Other LanguagesA district justice court has the authority, under RCW 6.32.010 and 6.32.015, to order examination of judgment debtors personally or by written interrogatories.
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.
1. !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 Where a city or town has repealed a portion of its municipal code, defining a crime or crimes equivalent to offenses listed in RCW 46.63.020, but has not reached agreement with the county for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.
(1) Under the provisions of § 6, chapter 8, Laws of 1982, 1st Ex. Sess., the Administrator for the Courts is required, in 1983, to compile a report covering crime victims' compensation penalty assessments paid, or due, during calendar year 1982.(2) A crime victims' compensation penalty assessment is to be paid pursuant to RCW 7.68.035(3), as amended by chapter 8, Laws of 1982, 1st Ex. Sess., upon forfeiture of bail where the offense with which the defendant was charged is either (a) a crime defined by state law which is punishable, thereunder, as a felony or a gross misdemeanor, or (b) a crime defined by a city ordinance which is punishable thereunder as a gross misdemeanor and which, in addition, covers conduct which is the same, or substantially the same, as conduct which is defined to be criminal by state law.(3) A crime victims' compensation penalty assessment is to be imposed under RCW 7.68.035(1), as amended, when an accused individual is found guilty of having committed any crime defined by either a state statute or a county or city ordinance, including ordinary misdemeanors, with the exception of those motor vehicle crimes expressly referred to in subsection (2) of the statute, whether defined by state statute or by a substantially similar municipal ordinance.(4) The penalty assessment provided for by RCW 7.68.035(1), as amended, is applicable in the case of a conviction, on or after March 27, 1982, of a crime committed prior to the date.(5) If a person is found guilty of a number of separate counts contained in the same criminal information, each of which represents a separate and distinct crime, a penalty assessment is to be imposed under RCW 7.68.035(1), as amended, on the basis of each such count.(6) A crime victims' compensation penalty assessment is not to be imposed, under RCW 7.68.035, as amended, on an alleged juvenile offender who has undergone diversion proceedings pursuant to chapter 13.40 RCW.
Where a district justice court imposes a fine and then suspends a portion of that fine pursuant to RCW 3.62.010 and/or RCW 3.66.086 [3.66.068], the public safety and education assessment provided for in RCW 3.62.090 is only to be based upon the portion of the fine which is not suspended.
The sentencing procedure for murder in the first degree set forth in RCW 9A.32.040(2) does not apply so as to permit a person to be sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole upon a plea of guilty to first degree murder with an aggravating circumstance.
Although a city which has established a department of a district justice court under chapter 3.46 RCW is required by RCW 3.46.090 to pay all or a portion of the district judge's salary, such city is not required to pay any portion of the county's terminal leave benefits to the judge upon his retirement.
It is not legally necessary, in order for a previously married woman to change her last name following a dissolution of marriage, for her to seek and obtain a court order so changing her name pursuant to RCW 4.24.130 or RCW 26.09.150.
1. The phrase "cost of providing courtroom or other space" as used in RCW 3.62.050 does not include the cost of providing all of the items enumerated in RCW 3.58.050. 2. Same : RCW 3.62.050 does not expressly or by necessary implication distinguish between the cost of space provided in county facilities and space provided by contract elsewhere. 3. In computing the cost of providing justice court facilities other than space, for the purpose of apportioning such cost among governmental units, a county may depreciate items which are classified as capital outlay and amortize its costs, (in accordance with a schedule prescribed by the state auditor (RCW 43.09.200)) so as to be reimbursed over a period of time.
1.The 1985 amendments to chapter 2.42 RCW, codified as RCW 2.42.110 through .180 [2.42.180], relate only to interpreter services for the hearing impaired.2.The pre‑1985 portions of chapter 2.42 RCW, codified as RCW 2.42.010 through 2.42.050, apply only to interpreter services for persons with speech defects or non-English speaking cultural backgrounds, except that RCW 2.42.050 applies also to interpreter services for the hearing impaired.3.With respect to criminal proceedings, the government whose officer is responsible for initiating the proceeding, usually the county, is responsible for the cost of providing the interpreter as defined in RCW 2.42.040.