HomeMy WebLinkAboutITEM III-A-1CITY OF
WASHINGTON
AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM
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 Auburn 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 Auburn. Specifically, that case,'Aubum v. Gauntt, hinged on RCW
39.34.180,-a copy of which statute is appended to the ordinance. That statute directs and obligates cities
and. towns to prosecute and be responsible for 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 or town prosecutes, it is obligated to prosecute using its own court resources and to
prosecute regardless of whether the charges are filed understate 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
prosecute 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 city ordinance. Nevertheless, according to the
Court of Appeals, the language "filed under state 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 prosecutea violation for
previous conduct without running afoul of the constitutional ex-post facto bar. In order 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 Council & Committees:
Reviewed by Departrnerts & Divisions:
❑ Arts Commission COUNCIL COMMITTEES:
❑ Building ❑ M&O
❑ Airport ❑ Finance
❑ Cemetery ❑ Mayor
❑ Hearing Examiner ❑ Municipal Serv.
❑ Finance ❑ Parks
Planning & CD
❑ Human Services ❑
❑ Fire ❑ Planning
.
❑ Park Board ❑Public Works
Legal ❑ Police
❑ Planning Comm. ❑ Other
❑ Public Works ❑ Human Resources
Action:
Committee Approval: ❑Yes ❑No
Council Approval: ❑Yes ❑No Call for Public Hearing
Referred to Until / I
Tabled Until /
Councilmembee Backus
Staff: Heid
Meeting Date: March 21, 2011
Item Number: VIII.A.3
AUBURN *MORE THAN YOU IMAGINED
ORDINANCE NO.6 3 15 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
committed 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 of.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. the 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. Gauntt, Cause
No 64838-1-i, 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 exists if State. misdemeanors are not
prosecutable by the City, and this ordinance is necessary for the :protection of public
health, safety, property or the public 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 city of Auburn, as if set forth in
full, including the criminal/offense classification and penalty provisions
applicable thereto unless a different classification 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.
Section 2. Implementation. The Mayor is hereby authorized to implement
such administrative procedures as may be necessary to cant' 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, sentence, 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.
Section 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
(Ord. 5682 § 1, 2002.)
ATTEST:
Danielle E. Daskam, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Daniel B. Heid-,-City Attorney \
Published:
INTRODUCED:
PASSED:
APPROVED:
CITY OF AUBURN
PETER B. LEWIS
MAYOR
Ordinance No. 6357
March 15, 2011
Page 3 of 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
adults in their respective jurisdictions, and referred from their respective law enforcement
agencies, whether filed under state law or city- ordinance, and must carry out these
responsibilities through the use of their own courts, staff, 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 attorney as a felony
offense or an attempt to commit a felony offense.
(2) The following principles must be followed in negotiating interlocal, agreements or
contracts: 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 tax funding 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 between a city
and county, then either party may invoke binding arbitration on .the compensation issued by
notice to the 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 interlocal
agreement, the notice must be given one hundred twenty days prior to the expiration of the
existing contractor agreement and the existing contract or agreement remains in effect until a
new agreement is reached or until an arbitration 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 agreement in accordance with
RCW 3.50. 810 and 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
state law, this section shall have no application until July 1, 1998. [2001 c 68 § 4; 1996 c 308 §
1.]
Ordinance No. 6357
March 15, 2011
Page 4 of 4