Washington State

Office of the Attorney General

Attorney General

Bob Ferguson

AGLO 1974 NO. 29 >

A county with population of 46,000, statutorily authorized two district court judges pursuant to RCW 3.34.010, may not provide within its county districting plan for one judicial district with one full-time and one part-time judge; it may, however, establish two justice court districts, one containing approximately 32,000 inhabitants and the other 14,000 inhabitants, and assign a full-time judge to the former and a part-time judge to the latter.

AGO 1978 NO. 30 >

Where an information charging criminal conduct by a juvenile offender has been properly filed by the prosecuting attorney as authorized under RCW 13.40.070, the superior court is not authorized then to declare the accused eligible to enter into a diversion agreement pursuant to RCW 13.40.080 rather than adjudicating his or her innocence or guilt.

AGO 1967 NO. 30 >

A party procuring a writ of garnishment in a justice court operating under the provisions of the 1961 justice court act (chapter 299, Laws of 1961) is required to pay to such court an additional sum of $1.00 for each such process in accordance with RCW 3.62.060; nothing contained in chapter 143, Laws of 1967, affects this conclusion.

AGLO 1977 NO. 33 >

While the provisions of chapter 291, Laws of 1977, 1st Ex. Sess., relating to juvenile offenders, do not impliedly amend or repeal so much of § 1, chapter 259, Laws of 1977, 1st Ex. Sess., as requires the fingerprinting of juveniles adjudged to be delinquent based upon conduct which would be a felony if committed by an adult, one result of chapter 291, when it goes into effect on July 1, 1978, will be the elimination of that particular classification of individuals (i.e., a juvenile found to be delinquent) upon which chapter 259 will, in the meantime, operate; accordingly, on and after July 1, 1978, the fingerprinting of juvenile offenders will be permissive rather than mandatory.

AGO 1968 NO. 34 >

In a county to which the 1961 justice court act is applicable, the county's cost in providing courtrooms and offices for its district justice courts is to be included among the "total expenditures for such justice courts" for the purpose of making computations and disbursements provided for by RCW 3.62.050, as amended by § 2, chapter 213, Laws of 1963.

AGLO 1978 NO. 35 >

(1) The Washington Supreme Court, acting through the Office of the Administrator for the Courts, is governed by the provisions of RCW 43.105.041(5) which prohibit ". . . agencies and institutions of state government . . ." from acquiring data processing equipment without a delegation of authority from the Washington State Data Processing Authority.

(2) The Data Processing Authority may delegate such authority to the Supreme Court and/or the Office of the Administrator for the Courts under appropriate standards.

(3) While the Supreme Court may adopt its own rules governing the use of data processing equipment within the courts, once acquired, it may not by so doing, supersede the provision of RCW 43.105.041(5) relative to acquisition.

AGLO 1977 NO. 36 >

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.

AGLO 1973 NO. 36 >

Definition of "lobbying" by a state court judge under §§ 16 and 19 on Initiative 276; registration and reporting requirements

AGO 1971 NO. 40 >

An attorney admitted to practice in the state of Washington may be appointed as a municipal judge of a city which has established a municipal court under chapter 3.50 RCW even though he neither resides nor maintains a law office within such city, provided that he is practicing law within the municipality to the extent of representing clients who reside therein on a substantial and continuing basis.

AGO 1965 NO. 43 >

All justice court fees received by the county current expense fund are to be credited toward defraying justice court expenses; however, the current expense fund's share of fines and forfeitures is to be used for that purpose only on the same basis as fines and forfeitures shared by other governmental units under RCW 3.62.050.