1.RCW 9.02.010 is still unenforceable insofar as it purports, in conjunction with RCW 9.02.060 et seq., to prohibit abortions occurring more than four lunar months after conception but prior to viability.2.Webster v. Reproductive Health Servs., 57 U.S.L.W. 5023 (1989) does not overrule Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 35 L. Ed. 2d 147, 93 S. Ct. 705 (1973); the effect of Webster is to uphold provisions of Missouri statutes which have no counterparts in Washington statute; thus Roe still renders most of Washington's abortion statute (RCW 9.02.010 through .090) unenforceable.3.The conclusions reached in AGO 1973 No. 7, that Roe rendered several of Washington's abortion provisions unenforceable, remain valid after Webster v. Reproductive Health Servs., 57 U.S.L.W. 5023 (1989); we decline to speculate about the future direction of case law on abortion.4.There is no current law in Washington prohibiting the use of public funds for abortions; Webster v. Reproductive Health Servs., 57 U.S.L.W. 5023 (1989) does not change Washington law in this regard.
The provisions of § 2, chapter 207, Laws of 1982, relating to the imposition of a monetary assessment upon a criminal offender to pay for certain probation services, will not become legally operative until July 1, 1984, when the pertinent provisions of chapter 9.94A RCW themselves take effect in accordance with § 28, chapter 137, Laws of 1981.
(1) RCW 43.20.050 does not require all state, county, city or township officers or employees to "enforce" the provisions of chapter 248-152 WAC restricting smoking in public places or be subject to criminal penalties for their failure to do so; instead, that statute only applies to those particular officers or employees who, by virtue of their offices or positions, are possessed of the legal authority to take some form of legal action against alleged violators of the regulations.(2) Although RCW 43.20.170 authorizes the director of Social and Health Services to utilize any of the special proceedings provided for in Title 7 RCW in enforcing State Board of Health regulations, except for a suit for injunctive relief under chapter 7.40 RCW, most of those special proceedings have little or no utility in that connection.
A failure by the state legislature to have finally adopted a budget for state government at least 30 calendar days prior to the beginning of the next ensuing biennium, as contemplated by RCW 43.88.080, will not subject the individual members of the two houses to criminal prosecution under RCW 43.88.270.
A public utility district may annex adjacent territory located in a county other than that in which the district was created where such adjacent territory is not situated within the boundaries of another public utility district.
Attorneys who are constitutionally required to be appointed to represent indigent defendants in misdemeanor cases before a district justice court are to be compensated for their services under RCW 10.01.110; however, the costs of such compensation must be drawn from the county current expense fund of the county in which the court is situated and not from justice court revenues under RCW 3.62.050.
Records pertaining to a deferred criminal prosecution under chapter 10.05 RCW, following their removal from the court file in accordance with RCW 10.05.120, are not then required by that law either to be sealed or destroyed; however, limited concealment in a given case may be required either by the provisions of some other law (such as the state public disclosure law) or, conceivably, by court order.
(1) Where a county has entered into a contract with a contractor for the performance of work by employees of the contractor which comes within the provisions of the industrial insurance (workmen's compensation) laws, the county is liable to the state of Washington for collection and remittance of monies due to both the industrial insurance accident fund and the industrial insurance medical aid fund on account of such work. (2) Where a county issues a construction building permit in violation of the provisions of chapter 20, Laws of 1965, Ex. Sess., (RCW 51.12.070) the county itself is not subject to a criminal penalty; however, if the violation is wilful, the county employee issuing the permit may be prosecuted for commission of a misdemeanor under RCW 42.20.100; in addition, the county may be liable to the state for resulting unpaid industrial insurance premiums depending upon the facts of a particular case.
RCW 81.48.010 provides that it is a misdemeanor for an engineer driving a locomotive to fail to ring the bell or sound the whistle when approaching certain railroad crossings. An engineer can comply with this statute by either ringing the bell or, in the alternative, sounding the whistle. The engineer need not do both.
In reimbursing a county for witness fees incurred in connection with a criminal prosecution, the state is liable, under RCW 10.46.220-10.46.230, for the full amount of fees paid to expert witnesses whenever the superior court has, in fact, included expert witness fees in the cost bill in a given case and has ordered those fees to be paid by the state.