Washington
Washington License Plate Reader Laws (2026)
Independently fact-checked against primary sources (last audited September 30, 2026). · 9 primary sources cited on this page. How we verify our legal content
Washington has a detailed license plate reader statute. Chapter 10.130 RCW, enacted as chapter 239, Laws of 2026 (ESSB 6002) and effective March 30, 2026, makes it unlawful for an agency to access, operate or use an ALPR system or its data except for listed purposes. It also sets a 21-day default retention limit, bars use for immigration enforcement, and exempts the data from the Public Records Act. The prohibition is in RCW 10.130.030.
Information reviewed September 30, 2026.
For related pages, see the Washington entry in the state comparison, the ALPR laws hub, Are Flock cameras legal?, What are Flock cameras?, and our Washington surveillance camera laws guide.
Is there a Washington law on license plate readers?
Yes. RCW 10.130.030(1) reads: "Except as provided for in this section, it is unlawful for any agency to access, operate, or use an automated license plate reader system or its associated automated license plate reader data." Chapter 10.130 RCW has sections .010 through .110, and we read the full text. Its definition of an ALPR system in RCW 10.130.020(4) excludes photo toll cameras and automated traffic safety, speed and school bus cameras that do not interface with an ALPR system for other purposes. Those cameras have their own rules: RCW 47.56.795 limits photo-toll images and travel records to toll collection and enforcement and closes them to the public, and RCW 46.63.220 limits traffic safety camera images to enforcement of those violations and bars keeping them longer than necessary.
In RCW 10.130.010 the legislature invoked "the broader protection of individual rights guaranteed by Article I, section 7 of the Washington state Constitution."
What may Washington agencies use plate readers for?
RCW 10.130.030(2) allows an agency to access, operate or use an ALPR system and its data "only for the following authorized purposes."
- Law enforcement may compare plates against the Department of Licensing, state criminal justice information, FBI kidnapping and missing-persons data, and the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children and Washington missing-persons databases. It may also compare plate numbers or characteristics entered on an officer's determination that they are relevant and material to a stolen vehicle, a missing or endangered person, a felony or gross misdemeanor warrant, or a felony or gross misdemeanor.
- Parking enforcement agencies may use it for parking restrictions and impound or immobilization lists.
- Transportation agencies may use it for real-time traffic information, modeling and studies, and for commercial vehicle enforcement at Washington State Patrol sites and weigh stations.
A positive match alone "does not constitute reasonable suspicion." The officer must develop independent suspicion, or immediately confirm visually that the plate matches the image and confirm by other means that the number is in a permitted database.
Does Washington limit immigration enforcement and sensitive locations?
Yes. RCW 10.130.030(3) makes it unlawful for a covered agency, as described in RCW 43.17.425, to use an ALPR system "for immigration investigation or enforcement, or both." It also bars use for protected health care services under chapter 7.115 RCW and use to track or monitor activity protected by the state constitution and the First Amendment. Separately, the Keep Washington Working Act, RCW 10.93.160(5), bars state and local law enforcement agencies from providing nonpublicly available personal information about an individual to federal immigration authorities in a noncriminal matter, except as required by state or federal law. It is unlawful to collect ALPR data at or around facilities providing protected health care, facilities for immigration matters, elementary and secondary schools, places of worship, courts, and food banks.
How long can Washington agencies keep plate data?
RCW 10.130.040 says data "shall not be retained longer than 21 days, with the following exceptions":
- Data tied to a court-issued probable-cause felony or gross misdemeanor warrant, a subpoena or a court order, until the conclusion of the case under the retention schedule.
- Parking enforcement data, deleted within 12 hours after final disposition, including appeals.
- Traffic study data, 30 days.
- Commercial vehicle enforcement data, six months.
- Evidence of specific unlawful conduct under RCW 10.130.030(2)(a).
Who else can see the data?
RCW 10.130.050 bars an agency from disclosing, sharing or permitting access to ALPR data "except as required in a judicial proceeding." Others get no direct system access except other authorized Washington agencies, and vendors may access data only as needed for an agency-authorized purpose. The statute bars selling, leasing, renting or purchasing ALPR or audit data. An agency may obtain privately held ALPR data only with a court-issued probable-cause warrant.
Databases must be updated at least every 24 hours. Vendors must provide technical controls against unauthorized, secondary and federal civil immigration access, and they may not change sharing settings without the agency's consent.
Can I request Washington plate reader data as a public record?
Not under the Public Records Act. RCW 10.130.050(5) says ALPR data "is not subject to disclosure under the public records act, chapter 42.56 RCW," with an exception for bona fide research under RCW 42.48.010 that involves no individually identifiable information. Under RCW 10.130.080(2), query text kept as an audit trail may be used only for auditing, and unique identifiers must be partially redacted in any public disclosure.
What audit, policy and registration rules apply?
Under RCW 10.130.080, each agency must keep audit-trail data for two years. The data covers the user, time, query elements, purpose including offense type, call or case number, camera locations, exports and shares, and vendor audit data. Each agency must also conduct an internal audit at least annually of all access and of compliance with the retention, purging and sharing rules.
Under RCW 10.130.070, the Attorney General must "develop and publish model policies" by July 1, 2027. Agencies must adopt consistent policies, or explain departures, and file an annual report to legislative committees by December 1, 2027. The report covers stops and arrests, recoveries, preservation requests, sharing, audit results, reads and camera locations. The Attorney General must publish a report by December 31, 2027. Local law enforcement agencies must promote public awareness before or with implementation. Policy changes made after December 1, 2026 must be sent to the Attorney General within 60 days.
Registration is where the sources differ. RCW 10.130.030 says an agency using ALPR as of March 30, 2026, or intending to, must register each system with the Attorney General "within 180 days of March 30, 2026," with the agency head certifying compliance, a policy and a training process. That period computes to September 26, 2026. The Attorney General's ALPR registration page says: "There is no fixed deadline by which agencies must register an ALPR system. However, agencies may not operate an ALPR system that has not been registered." As of our September 30, 2026 check, that page listed 76 registered agencies, with the latest submission listed on September 22, 2026, and it disclaims independent verification of the agencies' certifications. We report both statements as written and do not resolve the difference.
What are the penalties and remedies?
RCW 10.130.030 and the sections that follow provide several layers of enforcement.
- Under RCW 10.130.060, information obtained in a knowing violation of section .030 is inadmissible in civil or criminal cases, except with the consent of the aggrieved person in a damages action.
- Under RCW 10.130.090, violations by vendors that contract with agencies are unfair or deceptive practices under the Consumer Protection Act. The section applies only to persons who contract with agencies.
- Under RCW 10.130.100, willful and intentional unauthorized query or use, or unlawful retention, sale or sharing, is a gross misdemeanor.
- Under RCW 10.130.110, a person injured by a violation may bring a civil action for equitable, declaratory or injunctive relief and monetary damages, and the court may award costs and reasonable attorney fees to a prevailing plaintiff.
What have Washington courts said?
The one decision in our records is unpublished. In State v. Simonson, No. 40732-2-III (Wash. Ct. App. Div. III, filed Jan. 29, 2026, amended order Mar. 5, 2026), the court reversed the dismissal of a charge, finding no bad faith shown and that the burden had been wrongly shifted to the State. It also stated that the Flock photograph of the car on a public road "did not disturb his private affairs under article 1, section 7 of the Washington Constitution," so a suppression motion would not have succeeded.
The decision is unpublished and concerns data from before the statute took effect. It does not construe RCW 10.130. Simonson petitioned the Washington Supreme Court for review (No. 105237-5). On September 1, 2026, the Supreme Court stayed the petition pending a final decision in State v. Yeager, No. 104310-4, a pending case on the bad-faith standard for lost evidence. As of September 30, 2026, the Supreme Court had not decided whether to grant review.
Which Washington agencies have ended or paused plate reader programs?
This list is not complete. Redmond's ALPR program page is the source for our record marking the Redmond Police Department deployment as ended as of July 21, 2026. A Herald report is the source for our record marking the Lynnwood Police Department deployment as ended as of February 23, 2026. The City of Olympia's Flock page is the source for our record marking the Olympia Police Department deployment as paused as of December 3, 2025.
Are more bills pending?
The enacted vehicle was ESSB 6002. We also opened the introduced text of HB 2332 (2026 Regular Session), a driver-privacy and ALPR bill prefiled January 8, 2026 and referred to the Civil Rights and Judiciary committee. The Legislature's bill page shows a House committee hearing on January 20, 2026 and no later action, and this page does not treat it as law.
How can I check my local system?
Check the Attorney General's registration page to see whether your agency is listed, then ask the agency for its ALPR policy, which the statute requires it to adopt. Local law enforcement agencies must also promote public awareness of their systems. For the technology itself, see What are Flock cameras?.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does Washington have a license plate reader law?
Yes. Chapter 10.130 RCW, effective March 30, 2026, makes it unlawful for any agency to access, operate or use an ALPR system or its data except for listed purposes.
How long can Washington agencies keep license plate reader data?
No longer than 21 days under RCW 10.130.040, with listed exceptions for court-issued warrants, subpoenas and orders, parking enforcement (deleted within 12 hours after final disposition), traffic studies (30 days), commercial vehicle enforcement (six months) and evidence of specific unlawful conduct.
Can Washington plate reader data be used for immigration enforcement?
RCW 10.130.030(3) makes it unlawful for a covered agency to use an ALPR system for immigration investigation or enforcement, or both. Vendors must also provide technical controls against unauthorized, secondary and federal civil immigration access.
Can I request Washington plate reader data under the Public Records Act?
RCW 10.130.050(5) says ALPR data is not subject to disclosure under the Public Records Act, except for bona fide research without individually identifiable information.
When did agencies have to register their systems?
The statute says within 180 days of March 30, 2026, while the Attorney General's page says there is no fixed deadline, though unregistered systems may not be operated. We report both statements and do not resolve the difference.
Can I sue over a violation?
RCW 10.130.110 lets a person injured by a violation bring a civil action for equitable, declaratory or injunctive relief and monetary damages, and the court may award costs and reasonable attorney fees to a prevailing plaintiff.
Have Washington courts ruled on plate readers?
State v. Simonson, an unpublished Court of Appeals decision from January 2026, stated that a Flock photograph of a car on a public road did not disturb private affairs under article I, section 7. It concerns pre-statute data, and on September 1, 2026 the Washington Supreme Court stayed the petition for review pending its decision in another case, State v. Yeager.
Updates
Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources
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
§ 10.130.030Operation.In forcecited in 3 of our articles
(1) Except as provided for in this section, it is unlawful for any agency to access, operate, or use an automated license plate reader system or its associated automated license plate reader data. (2) An agency may access, operate, or use an automated license plate reader system and its associated data only for the following authorized purposes: (a) Any law enforcement agency may use an automated license plate reader system for the purpose of comparing captured automated license plate reader data with: (i) Data in any of the following databases maintained by either a federal or Washington state agency: The department of licensing, the state criminal justice information system, the federal bureau of investigation kidnappings and missing persons list, the national center for missing and exploited children list, and the Washington missing persons list; or (ii) License plate numbers or vehicle characteristics that have been entered into a state or local automated license plate reader system database or entered in order to perform a search, upon an officer's determination that the license plate numbers or vehicle characteristics are relevant and material to an investigation of a…
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at app.leg.wa.gov
Also relied on in: License Plate Reader Laws by State: 2026 Comparison
§ 10.130.040Retention.In forcecited in 3 of our articles
Automated license plate reader data collected by or on behalf of an agency, as authorized pursuant to RCW 10.130.030(2), shall not be used or shared for any other purpose and shall not be retained longer than 21 days, with the following exceptions: (1) When retained pursuant to a valid, court-issued, probable cause felony or gross misdemeanor warrant or subpoena, or as permitted by court order in criminal or civil cases, provided the data is deleted at the conclusion of the criminal or civil case, pursuant to the applicable record retention schedule.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at app.leg.wa.gov
§ 10.130.050Prohibited practices.In forcecited in 3 of our articles
(1) An agency that uses an automated license plate reader system pursuant to RCW 10.130.030(2) shall not: (a) Disclose, share, or permit access to automated license plate reader data except as required in a judicial proceeding; (b) Provide any other entity with direct access to the automated license plate reader system, except with other state or local agencies authorized to collect automated license plate reader data under RCW 10.130.030. A third-party vendor providing automated license plate reader system services may access an automated license plate reader system solely to the extent necessary to fulfill a specific agency-authorized purpose. (2) Any agency that uses a database pursuant to RCW 10.130.030(2) (a) and (b)(ii) shall use the most recent and updated version of the database that is available to the agency and shall check for and apply any available updates no less than once every 24 hours. (3) An agency shall not sell, lease, rent, or purchase automated license plate reader data or audit trail data. (4) An agency may obtain privately held automated license plate reader data only pursuant to a valid, court-issued, probable cause warrant.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at app.leg.wa.gov
§ 10.130.020Definitions.In forcecited in 3 of our articles
The definitions in this section apply throughout this chapter unless the context clearly requires otherwise. (1) "Agency" includes all state agencies and all local agencies. (2) "Audit trail data" means all forms of data collected or generated by an automated license plate reader system that identify how the system is accessed or used. "Audit trail data" includes information about who accesses or uses the system, and how and when the system is accessed or used. "Audit trail data" does not include automated license plate reader data. (3) "Automated license plate reader data" means all data collected by automated license plate reader systems including, but not limited to, global positioning system coordinates, location, date and time, speed of travel, photograph, license plate number, automobile characteristics, or other identifying information.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at app.leg.wa.gov
§ 10.130.070Policies.In forcecited in 3 of our articles
(1) By July 1, 2027, the attorney general shall develop and publish model policies on the use of automated license plate reader systems consistent with chapter 239, Laws of 2026. (2)(a) By December 1, 2027, any agency that uses an automated license plate reader system pursuant to RCW 10.130.030(2) shall: (i) Adopt a policy governing use of the automated license plate reader system consistent with the model policies established under subsection (1) of this section and submit copies of the applicable policies to the attorney general; or, if the agency did not adopt policies consistent with the model policies, provide notice to the attorney general stating the reasons for any departures from the model policies and an explanation of how the agency's policies are consistent with the provisions of chapter 239, Laws of 2026, and include a copy of the agency's relevant policies; and (ii) Submit an annual report on its automated license plate reader system practices and usage to the appropriate committees of the legislature. The report must also be conspicuously posted on the agency's public website.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at app.leg.wa.gov
§ 10.130.080Audits.In forcecited in 3 of our articles
(1) Each agency operating or accessing an automated license plate reader system shall maintain audit trail data documenting all access to the system. Audit trail data must be retained for two years and must include, at a minimum: (a) A record of each action in which automated license plate reader data is accessed or searched, including: (i) The identity or username of the person who accessed or queried the system, and as applicable, the organization or entity with whom the person is affiliated; (ii) The date and time the automated license plate reader data or the automated license plate reader system was accessed or searched; (iii) Data elements used to query the automated license plate reader system; (iv) Specific purpose for accessing or querying the automated license plate reader system, including the offense type for any criminal investigation; (v) The associated call for service or case number; and (vi) The location of the cameras that are part of the automated license plate reader system accessed.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at app.leg.wa.gov
§ 10.130.090Violations—Application of the consumer protection act.In forcecited in 3 of our articles
(1) The legislature finds that the practices covered by this chapter are matters vitally affecting the public interest for the purpose of applying the consumer protection act, chapter 19.86 RCW. A violation of this chapter is not reasonable in relation to the development and preservation of business and is an unfair or deceptive act in trade or commerce and an unfair method of competition for the purpose of applying the consumer protection act, chapter 19.86 RCW. (2) This section applies only to persons, as defined in RCW 19.86.010, who enter into contract with state and local government agencies authorized to use automated license plate reader systems.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at app.leg.wa.gov
§ 10.130.100Criminal penalties.In forcecited in 3 of our articles
Any person who willfully and intentionally queries, accesses, or uses an automated license plate reader system for a purpose not specifically authorized under this chapter, or who willfully and intentionally retains, sells, shares, permits access, or disseminates automated license plate reader system data or audit trail data in violation of this chapter, 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
§ 10.130.010Intent.In force
The legislature finds that it plays an important role balancing the need to ensure public safety and an individual's right to privacy under both the federal Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and the broader protection of individual rights guaranteed by Article I, section 7 of the Washington state Constitution. The legislature further finds that the dramatic expansion of surveillance technology across the country has demonstrated the need to establish sensible guardrails on the use of surveillance data collected from monitoring the location and travel of individuals, without a warrant, to ensure its use by law enforcement and other government agencies must not come into conflict with existing protections for Washingtonians and ensure that it is not being used for purposes prohibited under state and federal law.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at app.leg.wa.gov
§ 10.130.060Admissibility in court.In force
Any information obtained from a knowing violation of RCW 10.130.030 is 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 RCW 10.130.100.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at app.leg.wa.gov
§ 10.93.160Immigration and citizenship status—Law enforcement agency restrictions.In forcecited in 2 of our articles
(1) The definitions contained in RCW 43.17.420 apply to this section. (2) The legislature finds that it is not the primary purpose of state and local law enforcement agencies or school resource officers to enforce civil federal immigration law. The legislature further finds that the immigration status of an individual or an individual's presence in, entry, or reentry to, or employment in the United States alone, is not a matter for police action, and that United States federal immigration authority has primary jurisdiction for enforcement of the provisions of Title 8 U.S.C. dealing with illegal entry. (3) School resource officers, when acting in their official capacity as a school resource officer, may not: (a) Inquire into or collect information about an individual's immigration or citizenship status, or place of birth; or (b) Provide information pursuant to notification requests from federal immigration authorities for the purposes of civil immigration enforcement, except as required by law.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at app.leg.wa.gov
Cited in 1 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2024
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Personal Restraint Petition Of: Michael Vasiliy Kolesnik (Court of Appeals of Washington 2024)“…as the Department points out, Kolesnik’s argument ignores RCW 10.93.160(10), a separate provision of the KWWA,…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Traffic Stop Rights for Immigrants in the U.S. (2026)
§ 42.48.010Definitions.In force
For the purposes of this chapter, the following definitions apply: (1) "Individually identifiable" means that a record contains information which reveals or can likely be associated with the identity of the person or persons to whom the record pertains. (2) "Legally authorized representative" means a person legally authorized to give consent for the disclosure of personal records on behalf of a minor or a legally incompetent adult. (3) "Personal record" means any information obtained or maintained by a state agency which refers to a person and which is declared exempt from public disclosure, confidential, or privileged under state or federal law. (4) "Research" means a planned and systematic sociological, psychological, epidemiological, biomedical, or other scientific investigation carried out by a state agency, by a scientific research professional associated with a bona fide scientific research organization, or by a graduate student currently enrolled in an advanced academic degree curriculum, with an objective to contribute to scientific knowledge, the solution of social and health problems, or the evaluation of public benefit and service programs.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at app.leg.wa.gov
Cited in 1 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 1993
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Servais v. Port of Bellingham (Court of Appeals of Washington 1993, 72 Wash. App. 183)“…ional contention that the definition of "research" found in RCW 42.48.010(4), governing when certain state agenci…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 43.17.425Immigration and citizenship status—State agency restrictions.In forcecited in 2 of our articles
(1) Except as provided in subsection (3) of this section, no state agency, including law enforcement, may use agency funds, facilities, property, equipment, or personnel to investigate, enforce, cooperate with, or assist in the investigation or enforcement of any federal registration or surveillance programs or any other laws, rules, or policies that target Washington residents solely on the basis of race, religion, immigration, or citizenship status, or national or ethnic origin. This subsection does not apply to any program with the primary purpose of providing persons with services or benefits, or to RCW 9.94A.685.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at app.leg.wa.gov
Cited in 1 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2024
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Personal Restraint Petition Of: Michael Vasiliy Kolesnik (Court of Appeals of Washington 2024)“…rgets him based on his immigration status, in violation of RCW 43.17.425(1), a provision enacted in 2019 as a pa…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Driver's Licenses for Undocumented Immigrants by State (2026)
§ 46.63.220Automated traffic safety cameras—City or county may authorize use—Local legislative authority analysis—Traffic ordinances—Annual reports—Signage—Images—Notice of infraction—Compensation for equipment—Revenue.In forcecited in 2 of our articles
(1) Nothing in this section prohibits a law enforcement officer from issuing a notice of traffic infraction to a person in control of a vehicle at the time a violation occurs under RCW 46.63.030(1) (a), (b), or (c). (2) Any city or county may authorize the use of automated traffic safety cameras and must adopt an ordinance authorizing such use through its local legislative authority. (3) The local legislative authority must prepare an analysis of the locations within the jurisdiction where automated traffic safety cameras are proposed to be located before adding traffic safety cameras to a new location or relocating any existing camera to a new location within the jurisdiction. The analysis must include equity considerations including the impact of the camera placement on livability, accessibility, economics, education, and environmental health when identifying where to locate an automated traffic safety camera.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-16 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at app.leg.wa.gov
Also relied on in: Washington Traffic Camera Ticket Laws: Ordinance-by-Ordinance Authorization and the Registration Hold
§ 47.56.795Tolls—Electronic toll collection and photo toll systems—Administrative fees—Violation—In-vehicle device availability.In force
(1) A toll collection system may include, but is not limited to, electronic toll collection and photo tolling. (2)(a) A photo toll system may take photographs, digital photographs, microphotographs, videotapes, or other recorded images of the vehicle and vehicle license plate only. (b) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, all photographs, digital photographs, microphotographs, videotape, other recorded images, or other records identifying a specific instance of travel prepared under this chapter are for the exclusive use of the tolling agency for toll collection and enforcement purposes and are not open to the public and may not be used in a court in a pending action or proceeding unless the action or proceeding relates to a civil penalty under RCW 46.63.160. No photograph, digital photograph, microphotograph, videotape, other recorded image, or other record identifying a specific instance of travel may be used for any purpose other than toll collection or enforcement of civil penalties under RCW 46.63.160.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at app.leg.wa.gov
Cited in 2 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2014
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Fisher Broadcasting-Seattle TV LLC v. City of Seattle (Washington Supreme Court 2014, 180 Wash. 2d 515)“…lic *533 dissemination of the images. RCW 46.63.160(6)(c); RCW 47.56.795(2)(b); RCW 47.46.105(2)(b). Likewise, t…”
- Fisher Broad. v. City of Seattle (Washington Supreme Court 2014)“…any public dissemination ofthe images. RCW 46.63.160(6)(c); RCW 47.56.795(2)(b); RCW 4 7 .46.1 05(2)(b ). Likewis…”
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 10.130.030(app.leg.wa.gov).gov
- RCW chapter 10.130 (full text)(app.leg.wa.gov).gov
- Washington Attorney General, ALPR registration(www.atg.wa.gov).gov
- State v. Simonson (Wash. Ct. App. Div. III 2026) (unpublished)(www.courts.wa.gov).gov
- City of Redmond, ALPR program page(www.redmond.gov).gov
- Everett Herald report on Lynnwood (Feb. 23, 2026)(www.heraldnet.com)
- City of Olympia, Flock page(www.olympiawa.gov).gov
- RCW 47.56.795(app.leg.wa.gov).gov
- RCW 46.63.220(app.leg.wa.gov).gov
- RCW 10.93.160(5)(app.leg.wa.gov).gov