Other LanguagesCounties have the authority to define certain local offenses and to prescribe penalties for their commission including the imposition of specific costs. Subject to certain limitations, a county may include as a cost a multiple booking fee imposed on persons convicted of such county offenses and sentenced to serve time in the county jail on intermittent days. Such a multiple booking fee could offset the cost to the county of processing the individual in and out of jail.2. A county does not have the authority to impose a multiple booking fee on individuals serving time in the county jail on intermittent days who have been convicted of violating a state statute. The Legislature, rather than the county, specifies the punishment for state crimes including costs.
Except in the case of violations occurring between September 8, 1975 and July 1, 1976, to which RCW 10.19.130 applies, a person who fails to appear before a court after release on personal recognizance may not be charged with a crime under that statute; instead, the proper statute to be invoked in such cases is RCW 9A.76.170.
1.In light of RCW 69.50.412, which makes it a criminal violation to deliver drug paraphernalia, a regional AIDS service network established pursuant to RCW 70.24.400 may not lawfully authorize the distribution of hypodermic needles to intravenous drug users.2.To the extent a regional AIDS service network authorizes the distribution of hypodermic needles under the purported authority of chapter 70.24 RCW, the persons actually distributing the needles are not generally exempt from criminal prosecution; however, certain persons might be exempt in specific cases.
It remains a misdemeanor to deliver a pistol to a person who is under 21 years of age regardless of chapter 292, Laws of 1971, Ex. Sess.
Except where covered by a juvenile court order under § 1, chapter 170, Laws of 1975, 1st Ex. Sess., in the case of a juvenile in the custody of the department of social and health services who was not yet 18 when that law became effective, a juvenile who has been adjudged to be a delinquent child under RCW 13.04.010, et seq., and has therefore been committed by the juvenile court under RCW 13.04.095, may not, in view of In re Carson , 84 Wn.2d 969 (1975), continue to be held in custody solely on that basis after attaining the age of 18 years.
Under the provisions of § 1, chapter 96, Laws of 1975-76, 2nd Ex. Sess., costs incurred at public expense for the payment of appointed counsel for the defendant in a criminal case as well as witness fees paid by the state for its own and defendant's witnesses under chapter 2.40 RCW may be recovered pursuant to court order from the defendant if convicted; however, costs incurred in paying the compensation of jurors under RCW 2.36.150 may not be so recovered and the recovery of statutory filing fees from a convicted criminal defendant remains governed, as before, by the provisions of RCW 36.18.020(15).
(1) Recent decisions by the United States Supreme Court holding mandatory death penalty laws to be unconstitutional have rendered RCW 9A.32.046, enacted pursuant to Initiative No. 316, constitutionally unenforceable; however, in line with other supreme court decisions involving death penalty laws a constitutionally valid death penalty statute may still be enacted in accordance with guidelines set forth in those decisions. (2) Because RCW 9A.32.046 was enacted as a part of Initiative No. 316 at the 1975 state general election, that statute may not be repealed by the legislature for a period of two years following its enactment and it may only be amended during such period by a two-thirds majority vote of the members of both houses of the legislature; however, this existing state death penalty statute may be amended or repealed at any time pursuant to an initiative or referendum measure approved by the voters. (3) It is possible that legislation establishing a new, constitutionally valid, death penalty for the state of Washington could be enacted by the legislature by a simple majority vote, even during the immediate two-year period following the passage of Initiative No. 316, if the new law is not drafted as either an amendment or repeal of RCW 9A.32.046.
It is not unlawful under RCW 9.41.250 to merely possess a device for suppressing the noise of a firearm.
The proprietor or owner of a restaurant, tavern, coffee shop or similar establishment would be engaged in the conduct of prohibited gambling activities within the meaning of chapter 9.46 RCW if such proprietor or owner, without other participation in the game, were (1) To maintain on the premises for use by its patrons, customers or others a board, sheet or other similar paraphernalia to be used in the conduct of a football, baseball or other sports pool, and in connection with such pool were to assign scores, receive wagers and distribute anything of value to a contestant, although without fee, commission or other profit for such services; (2) Except to the extent of card games licensed under RCW 9.46.030, to furnish dice or playing cards to patrons, customers or others on the premises of the establishment to be utilized by such persons for gambling in order to determine which person in their number shall pay the cost of the meals, drinks or other sustenance purchased on the premises; (3) To maintain on the premises for the convenience of his patrons, customers or others, any of the aforesaid devices which are in fact owned by such persons and utilized by them for the purposes set forth in (2) above.
1.RCW 9.02.010 is still unenforceable insofar as it purports, in conjunction with RCW 9.02.060 et seq., to prohibit abortions occurring more than four lunar months after conception but prior to viability.2.Webster v. Reproductive Health Servs., 57 U.S.L.W. 5023 (1989) does not overrule Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 35 L. Ed. 2d 147, 93 S. Ct. 705 (1973); the effect of Webster is to uphold provisions of Missouri statutes which have no counterparts in Washington statute; thus Roe still renders most of Washington's abortion statute (RCW 9.02.010 through .090) unenforceable.3.The conclusions reached in AGO 1973 No. 7, that Roe rendered several of Washington's abortion provisions unenforceable, remain valid after Webster v. Reproductive Health Servs., 57 U.S.L.W. 5023 (1989); we decline to speculate about the future direction of case law on abortion.4.There is no current law in Washington prohibiting the use of public funds for abortions; Webster v. Reproductive Health Servs., 57 U.S.L.W. 5023 (1989) does not change Washington law in this regard.