 case

Fisher Broad. v. City of Seattle (Wash. 2014).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.73.090(1)(c) — 17 cases

Doe v. Washington State Patrol, 374 P.3d 63 (Wash. 2016).

Lyft, Inc. v. City of Seattle, 418 P.3d 102 (Wash. 2018).

Lewis v. State, Dept. of Licensing, 105 P.3d 1029 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.73.090(1)(e) — 1 case

— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.73.090(2) — 44 cases

State v. Cunningham, 613 P.2d 1139 (Wash. 1980). “RCW 9.73.090, however, is one of the exceptions "otherwise provided" for in RCW 9.”

State Of Washington v. David E. Bliss, 365 P.3d 764 (Wash. Ct. App. 2015).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.73.090(2)(b) — 1 case

State v. Cunningham, 598 P.2d 756 (Wash. Ct. App. 1979).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.73.090(2)(c) — 1 case

State v. Cunningham, 598 P.2d 756 (Wash. Ct. App. 1979).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.73.090(3) — 5 cases

State v. Barker, 990 P.2d 438 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999).

State Of Washington v. D'angelo A. Saloy (Wash. Ct. App. 2017).

State Of Washington v. William Howard Thompson (Wash. Ct. App. 2020).

State Of Washington, V. Owen Gale Ray (Wash. Ct. App. 2024).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.73.090(4) — 5 cases

State v. Fjermestad, 791 P.2d 897 (Wash. 1990). “Section 2 of RCW 9.73.090, enacted in 1977, [5] is referred to as the "one party consent statute".”

State v. Clark, 916 P.2d 384 (Wash. 2007). “RCW 9.73.090(2). Authorizations under this section are effective for a maximum of seven days.”

State v. Clark, 129 Wash. 2d 211 (Wash. 1996). “RCW 9.73.090(2). Authorizations under this section are effective for a maximum of seven days.”

State v. Knight, 772 P.2d 1042 (Wash. Ct. App. 1989).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.73.090(5) — 13 cases

State v. Clark, 916 P.2d 384 (Wash. 2007). “RCW 9.73.090(2). Authorizations under this section are effective for a maximum of seven days.”

State v. Clark, 129 Wash. 2d 211 (Wash. 1996). “RCW 9.73.090(2). Authorizations under this section are effective for a maximum of seven days.”

State v. DJW, 882 P.2d 1199 (Wash. Ct. App. 1994).

State v. D.J.W., 76 Wash. App. 135 (Wash. Ct. App. 1994).

State v. Roden, 321 P.3d 1183 (Wash. 2014).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.73.090(b) — 2 cases

State v. Mazzante, 936 P.2d 1206 (Wash. Ct. App. 1997).

State Of Washington v. Ira David Dechant (Wash. Ct. App. 2016).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.73.090(b)(iii) — 1 case

State v. Mazzante, 936 P.2d 1206 (Wash. Ct. App. 1997).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.73.090(l)(a) — 3 cases

State v. Fjermestad, 791 P.2d 897 (Wash. 1990). “Section 2 of RCW 9.73.090, enacted in 1977, [5] is referred to as the "one party consent statute".”

Lewis v. Dep't of Licensing, 125 Wash. App. 666 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). “10 RCW 9.73.090 exempts law enforcement personnel from the prohibitions of the general rule in certain instances.”

State v. Kadoranian, 828 P.2d 45 (Wash. Ct. App. 1992).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.73.090(l)(b) — 6 cases

State v. Brown, 940 P.2d 546 (Wash. 1997). “133 Recording of Appellant’s Custodial Statements and RCW 9.73.090 (7) Whether Appellant’s statements to Palm Springs, California police, which were recorded without his knowledge as permitted by California law, violated Washington’s Privacy Act, RCW 9.”

State v. Gonzalez, 862 P.2d 598 (Wash. Ct. App. 1993).

State v. Courtney, 137 Wash. App. 376 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007).

State v. Turner, 145 Wash. App. 899 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008).

State v. Mazzante, 936 P.2d 1206 (Wash. Ct. App. 1997).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.73.090(l)(b)(ii) — 1 case

State v. Demery, 100 Wash. App. 416 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.73.090(l)(b)(iv) — 1 case

— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.73.090(l)(c) — 8 cases

Lewis v. Dep't of Licensing, 125 Wash. App. 666 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). “10 RCW 9.73.090 exempts law enforcement personnel from the prohibitions of the general rule in certain instances.”

City of Seattle v. Egan, 317 P.3d 568 (Wash. Ct. App. 2014).

SEIU 775 v. Dep't of Soc. & Health Servs., 396 P.3d 369 (Wash. Ct. App. 2017).

Planned Parenthood v. Bloedow, 350 P.3d 660 (Wash. Ct. App. 2015).

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.