Washington is one of the few states with an all-party consent law for recording communications. Under RCW 9.73.030, it is generally illegal to record or intercept private conversations or communications without the consent of everyone involved.
This law impacts not only individuals and businesses, but also journalists, law enforcement, and anyone using devices like smartphones or recording apps. Here’s what you need to know about this important privacy statute.
What RCW 9.73.030 Prohibits
RCW 9.73.030(1) makes it a crime to intercept, record, or transmit:
- Private communications transmitted by telephone, telegraph, radio, or other devices
- Private conversations between individuals
This includes in-person and electronic communications, regardless of whether the conversation takes place within or outside Washington.
The key element is privacy — if the participants reasonably expect the communication to be private, it cannot be recorded without their consent.
Consent Requirements: All Parties Must Agree
Unlike “one-party consent” states, Washington law requires all parties to a private communication or conversation to consent to its recording.
What counts as consent?
- Verbal or written agreement from all parties
- A clearly stated announcement that the conversation is being recorded (RCW 9.73.030(3))
- If the announcement is made, and the conversation continues, consent is presumed — but the announcement itself must also be recorded
Exceptions to the Rule
RCW 9.73.030(2) includes several exceptions allowing one-party consent in limited situations:
- Emergency communications, such as reporting a fire, medical emergency, or crime
- Threats involving extortion, blackmail, or bodily harm
- Anonymous, harassing, or inconvenient calls
- Hostage or barricade situations under RCW 70.85.100
In these cases, only one party’s consent is needed to record the communication.
Special Rules for the Media
Journalists are granted some flexibility under RCW 9.73.030(4):
- Reporters for newspapers, TV, or radio may record if the device is obvious or express consent is given
- Consent cannot be withdrawn retroactively after the conversation has occurred
- These protections apply only during bona fide news-gathering activities
What About Law Enforcement?
RCW 9.73.030 does not apply to custodial interrogations recorded under RCW 10.122.040. That means police can record interviews with suspects in custody under separate guidelines.
For other surveillance or investigative recordings, law enforcement typically needs either a warrant or explicit statutory authority.
Penalties for Violating RCW 9.73.030
Violating Washington’s recording law is a gross misdemeanor, and any recordings made illegally may be inadmissible in court. Offenders may also face civil liability for damages, particularly in cases involving unauthorized distribution.
Practical Advice for Washington Residents
- Don’t record calls or conversations unless everyone involved has clearly agreed
- Use a recording disclosure statement if you record meetings or phone calls for business
- If you receive threatening or harassing calls, you may be able to record with your own consent only
- When in doubt, ask for consent in writing or verbally at the start — and record that part too
Call to Action
If you’re unsure whether you can legally record a conversation in Washington, or if you’ve been recorded without your consent, you may have legal options.
Contact Blanford Law today at ken@blanfordlaw.com or 253-720-9304 for guidance on your legal matter.

Additional Resources
- RCW 46.61.745: Cannabis Use in Vehicles
This article explains Washington’s prohibition on cannabis use in motor vehicles and the implications for drivers and passengers.
https://blanfordlaw.com/rcw-46-61-745-cannabis-vehicle/ - ER 614: Judicial Control of Witness Interrogation in Washington
Explore how Washington’s Evidence Rule 614 empowers judges to question witnesses and manage courtroom proceedings.
https://blanfordlaw.com/er-614-witness-interrogation/ - Herron v. King Broadcasting: Defamation and News Reporting in WA
Analyzes a Washington case balancing defamation claims with media protections under state and federal law.
https://blanfordlaw.com/herron-v-king-broadcasting/ - ER 903: Washington Rule on Authenticating Digital Evidence
Learn how Washington courts handle the authentication of digital and electronic evidence under ER 903.
https://blanfordlaw.com/er-903-washington-authentication/ - Johnson v. County of Kittitas: Public Duty Doctrine Explained
This case explores the limits of governmental liability under Washington’s public duty doctrine.
https://blanfordlaw.com/johnson-v-county-of-kittitas/