Navigation Top
AGO Logo Graphic
AGO Header Image
File a Complaint
Contact the AGO
AGO Opinions with Topic: POLICE POWERS
AGO 1980 No. 17 >  July 30, 1980
CITIES AND TOWNS - POLICE POWERS - MOTOR VEHICLES - INTOXICATING LIQUOR
PENALITY FOR DRIVING WHILE INTOXICATED IN VIOLATION OF MUNICIPAL ORDINANCE While a city or a town which adopts an ordinance defining and establishing as a municipal offense the crime driving while intoxicated must do so in terms identical to the statutory provisions of RCW 46.61.502, it is not also required to fix the same penalties for a violation as are fixed by the provisions of RCW 46.61.515.
AGO 1996 No. 17 >  September 26, 1996
COUNTIES - ROADS - POLICE POWERS - INTERLOCAL COOPERATION ACT
Authority of non-charter county to maintain federally-owned roads not open to the general public 1.  Federally-owned roads which are closed to the general public are not "county roads" and a non-charter county therefore lacks authority to maintain such roads with state and county funds. 2.  A county has authority, if it chooses, to set and enforce traffic signals on federally-owned roads within the county, except where superseded by federal law; however, the county has no obligation to set and enforce traffic signals on such roads because they are not "county roads" as defined in state law. 3.  A county may contract with an agency of the United States to maintain federally-owned roads within the county, or to set and enforce traffic controls for such roads, in return for payment by the federal agency of the costs incurred by the county in performing such services. 4.  A county may use "county road property tax revenues" as defined in statute, after diverting them to the current expense fund pursuant to law, for setting and enforcing traffic controls on federally-owned roads within the county. 5.  For purposes of allocating the state motor vehicle fuel tax under RCW 46.68.120, .122, and .124, federally-owned roads in a county which are closed to the general public are not "county roads" and should not be considered in making the allocation. 6.  A county which deposited revenues from the county road property tax levy into its current expense fund to pay the expenses related to setting and enforcing traffic controls on federally-owned roads within the county would not thereby lose its eligibility to receive state funding under such statutes as RCW 36.79.140.
AGO 2014 No. 2 >  January 16, 2014
STATUTES - INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM - ORDINANCES - COUNTIES - CITIES AND TOWNS - PREEMPTION - POLICE POWERS
Whether Statewide Initiative Establishing System For Licensing Marijuana Producers, Processors, And Retailers Preempts Local Ordinances

 

  1. Initiative 502, which establishes a licensing and regulatory system for marijuana producers, processors, and retailers, does not preempt counties, cities, and towns from banning such businesses within their jurisdictions.
  2. Local ordinances that do not expressly ban state-licensed marijuana licensees from operating within the jurisdiction but make such operation impractical are valid if they properly exercise the local jurisdiction’s police power.
Content Bottom Graphic
AGO Logo