| Washington State House of Representatives Office of Program Research |
BILL ANALYSIS |
| Judiciary Committee | |
HB 1590
This analysis was prepared by non-partisan legislative staff for the use of legislative members in
their deliberations. This analysis is not a part of the legislation nor does it constitute a
statement of legislative intent.
Title: An act relating to administration of the courts of limited jurisdiction.
Brief Description: Changing provisions affecting courts of limited jurisdiction.
Sponsors: Representatives Goodman, Rodne, Curtis, Eddy, Pearson, Springer, Linville, Roach, Jarrett, Priest, Clibborn, Ericks, Chandler, Schual-Berke, Dunshee, Upthegrove, Sells, Miloscia, Hurst, Williams, Newhouse, Simpson and Kenney.
Brief Summary of Bill |
|
|
Hearing Date: 2/7/07
Staff: Bill Perry (786-7123).
Background:
Organization of Municipal Courts.
There are three methods explicitly authorized in statute for a city to use in providing court
services. (Note: These provisions do not apply to a city of more than 400,000 population, i.e.,
Seattle, which has its own municipal court provision.)
Under other provisions of law, interlocal agreements generally may be used by two or more units
of local government to do jointly whatever those governments are authorized to do separately.
There is nothing in either the law on courts of limited jurisdiction or the law on interlocal
agreements, however, that expressly authorizes a city that is not operating its own municipal
court to enter into an agreement with another city for court operations. There is also a question
as to whether such a joint court is an authorized venue for matters arising out of ordinances
adopted in a city in which the court is not located.
A number of municipalities, particularly in King County, have entered into interlocal agreements
with each other for the operation of municipal courts.
Jurisdiction of Municipal Courts.
Municipal courts have jurisdiction over misdemeanor violations. Counties and cities are
expressly made responsible for exercising their jurisdiction in the prosecution, adjudication,
sentencing, and incarceration of adult misdemeanor offenses referred to their courts by their law
enforcement agencies. Municipal and district courts also have jurisdiction over other matters
with regard to which the exercise of their jurisdiction is discretionary. For example, municipal
courts have discretion whether or not to exercise jurisdiction over civil antiharassment protection
orders.
Summary of Bill:
A city is expressly authorized to contract with another jurisdiction or jurisdictions for the
delivery of municipal court services. A "host" jurisdiction is one to which a contracting city pays
money for judicial services. The host may be the county in which the contracting city is located,
or it may be another city.
A host jurisdiction and any contracting cities must be in "reasonable proximity" to one another.
Reasonable proximity is determined by considering whether an agreement makes efficient use of
the jurisdictions' powers in accord with geographic, economic, population and other factors
influencing the needs and development of the communities.
A host city or county is given exclusive original jurisdiction over cases filed by the contracting
city.
Traffic infractions are added to the list of judicial matters for which a county or city is expressly
responsible.
Municipal courts are given jurisdiction over civil antiharassment protection orders. The
discretion to decide whether or not to exercise jurisdiction is removed.
Appropriation: None.
Fiscal Note: Requested on February 5, 2007.
Effective Date: The bill contains an emergency clause and takes effect on July 1, 2007.