Seattle and Washington State
Theft Attorney

Don't let a Seattle or Washington State arrest for a crime of dishonesty ruin your chances for future employment.

Offices: Seattle - Tacoma - Everett

Charged with theft in Washington State?

Talk to lawyer now.

Call now for a free consultation.

(206) 624-9605

(425) 455-4646

(253) 852-8989

Don't let an arrest or charge of Theft ruin your future employment options.

There are many levels of theft or "shoplifting" under the Washington's criminal laws. In general, however, the level of theft is typically defined by the value of the currency or items alleged to have been stolen.

A conviction for a crime of dishonesty can have very serious repercussions for someone with regard to future employment. There are many ways to try and resolve theft cases, particularly first offenses, to try and ensure that a person does not end up with a criminal conviction. This is always our primary goal when assisting individuals charges with theft.

Theft in Washington State

In general, a person commits theft in Washington state when he “wrongfully obtains or exerts unauthorized control” over another’s property with the intent to deprive the owner of such property.

RCW 9A.56.020 (a)(emphasis added). Or obtains control over the property by color or aid of deception with the intent to deprive the owner of such property. RCW 9A.56.020 (b)(emphasis added). Theft in the third degree, which is the most common charge here in Seattle and throughout WA state, is theft of property whose value does not exceeds $250.00. RCW 9A.56.050(1). Therefore, to commit theft in the third degree a person has to wrongfully obtain property in an amount not greater than $250.00. Further, it is the burden of the state to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the defendant had the intent to commit theft. State v. Hicks, 102 Wn. 2d 182, 187, 683 P.2d 186, 189 (1984).

A person acts with “intent” when she acts with the objective or purpose to accomplish a resulting constituting a crime. RCW 9A.08.010(1)(a). Specific intent may be inferred from the defendant’s conduct where it is “plainly indicated as a matter of logical probability.”