Wash. Rev. Code » Title 9A · Chapter 9A.76
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.76.180 (2026)

Intimidating a public servant

✓ 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 intimidating a public servant if, by use of a threat, he or she attempts to influence a public servant's vote, opinion, decision, or other official action as a public servant.
(2) For purposes of this section "public servant" shall not include jurors.
(3) "Threat" as used in this section means:
(a) To communicate, directly or indirectly, the intent immediately to use force against any person who is present at the time; or
(b) Threats as defined in RCW 9A.04.110.
(4) Intimidating a public servant is a class B felony.
[ 2011 c 336 s 407; 1975 1st ex.s. c 260 s 9A.76.180.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 32 cases (9 in the last 5 years), 1987–2026 · leading case: State v. Montano, 239 P.3d 360 (Wash. 2010).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Montano, 239 P.3d 360 (Wash. 2010). · cites it 7× “¶ 1 This case asks us to consider—in the context of a Knapstad [1] dismissal—what evidence is necessary for the State to make a prima facie showing that a defendant violated RCW 9A.76.180, the intimidation of a public servant statute.”
State v. Montano, 169 Wash. 2d 872 (Wash. 2010). · cites it 7× “¶1 — This case asks us to consider — in the context of a Knapstad 1 dismissal — what evidence is necessary for the State to make a prima facie showing that a defendant violated RCW 9A.76.180, the intimidation of a public servant statute.”
State v. Stephenson, 950 P.2d 38 (Wash. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 6× “The State then charged Stephenson with two counts of intimidating a public servant in violation of RCW 9A.76.180. Based upon stipulated facts, the trial court found Stephenson guilty as charged.”
State v. Stephenson, 950 P.2d 38 (Wash. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 6× “The State then charged Stephenson with two counts of intimidating a public servant in violation of RCW 9A.76.180. Based upon stipulated facts, the trial court found Stephenson guilty as charged.”
State v. Burke, 132 P.3d 1095 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 4× “031(l)(g)) and intimidating a public servant (RCW 9A.76.180(1)). The trial court orally found that these two crimes were not in the same course of conduct.”
State v. Burke, 132 P.3d 1095 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 4× “031(1)(g)) and intimidating a public servant (RCW 9A.76.180(1)). The trial court orally found that these two crimes were not in the same course of conduct.”
State v. Pascal, 736 P.2d 1065 (Wash. 1987). · cites it 2× “030); intimidating a public servant (RCW 9A.76.180); tampering with a witness (RCW 9A.”
State v. Toscano, 271 P.3d 912 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 4× “¶22 Our application of the statute here also furthers the legislative purposes of RCW 9A.76.180. The statute’s plain language suggests three purposes: *555 First, it protects public servants from threats of substantial harm based upon the discharge of their official duties.”
State v. Knowles, 957 P.2d 797 (Wash. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 2× “We determined that the definition of “threat,” in the context of intimidating a public servant, was not unconstitutionally overbroad.”
State Of Washington v. Jeremy William Dawley, 455 P.3d 205 (Wash. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 9× “— Jeremy Dawley asserts a facial challenge to RCW 9A.76.180, the intimidating a public servant statute.”
State Of Washington, V Gary Pinkney, 411 P.3d 406 (Wash. Ct. App. 2018). “49261-0-II growling conveys to a reasonable person the intention to cause bodily harm to that person. With that, Pinkney’s actions constituted a threat to cause bodily harm under RCW 9A.”
State v. Avila, 102 Wash. App. 882 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000). “2d 38 (stating defendant’s “attempt to influence” targeted public servant’s behavior “critical element” of intimidating public servant statute, RCW 9A.76.180), review denied, 136 Wn.2d 1018 (1998).”
Show all 32 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.76.180(1) — 13 cases
State v. Montano, 169 Wash. 2d 872 (Wash. 2010). “¶1 — This case asks us to consider — in the context of a Knapstad 1 dismissal — what evidence is necessary for the State to make a prima facie showing that a defendant violated RCW 9A.76.180, the intimidation of a public servant statute.”
State v. Burke, 132 P.3d 1095 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). “031(l)(g)) and intimidating a public servant (RCW 9A.76.180(1)). The trial court orally found that these two crimes were not in the same course of conduct.”
State v. Burke, 132 P.3d 1095 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). “031(1)(g)) and intimidating a public servant (RCW 9A.76.180(1)). The trial court orally found that these two crimes were not in the same course of conduct.”
State v. Toscano, 271 P.3d 912 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012). “¶22 Our application of the statute here also furthers the legislative purposes of RCW 9A.76.180. The statute’s plain language suggests three purposes: *555 First, it protects public servants from threats of substantial harm based upon the discharge of their official duties.”
State v. Montano, 239 P.3d 360 (Wash. 2010). “¶ 1 This case asks us to consider—in the context of a Knapstad [1] dismissal—what evidence is necessary for the State to make a prima facie showing that a defendant violated RCW 9A.76.180, the intimidation of a public servant statute.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.76.180(1)(3)(a) — 1 case
State of Washington v. A.I. (Wash. Ct. App. 2025).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.76.180(3) — 2 cases
Eggum v. Holbrook (W.D. Wash. 2020).
State of Washington v. Jose Luis Nieves (Wash. Ct. App. 2013).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.76.180(3)(a) — 8 cases
State v. Burke, 132 P.3d 1095 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). “031(l)(g)) and intimidating a public servant (RCW 9A.76.180(1)). The trial court orally found that these two crimes were not in the same course of conduct.”
State v. Burke, 132 P.3d 1095 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). “031(1)(g)) and intimidating a public servant (RCW 9A.76.180(1)). The trial court orally found that these two crimes were not in the same course of conduct.”
State v. Montano, 169 Wash. 2d 872 (Wash. 2010). “¶1 — This case asks us to consider — in the context of a Knapstad 1 dismissal — what evidence is necessary for the State to make a prima facie showing that a defendant violated RCW 9A.76.180, the intimidation of a public servant statute.”
State v. Stephenson, 950 P.2d 38 (Wash. Ct. App. 1998). “The State then charged Stephenson with two counts of intimidating a public servant in violation of RCW 9A.76.180. Based upon stipulated facts, the trial court found Stephenson guilty as charged.”
State v. Stephenson, 950 P.2d 38 (Wash. Ct. App. 1998). “The State then charged Stephenson with two counts of intimidating a public servant in violation of RCW 9A.76.180. Based upon stipulated facts, the trial court found Stephenson guilty as charged.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.76.180(3)(b) — 2 cases
State Of Washington v. Jeremy William Dawley, 455 P.3d 205 (Wash. Ct. App. 2019). “— Jeremy Dawley asserts a facial challenge to RCW 9A.76.180, the intimidating a public servant statute.”
State Of Washington, V. Earl Carlisle Mccormack (Wash. Ct. App. 2023).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.76.180(4) — 1 case
In re Recall of Sawant, 483 P.3d 752 (Wash. 2021).
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.