Revised Code of Washington
Wash. Rev. Code § 9.73.130 (2026)
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
Each application for an authorization to record communications or conversations pursuant to RCW 9.73.090 as now or hereafter amended shall be made in writing upon oath or affirmation and shall state:
(1) The authority of the applicant to make such application;
(2) The identity and qualifications of the investigative or law enforcement officers or agency for whom the authority to record a communication or conversation is sought and the identity of whoever authorized the application;
(3) A particular statement of the facts relied upon by the applicant to justify his or her belief that an authorization should be issued, including:
(a) The identity of the particular person, if known, committing the offense and whose communications or conversations are to be recorded;
(b) The details as to the particular offense that has been, is being, or is about to be committed;
(c) The particular type of communication or conversation to be recorded and a showing that there is probable cause to believe such communication will be communicated on the wire communication facility involved or at the particular place where the oral communication is to be recorded;
(d) The character and location of the particular wire communication facilities involved or the particular place where the oral communication is to be recorded;
(e) A statement of the period of time for which the recording is required to be maintained, if the character of the investigation is such that the authorization for recording should not automatically terminate when the described type of communication or conversation has been first obtained, a particular statement of facts establishing probable cause to believe that additional communications of the same type will occur thereafter;
(f) A particular statement of facts showing that other normal investigative procedures with respect to the offense have been tried and have failed or reasonably appear to be unlikely to succeed if tried or to be too dangerous to employ;
(4) Where the application is for the renewal or extension of an authorization, a particular statement of facts showing the results thus far obtained from the recording, or a reasonable explanation of the failure to obtain such results;
(5) A complete statement of the facts concerning all previous applications, known to the individual authorizing and to the individual making the application, made to any court for authorization to record a wire or oral communication involving any of the same facilities or places specified in the application or involving any person whose communication is to be intercepted, and the action taken by the court on each application; and
(6) Such additional testimony or documentary evidence in support of the application as the judge may require.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 24
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1980–2021 · leading case: State v. O'NEILL, 700 P.2d 711 (Wash. 1985).
State v. O'NEILL, 700 P.2d 711 (Wash. 1985). “RCW 9.73.130 (part). The issues herein also require reference to the federal statutes on this subject.”
State v. Clark, 916 P.2d 384 (Wash. 2007). “The statement is to include: the identity, if known, of the person whose conversation is to be recorded; the details as to the particular crime that has been or is about to be committed; the type of communication or conversation that is to be recorded; and a showing of "probable…”
State v. Johnson, 105 P.3d 85 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). “Correia and herself, arguing that the application for authorization to record did not meet the requirements of RCW 9.73.130. The court ruled that the State was permitted to introduce the recording at trial because the application was adequate.”
State v. Johnson, 125 Wash. App. 443 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). “Correia and herself, arguing that the application for authorization to record did not meet the requirements of RCW 9.73.130. The court ruled that the State was permitted to introduce the recording at trial *451 because the application was adequate.”
State v. Constance, 154 Wash. App. 861 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010). “090(2) must meet the requirements of RCW 9.73.130. Under RCW 9.73.130(3), the application must contain a “particular statement of the facts” justifying interception and recording, including a statement of probable cause, detailed information concerning the offense, the necessity…”
State v. Platz, 655 P.2d 710 (Wash. Ct. App. 1982). “He appeals alleging: (1) his prosecution by information violated his constitutional rights; (2) a delayed prosecution violated his due process rights; (3) the court erred in admitting a tape recording in violation of RCW 9.73.130; and (4) the court erred in admitting evidence…”
State v. Clark, 129 Wash. 2d 211 (Wash. 1996). “The statement is to include: the identity, if known, of the person whose conversation is to be recorded; the details as to the particular crime that has been or is about to be committed; the type of communica *236 tion or conversation that is to be recorded; and a showing of…”
State v. Irwin, 718 P.2d 826 (Wash. Ct. App. 1986). “RCW 9.73.130 provides in part: Each application for an authorization to record communications or conversations .”
State v. DJW, 882 P.2d 1199 (Wash. Ct. App. 1994). “First, RCW 9.73.130(3)(a) requires that applications for authorization to record communications or conversations pursuant to RCW 9.”
State v. Porter, 990 P.2d 460 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999). “The Legislature added the procedural requirements of RCW 9.73.130 and amended RCW 9.73.090 after the privacy act’s original passage.”
State v. Fjermestad, 791 P.2d 897 (Wash. 1990). “easonable explanation of the failure to obtain such results; *834 (5) A complete statement of the facts concerning all previous applications, known to the individual authorizing and to the individual making the application, made to any court for authorization to record a wire or…”
State Of Washington v. J.k.t., 455 P.3d 173 (Wash. Ct. App. 2019). “090(2) further states that “[a]ny 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.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.73.130(3) — 8 cases
State v. Clark, 916 P.2d 384 (Wash. 2007). “The statement is to include: the identity, if known, of the person whose conversation is to be recorded; the details as to the particular crime that has been or is about to be committed; the type of communication or conversation that is to be recorded; and a showing of "probable…”
State v. Clark, 129 Wash. 2d 211 (Wash. 1996). “The statement is to include: the identity, if known, of the person whose conversation is to be recorded; the details as to the particular crime that has been or is about to be committed; the type of communica *236 tion or conversation that is to be recorded; and a showing of…”
State v. Johnson, 105 P.3d 85 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). “Correia and herself, arguing that the application for authorization to record did not meet the requirements of RCW 9.73.130. The court ruled that the State was permitted to introduce the recording at trial because the application was adequate.”
State v. Johnson, 125 Wash. App. 443 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). “Correia and herself, arguing that the application for authorization to record did not meet the requirements of RCW 9.73.130. The court ruled that the State was permitted to introduce the recording at trial *451 because the application was adequate.”
State v. Constance, 154 Wash. App. 861 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010). “090(2) must meet the requirements of RCW 9.73.130. Under RCW 9.73.130(3), the application must contain a “particular statement of the facts” justifying interception and recording, including a statement of probable cause, detailed information concerning the offense, the necessity…”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.73.130(3)(a) — 5 cases
State v. Clark, 916 P.2d 384 (Wash. 2007). “The statement is to include: the identity, if known, of the person whose conversation is to be recorded; the details as to the particular crime that has been or is about to be committed; the type of communication or conversation that is to be recorded; and a showing of "probable…”
State v. Clark, 129 Wash. 2d 211 (Wash. 1996). “The statement is to include: the identity, if known, of the person whose conversation is to be recorded; the details as to the particular crime that has been or is about to be committed; the type of communica *236 tion or conversation that is to be recorded; and a showing of…”
State v. Porter, 990 P.2d 460 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999). “The Legislature added the procedural requirements of RCW 9.73.130 and amended RCW 9.73.090 after the privacy act’s original passage.”
State v. DJW, 882 P.2d 1199 (Wash. Ct. App. 1994). “First, RCW 9.73.130(3)(a) requires that applications for authorization to record communications or conversations pursuant to RCW 9.”
State v. D.J.W., 76 Wash. App. 135 (Wash. Ct. App. 1994).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.73.130(3)(b) — 3 cases
State v. DJW, 882 P.2d 1199 (Wash. Ct. App. 1994). “First, RCW 9.73.130(3)(a) requires that applications for authorization to record communications or conversations pursuant to RCW 9.”
State v. D.J.W., 76 Wash. App. 135 (Wash. Ct. App. 1994).
State Of Washington v. William Howard Thompson (Wash. Ct. App. 2020).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.73.130(3)(d) — 1 case
State Of Washington v. J.k.t., 455 P.3d 173 (Wash. Ct. App. 2019). “090(2) further states that “[a]ny 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.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.73.130(3)(e) — 2 cases
State v. O'NEILL, 700 P.2d 711 (Wash. 1985). “RCW 9.73.130 (part). The issues herein also require reference to the federal statutes on this subject.”
State v. Knight, 772 P.2d 1042 (Wash. Ct. App. 1989).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.73.130(3)(f) — 17 cases
State v. Constance, 154 Wash. App. 861 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010). “090(2) must meet the requirements of RCW 9.73.130. Under RCW 9.73.130(3), the application must contain a “particular statement of the facts” justifying interception and recording, including a statement of probable cause, detailed information concerning the offense, the necessity…”
State v. Johnson, 105 P.3d 85 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). “Correia and herself, arguing that the application for authorization to record did not meet the requirements of RCW 9.73.130. The court ruled that the State was permitted to introduce the recording at trial because the application was adequate.”
State v. Platz, 655 P.2d 710 (Wash. Ct. App. 1982). “He appeals alleging: (1) his prosecution by information violated his constitutional rights; (2) a delayed prosecution violated his due process rights; (3) the court erred in admitting a tape recording in violation of RCW 9.73.130; and (4) the court erred in admitting evidence…”
State v. Johnson, 125 Wash. App. 443 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). “Correia and herself, arguing that the application for authorization to record did not meet the requirements of RCW 9.73.130. The court ruled that the State was permitted to introduce the recording at trial *451 because the application was adequate.”
State v. Porter, 990 P.2d 460 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999). “The Legislature added the procedural requirements of RCW 9.73.130 and amended RCW 9.73.090 after the privacy act’s original passage.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.73.130(3Xf) — 1 case
State v. Johnson, 125 Wash. App. 443 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). “Correia and herself, arguing that the application for authorization to record did not meet the requirements of RCW 9.73.130. The court ruled that the State was permitted to introduce the recording at trial *451 because the application was adequate.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.73.130(4) — 1 case
State v. Irwin, 718 P.2d 826 (Wash. Ct. App. 1986). “RCW 9.73.130 provides in part: Each application for an authorization to record communications or conversations .”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.73.130(5) — 1 case
State v. Irwin, 718 P.2d 826 (Wash. Ct. App. 1986). “RCW 9.73.130 provides in part: Each application for an authorization to record communications or conversations .”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.73.130(f) — 1 case
State v. Constance, 226 P.3d 231 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010).
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.