In Washington State, the admissibility of intercepted communication in court is governed by RCW 9.73.050. This statute is part of the broader state wiretapping and surveillance chapter designed to protect privacy rights. It strictly controls whether evidence obtained through intercepted communications can be used in legal proceedings. Understanding this rule is essential for anyone facing litigation where such evidence might arise, including civil lawsuits and criminal prosecutions.
What Is RCW 9.73.050?
Under RCW 9.73.050, any evidence that results from the interception of a communication in violation of Washington law—specifically RCW 9.73.030 and related provisions—is generally not admissible in court.
The statute states:
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 under limited circumstances.
This rule protects individuals’ privacy by ensuring that unlawfully intercepted communications cannot be used to secure a conviction or civil judgment.
When Is Intercepted Communication Inadmissible?
Violations of RCW 9.73.030
RCW 9.73.030 makes it illegal to intercept or record private communications without the consent of all parties, unless an exception applies. Any information gathered in violation of this rule is generally inadmissible under RCW 9.73.050.
This means that if law enforcement, private investigators, or even individuals record or intercept a conversation without proper legal authority or consent, that evidence typically cannot be used against someone in court.
Exceptions to the Rule
1. Permission from the Person Whose Rights Were Violated
One key exception is if the person whose rights were violated gives permission for the information to be used in a damages action brought under the same statute. In other words, if someone sues for an unlawful wiretap and then agrees to allow the intercepted data to be introduced as evidence, it may become admissible.
2. National Security Criminal Cases
Another narrow exception applies to criminal cases involving charges “the commission of which would jeopardize national security.” In these rare circumstances, even improperly obtained communication may be admissible if national security is at risk. Washington courts interpret this narrowly and only in extreme cases consistent with constitutional protections.
Why This Rule Matters in Washington Law
Protecting Privacy Rights
Washington is a two‑party consent state, meaning all parties to a private communication must generally agree before it can be recorded or intercepted. The admissibility rule in RCW 9.73.050 reinforces this privacy protection.
In practical terms, this statute:
- Discourages unlawful surveillance or recordings,
- Helps ensure evidence is obtained legally and ethically,
- Protects litigants from surprise use of illegally obtained material.
Impact in Criminal and Civil Cases
Whether you’re facing a criminal charge or involved in civil litigation, how evidence is obtained matters. Evidence that violates privacy laws won’t help your adversary unless a strict exception applies.
For defendants, this may be a powerful basis to have evidence suppressed. For plaintiffs alleging illegal wiretapping, RCW 9.73.050 affects both the admissibility of evidence and potential damages.
What This Means for You
If your case involves intercepted communications—whether email, text messages, phone calls, or other electronic data—you need skilled legal guidance. The rules about admissibility of this evidence are complex and based on both statutory requirements and court precedent.
Call to Action
Contact Blanford Law today at ken@blanfordlaw.com or 253‑720‑9304 for guidance on how RCW 9.73.050 and related privacy statutes may impact your legal matter.
Additional Resources
Related articles offering deeper insight into Washington legal issues connected to intercepted communications and evidence admissibility:
- Carrying on Vehicle Exterior – RCW 46.61.660 WA Law — Explains Washington’s statute prohibiting transporting people or animals on the outside of a vehicle, including exceptions and legal consequences.
🔗 https://blanfordlaw.com/carrying-persons-animals-vehicle-exterior-washington/ Blanford Law - Understanding RCW 9.73.030: Intercepting, Recording, or Divulging Private Communication — Breaks down the core privacy law that defines unlawful interception and recording of private conversations in Washington.
🔗 https://blanfordlaw.com/understanding-rcw-9-73-030-intercepting-recording-or-divulging-private-communication/ Blanford Law - Bellevue v. Lightfoot: The Importance of Authenticating Radar Evidence — Discusses a Washington appellate case emphasizing that radar evidence must be properly authenticated before being admitted in court.
🔗 https://blanfordlaw.com/bellevue-v-lightfoot-the-importance-of-authenticating-radar-evidence/ Blanford Law - Understanding RCW 9.73.010: Divulging Telegram in Washington Law — Reviews an older Washington statute protecting the confidentiality of telegrams and how historic privacy laws still reflect modern privacy principles.
🔗 https://blanfordlaw.com/divulging-telegram-law/ Blanford Law - Spousal Immunity in Washington State: An Overview of RCW 5.60.060(1) — Summarizes how Washington law limits compelling spouses to testify against each other while outlining key exceptions.
🔗 https://blanfordlaw.com/spousal-immunity-in-washington-state-an-overview-of-rcw-5-60-0601/