Wash. Rev. Code » Title 9 · Chapter 9.86
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 9.86.020 (2026)

Improper use of flag prohibited

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) No person shall, in any manner, for exhibition or display:
(a) Place or cause to be placed any word, figure, mark, picture, design, drawing or advertisement of any nature upon any flag, standard, color, ensign or shield of the United States or of this state, or authorized by any law of the United States or of this state; or
(b) Expose to public view any such flag, standard, color, ensign or shield upon which shall have been printed, painted or otherwise produced, or to which shall have been attached, appended, affixed or annexed any such word, figure, mark, picture, design, drawing or advertisement; or
(c) Expose to public view for sale, manufacture, or otherwise, or to sell, give, or have in possession for sale, for gift or for use for any purpose, any substance, being an article of merchandise, or receptacle, or thing for holding or carrying merchandise, upon or to which shall have been produced or attached any such flag, standard, color, ensign or shield, in order to advertise, call attention to, decorate, mark or distinguish such article or substance.
(2) A violation of this section is a gross misdemeanor.
[ 2003 c 53 s 47; 1919 c 107 s 2; 1909 c 249 s 423; 1901 c 154 s 1; RRS s 2675-2.]

Notes:

Intent—Effective date—2003 c 53: See notes following RCW 2.48.180.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases, 1971–1982 · leading case: State v. Spence, 506 P.2d 293 (Wash. 1973).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Spence, 506 P.2d 293 (Wash. 1973). · cites it 34× “Under RCW 9.86.020, however, under which the complaint here is laid, evil intent or design is not an element.”
Spence v. Washington, 418 U.S. 405 (1974). · cites it 4× “See Wash. Rev. Code § 9.86.030 , as amended. [1] Rather, the State relied on the so-called *407 "improper use" statute, Wash.”
State v. Spence, 490 P.2d 1321 (Wash. Ct. App. 1971). · cites it 19× “It is not claimed that such an intent was alleged in the information, nor is such intent relied upon to uphold the conviction below under RCW 9.86.020. Indeed, the state successfully contended below that intent to violate the statute under which the information was drawn was an…”
Kime Et Al. v. United States, 459 U.S. 949 (1982). “Wash. Rev. Code §9.86.020 ; see 418 U. S.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.86.020(1) — 2 cases
State v. Spence, 506 P.2d 293 (Wash. 1973). “Under RCW 9.86.020, however, under which the complaint here is laid, evil intent or design is not an element.”
State v. Spence, 490 P.2d 1321 (Wash. Ct. App. 1971). “It is not claimed that such an intent was alleged in the information, nor is such intent relied upon to uphold the conviction below under RCW 9.86.020. Indeed, the state successfully contended below that intent to violate the statute under which the information was drawn was an…”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.86.020(3) — 1 case
State v. Spence, 490 P.2d 1321 (Wash. Ct. App. 1971). “It is not claimed that such an intent was alleged in the information, nor is such intent relied upon to uphold the conviction below under RCW 9.86.020. Indeed, the state successfully contended below that intent to violate the statute under which the information was drawn was an…”
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.