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

Wash. Rev. Code § 9.73.210 (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) 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, intercept, transmit, or record a private conversation or communication concerning:
(a) 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; or
(b) Person(s) engaging in the commercial sexual abuse of a minor under RCW 9.68A.100, or promoting commercial sexual abuse of a minor under RCW 9.68A.101, or promoting travel for commercial sexual abuse of a minor under RCW 9.68A.102.
(2) Before any interception, transmission, or recording of a private conversation or communication pursuant to this section, the police commander or officer making the determination required by subsection (1) of this section shall complete a written authorization which shall include (a) the date and time the authorization is given; (b) the persons, including the consenting party, expected to participate in the conversation or communication, to the extent known; (c) the expected date, location, and approximate time of the conversation or communication; and (d) the reasons for believing the consenting party's safety will be in danger.
(3) A monthly report shall be filed by the law enforcement agency with the administrator for the courts indicating the number of authorizations made under this section, the date and time of each authorization, and whether an interception, transmission, or recording was made with respect to each authorization.
(4) Any information obtained pursuant to this section is inadmissible in any civil or criminal case in all courts of general or limited jurisdiction in this state, except:
(a) With the permission of the person whose communication or conversation was intercepted, transmitted, or recorded without his or her knowledge;
(b) In a civil action for personal injury or wrongful death arising out of the same incident, where the cause of action is based upon an act of physical violence against the consenting party; or
(c) In a criminal prosecution, arising out of the same incident for a serious violent offense as defined in RCW 9.94A.030 in which a party who consented to the interception, transmission, or recording was a victim of the offense.
(5) Nothing in this section bars the admission of testimony of a participant in the communication or conversation unaided by information obtained pursuant to this section.
(6) The authorizing agency shall immediately destroy any written, transcribed, or recorded information obtained from an interception, transmission, or recording authorized under this section unless the agency determines there has been a personal injury or death or a serious violent offense which may give rise to a civil action or criminal prosecution in which the information may be admissible under subsection (4)(b) or (c) of this section.
(7) Nothing in this section authorizes the interception, recording, or transmission of a telephonic communication or conversation.
[ 2011 c 241 s 3; 1989 c 271 s 202.]

Notes:

Findings—Effective date—2011 c 241: See notes following RCW 9.73.230.
Severability—1989 c 271: See note following RCW 9.94A.510.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10 cases, 1992–2019 · leading case: State v. Salinas, 853 P.2d 439 (Wash. 1993).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Salinas, 853 P.2d 439 (Wash. 1993). · cites it 25× “Subsection (5) of RCW 9.73.210 is restricted in application to that section.”
State v. Jimenez, 128 Wash. 2d 720 (Wash. 1996). · cites it 4× “210(5) applied only to investigations "carried out pursuant to RCW 9.73.210.” Salinas, 121 Wn.2d at 694-95.”
State v. Costello, 925 P.2d 1296 (Wash. Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 14× “During a drug buy, an undercover police officer wore a body wire authorized for officer safety *152 pursuant to RCW 9.73.210. 1 The subsequent drug transaction led to Marc Costello’s conviction for delivery of a controlled substance.”
State v. Gonzalez, 862 P.2d 598 (Wash. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 3× “210 provides that evidence obtained pursuant to that section is generally inadmissible, so subsection (8) provides that evidence obtained pursuant to RCW 9.73.230 is inadmissible unless certain conditions are met.”
State v. Jimenez, 911 P.2d 1337 (Wash. 1996). · cites it 4× “210(5) only applied to investigations "carried out pursuant to RCW 9.73.210." Salinas, 121 Wash.2d at 694-95 , 853 P.”
State v. Salinas, 834 P.2d 673 (Wash. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 10× “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 Of Washington v. J.k.t., 455 P.3d 173 (Wash. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 2× “First, RCW 9.73.210 and RCW 9.73.230 have nothing to do with judicial authorizations to make one-party consent recordings.”
State v. Moore, 855 P.2d 306 (Wash. Ct. App. 1993). “The Supreme Court affirmed the exclusion of the evidence because the officer's body wire was not authorized under either RCW 9.73.210 or RCW 9.73-.230. The wire was not authorized under the latter statute because of the failure to comply with subsection (1).”
Rick Sucee v. Todd Newlun (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 5× “Newlun successfully moved to suppress evidence obtained by use of the body wire, because written authorization for its use was not obtained as required by RCW 9.73.210 and .230. The charge was reduced to a misdemeanor to which Newlun pleaded guilty.”
Todd Newlun, Appellant/cross-respondent v. Rick Sucee, Respondents/cross-appellants (Wash. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 3× “Newlun argued that the State violated RCW 9.73.210, which requires that a police commander or ranking officer first give written authorization for a wire.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.73.210(1) — 1 case
State v. Costello, 925 P.2d 1296 (Wash. Ct. App. 1996). “During a drug buy, an undercover police officer wore a body wire authorized for officer safety *152 pursuant to RCW 9.73.210. 1 The subsequent drug transaction led to Marc Costello’s conviction for delivery of a controlled substance.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.73.210(2) — 3 cases
State v. Salinas, 853 P.2d 439 (Wash. 1993). “Subsection (5) of RCW 9.73.210 is restricted in application to that section.”
State v. Costello, 925 P.2d 1296 (Wash. Ct. App. 1996). “During a drug buy, an undercover police officer wore a body wire authorized for officer safety *152 pursuant to RCW 9.73.210. 1 The subsequent drug transaction led to Marc Costello’s conviction for delivery of a controlled substance.”
State Of Washington v. J.k.t., 455 P.3d 173 (Wash. Ct. App. 2019). “First, RCW 9.73.210 and RCW 9.73.230 have nothing to do with judicial authorizations to make one-party consent recordings.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.73.210(4) — 2 cases
State v. Salinas, 853 P.2d 439 (Wash. 1993). “Subsection (5) of RCW 9.73.210 is restricted in application to that section.”
State v. Costello, 925 P.2d 1296 (Wash. Ct. App. 1996). “During a drug buy, an undercover police officer wore a body wire authorized for officer safety *152 pursuant to RCW 9.73.210. 1 The subsequent drug transaction led to Marc Costello’s conviction for delivery of a controlled substance.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.73.210(5) — 5 cases
State v. Salinas, 853 P.2d 439 (Wash. 1993). “Subsection (5) of RCW 9.73.210 is restricted in application to that section.”
State v. Jimenez, 128 Wash. 2d 720 (Wash. 1996). “210(5) applied only to investigations "carried out pursuant to RCW 9.73.210.” Salinas, 121 Wn.2d at 694-95.”
State v. Costello, 925 P.2d 1296 (Wash. Ct. App. 1996). “During a drug buy, an undercover police officer wore a body wire authorized for officer safety *152 pursuant to RCW 9.73.210. 1 The subsequent drug transaction led to Marc Costello’s conviction for delivery of a controlled substance.”
State v. Jimenez, 911 P.2d 1337 (Wash. 1996). “210(5) only applied to investigations "carried out pursuant to RCW 9.73.210." Salinas, 121 Wash.2d at 694-95 , 853 P.”
State v. Salinas, 834 P.2d 673 (Wash. Ct. App. 1992). “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,…”
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.