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

Wash. Rev. Code § 9.73.200 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
The legislature finds that the unlawful manufacturing, selling, and distributing of controlled substances is becoming increasingly prevalent and violent. Attempts by law enforcement officers to prevent the manufacture, sale, and distribution of drugs is resulting in numerous life-threatening situations since drug dealers are using sophisticated weapons and modern technological devices to deter the efforts of law enforcement officials to enforce the controlled substance statutes. Dealers of unlawful drugs are employing a wide variety of violent methods to realize the enormous profits of the drug trade.
Therefore, the legislature finds that conversations regarding illegal drug operations should be intercepted, transmitted, and recorded in certain circumstances without prior judicial approval in order to protect the life and safety of law enforcement personnel and to enhance prosecution of drug offenses, and that that interception and transmission can be done without violating the constitutional guarantees of privacy.
[ 1989 c 271 s 201.]

Notes:

Severability—1989 c 271: See note following RCW 9.94A.510.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9 cases, 1990–1997 · leading case: State v. Fjermestad, 791 P.2d 897 (Wash. 1990).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Fjermestad, 791 P.2d 897 (Wash. 1990). · cites it 3× “provide for nonjudicial authorization of 1-party-consent wire interception, transmission or recording for the protection of police officers, although not permitting use of the evidence so obtained in trial except with limited exceptions (RCW 9.73.230(8)(a)-(d)). RCW 9.”
Kadoranian v. Bellingham Police Dep't, 829 P.2d 1061 (Wash. 1992). · cites it 2× “RCW 9.73.200 (part). The Final Legislative Report explains that the amendment to the Act is intended "to give law enforcement agencies greater authority to intercept, transmit or record conversations that involve illegal drug activities.”
State v. Goucher, 881 P.2d 210 (Wash. 1994). “See RCW 9.73.200, .230; see also State v. Kadoranian, 65 Wn.”
State v. Knight, 904 P.2d 1159 (Wash. Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 2× “RCW 9.73.200. More than other crimes, it is routinely investigated by undercover operatives who face numerous life-threatening situations.”
State v. Salinas, 853 P.2d 439 (Wash. 1993). “The procedures defined in RCW 9.73.200 et seq., for example, allow the police under some circumstances to authorize their own use of electronic eavesdropping devices.”
State v. DJW, 882 P.2d 1199 (Wash. Ct. App. 1994). “That act was designed to increase the effectiveness of the prosecution of drug offenses, see RCW 9.73.200, and "`to give law enforcement agencies greater authority to intercept, transmit or record conversations that involve illegal drug activities.”
State v. D.J.W., 76 Wash. App. 135 (Wash. Ct. App. 1994). “That act was designed to increase the effectiveness of the prosecution of drug offenses, see RCW 9.73.200, and " 'to give law enforcement agencies greater authority to intercept, transmit or record conversations that involve illegal drug activities.”
State v. Salinas, 834 P.2d 673 (Wash. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 4× “210 reads in part: (1) If a police commander or officer above the rank of first line supervisor has reasonable suspicion that the safety of the consenting party is in danger, law enforcement personnel may, for the sole purpose of protecting the safety of the consenting party,…”
State v. Forest, 85 Wash. App. 62 (Wash. Ct. App. 1997). “RCW 9.73.200. (Italics ours.) RCW 9.73.230(2) (italics ours).”
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.