Other Languages1. !ih*If a city or town police officer arrests a person for a misdemeanor or gross misdemeanor violation of state law within the city or town limits and delivers that person to county authorities for prosecution, the county has no authority to charge the city or town for booking, jailing, or prosecution of the person, unless the city or town has agreed by contract to assume some of those costs.2. The Court Improvement Act of 1984 (Laws of 1984, Chapter 258) does not require cities and towns to agree to reimburse counties for costs of booking, jailing, or prosecution where the city or town chooses to charge persons for violations of state law, even where the city or town could have chosen to prosecute for parallel violations of city or town ordinance.3. Where a city or town has repealed a portion of its municipal code, defining a crime or crimes equivalent to offenses listed in RCW 46.63.020, but has not reached agreement with the county for apportionment of costs associated with those offenses, the county may not unilaterally assess costs against the city or town. The county may bring court action to force the city or town to meet its obligations under the Court Improvement Act of 1984 (Laws of 1984, Chapter 258), and may be entitled in appropriate cases to recoup portions of costs incurred since the effective date of the Act.
The only positions which are outside the classified civil service in the sheriff's office of a first, second or third class county are the positions of sheriff and three principal positions comparable to undersheriff, a chief criminal deputy and a chief civil deputy; accordingly, the sheriff of such a county may not fill the position of jailer or head jailer by appointment outside the classified civil service except to the extent that he may designate himself, or his undersheriff, chief criminal deputy or chief civil deputy as jailer or head jailer.
1. RCW 46.83.050 provides when a court finds that a person has committed a traffic infraction, the person may be required to attend a traffic school as part of the sentence imposed or as a condition for suspension or deferral of the sentence. However, the court does not have the authority to defer making a finding that a traffic infraction has been committed and then order the person to attend traffic school as a condition of dismissing the charge. 2. RCW 46.63.151 provides no costs may be awarded to either party in a traffic infraction case, except for certain costs related to failure to provide proof of financial responsibility pursuant to RCW 46.30.020(2). A court cannot require the payment of costs as a condition of dismissing a traffic infraction charge. 3. If a court enters a finding that a person has committed a traffic infraction, RCW 46.20.270(2) requires the court to forward an abstract of that finding to the Department of Licensing. RCW 46.52.120(1) requires the Department to keep this record, and RCW 46.52.130 authorizes the Department to furnish this record to certain insurance carriers. If the court does not enter a finding that a traffic infraction has been committed, there is no requirement to furnish any information to the Department.
A county, including a county which has adopted a "home rule" charter under Article XI, § 4 (Amendment 21) of the Washington Constitution, does not have the authority, in the absence of some form of statutory authorization by the state legislature, to impose a county-wide business and occupation tax.
Chapter 90.70 RCW authorizes the Puget Sound Water Quality Authority to make recommendations regarding the protection of wetlands. However, chapter 90.70 RCW does not empower the Authority to set minimum standards for wetlands protection or to require local governments to adopt the Authority's recommendations.
1. A county lacks authority to require any agency of the United States to follow county policies or procedures in land use decisions or environmental regulation, except where Congress has specifically directed federal agencies to conform to local law. 2. A county lacks authority to require any agency of the State of Washington to follow county policies or procedures in land use or environmental regulation, except where state law, expressly or by necessary implication, requires state agencies to conform to county procedural or substantive requirements as to a particular agency decision.
The deduction from the measure of the business and occupation tax authorized by RCW 82.04.430(1) is applicable to a county which provides data processing services to other counties and cities in the manner discussed in AGLO 1975 No. 97 [[to Robert E. Schillberg, Prosecuting Attorney, Snohomish County on December 22, 1975, an Informal Opinion, AIR-75597]].
RCW 69.50.505(f)(1) provides that forfeited property may be retained for use by a law enforcement agency of the state. A coroner does not act as a law enforcement agency of the state. Therefore, a coroner is not entitled to use a motor vehicle forfeited pursuant to RCW 69.50.505(f)(1).
Where state forest land revenues are distributed to a county by the department of natural resources under the provisions of RCW 76.12.030 and 76.12.120, they are to be prorated and paid to the various taxing unit funds which would receive real property taxes from the state forest land producing the revenues if those lands were in private ownership, in the same manner that general taxes, including excess tax levies, are paid and distributed by the county, as tax collector, during the year of payment.
1. The term "tourist expansion" as used in RCW 67.28.210 refers to activities designed to increase tourism and tourist activity in a given geographical area. 2. RCW 67.28.210 does not generally permit counties or cities to use tax revenues generated thereunder for the production or resale of shirts containing the logo of an annual community event; however, the proviso added to the statute by Laws of 1995, Ch. 290, section 1 does permit the proceeds to be used for advertising and promotional materials, which might include promotional shirts, where the conditions set forth in the proviso are met. 3. RCW 67.28.210 governs the expenditure of revenues authorized by its language; RCW 35.21.700 is a more general statute covering expenditure by cities of other available revenues.