Wash. Rev. Code » Title 9A · Chapter 9A.80
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.80.010 (2026)

Official misconduct

✓ 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 public servant is guilty of official misconduct if, with intent to obtain a benefit or to deprive another person of a lawful right or privilege:
(a) He or she intentionally commits an unauthorized act under color of law; or
(b) He or she intentionally refrains from performing a duty imposed upon him or her by law.
(2) Official misconduct is a gross misdemeanor.
[ 2011 c 336 s 408; 1975-'76 2nd ex.s. c 38 s 17; 1975 1st ex.s. c 260 s 9A.80.010.]

Notes:

Effective date—Severability—1975-'76 2nd ex.s. c 38: See notes following RCW 9A.08.020.
Failure of duty by public officers: RCW 42.20.100.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 24 cases (15 in the last 5 years), 1984–2025 · leading case: State Of Washington v. Damion Ray Birge & Jesse Jahner, 478 P.3d 1144 (Wash. Ct. App. 2021).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State Of Washington v. Damion Ray Birge & Jesse Jahner, 478 P.3d 1144 (Wash. Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 13× “Overbreadth Birge and Jahner argue that RCW 9A.80.010 is unconstitutionally overbroad because it implicates constitutionally protected speech and prohibits a substantial amount of protected speech.”
People v. Feerick, 714 N.E.2d 851 (NY 1999). “02; Utah Code Ann § 76-8-201; Wash Rev Code Ann § 9A.80.010; Guam Code Ann, tit 9, § 49.”
State v. K.L.B., 328 P.3d 886 (Wash. 2014). “020), or official misconduct (RCW 9A.80.010). The legislature could not have intended such results when it authorized Sound Transit to designate FEOs.”
Yakima Cnty. v. Law Enf't Officers, 237 P.3d 316 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010). “040 and RCW 9A.80.010), did not prohibit reinstatement of any officer found to violate them.”
Yakima Cnty. v. Yakima Cnty. Law Enf't Officers Guild, 157 Wash. App. 304 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010). “040; RCW 9A.80.010), did not prohibit reinstatement of any officer found to violate them.”
Issel v. State, 694 P.2d 34 (Wash. Ct. App. 1984). “Issel was charged with official misconduct under RCW 9A.80.010 and willful neglect of duty under RCW 42.”
State v. Liewer, 829 P.2d 236 (Wash. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 7× “He argues that the same conduct punishable as a felony under the bribery statute is punishable as a nonfelony under three other statutes: official misconduct, as defined in RCW 9A.80.010; misconduct of a public officer, as defined in *644 RCW 42.”
The PEOPLE OF THE TERRITORY OF GUAM, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Franklin Borja CAMACHO, Defendant-Appellant, 103 F.3d 863 (9th Cir. 1996). “§ 2C:30-2 (1994); N.Y. Penal Law § 195.00 (McKinney 1994); Or.”
State v. Groom, 911 P.2d 403 (Wash. Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 2× “070; official misconduct, RCW 9A.80.010; and unlawful search without a warrant, RCW 10.”
Still v. City of Longview (W.D. Wash. 2024). · cites it 6× “7 Still sued the City of Longview, asserting three claims: (1) a claim seeking 8 declaratory relief that Mayor Wallis and the city council engaged in official misconduct 9 in violation of RCW 9A.80.010 (a criminal statute prohibiting public servants from 10 intentionally…”
Orozco v. Yakima Sheriff's Off. (E.D. Wash. 2024). · cites it 4× “” Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.80.010. 18 The Court rejects each of Plaintiff’s arguments that probable cause did not 19 exist for his arrest.”
In re Recall of Hatcher, 478 P.3d 1077 (Wash. 2021). · cites it 2× “150 by soliciting another officer to redistribute evidence and violated RCW 9A.80.010 by committing an unauthorized act without color of law.”
Show all 24 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.80.010(1) — 2 cases
State Of Washington v. Damion Ray Birge & Jesse Jahner, 478 P.3d 1144 (Wash. Ct. App. 2021). “Overbreadth Birge and Jahner argue that RCW 9A.80.010 is unconstitutionally overbroad because it implicates constitutionally protected speech and prohibits a substantial amount of protected speech.”
State v. Liewer, 829 P.2d 236 (Wash. Ct. App. 1992). “He argues that the same conduct punishable as a felony under the bribery statute is punishable as a nonfelony under three other statutes: official misconduct, as defined in RCW 9A.80.010; misconduct of a public officer, as defined in *644 RCW 42.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.80.010(1)(a) — 2 cases
State Of Washington v. Damion Ray Birge & Jesse Jahner, 478 P.3d 1144 (Wash. Ct. App. 2021). “Overbreadth Birge and Jahner argue that RCW 9A.80.010 is unconstitutionally overbroad because it implicates constitutionally protected speech and prohibits a substantial amount of protected speech.”
Still v. City of Longview (W.D. Wash. 2024). “7 Still sued the City of Longview, asserting three claims: (1) a claim seeking 8 declaratory relief that Mayor Wallis and the city council engaged in official misconduct 9 in violation of RCW 9A.80.010 (a criminal statute prohibiting public servants from 10 intentionally…”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.80.010(l)(a) — 1 case
State v. Groom, 911 P.2d 403 (Wash. Ct. App. 1996). “070; official misconduct, RCW 9A.80.010; and unlawful search without a warrant, RCW 10.”
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.