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

Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.44.115 (2026)

Voyeurism

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) As used in this section:
(a) "Intimate areas" means any portion of a person's body or undergarments that is covered by clothing and intended to be protected from public view;
(b) "Photographs" or "films" means the making of a photograph, motion picture film, videotape, digital image, or any other recording or transmission of the image of a person;
(c) "Place where he or she would have a reasonable expectation of privacy" means:
(i) A place where a reasonable person would believe that he or she could disrobe in privacy, without being concerned that his or her undressing was being photographed or filmed by another; or
(ii) A place where one may reasonably expect to be safe from casual or hostile intrusion or surveillance;
(d) "Surveillance" means secret observation of the activities of another person for the purpose of spying upon and invading the privacy of the person;
(e) "Views" means the intentional looking upon of another person for more than a brief period of time, in other than a casual or cursory manner, with the unaided eye or with a device designed or intended to improve visual acuity.
(2)(a) A person commits the crime of voyeurism in the first degree if, for the purpose of arousing or gratifying the sexual desire of any person, he or she knowingly views, photographs, or films:
(i) Another person without that person's knowledge and consent while the person being viewed, photographed, or filmed is in a place where he or she would have a reasonable expectation of privacy; or
(ii) The intimate areas of another person without that person's knowledge and consent and under circumstances where the person has a reasonable expectation of privacy, whether in a public or private place.
(b) Voyeurism in the first degree is a class C felony.
(3)(a) A person commits the crime of voyeurism in the second degree if he or she intentionally photographs or films another person for the purpose of photographing or filming the intimate areas of that person with the intent to distribute or disseminate the photograph or film, without that person's knowledge and consent, and under circumstances where the person has a reasonable expectation of privacy, whether in a public or private place.
(b) Voyeurism in the second degree is a gross misdemeanor.
(c) Voyeurism in the second degree is not a sex offense for the purposes of sentencing or sex offender registration requirements under this chapter.
(4) This section does not apply to viewing, photographing, or filming by personnel of the department of corrections or of a local jail or correctional facility for security purposes or during investigation of alleged misconduct by a person in the custody of the department of corrections or the local jail or correctional facility.
(5) If a person is convicted of a violation of this section, the court may order the destruction of any photograph, motion picture film, digital image, videotape, or any other recording of an image that was made by the person in violation of this section.
[ 2017 c 292 s 1; 2003 c 213 s 1; 1998 c 221 s 1.]

Notes:

Effective date—2003 c 213: "This act is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety, or support of the state government and its existing public institutions, and takes effect immediately [May 12, 2003]." [ 2003 c 213 s 2.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 41 cases (11 in the last 5 years), 2001–2026 · leading case: State v. Glas, 54 P.3d 147 (Wash. 2002).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Glas, 54 P.3d 147 (Wash. 2002). · cites it 27× “Glas and Sorrells each contend that Washington's voyeurism statute, RCW 9A.44.115, does not apply to their actions because it does not criminalize upskirt photography in a public place.”
State v. Stevenson, 114 P.3d 699 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 21× “On appeal, he challenges RCW 9A.44.115 as unconstitutionally vague and overbroad.”
State v. Glas, 147 Wash. 2d 410 (Wash. 2002). · cites it 26× “Glas and Sorrells each contend that Washington’s voyeurism statute, RCW 9A.44.115, does not apply to their actions because it does not criminalize upskirt photography in a public place.”
State v. Stevenson, 128 Wash. App. 179 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 18× “He claimed that RCW 9A.44.115, as applied to his alleged conduct, was unconstitutionally vague and overbroad.”
State v. Glas, 27 P.3d 216 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 17× “" The statute then defines one such place as "[a] place where one may reasonably expect to be safe from .”
State v. Glas, 106 Wash. App. 895 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 15× “Washington’s voyeurism statute, RCW 9A.44.115, prohibits the photographing of a person without that person’s knowledge and consent in a “place where he or she would have a reasonable expectation of privacy.”
State v. Boyd, 155 P.3d 188 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 6× “" RCW 9A.44.115(1)(a). ¶ 20 Boyd claims that subsection (b) is vague because whether conduct amounts to voyeurism depends on the victim's subjective intent.”
State v. Boyd, 137 Wash. App. 910 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 5× “RCW 9A.44.115(2)(a); Glas, 147 Wn.2d at 416-17 (explaining that the former version of the voyeurism statute, which is now codified as subpart (a), extends only to intrusions into private places).”
State v. Reep, 167 P.3d 1156 (Wash. 2007). · cites it 7× “He appeals his convictions contending (1) the State's first search warrant violated the Fourth Amendment's requirement for particularity [2] ; (2) the second (telephonic) search warrant violated the Fourth Amendment's requirement for particularity and, alternatively, was invalid…”
State v. Reep, 161 Wash. 2d 808 (Wash. 2007). · cites it 7× “He appeals his convictions, *810 contending (1) the State’s first search warrant violated the Fourth Amendment’s requirement for particularity 2 ; (2) the second (telephonic) search warrant violated the Fourth Amendment’s requirement for particularity and, alternatively, was…”
State Of Washington, V. Stephen Wayne Canter, 487 P.3d 916 (Wash. Ct. App. 2021). “at 917 ; RCW 9A.44.115(2). Under RCW 9A.44.083(1), a person is guilty of first degree child molestation when he has “sexual contact with another” person who is less than 12 years old.”
State v. Diaz-Flores, 201 P.3d 1073 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). “RCW 9A.44.115. ¶8 Diaz-Flores’s challenge raises a question of statutory interpretation.”
Show all 41 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.44.115(1) — 3 cases
State v. Glas, 106 Wash. App. 895 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). “Washington’s voyeurism statute, RCW 9A.44.115, prohibits the photographing of a person without that person’s knowledge and consent in a “place where he or she would have a reasonable expectation of privacy.”
State v. Glas, 27 P.3d 216 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). “" The statute then defines one such place as "[a] place where one may reasonably expect to be safe from .”
State v. Lawson, 340 P.3d 979 (Wash. Ct. App. 2014).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.44.115(1)(a) — 1 case
State v. Boyd, 155 P.3d 188 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). “" RCW 9A.44.115(1)(a). ¶ 20 Boyd claims that subsection (b) is vague because whether conduct amounts to voyeurism depends on the victim's subjective intent.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.44.115(1)(b) — 1 case
State Of Washington v. Eric Charles Mason, 410 P.3d 1173 (Wash. Ct. App. 2018).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.44.115(1)(b)(i) — 2 cases
State v. Glas, 54 P.3d 147 (Wash. 2002). “Glas and Sorrells each contend that Washington's voyeurism statute, RCW 9A.44.115, does not apply to their actions because it does not criminalize upskirt photography in a public place.”
State v. Glas, 27 P.3d 216 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). “" The statute then defines one such place as "[a] place where one may reasonably expect to be safe from .”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.44.115(1)(b)(ii) — 2 cases
State v. Glas, 54 P.3d 147 (Wash. 2002). “Glas and Sorrells each contend that Washington's voyeurism statute, RCW 9A.44.115, does not apply to their actions because it does not criminalize upskirt photography in a public place.”
State v. Glas, 27 P.3d 216 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). “" The statute then defines one such place as "[a] place where one may reasonably expect to be safe from .”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.44.115(1)(c) — 5 cases
State v. Stevenson, 114 P.3d 699 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). “On appeal, he challenges RCW 9A.44.115 as unconstitutionally vague and overbroad.”
State v. Stevenson, 128 Wash. App. 179 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). “He claimed that RCW 9A.44.115, as applied to his alleged conduct, was unconstitutionally vague and overbroad.”
State v. Reep, 167 P.3d 1156 (Wash. 2007). “He appeals his convictions contending (1) the State's first search warrant violated the Fourth Amendment's requirement for particularity [2] ; (2) the second (telephonic) search warrant violated the Fourth Amendment's requirement for particularity and, alternatively, was invalid…”
State v. Glas, 27 P.3d 216 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). “" The statute then defines one such place as "[a] place where one may reasonably expect to be safe from .”
State v. Reep, 161 Wash. 2d 808 (Wash. 2007). “He appeals his convictions, *810 contending (1) the State’s first search warrant violated the Fourth Amendment’s requirement for particularity 2 ; (2) the second (telephonic) search warrant violated the Fourth Amendment’s requirement for particularity and, alternatively, was…”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.44.115(1)(c)(ii) — 3 cases
State v. Reep, 167 P.3d 1156 (Wash. 2007). “He appeals his convictions contending (1) the State's first search warrant violated the Fourth Amendment's requirement for particularity [2] ; (2) the second (telephonic) search warrant violated the Fourth Amendment's requirement for particularity and, alternatively, was invalid…”
State v. Reep, 161 Wash. 2d 808 (Wash. 2007). “He appeals his convictions, *810 contending (1) the State’s first search warrant violated the Fourth Amendment’s requirement for particularity 2 ; (2) the second (telephonic) search warrant violated the Fourth Amendment’s requirement for particularity and, alternatively, was…”
State of Washington v. Jimmie Wayne Moser (Wash. Ct. App. 2014).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.44.115(1)(d) — 2 cases
State v. Glas, 54 P.3d 147 (Wash. 2002). “Glas and Sorrells each contend that Washington's voyeurism statute, RCW 9A.44.115, does not apply to their actions because it does not criminalize upskirt photography in a public place.”
Tonya A. Elliott, V. Noemi Cagatin-Porter (Wash. Ct. App. 2024).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.44.115(1)(e) — 2 cases
State of Washington v. Benjamin Eric Stutzke, 413 P.3d 1037 (Wash. Ct. App. 2018).
State v. Fleming, 154 P.3d 304 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.44.115(2) — 14 cases
State v. Glas, 54 P.3d 147 (Wash. 2002). “Glas and Sorrells each contend that Washington's voyeurism statute, RCW 9A.44.115, does not apply to their actions because it does not criminalize upskirt photography in a public place.”
State v. Glas, 147 Wash. 2d 410 (Wash. 2002). “Glas and Sorrells each contend that Washington’s voyeurism statute, RCW 9A.44.115, does not apply to their actions because it does not criminalize upskirt photography in a public place.”
State v. Stevenson, 114 P.3d 699 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). “On appeal, he challenges RCW 9A.44.115 as unconstitutionally vague and overbroad.”
State v. Stevenson, 128 Wash. App. 179 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). “He claimed that RCW 9A.44.115, as applied to his alleged conduct, was unconstitutionally vague and overbroad.”
State v. Glas, 106 Wash. App. 895 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). “Washington’s voyeurism statute, RCW 9A.44.115, prohibits the photographing of a person without that person’s knowledge and consent in a “place where he or she would have a reasonable expectation of privacy.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.44.115(2)(2003) — 1 case
State Of Washington v. Eric Charles Mason, 410 P.3d 1173 (Wash. Ct. App. 2018).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.44.115(2)(a) — 12 cases
State v. Reep, 167 P.3d 1156 (Wash. 2007). “He appeals his convictions contending (1) the State's first search warrant violated the Fourth Amendment's requirement for particularity [2] ; (2) the second (telephonic) search warrant violated the Fourth Amendment's requirement for particularity and, alternatively, was invalid…”
State v. Stevenson, 114 P.3d 699 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). “On appeal, he challenges RCW 9A.44.115 as unconstitutionally vague and overbroad.”
State v. Stevenson, 128 Wash. App. 179 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). “He claimed that RCW 9A.44.115, as applied to his alleged conduct, was unconstitutionally vague and overbroad.”
State v. Boyd, 155 P.3d 188 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). “" RCW 9A.44.115(1)(a). ¶ 20 Boyd claims that subsection (b) is vague because whether conduct amounts to voyeurism depends on the victim's subjective intent.”
State v. Boyd, 137 Wash. App. 910 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). “RCW 9A.44.115(2)(a); Glas, 147 Wn.2d at 416-17 (explaining that the former version of the voyeurism statute, which is now codified as subpart (a), extends only to intrusions into private places).”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.44.115(2)(b) — 3 cases
State v. Boyd, 155 P.3d 188 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). “" RCW 9A.44.115(1)(a). ¶ 20 Boyd claims that subsection (b) is vague because whether conduct amounts to voyeurism depends on the victim's subjective intent.”
State v. Boyd, 137 Wash. App. 910 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). “RCW 9A.44.115(2)(a); Glas, 147 Wn.2d at 416-17 (explaining that the former version of the voyeurism statute, which is now codified as subpart (a), extends only to intrusions into private places).”
State Of Washington, Resp. v. Richard G. Burk, App. (Wash. Ct. App. 2013).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.44.115(3) — 1 case
State of Washington v. Ignacio Cobos (Wash. Ct. App. 2019).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.44.115(l)(a) — 1 case
State v. Boyd, 137 Wash. App. 910 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). “RCW 9A.44.115(2)(a); Glas, 147 Wn.2d at 416-17 (explaining that the former version of the voyeurism statute, which is now codified as subpart (a), extends only to intrusions into private places).”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.44.115(l)(b)(i) — 2 cases
State v. Glas, 147 Wash. 2d 410 (Wash. 2002). “Glas and Sorrells each contend that Washington’s voyeurism statute, RCW 9A.44.115, does not apply to their actions because it does not criminalize upskirt photography in a public place.”
State v. Glas, 106 Wash. App. 895 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). “Washington’s voyeurism statute, RCW 9A.44.115, prohibits the photographing of a person without that person’s knowledge and consent in a “place where he or she would have a reasonable expectation of privacy.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.44.115(l)(b)(ii) — 2 cases
State v. Glas, 147 Wash. 2d 410 (Wash. 2002). “Glas and Sorrells each contend that Washington’s voyeurism statute, RCW 9A.44.115, does not apply to their actions because it does not criminalize upskirt photography in a public place.”
State v. Glas, 106 Wash. App. 895 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). “Washington’s voyeurism statute, RCW 9A.44.115, prohibits the photographing of a person without that person’s knowledge and consent in a “place where he or she would have a reasonable expectation of privacy.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.44.115(l)(c) — 1 case
State v. Glas, 106 Wash. App. 895 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). “Washington’s voyeurism statute, RCW 9A.44.115, prohibits the photographing of a person without that person’s knowledge and consent in a “place where he or she would have a reasonable expectation of privacy.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.44.115(l)(c)(ii) — 1 case
State v. Lawson, 340 P.3d 979 (Wash. Ct. App. 2014).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.44.115(l)(d) — 1 case
State v. Glas, 147 Wash. 2d 410 (Wash. 2002). “Glas and Sorrells each contend that Washington’s voyeurism statute, RCW 9A.44.115, does not apply to their actions because it does not criminalize upskirt photography in a public place.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.44.115(l)(e) — 1 case
State v. Fleming, 137 Wash. App. 645 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007).
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.