Washington
Washington Audio Recording Laws: Two-Party Consent Rules and Penalties (2026)
Independently fact-checked against primary sources (last audited August 22, 2026). · Reviewed by the RecordingLaw editorial team. · Law checked current as of August 22, 2026. · 8 primary sources cited on this page. How we verify our legal content
Washington requires all-party consent before recording any private audio conversation, whether in person or by phone, under RCW 9.73.030. Recording without consent from every participant is a gross misdemeanor. A narrow exception permits one-party recording when a conversation involves threats of bodily harm, extortion, or blackmail.
Washington has some of the most protective audio recording laws in the United States. As a two-party consent state, Washington requires that all parties to a private communication consent before any audio recording takes place. These rules are codified primarily in RCW 9.73.030 and related statutes within Chapter 9.73 RCW, the Washington Privacy Act.
Understanding these laws is essential for individuals, businesses, journalists, and anyone who records conversations in Washington. The consequences of violating these statutes include criminal prosecution, civil lawsuits with statutory damages, and automatic exclusion of the recording as evidence in any court proceeding.
What Is RCW 9.73.030?
RCW 9.73.030 is the core statute governing audio recording in Washington. It makes it unlawful for any individual, partnership, corporation, association, or the state of Washington and its political subdivisions to intercept or record any private communication transmitted by telephone, telegraph, radio, or other device without consent from all parties involved.
The statute covers two distinct categories of recording:
- Transmitted communications: Private conversations sent by telephone, telegraph, radio, or any other transmission device between two or more individuals.
- In-person conversations: Any private conversation captured by any device, electronic or otherwise, designed to record or transmit that conversation.
Both categories require the same thing: consent from every participant before recording begins.
What Counts as a "Private" Communication?
The definition of "private" is central to how RCW 9.73.030 works in practice. The Washington Supreme Court addressed this question in State v. Townsend, 147 Wn.2d 666 (2002), adopting a multi-factor test. Courts consider:
- The subjective intention of the parties regarding the privacy of the conversation
- The duration and subject matter of the communication
- The location where the conversation takes place
- The presence of potential third parties who might overhear
- The relationship between the consenting and nonconsenting parties
A conversation in a crowded public space where others can easily overhear is generally not "private" under the statute. However, a quiet conversation between two people in a corner of a restaurant, where they have taken steps to prevent being overheard, may qualify as private even though it occurs in a public venue.
How to Satisfy the Consent Requirement
Washington law provides a straightforward method for obtaining consent. Under RCW 9.73.030(3), consent is deemed obtained when one party announces to all other parties in any reasonably effective manner that the communication or conversation is about to be recorded or transmitted.
Key requirements for a valid announcement:
- The announcement must be made before recording begins
- The announcement itself must be recorded
- The method must be reasonably effective at notifying all parties
- Continuing the conversation after the announcement constitutes implied consent
This approach is more flexible than some other two-party consent states. Washington does not require each participant to verbally say "I consent." Simply continuing the conversation after a clear announcement is sufficient.
The Threat Exception: One-Party Consent for Dangerous Situations
One of the most important features of Washington audio recording law is the threat exception under RCW 9.73.030(2)(b). This provision allows one-party consent recording when the conversation involves:
- Threats of extortion against any person
- Threats of blackmail against any person
- Threats of bodily harm against any person
- Unlawful requests or demands
A related exception under RCW 9.73.030(2)(c) allows one-party consent recording of communications that occur anonymously or repeatedly or at an extremely inconvenient hour.
Under these exceptions, if someone is threatening you with physical violence, extorting you, or blackmailing you, or harassing you with anonymous, repeated, or late-night calls, you may legally record that conversation with only your own consent. You do not need to announce the recording or obtain consent from the person making the threats.
This exception recognizes that victims of threats and extortion need the ability to preserve evidence without alerting the threatening party. It applies to both telephone and in-person conversations.
Limits of the Threat Exception
The threat exception is narrow. It applies only to the specific threatening content of the conversation. If a conversation begins with ordinary discussion and escalates to threats, the exception covers the threatening portion. Recording must be related to the threatening conduct, not used as a general license to record all interactions with the person.
Courts have interpreted this exception strictly. In State v. Christensen, 153 Wn.2d 186 (2004), the Washington Supreme Court emphasized that the exceptions in RCW 9.73.030(2) must be read narrowly because the Privacy Act is designed to protect individual privacy rights.
Criminal Penalties for Illegal Audio Recording
Violating Washington audio recording laws carries significant criminal consequences under RCW 9.73.080.
Penalty Structure
| Offense | Classification | Maximum Jail Time | Maximum Fine |
|---|---|---|---|
| Recording without consent | Gross Misdemeanor | 364 days | $5,000 |
| Disclosing an illegal recording | Gross Misdemeanor | 364 days | $5,000 |
Under RCW 9.92.020, a gross misdemeanor carries a maximum sentence of 364 days in county jail and/or a fine of up to $5,000. The legislature set the maximum at 364 days rather than a full year in 2011 to avoid immigration consequences that can attach to convictions with sentences of one year or more.
What Constitutes a Violation
Any of the following acts can trigger criminal liability:
- Intercepting a private communication without consent
- Recording a private communication without consent
- Transmitting a private communication without consent
- Disclosing the contents of an illegally intercepted communication
Each separate recording can constitute a separate offense, so a pattern of illegal recording can lead to multiple counts.
Civil Remedies Under RCW 9.73.060
Beyond criminal prosecution, Washington provides a private right of action for victims of illegal recording. RCW 9.73.060 allows any person injured by a violation of the Privacy Act to file a civil lawsuit and recover damages.
Available Damages
Injured parties may recover:
- Actual damages, including compensation for mental pain and suffering
- Liquidated damages of $100 per day of violation, up to a maximum of $1,000
- Reasonable attorney fees and costs of litigation
The injured party can choose between actual damages and liquidated damages, selecting whichever amount is more favorable. No proof of financial harm is required to recover liquidated damages.
These civil remedies exist independently of any criminal prosecution. A person can face both criminal charges and a civil lawsuit for the same illegal recording.
Inadmissibility of Illegal Recordings
Under RCW 9.73.050, any information obtained in violation of Washington's recording law is inadmissible in any civil or criminal case in all courts of general or limited jurisdiction in Washington. There are only two narrow exceptions:
- The person whose rights were violated gives permission to use the recording in a damages action
- A criminal case involving a crime that would jeopardize national security
This exclusionary rule is one of the strictest in the nation. Even if an illegally obtained recording contains highly relevant evidence, Washington courts will suppress it. This makes obtaining proper consent not just a legal obligation but a practical necessity for anyone who might need to use a recording as evidence.
Implied Consent and Voicemail
Washington courts have recognized that consent can be implied in certain situations. A person is deemed to have consented to recording when they convey a message knowing it will be recorded.
Voicemail and Answering Machines
In In re Marriage of Farr, 87 Wn. App. 177 (1997), the Washington Court of Appeals held that a speaker consented to recording by leaving a voicemail message because "an answering machine's only function is to record messages." This principle extends to:
- Voicemail messages: Leaving a voicemail implies consent because the sole function of voicemail is to record messages
- Automated recording systems: Calling into a system that announces it records all calls implies consent if the caller continues
- Email and electronic messages: Sending messages through systems known to record them implies consent
Beep Tones and Recording Indicators
Unlike some states that allow a periodic beep tone to serve as notice of recording, Washington law requires an announcement in a "reasonably effective manner." A beep tone alone, without additional context, may not satisfy this standard. The safest practice is to provide a clear verbal or recorded announcement.
Federal Law vs. Washington Law
Federal wiretap law, codified at 18 U.S.C. Section 2511, follows a one-party consent model. Under federal law, it is legal to record a conversation as long as at least one party to the conversation consents.
Washington's two-party consent requirement is stricter than the federal baseline. This is permissible because federal law establishes a floor, not a ceiling, for privacy protections. States are free to impose greater restrictions than federal law requires but cannot allow less protection than the federal standard provides.
When Washington law and federal law conflict, the stricter standard (Washington's) applies to conversations occurring within Washington.
Interstate Recording: When Washington Law Applies
When a conversation involves parties in Washington and another state, the question of which law applies becomes important. Washington courts generally apply Washington law when at least one party is located in Washington and the conversation is otherwise subject to Washington jurisdiction.
Common Interstate Scenarios
- Washington to Oregon: Oregon requires one-party consent for telephone calls but all-party consent for in-person conversations. Follow Washington's all-party rule for calls involving a Washington participant.
- Washington to Idaho: Idaho is a one-party consent state. Washington's stricter rule still applies to the Washington participant.
- Washington to California: Both states require all-party consent. Announce and get consent from everyone on the call.
When in doubt, always follow the stricter standard and announce that you are recording.
Exemptions and Special Circumstances
Several specific exemptions modify the general all-party consent rule under Washington law:
Emergency Communications
RCW 9.73.030(2)(a) allows one-party consent recording of conversations that convey communications to report:
- A fire
- A medical emergency
- A crime
- A disaster
Journalist Exception
Under RCW 9.73.030(4), employees of newspapers, magazines, wire services, radio stations, or television stations may record without an announcement if they are acting in a bona fide news gathering capacity and their recording device is "readily apparent or obvious" to the speakers. The journalist may be full-time, part-time, or a contractor.
Hostage Situations
RCW 9.73.030(2)(d) allows one-party consent recording of communications by a hostage holder or anyone who has barricaded themselves and is threatening to take their own life or the lives of others.
Building Owner Exception
Under RCW 9.73.110, building owners may intercept and record communications within their building without consent, but only when the persons being recorded are engaged in a criminal act such as unlawful entry.
Law Enforcement
RCW 9.73.090 provides specific recording exceptions for law enforcement, including incoming emergency calls, recordings of arrested persons, and dashboard/body camera audio by uniformed officers.
Audio Recording Devices Under Washington Law
Washington's two-party consent rule applies regardless of the technology used to capture audio. This includes:
- Smartphones with voice memo or call recording apps
- Digital voice recorders and dictation devices
- AI-powered voice recorders that transcribe in real time
- Smart speakers and home assistants that capture audio
- Body cameras with audio recording capability
- Hidden microphones or surveillance equipment
The statute targets the act of recording, not the specific device. Any device "designed to record or transmit" a conversation falls under RCW 9.73.030. Using newer technology like AI transcription tools does not create an exemption from the consent requirement.
Biometric Privacy Considerations
Devices that process voice data may also implicate Washington's biometric privacy law, RCW 19.375. If a recording device captures voiceprints or other biometric identifiers for a commercial purpose, RCW 19.375.020 requires the entity operating the device to provide notice, obtain consent, or offer a mechanism to prevent that use before enrolling that data in a biometric database; satisfying any one of the three is sufficient. This creates overlapping legal exposure for businesses using voice recognition technology.
Key Court Cases Shaping Washington Audio Recording Law
Several important cases have defined how Washington's audio recording statutes apply in practice:
State v. Townsend (2002)
The Washington Supreme Court established the multi-factor test for determining whether a communication is "private" under RCW 9.73.030. The Court considered the subjective intentions of the parties, the location, the subject matter, and the presence of potential third-party observers.
State v. Christensen (2004)
The Washington Supreme Court emphasized that the exceptions in RCW 9.73.030(2) must be read narrowly. The Privacy Act is remedial legislation designed to protect individual privacy rights, and exceptions should not be expanded beyond their statutory text.
In re Marriage of Farr (1997)
The Washington Court of Appeals held that leaving a voicemail message constitutes implied consent to recording because the sole function of voicemail is to record. This case established the principle that using a system designed to record implies consent to that recording.
State v. Kipp (2014)
In State v. Kipp, 179 Wn.2d 718 (2014), the Washington Supreme Court examined whether a secretly recorded conversation between Kipp and his brother-in-law met RCW 9.73.030's "private communication" threshold. The trial court and a divided Court of Appeals had found the conversation was not private and admitted the recording. The Washington Supreme Court reversed, holding that Kipp had both a subjective and reasonable expectation of privacy while speaking with his brother-in-law about a sensitive family matter. Because the recording violated the Privacy Act, the trial court should have suppressed it under RCW 9.73.050.
More Washington Recording Laws
Audio Recording | Video Recording | Voyeurism & Hidden Cameras | Workplace Recording | Recording Police | Phone Call Recording | Security Cameras | Recording in Public | Landlord-Tenant | Dashcam Laws | Schools | Medical Recording
Back to Washington Recording Laws
More Washington Recording Topics
More Washington Laws
Frequently Asked Questions
Is Washington a one-party or two-party consent state for audio recording?
Washington is a two-party (all-party) consent state. Under RCW 9.73.030, recording any private communication requires the consent of every person involved in the conversation. This applies to both in-person conversations and telephone calls. The term two-party consent is somewhat misleading because if three or more people are part of the conversation, all of them need to consent.
Can I record a conversation with someone who is threatening me in Washington?
Yes. RCW 9.73.030(2)(b) provides an exception that allows one-party consent recording when the conversation conveys threats of extortion, blackmail, or bodily harm. If someone is threatening you with physical violence, you can record the conversation without their knowledge or consent. This exception also covers unlawful requests or demands. A related exception under RCW 9.73.030(2)(c) covers harassing communications that are anonymous, repeated, or occur at an extremely inconvenient hour.
What are the penalties for illegally recording someone in Washington?
Illegally recording a private conversation in Washington is a gross misdemeanor under RCW 9.73.080, punishable by up to 364 days in jail and a $5,000 fine. Victims can also file a civil lawsuit under RCW 9.73.060 and recover actual damages or liquidated damages of $100 per day (capped at $1,000), plus reasonable attorney fees.
Can an illegally recorded conversation be used as evidence in Washington?
No. Under RCW 9.73.050, any information obtained in violation of Washington's Privacy Act is inadmissible in any civil or criminal court in Washington. The only exceptions are when the recorded person gives permission to use it in a damages lawsuit, or when the case involves a crime that would jeopardize national security.
Do I need consent to record a conversation in a public place in Washington?
Not necessarily. Washington's recording law applies only to private communications. If a conversation takes place in a public setting where the participants have no reasonable expectation of privacy, the statute does not apply. Courts use multiple factors to determine privacy, including the location, whether third parties are present, and whether the speakers took steps to keep the conversation private.
Updates
Corrected a fabricated 1984 case citation to the real 2014 State v. Kipp decision and its actual holding, and fixed a biometric-privacy compliance description that incorrectly required both notice and consent when Washington law accepts any one of three options.
Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources; governing law re-checked for recent changes
Corrected the RCW 9.73.030 subsection citations for Washington's one-party-consent exceptions: harassment (anonymous/repeated/inconvenient-hour calls) is subsection (2)(c) not (2)(b), the hostage/barricade exception is (2)(d) not (2)(c), and the journalist exception is subsection (4) not (1)(a).
Governing law re-checked for recent changes
Reviewed and approved by an editor
The Law Behind This Article
This article rests on the statutory provisions below, held in our own legal record and retrieved from the official source. Tap a section to read the operative text.
Revised Code of Washington
§ 9.73.030Intercepting, recording, or divulging private communication—Consent required—Exceptions.In forcecited in 41 of our articles
(1) Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, it shall be unlawful for any individual, partnership, corporation, association, or the state of Washington, its agencies, and political subdivisions to intercept, or record any: (a) Private communication transmitted by telephone, telegraph, radio, or other device between two or more individuals between points within or without the state by any device electronic or otherwise designed to record and/or transmit said communication regardless how such device is powered or actuated, without first obtaining the consent of all the participants in the communication; (b) Private conversation, by any device electronic or otherwise designed to record or transmit such conversation regardless how the device is powered or actuated without first obtaining the consent of all the persons engaged in the conversation.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-31 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at app.leg.wa.gov
Cited in 221 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Washington courts have policed what counts as a private communication under Sec. 9.73.030: State v. Gunwall (1986) concluded a pen register intercept comes within a private communication transmitted by telephone, while State v. Riley (1993) held a line trap that reveals only the calling number does not record one.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- State v. Salinas (Washington Supreme Court 1992, 119 Wash. 2d 192)“…alties for divulging a telegram or opening a sealed letter. RCW 9.73.030-.070, making it unlawful to intercept,…”
- State v. Gunwall (Washington Supreme Court 1986, 106 Wash. 2d 54)✓Everett police pulled a suspected cocaine dealer's toll records and put a pen register on her line without valid legal process; the court held a pen register intercept is a private communication transmitted by telephone, installable only under the eavesdropping statutes.
- State v. Brown (Washington Supreme Court 1997, 132 Wash. 2d 529)✓Palm Springs officers secretly recorded a Washington murder suspect's statements after his arrest; the court treated RCW 9.73.090, not 9.73.030, as the provision reaching recordings of arrested persons, and held the Privacy Act did not require suppressing that recording.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 19.375.020Enrollment, disclosure, and retention of biometric identifiers.In forcecited in 9 of our articles
(1) A person may not enroll a biometric identifier in a database for a commercial purpose, without first providing notice, obtaining consent, or providing a mechanism to prevent the subsequent use of a biometric identifier for a commercial purpose. (2) Notice is a disclosure, that is not considered affirmative consent, that is given through a procedure reasonably designed to be readily available to affected individuals. The exact notice and type of consent required to achieve compliance with subsection (1) of this section is context-dependent.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at app.leg.wa.gov
§ 9.73.050Admissibility of intercepted communication in evidence.In forcecited in 11 of our articles
Any information obtained in violation of RCW 9.73.030 or pursuant to any order issued under the provisions of RCW 9.73.040 shall be inadmissible in any civil or criminal case in all courts of general or limited jurisdiction in this state, except with the permission of the person whose rights have been violated in an action brought for damages under the provisions of RCW 9.73.030 through 9.73.080, or in a criminal action in which the defendant is charged with a crime, the commission of which would jeopardize national security.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at app.leg.wa.gov
Cited in 116 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2025
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- State v. Wanrow (Washington Supreme Court 1977, 88 Wash. 2d 221)“…epartment of an emergency telephone call, on the basis that RCW 9.73.050 and RCW 9.73.090 which authorize the re…”
- State v. Rupe (Washington Supreme Court 1984, 101 Wash. 2d 664)“…find that this statement violated the terms of the statute. RCW 9.73.050 provides that information obtained in v…”
- State v. Fjermestad (Washington Supreme Court 1990, 114 Wash. 2d 828)“…At the time RCW 9.73.040 was enacted, the Legislature added RCW 9.73.050 4 which deals with admissibility of *…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 9.73.060Violating right of privacy—Civil action—Liability for damages.In forcecited in 14 of our articles
Any person who, directly or by means of a detective agency or any other agent, violates the provisions of this chapter shall be subject to legal action for damages, to be brought by any other person claiming that a violation of this statute has injured his or her business, his or her person, or his or her reputation. A person so injured shall be entitled to actual damages, including mental pain and suffering endured by him or her on account of violation of the provisions of this chapter, or liquidated damages computed at the rate of one hundred dollars a day for each day of violation, not to exceed one thousand dollars, and a reasonable attorney's fee and other costs of litigation.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at app.leg.wa.gov
Cited in 36 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2025
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Washington courts read RCW 9.73.060 as supplying civil damages only for conduct chapter 9.73 prohibits. Kearney v. Kearney (1999) held RCW 9.73.050 creates no civil liability for filing illegally recorded material. Dillon v. Seattle Deposition Reporters, LLC (2014) reversed summary judgment on secretly transcribed calls.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- State v. Wanrow (Washington Supreme Court 1977, 88 Wash. 2d 221)“…case under RCW 9.73.050; there is no civil liability under RCW 9.73.060; and, there is no criminal liability un…”
- Kearney v. Kearney (Court of Appeals of Washington 1999, 95 Wash. App. 405)✓A father sued a guardian ad litem, an evaluator and an attorney under RCW 9.73.060 for filing transcripts of calls with his children that his estranged wife taped; the court held the act creates liability only for recording or intercepting, not filing, and affirmed dismissal.
- Dillon v. Seattle Deposition Reporters, LLC (Court of Appeals of Washington 2014, 179 Wash. App. 41)“…act is a gross misdemeanor and is also actionable in tort. RCW 9.73.060, .080. “We engage in a four-pronged ana…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 9.73.080Penalties.In forcecited in 16 of our articles
(1) Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, any person who violates RCW 9.73.030 is guilty of a gross misdemeanor. (2) Any person who knowingly alters, erases, or wrongfully discloses any recording in violation of RCW 9.73.090(1)(c) is guilty of a gross misdemeanor.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at app.leg.wa.gov
Cited in 13 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2023
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- State v. Wanrow (Washington Supreme Court 1977, 88 Wash. 2d 221)“…9.73.090, which opens with a waiver of RCW 9.73.030 through RCW 9.73.080, [9] i.e., the recording is not unlaw…”
- State v. Williams (Washington Supreme Court 1980, 94 Wash. 2d 531)✓ATF agents recorded a suspect's conversations with an informant and undercover agents with only one party's consent. The court assumed without deciding that the RCW 9.73.080 criminal penalty may not reach federal agents, but held the tapes were still inadmissible in state court.
- State v. Clark (Washington Supreme Court 2007, 916 P.2d 384)“…Violation of RCW 9.73.030 constitutes a gross misdemeanor, RCW 9.73.080, and may also result in civil liability…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 9.73.090Certain emergency response personnel exempted from RCW 9.73.030 through 9.73.080—Standards—Court authorizations—Admissibility.In forcecited in 6 of our articles
(1) The provisions of RCW 9.73.030 through 9.73.080 shall not apply to police, fire, emergency medical service, emergency communication center, and poison center personnel in the following instances: (a) Recording incoming telephone calls to police and fire stations, licensed emergency medical service providers, emergency communication centers, and poison centers; (b) Video and/or sound recordings may be made of arrested persons by police officers responsible for making arrests or holding persons in custody before their first appearance in court.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at app.leg.wa.gov
Cited in 99 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2025
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- State v. Salinas (Washington Supreme Court 1992, 119 Wash. 2d 192)“…all participants in the communication, was passed in 1967. RCW 9.73.090 was enacted in 1970, and allowed police…”
- State v. Brown (Washington Supreme Court 1997, 132 Wash. 2d 529)“…133 Recording of Appellant’s Custodial Statements and RCW 9.73.090 (7) Whether Appellant’s statement…”
- State v. Wanrow (Washington Supreme Court 1977, 88 Wash. 2d 221)“…mergency telephone call, on the basis that RCW 9.73.050 and RCW 9.73.090 which authorize the recording of such a…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 9.73.110Intercepting, recording, or disclosing private communications—Not unlawful for building owner—Conditions.In forcecited in 6 of our articles
It shall not be unlawful for the owner or person entitled to use and possession of a building, as defined in RCW 9A.04.110(5), or the agent of such person, to intercept, record, or disclose communications or conversations which occur within such building if the persons engaged in such communication or conversation are engaged in a criminal act at the time of such communication or conversation by virtue of unlawful entry or remaining unlawfully in such building.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at app.leg.wa.gov
§ 9.92.020Punishment of gross misdemeanor when not fixed by statute.In forcecited in 5 of our articles
Every person convicted of a gross misdemeanor for which no punishment is prescribed in any statute in force at the time of conviction and sentence, shall be punished by imprisonment in the county jail for a maximum term fixed by the court of up to three hundred sixty-four days, or by a fine in an amount fixed by the court of not more than five thousand dollars, or by both such imprisonment and fine.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at app.leg.wa.gov
Cited in 37 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2023
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- State v. Lewis (Court of Appeals of Washington 1976, 15 Wash. App. 172)“…eached after an examination of RCW 9.01.020, 4 RCW 9.92.020, 5 and RCW 9.95.010, the c…”
- Robinson v. Peterson (Washington Supreme Court 1976, 87 Wash. 2d 665)“…ls in which the maximum sentence is for a period of 1 year (RCW 9.92.020), most occupancies being of much briefe…”
- Mortell v. State (Court of Appeals of Washington 2003, 118 Wash. App. 846)“…heme. Several provisions comprise this sentencing scheme. RCW 9.92.020 reads, in part, “Every person convicted…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
United States Code Title 18
§ 2511Interception and disclosure of wire, oral, or electronic communications prohibitedIn forcecited in 418 of our articles
Except as otherwise specifically provided in this chapter any person who— intentionally intercepts, endeavors to intercept, or procures any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept, any wire, oral, or electronic communication; intentionally uses, endeavors to use, or procures any other person to use or endeavor to use any electronic, mechanical, or other device to intercept any oral communication when— such device is affixed to, or otherwise transmits a signal through, a wire, cable, or other like connection used in wire communication; or such device transmits communications by radio, or interferes with the transmission of such communication; or such person knows, or has reason to know, that such device or any component thereof has been sent through the mail or transported in interstate or foreign commerce; or such use or endeavor to use (A) takes place on the premises of any business or other commercial establishment the operations of which affect interstate or foreign commerce; or (B) obtains or is for the purpose of obtaining information relating to the operations of any business or other commercial establishment the operations of which affect interstate or foreign…
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at uscode.house.gov
Cited in 2,045 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Griggs-Ryan v. Smith (1990) applied the Section 2511(2)(d) prior-consent exception, treating a tenant repeatedly told that all incoming calls were taped as having impliedly consented. United States v. United States District Court (1972) read the then-current Section 2511(3) as conferring no presidential surveillance power.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Mitchell v. Forsyth (Supreme Court of the United States 1985, 472 U.S. 511)✓The Attorney General authorized a warrantless 1970 national security wiretap that caught the plaintiff's calls; the Court held the since-repealed Section 2511(3) disclaimer left the tap lawful under Title III, and that Mitchell had qualified immunity.
- United States v. United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan (Supreme Court of the United States 1972, 407 U.S. 297)✓The Attorney General approved warrantless wiretaps on members of a domestic group accused of bombing a CIA office; the Court read Section 2511(3) as a congressional disclaimer conferring no surveillance power, then held the Fourth Amendment required prior judicial approval.
- Forsyth v. Barr (Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit 1994, 19 F.3d 1527)✓Dallas police used, in an internal affairs probe of an officer, calls private parties allegedly intercepted illegally; assuming that was unlawful, the Fifth Circuit held Section 2517(1) and (2) allowed the disclosure and use, defeating the Section 2511(1)(c) and (d) claims.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Search our full record of US law — 2.1 million sections, every state + federal →
Sources and References
- RCW 9.73.030 - Intercepting, Recording, or Divulging Private Communications(app.leg.wa.gov).gov
- RCW 9.73.050 - Admissibility of Intercepted Communications(app.leg.wa.gov).gov
- RCW 9.73.060 - Civil Damages for Privacy Violations(app.leg.wa.gov).gov
- RCW 9.73.080 - Criminal Penalties(app.leg.wa.gov).gov
- RCW 9.73.090 - Law Enforcement Recording Exceptions(app.leg.wa.gov).gov
- RCW 9.73.110 - Building Owner Exception(app.leg.wa.gov).gov
- RCW 19.375 - Biometric Identifiers(app.leg.wa.gov).gov
- RCW 9.92.020 - Gross Misdemeanor Penalties(app.leg.wa.gov).gov
- 18 U.S.C. Section 2511 - Federal Wiretap Act(law.cornell.edu)