Wash. Rev. Code » Title 9A · Chapter 9A.88
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.88.110 (2026)

Patronizing a prostitute

✓ 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 patronizing a prostitute if:
(a) Pursuant to a prior understanding, he or she pays a fee to another person as compensation for such person or a third person having engaged in sexual conduct with him or her; or
(b) He or she pays or agrees to pay a fee to another person pursuant to an understanding that in return therefor such person will engage in sexual conduct with him or her; or
(c) He or she solicits or requests another person to engage in sexual conduct with him or her in return for a fee.
(2) The crime of patronizing a prostitute may be committed in more than one location. The crime is deemed to have been committed in any location in which the defendant commits any act under subsection (1)(a), (b), or (c) of this section that constitutes part of the crime. A person who sends a communication to patronize a prostitute is considered to have committed the crime both at the place from which the contact was made pursuant to subsection (1)(a), (b), or (c) of this section and where the communication is received, provided that this section must be construed to prohibit anyone from being prosecuted twice for substantially the same crime.
(3) For purposes of this section, "sexual conduct" has the meaning given in RCW 9A.88.030.
(4) Patronizing a prostitute is a misdemeanor.
[ 2017 c 232 s 1; 1988 c 146 s 4.]

Notes:

Severability—Effective dates—1988 c 146: See notes following RCW 9A.44.050.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9 cases, 2007–2020 · leading case: State v. Yates, 168 P.3d 359 (Wash. 2007).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Yates, 168 P.3d 359 (Wash. 2007). “020(9); RCW 9A.88.110(1)(c), (3). The State presented the testimony of Jennifer Robinson to establish that Yates was anxious to avoid being identified by the police as a person who hired prostitutes.”
State v. Yates, 161 Wash. 2d 714 (Wash. 2007). “020(9); RCW 9A.88.110(1)(c), (3). The State presented the testimony of Jennifer Robinson to establish that Yates was anxious to avoid being identified by the police as a person who hired prostitutes.”
State v. Hecht, 319 P.3d 836 (Wash. Ct. App. 2014). “020 and one count of patronizing a prostitute pursuant to RCW 9A.88.110. ¶5 The case was tried to a jury.”
Junzhi Shao v. City Of Kent (Wash. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 5× “30RCW 9A.88.110, 1988 ch. 146 § 4; see 11 WASHINGTON PRACTICE: WASHINGTON PATTERN JURY INSTRUCTIONS: CRIMINAL 48.”
Ju v. Lacombe (W.D. Wash. 2019). · cites it 3× “86; (13) retaliation; (14) outrage; (15) ex-parte communication; and (16) civil 2 damages from violation of RCW 9A.88.110. Dkt. 84. The Court concludes that each 3 claim fails under Fed.”
State Of Washington v. Richard Svaleson, Jr. (Wash. Ct. App. 2018). “RCW 9A.88.110(4). The sentencing court has authority to require an offender to engage in law-abiding behavior.”
State Of Washington v. Brandon Christopher Barnes (Wash. Ct. App. 2018). “RCW 9A.88.110(1)(c)(3). And the sentencing court may require an offender to 20 No.”
Frances Du Ju v. Airbnb Inc. (9th Cir. 2020). “2014) (setting forth elements of an outrage claim under Washington law); Wash. Rev. Code Ann. § 9A.88.110 (criminalizing patronizing sex workers).”
State Of Washington, V Michael A. Hecht (Wash. Ct. App. 2014). “020 and one count of patronizing a prostitute pursuant to RCW 9A.88.110. The case was tried to a jury.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.88.110(1)(b) — 1 case
Junzhi Shao v. City Of Kent (Wash. Ct. App. 2018). “30RCW 9A.88.110, 1988 ch. 146 § 4; see 11 WASHINGTON PRACTICE: WASHINGTON PATTERN JURY INSTRUCTIONS: CRIMINAL 48.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.88.110(1)(c) — 2 cases
State v. Yates, 168 P.3d 359 (Wash. 2007). “020(9); RCW 9A.88.110(1)(c), (3). The State presented the testimony of Jennifer Robinson to establish that Yates was anxious to avoid being identified by the police as a person who hired prostitutes.”
State v. Yates, 161 Wash. 2d 714 (Wash. 2007). “020(9); RCW 9A.88.110(1)(c), (3). The State presented the testimony of Jennifer Robinson to establish that Yates was anxious to avoid being identified by the police as a person who hired prostitutes.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.88.110(1)(c)(3) — 1 case
State Of Washington v. Brandon Christopher Barnes (Wash. Ct. App. 2018). “RCW 9A.88.110(1)(c)(3). And the sentencing court may require an offender to 20 No.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.88.110(3) — 1 case
Junzhi Shao v. City Of Kent (Wash. Ct. App. 2018). “30RCW 9A.88.110, 1988 ch. 146 § 4; see 11 WASHINGTON PRACTICE: WASHINGTON PATTERN JURY INSTRUCTIONS: CRIMINAL 48.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.88.110(4) — 1 case
State Of Washington v. Richard Svaleson, Jr. (Wash. Ct. App. 2018). “RCW 9A.88.110(4). The sentencing court has authority to require an offender to engage in law-abiding behavior.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.88.110(b) — 1 case
Junzhi Shao v. City Of Kent (Wash. Ct. App. 2018). “30RCW 9A.88.110, 1988 ch. 146 § 4; see 11 WASHINGTON PRACTICE: WASHINGTON PATTERN JURY INSTRUCTIONS: CRIMINAL 48.”
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.