Wash. Rev. Code » Title 9A · Chapter 9A.46
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.46.010 (2026)

Legislative finding

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
The legislature finds that the prevention of serious, personal harassment is an important government objective. Toward that end, this chapter is aimed at making unlawful the repeated invasions of a person's privacy by acts and threats which show a pattern of harassment designed to coerce, intimidate, or humiliate the victim.
The legislature further finds that the protection of such persons from harassment can be accomplished without infringing on constitutionally protected speech or activity.
[ 1985 c 288 s 1.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 40 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1988–2026 · leading case: State v. Alvarez, 872 P.2d 1123 (Wash. Ct. App. 1994).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Alvarez, 872 P.2d 1123 (Wash. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 9× “) RCW 9A.46.010. Alvarez argues that his convictions are improper because each involved only one threat instead of "repeated invasions .”
State v. J.M., 28 P.3d 720 (Wash. 2001). · cites it 3× “” As noted, RCW 9A.46.010 states the Legislature’s finding that protection of persons from harassment can be accomplished without infringing on constitutionally protected speech.”
State v. Smith, 759 P.2d 372 (Wash. 1988). · cites it 6× “Enacted in 1985 with the aim of preventing "acts and threats which show a pattern of harassment designed to coerce, intimidate, or humiliate the victim", RCW 9A.46.010, this statute provides: A person is guilty of harassment if: (a) Without lawful authority, the person knowingly…”
State v. Alvarez, 904 P.2d 754 (Wash. 1995). · cites it 4× “020 must be read with the legislative finding under RCW 9A.46.010, which reads: The legislature finds that the prevention of serious, personal harassment is an important government objective.”
State v. C.G., 80 P.3d 594 (Wash. 2003). · cites it 3× “Subsection (2)(b) accords with this reading because it states that the elevation of the offense to a felony results when “[a] person harasses another person under subsection (l)(a)(i) of this section by threatening to kill.”
State v. Morales, 298 P.3d 791 (Wash. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 4× “at 485 (quoting RCW 9A.46.010). As the court’s hypothetical points out, the target of coercion or intimidation when a parent is threatened with bodily injury to a child can clearly be the parent.”
State v. Van Wolvelaere, 461 P.3d 1173 (Wash. 2020). · cites it 3× “at 11 (citing RCW 9A.46.010). Unlike the operative statute, the legislative finding did mention repeated invasions of privacy and patterns of harassment.”
State v. Williams, 26 P.3d 890 (Wash. 2001). “The state presents no evidence or argument that the harassment statute is necessary to allay some clear and present danger of imminent lawlessness.”
State v. Williams, 144 Wash. 2d 197 (Wash. 2001). “The state presents no evidence or argument that the harassment statute is necessary to allay some clear and present danger of imminent lawlessness.”
State v. Schaler, 169 Wash. 2d 274 (Wash. 2010). “” RCW 9A.46.010. “Threat,” undefined in the chapter, is defined elsewhere as “[a] communicated intent to inflict harm or loss on another or on another’s property, especially] one that might diminish a person’s freedom to act voluntarily or with lawful consent .”
State v. Hall, 230 P.3d 1048 (Wash. 2010). “2d 1123 (quoting RCW 9A.46.010). The court noted that the legislature could have said "course of conduct" in the statute, but did not, and declined to import the language of the statement of intent into the elements of the statute.”
State v. Hall, 168 Wash. 2d 726 (Wash. 2010). “at 256 (quoting RCW 9A.46.010). The court noted that the legislature could have said “course of conduct” in the statute, but did not, and declined to import the language of the statement of intent into the elements of the statute.”
Show all 40 citing cases →
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.