What Was RCW 69.50.4013?
RCW 69.50.4013 was the Washington statute making simple possession of a controlled substance illegal, punishable as a gross misdemeanor or felony depending on prior convictions. The statute did not require proof that a person knew they possessed the substance.
But in 2021, the Washington Supreme Court held that law violated due process because it imposed strict liability — meaning someone could be convicted even without awareness or intent regarding possession of drugs.
State v. Blake: The Case That Changed the Law
In State of Washington v. Blake, the Supreme Court confronted a situation where a person was found with drugs in their pocket and argued they did not know the drugs were there. The Court concluded criminalizing possession without any requirement of knowledge or intent was unconstitutional under both the state and federal due process clauses.
Under traditional criminal law principles, there must be both:
- Actus reus (a criminal act), and
- Mens rea (a guilty mind).
RCW 69.50.4013 lacked any mental element — meaning the state did not need to prove the defendant knew they possessed the drugs. The Court held this violated due process and struck the statute down as void.
Why the Court Struck It Down
The Court emphasized that laws criminalizing “wholly passive” or innocent conduct without a mens rea requirement can be unreasonable and arbitrary, thus violating due process protections. RCW 69.50.4013 made it illegal to “possess” controlled substances even if the person did not know they had them. The Court found this was too broad and unfair to enforce as a crime.
What Happened Next
After Blake:
- RCW 69.50.4013 was voided, meaning it no longer exists as written.
- Washington legislators later amended drug possession statutes to include scienter (a knowing possession requirement).
However, the Blake decision still affects people with prior convictions.
Impact on Convictions — Vacating Records
Because the statute was voided, individuals convicted under the unconstitutional law may be eligible to have those convictions vacated — meaning the conviction is legally set aside, as if it never occurred.
Vacating a conviction can:
- Remove the conviction from a criminal record
- Make a person eligible for refunds of court fines and fees paid on the conviction
- Improve opportunities for employment, housing, and other civil rights
Washington Courts and local prosecutors have been processing post‑conviction motions to vacate drug possession convictions affected by the Blake ruling.
Who Is Eligible
If your conviction was solely for simple possession under RCW 69.50.4013 before the Supreme Court’s ruling on February 25, 2021, you may be eligible to have that conviction vacated.
If you were convicted of additional charges alongside simple possession, your drug possession conviction alone may still be eligible for vacation. Eligibility is best assessed with legal counsel.
Why This Matters
The Washington Supreme Court’s ruling in Blake reaffirmed a fundamental principle of criminal law: you cannot be punished for conduct unless the law reasonably requires proof of a guilty mind. This decision reshaped Washington’s approach to simple possession cases and continues to have wide legal ramifications.
About Blanford Law:
We are no‑nonsense, relentless, fair, and honest. We are great listeners instead of fast talkers—that is just who we are. More than 20 years ago, Ken began practicing law with a deeply‑seeded belief that every person has the right to the best legal representation available. He built his law firm on that belief. Another belief that he strongly adheres to is his fundamental belief that clients deserve respect, with no assumptions or preconceived notions.
If you or someone you know is accused of a crime or injured as a result of the negligence of another, please have them call us at 253‑720‑9304 or email us info@blanfordlaw.com.
Additional Resources
- Understanding Washington Rule of Evidence 501: A Guide to Privilege in Legal Proceedings – Explains how privilege affects criminal and civil cases in Washington.
- Ensuring Justice for All: The Essential Role of Interpreters in Washington’s Legal System – Discusses interpreter roles in Washington courts.
- Interpreter Hearsay Rule in Washington – Reviews the treatment of interpreter statements under Washington’s hearsay rules.
- RCW 5.60.060: Public Officer Privilege – Covers statutory protections for official communications.
- RCW 7.75.050: Ensuring Confidentiality and Privileged Communications in Dispute Resolution Centers in Washington – Explains confidentiality protections in dispute resolution.