HomeMy WebLinkAboutITEM VIII-A-3
C[TYOF ~-.O'%"',,,, *
` AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM
~ WASHINGTON
Agenda Subject: Ordinance No. 6357 Date: March 15, 2011
Department: Legal Attachments: Ordinance No. 6357 Budget Impact: $0
Administrative.Recommendation: City Council to approve Ordinance No. 6357
Background Summary: Ordinance No. 6357 seeks to amend Aubum City Code section 9.02.110
dealing with adoption of state law.
The current language of ACC 9.02.110 provides for adoption of certain sections of the state law that are
specifically enumerated and identified in the City Code. The added language (per Ordinance No. 6357)
would provide for adoption of any and all misdemeanor and gross misdemeanor crimes included within
the state law automatically, and includes future adoptions as well. This ordinance appears'to be
necessitated by the recent decision of the Washington State Court of Appeals, Division 1, on a case
actually originating from the City of Aubum. Spec'rf'ically, that case, Aubum v. Gauntt, hinged on RCW .
39.34:180,-a copy of whieh statute is appended to fhe ordinance. That statute directs and obligates cities
and, towns to prosecute and be responsible fnr prosecution of any misdemeanor or gross misdemeanor
committed by an adult within their. jurisdictions and referred to prosecution by their police departments.
The statute indicates that this may be done either by the city prosecuting the offenses themselves or by
contracting and hiring the county,to prosecute on the city's/town's behalf. More particularly, the statute
says that when a city ortown prosecutes, it is obligated to prosecute using its own court resources and to
prosecute regardless ofiwhetherthe charges are fi/ed under state or under city ordinance. It has been
widely believed that RCW 39.34.180 authorized cities to prosecute either ordinances adopted by the city
` or crimes passed by the legislature. The Court of Appeals, however; decided that even though the
" language says whether °filed under state law or city ordinance," that still does not authorize city to
prosecufe state statutes. This creates a little bit of confusion in that even statutes adopted by a city
through ordinance would then be prosecuted through that c'ity ordinance. Nevertheless, according to the
Court of Appeals, the language "filed under sfate law" does not authorize a city to do what, essentially,
the statute requires a city to do... prosecute violations regardless of whether they are state law or city
ordinances. Moreover, a city cannot, after the fact, pass an ordinance and prosecute a violation for
previous conduct without running afoul of the constitutional ex-post facto bar. In orcler to address this,
cities that have been relying upon the language of RCW 39.34.180 must either address, in some other
way, its authorization to prosecute or provide for a blanket adoption of state law, regardless of the specific
language. This is, essentially, what Ordinance No. 6357 does. Additionally, Ordinance No. 6357 covers
future adoptions as well. If that were not the case, the same problem would re-occur every time a statute
that provides for a misdemeanor or gross misdemeanor violation is changed or adopted by the
legislature. Reviewed by Council8 Committees: Reviewed by Departments & Divisions:
❑ Arts Commission COUNGIL COMMITTEES: ❑ Building ❑ M&O
❑ Airport ❑ Finance ❑ Cemetery ❑ Mayor
❑ Hearing Examiner ❑ Municipal Serv. ~ ❑ Finance ❑ Parks
❑ Human Services Planning & CD p Fire ❑ Planning
p ParkBoard ❑Public Works Legal p Police
❑ Plan.ning Comm. ❑ Other ❑ Public Works 0 Human Resources
Actfon:
Committee Approval: DYes ❑No Council Approval: ❑Yes ❑No Call for Public Hearing
Referred to Urrtil
Tabled Until
Councilmember: Backus Staff: Heid
Meetin Date: March 21, 2011 Item Number: VIII.A.3
AUBURN *MORE THAN YOU IMAGINED
ORDINANCE NO. 6 3 5 7
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF AUBURN, ` WASHINGTON, AMENDING SECTION
9.02.110 OF THE AUBURN CITY CODE PROVIDING FOR
ADOPTION BY REFERENCE OF ALL STATE GROSS
MISDEMEANOR AND MISDEMEANOR CRIMES; AS AN
EMERGENCY ORDINANCE
WHEREAS, the language of RCW 39.34.180 [attached hereto], in part, makes
cities and towns responsible for prosecution of misdemeanors and gross misdemeanors
commitfed within their corporate boundaries and referred for prosecution by the city's or
town's law enforcement; and
WHEREAS, these prosecution responsibilities may be carried out either.by the
city or town prosecuting the misdemeanors and gross misdemeanors in their. own
courts, regardless ofi whether the misdemeanors and gross misdemeanors are filed _
under city or town ordinance or state law; or by the city or town entering into a contract
for prosecution services. with. tFie county in which the misdemeanors and gross
misdemeanors occurred; and WHEREAS, as was the case with many cities, city staff read the language of
RCW 39.34.180 as not intending to require that cities and towns adopt state law
, misdemeanors and gross misdemeanors in order to prosecute these crimes and to
comply with the language of RCW 39.34.180; and
WHEREAS, the Court of Appeals' decision in Aubum v. Dustin B. Gaunft, Cause
No 64838-1-1, illustrates an unintended consequence of the language of RCW,
39,34:180, as this ruling appears to be contrary to the legislative intent of the law; and _
WHEREAS, in order to satisfy the requirements of the Court of Appeals' ruling, it
is appropriate to, amend the City. Code to include adoption of all misdemeanors and
gross, misdemeanors of state law;and
' WHEREAS, a public emergency exisfs if State misdemeanors are not
prosecutable by the City, and this ordinance is necessary for the :protection of public
health, safety, property or the pu_blic peace, and should be made effective upon
adoption.
NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AUBURN,
WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN as follows:
Ordinance No. 6357
March 15, 2011
Page 1 of 4
Section 1. Amendment of City Code. Section 9.02.110 of the Auburn City
Code be, and the same is amended to read as follows:
9.02,110 Adoption of state statutes by reference.
(1)_Statutes of the state of Washington specified herein and as
specified in ordinances codified in this title are adopted by reference as
and for a portion of the penal code of the cify of Auburn, as if set forth in .
full, including the criminaVoffense classification and penalty provisions
applicable thereto unless a different classifcation and/or penalty is
specifically provided for the particular sections of state statutes adopted by
reference; provided, that the adoption of state statutes by reference shall
not be construed or interpreted to vest in the city any authority or
responsibility to prosecute felony offenses, and the adoption of state
statutes which include felony provisions shall be limited to those
provisions falling within the city's authority, and such adoption, and the
provisions being adopted, shall be construed and interpreted in
accordance with the lawful authority of the city.
(2) The city also herebv adopts bv reference, all of the crimes
defined as qross misdemeanors or misdemeanors in the Revised Code of
Washington, as now enacfed or hereafter amended or adopted, includinq,
but not limited to, RCW Title 9, 9A, 10, 13, 16, 46, 66, 68, 69 and 77.
(Ord. 5682 § 1, 2002.)
Section 2. Implementation. The Mayor is hereby authorized to implement
such administrative procedures as may be necessary to carry out the directions of this
legislation.
Section 3. Severability. The provisions of this ordinance are declared to be
separate and severable. The invalidity of any clause, senfence, paragraph, subdivision,
section or portion of this ordinance, or the invalidity of the application thereof to any
person or circumstance shall not affect the validity of the remainder of this ordinance, or
the validity of its application to other persons or circumstances.
Sectioro 4. Effective date. There is a public emergency and this
ordinance is necessary for the protection of public health, public safety, public property
or the public peace, shall be effective upon adoption.
Ordinance No. 6357 '
March 15, 2011
Page 2 of 4
INTRODUCED:
PASSED:
APPROVED:
;
~ CITY OF AUBU.RN
PETER B. LEWIS
MAYOR
ATTEST:
Danielle E. Daskam, City Clerk
APPR D TO FORM:
~
Daniel B. Hei , ity Attorney
Published:
,
Ordinance No. 6357 :
March 15, 2011 ~
Page 3 0f 4
RCW39.34.180 Criminal justice responsibilities - Interlocal agreements - Termination.
(1) Each county, city, and town is responsible for the prosecution, adjudication,
sentencing, and incarceration of misdemeanor and gross misdemeanor offenses committed by
adulfs in their respective jurisdictions, and referred from their respective law enforcemenfi
agencies, whether filed under state law or city ordinance, and must carry out these
responsibilities through the use of their own courts, sfaff, and facilities, or by entering into
contracts or interlocal agreements under this chapter to provide these serVices. Nothing in this
section is intended to alter the statutory responsibilities of each county for the prosecution,
adjudication, sentencing, and incarceration for not more than one year of felony offenders, nor
shall this section apply to any offense initially filed by the prosecuting attomey as a felony '
offense or an attempt to commit a felony offense.
(2) The following principles must be followed in negotiating interlocal agreements or
contracfs: Cities and counties must consider (a) anticipated costs of services; and (b)
anticipated and potential revenues to fund the services, including fines and fees, criminal justice
funding, and state-authorized sales #axfunding levied for criminal,justice purposes.
(3) 'If an agreement as to the levels of compensation within an interlocal agreement or
contract for gross misdemeanor and misdemeanor services cannot be reached befinreen a city
and county, then eifher party may invoke binding arbitration on,the compensation issued by
notice tothe other party. In the case of establishing initial compensation, the notice shall request
arbitration within thirty days. In the case of nonrenewal of an existing contract or interfocal
agreemenf, the notice must be given one hundred twenty days prior to the expiration of the
existing contract or agreement and the existing contract or agreement remains in effect until a
new agreement is reached or until an arbittation award on the matter of fees.is made. The city
and county each select one arbitrator, and the initial two arbitrators pick a third arbitrator.
-
(4) A city or county that wishes to terminate an agreement for the provision of court
services must provide written notice of the intent to terminate the agreemenfi in accordance with
RCW 3.50:810 antl 35.20.010.
(5) For cities or towns that have not adopted, in whole or in part, criminal code or
ordinance provisions related to misdemeanor and gross misdemeanor crimes as defined by .
sfate law, this section shall have no application until July 1, 1998. [2001 c 68 § 4; 1996 c 308 §
1.j
Ordinance No. 6357
March 15, 2011
Page 4 of 4