Washington
Washington Ring Doorbell Laws: What You Need to Know in 2026
Independently fact-checked against primary sources (last audited August 17, 2026). · Reviewed by the RecordingLaw editorial team. · Law checked current as of August 17, 2026. · 12 primary sources cited on this page. How we verify our legal content
Ring doorbells are legal in Washington, but the audio recording feature requires all-party consent under RCW 9.73.030. Washington residents may record video of public-facing areas freely, yet capturing audio of private conversations without every participant's consent is a gross misdemeanor carrying up to 364 days in jail.
Washington has one of the strictest recording consent laws in the country. Under RCW 9.73.030, recording a private conversation requires the consent of every person involved. This all-party consent requirement creates significant legal risk for Ring doorbell owners, because these devices record audio by default. A Ring doorbell capturing a conversation on your front porch without everyone's consent could expose you to criminal charges.
This is not a theoretical concern. Washington courts take recording violations seriously, and the penalties include both criminal prosecution and civil lawsuits. This guide provides a detailed analysis of how Washington's privacy laws apply to Ring doorbells, with specific attention to the audio recording risks that make Washington a high-risk state for doorbell camera owners.
Audio Recording Laws and Ring Doorbells
Washington's all-party consent law is the central legal issue for Ring doorbell owners. The distinction between legal and illegal recording in Washington often comes down to a single factor: audio.
Washington's All-Party Consent Rule (RCW 9.73.030)
RCW 9.73.030 makes it unlawful to intercept, record, or divulge any private communication or private conversation without first obtaining the consent of all participants. Unlike one-party consent states where only one person in a conversation needs to agree, Washington requires everyone to consent before any recording begins.
For Ring doorbell owners, this means the device's default audio recording feature is a legal liability. If a delivery driver has a phone conversation on your porch, if two neighbors chat near your front door, or if a visitor speaks to a companion while approaching your home, your Ring doorbell may be recording a private conversation without anyone's consent.
The statute specifically covers communications intercepted by "any device electronic or otherwise designed to record or transmit such conversation." A Ring doorbell with audio enabled fits squarely within this definition.
What Counts as a "Private Conversation"
The critical question for Ring doorbell owners is whether conversations captured near a front door qualify as "private" under RCW 9.73.030. Washington courts have interpreted "private conversation" to mean a conversation that the parties reasonably expect to be free from recording or interception.
Conversations on a public sidewalk where participants are speaking loudly enough for passersby to hear may not qualify as private. But a hushed conversation between two people standing on your porch, or a phone call made while waiting at your door, likely carries a reasonable expectation of privacy.
No Washington court has established a bright-line rule for Ring doorbells specifically. The safest legal position treats any conversation captured by your device as potentially private and takes steps to ensure consent.
How to Establish Consent in Washington
RCW 9.73.030(3) specifies that consent is obtained when one party "has announced to all other parties engaged in the communication or conversation, in any reasonably effective manner, that such communication or conversation is about to be recorded or transmitted: PROVIDED, That if the conversation is to be recorded that said announcement shall also be recorded."
That proviso is the part most Ring owners miss. When the conversation is being recorded, the announcement has to be captured in the recording too.
A posted sign is not a recorded announcement, so signage on its own cannot satisfy subsection (3). A sign stating "Audio and Video Recording in Progress" near your Ring doorbell still puts visitors on notice, and it may support an argument that a conversation held in front of it was not private to begin with, but treat it as a supporting measure rather than as statutory consent.
Ring's two-way talk feature comes closer to what the statute describes. If you answer a Ring notification and say that the conversation is being recorded while the device is recording, the announcement is captured in the recording itself, which is what the proviso calls for. That helps only for the part of the conversation after the announcement, and it does nothing for audio the doorbell captured before you answered.
Exceptions to the All-Party Consent Rule
RCW 9.73.030 includes limited exceptions where one-party consent is sufficient:
- Communications of an emergency nature, such as reporting a fire, medical emergency, crime, or disaster
- Communications that convey threats of extortion, blackmail, bodily harm, or other unlawful requests
- Communications that occur anonymously or repeatedly or at an extremely inconvenient hour
- Communications by a hostage holder or barricaded person
These exceptions are narrow. A package thief caught on your Ring doorbell would not automatically trigger the emergency exception unless the theft was being reported to police in real time.
The Building Owner Exception (RCW 9.73.110)
RCW 9.73.110 provides a narrow exception for property owners. It is not unlawful for the owner of a building (or their agent) to intercept, record, or disclose communications or conversations "which occur within such building" if the persons involved "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."
The words that matter for doorbell cameras are "within such building." A Ring doorbell is mounted outside and points at the porch, the walkway, and often the street, and conversations in those places do not occur within the building. The statute borrows the definition of "building" from RCW 9A.04.110(5), which reaches a dwelling or a fenced area, so audio from inside the home or from within a fenced yard can qualify while audio from an open front step does not.
In practice this exception rarely covers what a doorbell camera actually records. It does not make it lawful to record audio of a trespasser or a package thief standing on your porch, and it never applies to lawful visitors.
Video Recording Laws and Ring Doorbells
Washington treats video recording differently from audio recording, and Ring doorbell owners benefit from this distinction.
Legal Video Surveillance
Washington has no statute broadly prohibiting video-only surveillance of public areas from private property. Recording video of your porch, driveway, walkway, and the public street is legal. Ring doorbells with audio disabled function as standard video surveillance cameras and face minimal legal restrictions when pointed at areas without a reasonable expectation of privacy.
Voyeurism Statute (RCW 9A.44.115)
RCW 9A.44.115 makes it voyeurism in the first degree, a Class C felony, to knowingly view, photograph, or film another person without their knowledge and consent in a place where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy, or to film a person's intimate areas under such circumstances, when done for the purpose of arousing or gratifying the sexual desire of any person. Voyeurism in the second degree, a gross misdemeanor, covers intentionally filming a person's intimate areas without knowledge and consent, where privacy is reasonably expected, with intent to distribute or disseminate the images.
For Ring doorbell owners, this statute reinforces the importance of camera positioning. A doorbell camera angled to look through a neighbor's window, into a bathroom, or into any area where someone would reasonably expect privacy could support voyeurism charges if the footage is taken for one of those purposes. Keep your Ring doorbell pointed at your own property and public areas.
Recording Restrictions on Private Areas
Even though outdoor video surveillance is broadly legal, recording into private spaces carries real risk. Recording into a neighbor's home through windows, recording fenced backyard areas that are not visible from public spaces, or recording areas where people undress can become criminal voyeurism when it is done for a sexual purpose or to capture and distribute images of intimate areas, and it invites disputes with neighbors even when no crime is charged.
HOA Rules and Ring Doorbells
Washington homeowners associations can add another layer of regulation to Ring doorbell use.
HOA Authority Under Washington Law
Washington HOAs operate under the Homeowners' Associations Act (RCW 64.38) or the Washington Uniform Common Interest Ownership Act (RCW 64.90) depending on when the community was established. Both statutes grant associations the power to adopt rules governing the use and appearance of properties within the community.
HOA restrictions on Ring doorbells may include requiring approval from an architectural review committee, specifying acceptable colors or mounting locations, limiting camera angles that record common areas, and requiring signage to notify residents and guests of recording.
Compliance with State Recording Laws
HOA rules cannot authorize recordings that violate RCW 9.73.030. Even if your HOA permits Ring doorbells, the all-party consent requirement for audio recording still applies. Similarly, an HOA cannot prohibit a homeowner from complying with state law by posting required recording notices.
Some Washington HOAs have adopted specific policies addressing doorbell cameras, including requirements for audio to be disabled and signage to be posted. Review your community's CC&Rs and any supplemental rules before installation.
Landlord and Tenant Rights
Washington renters face unique challenges with Ring doorbell installation due to the intersection of landlord-tenant law and recording consent requirements.
Tenant Installation Rights
The Washington Residential Landlord-Tenant Act (RCW 59.18) governs the landlord-tenant relationship. Tenants have the right to peaceful enjoyment of their rental property, which includes reasonable security measures.
Non-invasive Ring doorbell models (battery-powered, adhesive mount) that do not damage the property typically do not require landlord approval. These devices can be removed without leaving marks or holes, making them suitable for rental properties.
Hardwired Ring installations or those requiring drilling into door frames constitute alterations to the property. Tenants should obtain written landlord consent before making physical modifications. Washington landlords can require tenants to restore the property to its original condition upon move-out, and unauthorized modifications could result in deductions from the security deposit.
Landlord Surveillance Restrictions
Washington landlords who install Ring doorbells on their own rental properties face strict limits. Under RCW 59.18.150, landlords must provide at least two days' notice before entering a rental unit (except in emergencies). A Ring doorbell that continuously records tenants' comings and goings could raise privacy concerns, particularly regarding audio recording under RCW 9.73.030.
Landlords who use Ring doorbells to monitor tenant activity without consent risk both criminal liability under the privacy statute and potential claims of harassment or interference with quiet enjoyment.
Common Area Recordings
Tenants in apartment buildings cannot install Ring doorbells in common areas (hallways, lobbies, building entrances) without property management approval. These areas are controlled by the landlord or property management company.
Law Enforcement Access to Ring Footage
Washington has specific protections governing law enforcement access to private recordings.
Voluntary Sharing
Ring doorbell owners can voluntarily share footage with Washington law enforcement. Police frequently request Ring footage during investigations, particularly for property crimes, package theft, and neighborhood safety incidents. You have no obligation to share footage in response to a voluntary request.
Legal Process Requirements
If you decline a voluntary request, Washington law enforcement can obtain Ring footage through a search warrant based on probable cause, a court order, or a subpoena. Amazon Ring requires valid legal process before disclosing customer footage to law enforcement, per their published information request guidelines as of 2026.
Admissibility Concerns
RCW 9.73.050 provides that any information obtained in violation of RCW 9.73.030 is inadmissible in any civil or criminal case in all courts. This means Ring doorbell audio recorded without all-party consent cannot be used as evidence in Washington courts, even if it captures criminal activity. Video-only footage recorded in public areas remains admissible.
This admissibility rule creates a paradox for Ring doorbell owners in Washington. Even if your Ring doorbell captures audio of a crime in progress, that audio may be excluded from court proceedings if consent was not obtained. Video footage from the same recording, however, can still be used.
Facial Recognition Restrictions
Washington has enacted restrictions on facial recognition technology under RCW 43.386.080. Law enforcement cannot use facial recognition results as the sole basis for establishing probable cause. This is relevant because Ring has faced scrutiny over its facial recognition capabilities and data sharing with law enforcement.
Penalties for Illegal Recording in Washington
Washington imposes both criminal and civil penalties for recording violations, making it one of the most consequential states for Ring doorbell non-compliance.
| Violation | Statute | Classification | Potential Penalty |
|---|---|---|---|
| Recording private conversation without all-party consent | RCW 9.73.030 | Gross Misdemeanor | Up to 364 days jail and $5,000 fine |
| Voyeurism in the first degree | RCW 9A.44.115 | Class C Felony | Up to 5 years prison and $10,000 fine |
| Voyeurism in the second degree | RCW 9A.44.115 | Gross Misdemeanor | Up to 364 days jail and $5,000 fine |
Civil Liability
Beyond criminal penalties, RCW 9.73.060 allows a person injured in their business, person, or reputation to sue for damages. The statute is written in the alternative. An injured person is entitled to actual damages, including mental pain and suffering, "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." Actual damages and liquidated damages are alternatives rather than a combined total, though a reasonable attorney's fee and costs are recoverable on top.
The $1,000 ceiling matters. For a Ring doorbell that has been recording audio without consent for months, the daily figure stops adding up after ten days, so the liquidated route is capped no matter how long the recording ran. A plaintiff with substantial provable harm would pursue actual damages instead, which carry no statutory cap, and the attorney fee award is often the larger number either way.
Evidence Exclusion
Under RCW 9.73.050, recordings obtained in violation of the privacy statute are inadmissible in court. This applies to both criminal and civil proceedings, meaning illegally recorded Ring doorbell audio cannot be used as evidence regardless of what it captures.
How to Use a Ring Doorbell Legally in Washington
Washington's all-party consent requirement demands more careful setup than most states. Following these steps reduces legal risk.
Disable audio recording. The single most effective step for Washington Ring doorbell owners is turning off audio recording in the Ring app settings. This eliminates the primary legal risk under RCW 9.73.030 while preserving full video functionality.
Post visible signage if you keep audio enabled, but do not rely on it. If you choose to keep audio recording active, post clear signs at all entry points stating "Audio and Video Surveillance in Use" or similar language, positioned where visitors will see them before reaching the doorbell's recording range. Signage is evidence that visitors were notified, but a sign is not a recorded announcement, so it does not by itself meet the consent test in RCW 9.73.030(3).
Use the two-way talk feature to announce recording. When you answer a Ring notification and speak to a visitor, state that the conversation is being recorded. Under RCW 9.73.030(3) an announcement made "in any reasonably effective manner" can establish consent, but only if the announcement is itself recorded, so make it while the device is recording and before the conversation goes further.
Position the camera to face your property and public areas. Point your Ring doorbell toward your porch, walkway, driveway, and the street. Avoid angles that capture the interior of neighboring homes or private outdoor spaces (fenced yards, patios).
Check your HOA rules before installation. Review your CC&Rs and any supplemental rules about exterior devices, cameras, and recording. Some Washington HOAs have adopted specific doorbell camera policies.
Get landlord approval for hardwired installations. Battery-powered Ring models typically do not require permission. Any installation requiring drilling or wiring modifications needs written landlord consent.
Understand the evidence limitations. Audio recorded without all-party consent is inadmissible in Washington courts. If your primary goal is capturing evidence for law enforcement, video-only recording provides admissible evidence without the consent complications.
Do not count on the building owner exception. RCW 9.73.110 reaches only conversations occurring within the building (a term that includes a dwelling or a fenced area) by people engaged in a criminal act through unlawful entry. Audio your doorbell captures on an open porch, walkway, or street sits outside it, and it never covers lawful visitors.
More Washington Laws
Washington has specific laws covering many areas beyond doorbell cameras. These related guides provide additional detail:
- Washington Recording Laws cover the full scope of Washington's all-party consent framework and privacy statutes.
- Washington Hit and Run Laws explain reporting requirements and penalties for leaving the scene of an accident.
- Washington Lemon Law covers your rights when purchasing a defective vehicle.
This article provides general legal information about Washington Ring doorbell laws and is not legal advice. Laws change, and their application depends on specific circumstances. Consult an attorney for advice specific to your situation. Information is current as of April 2026.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is it legal to use a Ring doorbell in Washington state?
Ring doorbells are legal in Washington, but their default audio recording feature creates significant legal risk. Washington requires all-party consent for audio recording under RCW 9.73.030. The safest approach is to disable audio recording in the Ring app, because an announcement counts as consent under RCW 9.73.030(3) only if the announcement is itself recorded, and a posted sign is not.
Can I record audio with my Ring doorbell in Washington?
Only if every person being recorded has consented. Washington's all-party consent law (RCW 9.73.030) requires consent from all participants in a private conversation before recording. Subsection (3) lets a recorded announcement stand in for consent, but a posted sign is not a recorded announcement and does not satisfy it on its own. Disabling audio is the most legally safe option.
What happens if my Ring doorbell records someone without consent in Washington?
Recording a private conversation without all-party consent is a gross misdemeanor under RCW 9.73.030, punishable by up to 364 days in jail and a $5,000 fine. The recorded person can also sue under RCW 9.73.060 for either actual damages or liquidated damages of $100 per day of violation capped at $1,000, plus a reasonable attorney's fee and costs. The recording is also inadmissible as evidence in court.
Does my Ring doorbell footage count as evidence in Washington courts?
Video-only footage recorded in public-facing areas is generally admissible. Audio recordings made without all-party consent are inadmissible under RCW 9.73.050. This exclusion rule applies to both criminal and civil cases, so illegally recorded audio cannot be used even if it captures evidence of a crime.
Can Washington police get my Ring doorbell footage without my permission?
You can decline voluntary requests from police. If they want your footage and you refuse, they can obtain it through a search warrant, court order, or subpoena. Amazon Ring requires valid legal process before disclosing customer data to law enforcement. Footage obtained in violation of Washington's privacy laws may be excluded from court proceedings.
Updates
Corrected our description of Washington's voyeurism statute (RCW 9A.44.115) to include the sexual-purpose and intent-to-distribute elements each degree requires.
Corrected three statutory descriptions: the RCW 9.73.110 building-owner exception covers only conversations occurring within the building, not anywhere on the property; RCW 9.73.060 allows actual damages or liquidated damages of $100 a day capped at $1,000, not both; and RCW 9.73.030(3) treats an announcement as consent only where the announcement is itself recorded, so posted signage alone does not comply.
Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources; governing law re-checked for recent changes
Governing law re-checked for recent changes
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 46 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 2026-09-24 · 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.
Also relied on in: US Recording Laws by State (2026): All 50 States Explained, Washington Recording Laws (2026): All-Party Consent Rules, Federal Wiretap Act and ECPA: The Complete Guide (2026)
§ 9.73.080Penalties.In forcecited in 17 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.
Also relied on in: Washington Audio Recording Laws: Two-Party Consent Rules and Penalties (2026), Washington Dashcam Laws: Mounting Rules, Audio Recording, and Evidence (2026), Washington Phone Call Recording Laws: Consent Rules and Exceptions (2026)
§ 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.
Also relied on in: Washington Landlord-Tenant Recording and Surveillance Laws (2026), Washington Medical Recording Laws: Recording Doctors, Hospitals, and Telehealth (2026), Washington Laws on Recording in Public: What Is Legal and What Is Not (2026)
§ 9.73.050Admissibility of intercepted communication in evidence.In forcecited in 13 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.
Also relied on in: Washington Workplace Recording Laws: Employee Rights and Employer Rules (2026), Washington Smart Glasses Recording Laws (2026), Washington Surveillance Camera Laws (2026 Guide)
§ 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
Also relied on in: Washington Security Camera Laws: Rules for Home and Business Surveillance (2026), Washington Video Recording Laws: Filming, Surveillance, and Consent Rules (2026)
§ 9A.44.115Voyeurism.In forcecited in 6 of our articles
(1) As used in this section: (a) "Intimate areas" means any portion of a person's body or undergarments that is covered by clothing and intended to be protected from public view; (b) "Photographs" or "films" means the making of a photograph, motion picture film, videotape, digital image, or any other recording or transmission of the image of a person; (c) "Place where he or she would have a reasonable expectation of privacy" means: (i) A place where a reasonable person would believe that he or she could disrobe in privacy, without being concerned that his or her undressing was being photographed or filmed by another; or (ii) A place where one may reasonably expect to be safe from casual or hostile intrusion or surveillance; (d) "Surveillance" means secret observation of the activities of another person for the purpose of spying upon and invading the privacy of the person; (e) "Views" means the intentional looking upon of another person for more than a brief period of time, in other than a casual or cursory manner, with the unaided eye or with a device designed or intended to improve visual acuity.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-31 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at app.leg.wa.gov
Cited in 33 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- State v. Stevenson (Court of Appeals of Washington 2005, 128 Wash. App. 179)“…of voyeurism (domestic violence). On appeal, he challenges RCW 9A.44.115 as unconstitutionally vague and overbro…”
- State v. Glas (Washington Supreme Court 2002, 147 Wash. 2d 410)“…Sorrells each contend that Washington's voyeurism statute, RCW 9A.44.115, does not apply to their actions becaus…”
- State v. Boyd (Court of Appeals of Washington 2007, 137 Wash. App. 910)“…where a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy. 1 RCW 9A.44.115(2)(b) provides, A person commits the…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Washington Voyeurism and Hidden Camera Laws: Penalties and Protections (2026), Washington Drone Laws: Voyeurism, Warrants & Penalties, Washington Employee Monitoring Laws: Biometric Privacy, Social Media, and Surveillance (2026)
§ 59.18.150Landlord's right of entry—Purposes—Searches by fire officials—Searches by code enforcement officials for inspection purposes—Conditions.In forcecited in 3 of our articles
(1) The tenant shall not unreasonably withhold consent to the landlord to enter into the dwelling unit in order to inspect the premises, make necessary or agreed repairs, alterations, or improvements, supply necessary or agreed services, or exhibit the dwelling unit to prospective or actual purchasers, mortgagees, tenants, workers, or contractors. (2) Upon written notice of intent to seek a search warrant, when a tenant or landlord denies a fire official the right to search a dwelling unit, a fire official may immediately seek a search warrant and, upon a showing of probable cause specific to the dwelling unit sought to be searched that criminal fire code violations exist in the dwelling unit, a court of competent jurisdiction shall issue a warrant allowing a search of the dwelling unit.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at app.leg.wa.gov
Cited in 17 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2023
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Kalmas v. Wagner (Washington Supreme Court 1997, 133 Wash. 2d 210)“…o refuse entry, so Russi prepared a "Notice of Violation of RCW 59.18.150Denial of Entry" form. Meanwhile, Kyr…”
- City of Pasco v. Shaw (Washington Supreme Court 2007, 161 Wash. 2d 450)“…consent of the tenant,” with exceptions not relevant to us. RCW 59.18.150(6). Thus, any inspection of an occupied…”
- State v. Roberts (Court of Appeals of Washington 1996, 80 Wash. App. 342)“…grow operation in the subleased premises. See RCW 59.18.150 (severely restricting a landlord’s righ…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Washington Landlord-Tenant Laws (2026): Deposits, Rent Cap, and Tenant Rights
§ 43.386.080Use for surveillance, real-time identification, or persistent tracking—When permitted—Restrictions on law enforcement use.In force
(1) A state or local government agency may not use a facial recognition service to engage in ongoing surveillance, conduct real-time or near real-time identification, or start persistent tracking unless: (a) A warrant is obtained authorizing the use of the service for those purposes; (b) Exigent circumstances exist; or (c) A court order is obtained authorizing the use of the service for the sole purpose of locating or identifying a missing person, or identifying a deceased person. A court may issue an ex parte order under this subsection (1)(c) if a law enforcement officer certifies and the court finds that the information likely to be obtained is relevant to locating or identifying a missing person, or identifying a deceased person. (2) A state or local government agency may not apply a facial recognition service to any individual based on their religious, political, or social views or activities, participation in a particular noncriminal organization or lawful event, or actual or perceived race, ethnicity, citizenship, place of origin, immigration status, age, disability, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, or other characteristic protected by law.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at app.leg.wa.gov
§ 9A.20.021Maximum sentences for crimes committed July 1, 1984, and after.In forcecited in 6 of our articles
(1) Felony. Unless a different maximum sentence for a classified felony is specifically established by a statute of this state, no person convicted of a classified felony shall be punished by confinement or fine exceeding the following: (a) For a class A felony, by confinement in a state correctional institution for a term of life imprisonment, or by a fine in an amount fixed by the court of fifty thousand dollars, or by both such confinement and fine; (b) For a class B felony, by confinement in a state correctional institution for a term of ten years, or by a fine in an amount fixed by the court of twenty thousand dollars, or by both such confinement and fine; (c) For a class C felony, by confinement in a state correctional institution for five years, or by a fine in an amount fixed by the court of ten thousand dollars, or by both such confinement and fine. (2) 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 505 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- State v. Manussier (Washington Supreme Court 1996, 129 Wash. 2d 652)“…93 violates this constitutional provision because it amends RCW 9A.20.021, the section of the criminal code provi…”
- State v. Ritchie (Washington Supreme Court 1995, 126 Wash. 2d 388)“…tence for this class A felony offense is life imprisonment. RCW 9A.20.021(1)(a). The trial court imposed an excep…”
- State v. Anderson (Washington Supreme Court 2000, 141 Wash. 2d 357)“…t a *1252 maximum term of five years' imprisonment ( see RCW 9A.20.021) is clearly a factor that weighs in fav…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Washington Hit and Run Laws: Penalties and What to Do, Washington Dog Bite Laws: Liability and Victim Rights, Washington GPS Tracking Laws: Is It Legal to Put a Tracker on a Car? (2026)
Explore the law
This article also draws on these acts and chapters (opening at their first section): Revised Code of Washington § 9.73.010 (Divulging telegram.)
Related law for further reading — not part of this article’s citations.
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 communication; consent required(app.leg.wa.gov).gov
- RCW 9.73.050 - Admissibility of recordings in court(app.leg.wa.gov).gov
- RCW 9.73.060 - Civil action for damages from privacy violations(app.leg.wa.gov).gov
- RCW 9.73.080 - Penalties for privacy violations(app.leg.wa.gov).gov
- RCW 9.73.110 - Building owner exception for recording during criminal acts(app.leg.wa.gov).gov
- RCW 9A.44.115 - Voyeurism statute(app.leg.wa.gov).gov
- RCW 9A.20.021 - Maximum sentences for gross misdemeanors(app.leg.wa.gov).gov
- RCW 64.38 - Washington Homeowners Associations Act(app.leg.wa.gov).gov
- RCW 59.18 - Washington Residential Landlord-Tenant Act(app.leg.wa.gov).gov
- RCW 43.386.080 - Facial recognition restrictions for law enforcement(app.leg.wa.gov).gov
- Chapter 9.73 RCW - Privacy, Violating Right Of (full chapter)(app.leg.wa.gov).gov
- FTC Settlement with Ring LLC - Privacy and security violations(ftc.gov).gov
- Ring Law Enforcement Information Request Guidelines(ring.com)
- RCW 9A.04.110(5) - Definition of "building" incorporated by RCW 9.73.110(app.leg.wa.gov)