Wash. Rev. Code » Title 9A · Chapter 9A.40
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.40.090 (2026)

Luring

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) A person commits the crime of luring if the person, with the intent to harm the health, safety, or welfare of the minor or person with a developmental disability or with the intent to facilitate the commission of any crime:
(a) Orders, lures, or attempts to lure a minor or a person with a developmental disability into any area or structure that is obscured from or inaccessible to the public, or away from any area or structure constituting a bus terminal, airport terminal, or other transportation terminal, or into a motor vehicle;
(b) Does not have the consent of the minor's parent or guardian or of the guardian of the person with a developmental disability; and
(c) Is unknown to the child or developmentally disabled person.
(2) For purposes of this section:
(a) "Minor" means a person under the age of sixteen;
(b) "Person with a developmental disability" means a person with a developmental disability as defined in RCW 71A.10.020.
(3) Luring is a class C felony.
[ 2016 c 11 s 1; 2012 c 145 s 1; 1995 c 156 s 1; 1993 c 509 s 1.]

Notes:

Effective date—2012 c 145: "This act takes effect January 1, 2013." [ 2012 c 145 s 2.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 16 cases, 1996–2018 · leading case: State Of Washington, V Russell David Homan, 364 P.3d 839 (Wash. Ct. App. 2015).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State Of Washington, V Russell David Homan, 364 P.3d 839 (Wash. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 57× “¶1 — Russell Homan appeals his conviction for luring under RCW 9A.40.090. He argues that RCW 9A.40-.”
State v. Homan, 290 P.3d 1041 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 7× “* ¶1 — Russell David Homan appeals his luring conviction, arguing that the State produced insufficient evidence to support his conviction and that the luring statute, RCW 9A.40.090, is unconstitutionally overbroad.”
State v. McSorley, 128 Wash. App. 598 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 7× “¶8 On May 23, 2003, the State charged McSorley with child luring in violation of RCW 9A.40.090. RCW 9A.40.090 provides in pertinent part: A person commits the crime of luring if the person: (l)(a) Orders, lures, or attempts to lure a minor .”
State v. Dana, 926 P.2d 344 (Wash. Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 7× “Lorren Dana appeals his judgment and sentence for two counts of luring a child in violation of RCW 9A.40.090. We hold that the luring statute is not void for vagueness, is not unconstitutionally overbroad, and does not exceed the scope of the State’s police power.”
State v. Castillo-Murcia, 354 P.3d 932 (Wash. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 8× “Neither RCW 9A.40.090 nor any Washington cases discuss the meaning of “unknown.”
State v. McSorley, 116 P.3d 431 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 7× “¶ 8 On May 23, 2003, the State charged McSorley with child luring in violation of RCW 9A.40.090. RCW 9A.40.090 provides in pertinent part: A person commits the crime of luring if the person: (1)(a) Orders, lures, or attempts to lure a minor .”
State v. McReynolds, 142 Wash. App. 941 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 2× “RCW 9A.40.090. The superior court dismissed the case after the State presented its case *944 in chief.”
State v. Kissee, 947 P.2d 262 (Wash. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 2× “It alleged three counts of luring in violation of RCW 9A.40.090, and one count of communicating with a minor for immoral purposes in violation of RCW 9.”
State v. Homan, 330 P.3d 182 (Wash. 2014). · cites it 9× “After denying Homan’s motion for reconsideration, again based on a sufficiency challenge, the trial court imposed a standard range sentence of 120 days.”
State v. Ewell, 205 P.3d 680 (Idaho Ct. App. 2009). “Wash. Rev.Code § 9A.40.090. Ewell filed a motion to dismiss the enhancement for being a repeat sexual offender because the previous Washington offense of luring with a sexual motivation, used to justify the enhancement, had no substantially equivalent Idaho counterpart that was…”
State v. McReynolds, 176 P.3d 616 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 2× “RCW 9A.40.090. The superior court dismissed the case after the State presented its case in chief.”
State of Washington v. Nicolas Mendoza-Vera (Wash. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 9× “— A day after the superior court entered its judgment and sentence convicting Nicolas Mendoza-Vera of one count of luring in violation of former RCW 9A.40.090 (2012), Division Two of this court held the statute unconstitutionally overbroad unless construed to require proof that…”
Show all 16 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.40.090(1) — 8 cases
State Of Washington, V Russell David Homan, 364 P.3d 839 (Wash. Ct. App. 2015). “¶1 — Russell Homan appeals his conviction for luring under RCW 9A.40.090. He argues that RCW 9A.40-.”
State v. McSorley, 128 Wash. App. 598 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). “¶8 On May 23, 2003, the State charged McSorley with child luring in violation of RCW 9A.40.090. RCW 9A.40.090 provides in pertinent part: A person commits the crime of luring if the person: (l)(a) Orders, lures, or attempts to lure a minor .”
State v. Dana, 926 P.2d 344 (Wash. Ct. App. 1996). “Lorren Dana appeals his judgment and sentence for two counts of luring a child in violation of RCW 9A.40.090. We hold that the luring statute is not void for vagueness, is not unconstitutionally overbroad, and does not exceed the scope of the State’s police power.”
State v. Castillo-Murcia, 354 P.3d 932 (Wash. Ct. App. 2015). “Neither RCW 9A.40.090 nor any Washington cases discuss the meaning of “unknown.”
State v. McSorley, 116 P.3d 431 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). “¶ 8 On May 23, 2003, the State charged McSorley with child luring in violation of RCW 9A.40.090. RCW 9A.40.090 provides in pertinent part: A person commits the crime of luring if the person: (1)(a) Orders, lures, or attempts to lure a minor .”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.40.090(1)(c) — 1 case
State of Washington v. Maximino Castillo-Murcia (Wash. Ct. App. 2015).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.40.090(2) — 8 cases
State Of Washington, V Russell David Homan, 364 P.3d 839 (Wash. Ct. App. 2015). “¶1 — Russell Homan appeals his conviction for luring under RCW 9A.40.090. He argues that RCW 9A.40-.”
State v. McSorley, 128 Wash. App. 598 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). “¶8 On May 23, 2003, the State charged McSorley with child luring in violation of RCW 9A.40.090. RCW 9A.40.090 provides in pertinent part: A person commits the crime of luring if the person: (l)(a) Orders, lures, or attempts to lure a minor .”
State v. Dana, 926 P.2d 344 (Wash. Ct. App. 1996). “Lorren Dana appeals his judgment and sentence for two counts of luring a child in violation of RCW 9A.40.090. We hold that the luring statute is not void for vagueness, is not unconstitutionally overbroad, and does not exceed the scope of the State’s police power.”
State v. Homan, 290 P.3d 1041 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012). “* ¶1 — Russell David Homan appeals his luring conviction, arguing that the State produced insufficient evidence to support his conviction and that the luring statute, RCW 9A.40.090, is unconstitutionally overbroad.”
State v. McSorley, 116 P.3d 431 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). “¶ 8 On May 23, 2003, the State charged McSorley with child luring in violation of RCW 9A.40.090. RCW 9A.40.090 provides in pertinent part: A person commits the crime of luring if the person: (1)(a) Orders, lures, or attempts to lure a minor .”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.40.090(3)(a) — 1 case
State Of Washington, V Russell David Homan, 364 P.3d 839 (Wash. Ct. App. 2015). “¶1 — Russell Homan appeals his conviction for luring under RCW 9A.40.090. He argues that RCW 9A.40-.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.40.090(l)(a) — 3 cases
State v. Homan, 290 P.3d 1041 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012). “* ¶1 — Russell David Homan appeals his luring conviction, arguing that the State produced insufficient evidence to support his conviction and that the luring statute, RCW 9A.40.090, is unconstitutionally overbroad.”
State v. Dana, 926 P.2d 344 (Wash. Ct. App. 1996). “Lorren Dana appeals his judgment and sentence for two counts of luring a child in violation of RCW 9A.40.090. We hold that the luring statute is not void for vagueness, is not unconstitutionally overbroad, and does not exceed the scope of the State’s police power.”
State v. Homan, 330 P.3d 182 (Wash. 2014). “After denying Homan’s motion for reconsideration, again based on a sufficiency challenge, the trial court imposed a standard range sentence of 120 days.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.40.090(l)(c) — 1 case
State v. Castillo-Murcia, 354 P.3d 932 (Wash. Ct. App. 2015). “Neither RCW 9A.40.090 nor any Washington cases discuss the meaning of “unknown.”
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.