Loading...
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