Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 9.73.220 (2026)

Judicial authorizations—Availability of judge required

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
In each superior court judicial district in a county with a population of two hundred ten thousand or more there shall be available twenty-four hours a day at least one superior court or district court judge or magistrate designated to receive telephonic requests for authorizations that may be issued pursuant to this chapter. The presiding judge of each such superior court in conjunction with the district court judges in that superior court judicial district shall establish a coordinated schedule of rotation for all of the superior and district court judges and magistrates in the superior court judicial district for purposes of ensuring the availability of at least one judge or magistrate at all times. During the period that each judge or magistrate is designated, he or she shall be equipped with an electronic paging device when not present at his or her usual telephone. It shall be the designated judge's or magistrate's responsibility to ensure that all attempts to reach him or her for purposes of requesting authorization pursuant to this chapter are forwarded to the electronic page number when the judge or magistrate leaves the place where he or she would normally receive such calls.
[ 1991 c 363 s 9; 1989 c 271 s 203.]

Notes:

PurposeCaptions not law1991 c 363: See notes following RCW 2.32.180.
Severability1989 c 271: See note following RCW 9.94A.510.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases, 1995–2015 · leading case: State Of Washington v. David E. Bliss, 365 P.3d 764 (Wash. Ct. App. 2015).
State Of Washington v. David E. Bliss, 365 P.3d 764 (Wash. Ct. App. 2015). “RCW 9.73.220. When we read the related provisions and the statutory scheme as a whole, it is evident that the legislature intended to provide district court judges, in certain instances, the power to authorize requests for one-party consent recordings.”
State v. Knight, 904 P.2d 1159 (Wash. Ct. App. 1995). “Knight and Messersmith also cite RCW 9.73.220, but it adds nothing to the analysis.”
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.