Wash. Rev. Code » Title 9A · Chapter 9A.44
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.44.100 (2026)

Indecent liberties

✓ 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 is guilty of indecent liberties when he or she knowingly causes another person to have sexual contact with him or her or another:
(a) By forcible compulsion;
(b) When the other person is incapable of consent by reason of being mentally defective, mentally incapacitated, or physically helpless;
(c) When the victim is a person with a developmental disability and the perpetrator is a person who:
(i) Has supervisory authority over the victim; or
(ii) Was providing transportation, within the course of his or her employment, to the victim at the time of the offense;
(d) When the perpetrator is a health care provider, the victim is a client or patient, and the sexual contact occurs during a treatment session, consultation, interview, or examination. It is an affirmative defense that the defendant must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the client or patient consented to the sexual contact with the knowledge that the sexual contact was not for the purpose of treatment;
(e) When the victim is a resident of a facility for persons with a mental disorder or substance use disorder and the perpetrator is a person who has supervisory authority over the victim; or
(f) When the victim is a frail elder or vulnerable adult and the perpetrator is a person who:
(i) Has a significant relationship with the victim; or
(ii) Was providing transportation, within the course of his or her employment, to the victim at the time of the offense.
(2)(a) Except as provided in (b) of this subsection, indecent liberties is a class B felony.
(b) Indecent liberties by forcible compulsion is a class A felony.
[ 2023 c 470 s 3009; 2021 c 142 s 10; 2013 c 94 s 2; 2007 c 20 s 2; 2003 c 53 s 67; 2001 2nd sp.s. c 12 s 359; 1997 c 392 s 515; 1993 c 477 s 3; 1988 c 146 s 2; 1988 c 145 s 10; 1986 c 131 s 1; 1975 1st ex.s. c 260 s 9A.88.100. Formerly RCW 9A.88.100.]

Notes:

Explanatory statement—2023 c 470: See note following RCW 10.99.030.
Effective date—2021 c 142: See note following RCW 9A.44.050.
Effective date—2007 c 20: See note following RCW 9A.44.050.
Intent—Effective date—2003 c 53: See notes following RCW 2.48.180.
Intent—Severability—Effective dates—2001 2nd sp.s. c 12: See notes following RCW 71.09.250.
Application—2001 2nd sp.s. c 12 ss 301-363: See note following RCW 9.94A.030.
Short title—Findings—Construction—Conflict with federal requirements—Part headings and captions not law—1997 c 392: See notes following RCW 74.39A.009.
Severability—Effective dates—1988 c 146: See notes following RCW 9A.44.050.
Effective date—Savings—Application—1988 c 145: See notes following RCW 9A.44.010.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 163 cases (18 in the last 5 years), 1980–2026 · leading case: State v. Fisher, 739 P.2d 683 (Wash. 1987).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Fisher, 739 P.2d 683 (Wash. 1987). · cites it 15× “It cannot be denied that the specific age of an individual victim is a factor which may distinguish a particular case of indecent liberties under RCW 9A.44.100-(l)(b) from other cases involving the same offense.”
State v. Camarillo, 794 P.2d 850 (Wash. 1990). · cites it 6× “(b) When the other person is less than fourteen years of age.”
State v. Markle, 823 P.2d 1101 (Wash. 1992). · cites it 10× “The indecent liberties statute to which both counts 1 and 2 were amended at the close of the State's case was former RCW 9A.44.100. It contained some elements which are not stated in the former first and second degree statutory rape statutes, and read in pertinent part: *435 (1)…”
State v. Mohamed, 301 P.3d 504 (Wash. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 16× “RCW 9A.44.100, which defines that crime, states in full: (1) A person is guilty of indecent liberties when he or she knowingly causes another person who is not his or her spouse to have sexual contact with him or her or another: (a) By forcible compulsion; (b) When the other…”
State v. Aho, 975 P.2d 512 (Wash. 1999). · cites it 6× “Contrary to the Court of Appeals’ reasoning, the first degree child molestation statute does not simply recodify the same offense defined as indecent liberties under former RCW 9A.44.100(l)(b). 2 Aside from the issue whether the two statutes have the same mental element,…”
State v. Aho, 975 P.2d 512 (Wash. 1999). · cites it 6× “Contrary to the Court of Appeals reasoning, the first degree child molestation statute does not simply recodify the same offense defined as indecent liberties under *516 former RCW 9A.44.100(1)(b). [2] Aside from the issue whether the two statutes have the same mental element,…”
State v. Grewe, 813 P.2d 1238 (Wash. 1991). · cites it 6× “Indecent Liberties and Abuse of a Position of Trust Defendant was convicted of indecent liberties under former RCW 9A.44.100(1), which provided four distinct means by which a person could commit the crime: (a) By forcible compulsion; or (b) When the other person is less than…”
State v. Lorenz, 93 P.3d 133 (Wash. 2004). · cites it 3× “” Former RCW 9A.44.100(1X1998) (emphasis added). 5 We held that the former indecent liberties statute required a mental element and could not be a lesser included offense of first or second degree statutory rape, since the statute required “knowingly” committed “sexual contact.”
State v. Lorenz, 93 P.3d 133 (Wash. 2004). · cites it 3× “" Former RCW 9A.44.100(1) (1998) (emphasis added).”
State v. Johnson, 639 P.2d 1332 (Wash. 1982). · cites it 6× “RCW 9A.44.100 states: (1) A person is guilty of indecent liberties when he knowingly causes another person who is not his spouse to have sexual contact with him or another: (a) By forcible compulsion; or (b) When the other person is less than fourteen years of age; or (c) When…”
In Re Acron, 95 P.3d 1272 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 9× “[4] In 1988, the legislature amended RCW 9A.44.100 to establish three means of committing indecent liberties, one by forcible compulsion and two without.”
State v. Lynch, 309 P.3d 482 (Wash. 2013). · cites it 4× “RCW 9A.44.100(l)(a) (defining the crime of “indecent liberties”).”
Show all 163 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.44.100(1) — 32 cases
State v. Mohamed, 301 P.3d 504 (Wash. Ct. App. 2013). “RCW 9A.44.100, which defines that crime, states in full: (1) A person is guilty of indecent liberties when he or she knowingly causes another person who is not his or her spouse to have sexual contact with him or her or another: (a) By forcible compulsion; (b) When the other…”
State v. Markle, 823 P.2d 1101 (Wash. 1992). “The indecent liberties statute to which both counts 1 and 2 were amended at the close of the State's case was former RCW 9A.44.100. It contained some elements which are not stated in the former first and second degree statutory rape statutes, and read in pertinent part: *435 (1)…”
State v. Ferguson, 667 P.2d 68 (Wash. 1983).
In Re Juveniles A, B, C, D, E, 847 P.2d 455 (Wash. 1993).
State v. Taylor, 162 Wash. App. 791 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.44.100(1)(A) — 2 cases
State v. Foster, 81 Wash. App. 508 (Wash. Ct. App. 1996).
State v. Foster, 915 P.2d 567 (Wash. Ct. App. 1996).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.44.100(1)(a) — 30 cases
In Re Acron, 95 P.3d 1272 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). “[4] In 1988, the legislature amended RCW 9A.44.100 to establish three means of committing indecent liberties, one by forcible compulsion and two without.”
State v. Taylor, 259 P.3d 289 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011).
State v. P.M.P., 434 P.3d 1083 (Wash. Ct. App. 2019).
State v. Buzzell, 200 P.3d 287 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009).
State v. R.P., 838 P.2d 701 (Wash. Ct. App. 1992).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.44.100(1)(b) — 30 cases
State v. Fisher, 739 P.2d 683 (Wash. 1987). “It cannot be denied that the specific age of an individual victim is a factor which may distinguish a particular case of indecent liberties under RCW 9A.44.100-(l)(b) from other cases involving the same offense.”
State v. Camarillo, 794 P.2d 850 (Wash. 1990). “(b) When the other person is less than fourteen years of age.”
State v. Aho, 975 P.2d 512 (Wash. 1999). “Contrary to the Court of Appeals reasoning, the first degree child molestation statute does not simply recodify the same offense defined as indecent liberties under *516 former RCW 9A.44.100(1)(b). [2] Aside from the issue whether the two statutes have the same mental element,…”
State v. Mohamed, 301 P.3d 504 (Wash. Ct. App. 2013). “RCW 9A.44.100, which defines that crime, states in full: (1) A person is guilty of indecent liberties when he or she knowingly causes another person who is not his or her spouse to have sexual contact with him or her or another: (a) By forcible compulsion; (b) When the other…”
State v. Pryor, 782 P.2d 1076 (Wash. Ct. App. 1989).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.44.100(1)(c) — 5 cases
State v. Taylor, 162 Wash. App. 791 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011).
In Re Stoudmire, 5 P.3d 1240 (Wash. 2000).
State v. Taylor, 259 P.3d 289 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011).
C.J.C. v. Corp. of Catholic Bishop, 943 P.2d 1150 (Wash. Ct. App. 1997).
State v. Hammond, 829 P.2d 212 (Wash. Ct. App. 1992).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.44.100(1)(c)(ii) — 1 case
State Of Washington, V. Awet Hagos Gebremariam (Wash. Ct. App. 2025).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.44.100(1)(d) — 9 cases
In Re Acron, 95 P.3d 1272 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). “[4] In 1988, the legislature amended RCW 9A.44.100 to establish three means of committing indecent liberties, one by forcible compulsion and two without.”
State v. Mannering, 75 P.3d 961 (Wash. 2003).
State v. Mohamed, 301 P.3d 504 (Wash. Ct. App. 2013). “RCW 9A.44.100, which defines that crime, states in full: (1) A person is guilty of indecent liberties when he or she knowingly causes another person who is not his or her spouse to have sexual contact with him or her or another: (a) By forcible compulsion; (b) When the other…”
State v. VanVlack, 765 P.2d 349 (Wash. Ct. App. 1989).
State v. Taylor, 259 P.3d 289 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.44.100(1)(e) — 3 cases
State v. Mohamed, 301 P.3d 504 (Wash. Ct. App. 2013). “RCW 9A.44.100, which defines that crime, states in full: (1) A person is guilty of indecent liberties when he or she knowingly causes another person who is not his or her spouse to have sexual contact with him or her or another: (a) By forcible compulsion; (b) When the other…”
Kaltreider v. Lake Chelan Cmty. Hosp., 224 P.3d 808 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009).
State Of Washington v. Mohamaud Suldan Mohamed (Wash. Ct. App. 2013).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.44.100(2) — 12 cases
State v. Lorenz, 93 P.3d 133 (Wash. 2004). “” Former RCW 9A.44.100(1X1998) (emphasis added). 5 We held that the former indecent liberties statute required a mental element and could not be a lesser included offense of first or second degree statutory rape, since the statute required “knowingly” committed “sexual contact.”
State v. Lorenz, 93 P.3d 133 (Wash. 2004). “" Former RCW 9A.44.100(1) (1998) (emphasis added).”
State v. Goins, 92 P.3d 181 (Wash. 2004).
State v. Goins, 151 Wash. 2d 728 (Wash. 2004).
In re the Det. of Broten, 115 Wash. App. 252 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.44.100(2)(a) — 8 cases
State v. Lorenz, 93 P.3d 133 (Wash. 2004). “” Former RCW 9A.44.100(1X1998) (emphasis added). 5 We held that the former indecent liberties statute required a mental element and could not be a lesser included offense of first or second degree statutory rape, since the statute required “knowingly” committed “sexual contact.”
State v. Lorenz, 93 P.3d 133 (Wash. 2004). “" Former RCW 9A.44.100(1) (1998) (emphasis added).”
State v. Markle, 823 P.2d 1101 (Wash. 1992). “The indecent liberties statute to which both counts 1 and 2 were amended at the close of the State's case was former RCW 9A.44.100. It contained some elements which are not stated in the former first and second degree statutory rape statutes, and read in pertinent part: *435 (1)…”
State v. Brooks, 727 P.2d 988 (Wash. Ct. App. 1986).
State v. Smith, 786 P.2d 320 (Wash. Ct. App. 1990).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.44.100(2)(b) — 3 cases
State Of Washington v. Derek John Dossantos (Wash. Ct. App. 2017).
In the Matter of the Pers. Restraint of: Armando Cortez Lopez (Wash. Ct. App. 2020).
State Of Washington, / Cross- App. v. Jeffrey Michael Kinzle, / Cross-res. (Wash. Ct. App. 2013).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.44.100(3) — 2 cases
State v. Robinson, 175 P.3d 1136 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008).
State v. Robinson, 142 Wash. App. 649 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.44.100(b) — 1 case
State Of Washington, V. James Ples Herrick (Wash. Ct. App. 2023).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.44.100(l) — 1 case
State of Washington v. Jacob L. Cunningham (Wash. Ct. App. 2016).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.44.100(l)(a) — 13 cases
State v. Lynch, 309 P.3d 482 (Wash. 2013). “RCW 9A.44.100(l)(a) (defining the crime of “indecent liberties”).”
State Of Washington v. Charles Bluford, 379 P.3d 163 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016).
State v. Hall, 645 P.2d 1143 (Wash. Ct. App. 1982).
In re the Pers. Restraint of Acron, 122 Wash. App. 886 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004).
State v. Thomas, 989 P.2d 612 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.44.100(l)(b) — 30 cases
State v. Aho, 975 P.2d 512 (Wash. 1999). “Contrary to the Court of Appeals’ reasoning, the first degree child molestation statute does not simply recodify the same offense defined as indecent liberties under former RCW 9A.44.100(l)(b). 2 Aside from the issue whether the two statutes have the same mental element,…”
State v. Fisher, 739 P.2d 683 (Wash. 1987). “It cannot be denied that the specific age of an individual victim is a factor which may distinguish a particular case of indecent liberties under RCW 9A.44.100-(l)(b) from other cases involving the same offense.”
State v. Grewe, 813 P.2d 1238 (Wash. 1991). “Indecent Liberties and Abuse of a Position of Trust Defendant was convicted of indecent liberties under former RCW 9A.44.100(1), which provided four distinct means by which a person could commit the crime: (a) By forcible compulsion; or (b) When the other person is less than…”
State v. Woody, 742 P.2d 133 (Wash. Ct. App. 1987).
State v. Pryor, 782 P.2d 1076 (Wash. Ct. App. 1989).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.44.100(l)(c) — 7 cases
In re the Pers. Restraint of Stoudmire, 5 P.3d 1240 (Wash. 2000).
State v. Grewe, 813 P.2d 1238 (Wash. 1991). “Indecent Liberties and Abuse of a Position of Trust Defendant was convicted of indecent liberties under former RCW 9A.44.100(1), which provided four distinct means by which a person could commit the crime: (a) By forcible compulsion; or (b) When the other person is less than…”
State v. Taylor, 162 Wash. App. 791 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011).
State v. Overvold, 825 P.2d 729 (Wash. Ct. App. 1992).
State v. Marcum, 811 P.2d 963 (Wash. Ct. App. 1991).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.44.100(l)(d) — 5 cases
State v. Lynch, 309 P.3d 482 (Wash. 2013). “RCW 9A.44.100(l)(a) (defining the crime of “indecent liberties”).”
In re the Pers. Restraint of Acron, 122 Wash. App. 886 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004).
State v. Mannering, 150 Wash. 2d 277 (Wash. 2003).
State v. VanVlack, 765 P.2d 349 (Wash. Ct. App. 1989).
State v. Lynch (Wash. 2013).
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.