IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

DIVISION THREE

STATE OF WASHINGTON,

Respondent.

v.

NICHOLAS TAYLOR,

Petitioner.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. 35461-0-III

PUBLISHED OPINION

LAWRENCE-BERREY, C.J. — We are asked whether the City of Spokane’s (City) 

adoption of RCW 46.61.502, driving under the influence (DUI), deprived the Spokane 

County District Court of jurisdiction over DUIs committed within the City. We hold that 

it did not. We affirm Nicholas Taylor’s DUI conviction.

FACTS

A trooper with the Washington State Patrol stopped Mr. Taylor for suspected DUI. 

The stop occurred within the city limits of Spokane. Mr. Taylor failed various tests, and 

the trooper arrested and cited him for violating RCW 46.61.502. 

The State charged Mr. Taylor in Spokane County District Court for violating 

RCW 46.61.502. The jury found Mr. Taylor guilty of DUI, and the district court judge 

FILED

OCTOBER 2, 2018

In the Office of the Clerk of Court

WA State Court of Appeals, Division III
No. 35461-0-III

State v. Taylor

2

entered a judgment of conviction. Mr. Taylor appealed his conviction to Spokane County 

Superior Court. 

There, Mr. Taylor argued that the Spokane County District Court lacked subject 

matter jurisdiction over his DUI case. His argument was predicated on the City enacting

Spokane Municipal Code § 16A.02.010, which adopted Title 308-330 WAC—the 

Washington Model Traffic Ordinance (WMTO). Title 308-330 WAC adopts various 

state statutes, including RCW 46.61.502. Mr. Taylor argued that the City’s adoption of 

RCW 46.61.502 vested its municipal court with exclusive jurisdiction over all DUIs 

committed within the City’s boundaries. The superior court rejected his argument and 

affirmed his conviction. 

Mr. Taylor sought discretionary review. We were persuaded that the issue was one 

of first impression and granted his request. A panel of this court considered the issue 

without oral argument.

ANALYSIS

Mr. Taylor challenges the subject matter jurisdiction of the Spokane County 

District Court. A party may challenge the trial court’s subject matter jurisdiction for the 

first time at any point in a proceeding, even on appeal. Cole v. Harveyland, LLC, 163 

Wn. App. 199, 205, 258 P.3d 70 (2011). Whether a trial court had jurisdiction is a 
No. 35461-0-III

State v. Taylor

3

question of law that we review de novo. City of Spokane v. Spokane County, 158 Wn.2d 

661, 681, 146 P.3d 893 (2006). 

The meaning of a statute is also a question of law that we review de novo. Id. at 

672. The primary goal of statutory construction is to discern and implement the 

legislature’s intent. Id. at 673. 

Where the meaning of statutory language is plain on its face, we must give 

effect to that plain meaning as an expression of legislative intent. In 

discerning the plain meaning of a provision, we consider the entire statute 

in which the provision is found, as well as related statutes or other 

provisions in the same act that disclose legislative intent.

Id. (citation omitted).

Under the Washington Constitution, the legislature has the sole authority to 

prescribe the jurisdiction and powers of district and municipal courts. WASH. CONST. 

art. IV, § 12; Exendine v. City of Sammamish, 127 Wn. App. 574, 580, 113 P.3d 494 

(2005). 

The legislature has given the district courts jurisdiction “[c]oncurrent with the 

superior court[s] of all misdemeanors and gross misdemeanors committed in their 

respective counties and of all violations of city ordinances.” RCW 3.66.060. If a city has 

created a municipal court, violations of city ordinances must be prosecuted exclusively in

the municipal court. RCW 3.50.020; see also City of Spokane, 158 Wn.2d at 683
No. 35461-0-III

State v. Taylor

4

(ordering open cases involving municipal code violations to be transferred from the

district court to the newly created municipal court). 

Municipal courts “have . . . exclusive original criminal jurisdiction of all violations 

of city ordinances duly adopted by the city . . . .” RCW 3.50.020 (emphasis added). 

When a court has exclusive original jurisdiction, the relevant action must be filed in that 

court. City of Spokane, 158 Wn.2d at 682 (quoting Ledgerwood v. Lansdowne, 120 Wn. 

App. 414, 420, 85 P.3d 950 (2004)).

Mr. Taylor argues that the City’s adoption of RCW 46.61.502 precludes Spokane

County from exercising jurisdiction over DUIs occurring within the City’s boundaries. 

We disagree.

The State charged Mr. Taylor with a gross misdemeanor in violation of 

RCW 46.61.502. As noted previously, the legislature gave district courts concurrent 

jurisdiction with superior courts of all misdemeanor and gross misdemeanor violations 

occurring within their respective counties. It is undisputed that Mr. Taylor committed his 

DUI in Spokane County.

Mr. Taylor fails to cite to a statute that would deprive the district court of its 

jurisdiction in this matter. At best, he cites to RCW 3.50.020, which gives municipal 

courts exclusive criminal jurisdiction over all violations of city ordinances. 
No. 35461-0-III

State v. Taylor

5

RCW 46.61.502 is not a city ordinance. Nor did RCW 46.61.502 become a city 

ordinance by virtue of the City adopting it. 

Mr. Taylor argues that allowing law enforcement to cite a criminal law violation as 

a state law or a municipal law violation gives law enforcement too much discretion and 

threatens the viability of municipal courts. We disagree. 

Washington State Patrol troopers are authorized to enforce state laws. 

RCW 43.43.030. They are not permitted to enforce local laws. 1957 Op. Att’y Gen. No. 

115, 1957 WL 54007. County sheriffs and their deputies are authorized to enforce state 

laws within their respective counties. Such authorization applies equally to incorporated 

areas as to unincorporated areas within the county. 1990 Op. Att’y Gen. No. 4, 1990 WL 

505770. State and county law enforcement will therefore forward their citations to 

county prosecutors.

On the other hand, cities may only prosecute violations of their own ordinances. 

RCW 3.50.430; see also City of Auburn v. Gauntt, 174 Wn.2d 321, 325, 274 P.3d 1033 

(2012). And any city that refuses to enforce its own criminal ordinances and refers

comparable state criminal law violations to counties will be required to reimburse the 

county. Whatcom County v. City of Bellingham, 128 Wn.2d 537, 549, 909 P.2d 1303 

(1996). To avoid the required reimbursement, city officers will always cite an offender 
No. 35461-0-III 

State v. Taylor 

under the city code, rather than the state statute, and forward their citations to city 

prosecutors. The orderly referral of prosecutions to the appropriate authorities will not be 

evaded by our holding. 

We conclude that the Spokane County District Court had subject matter 

jurisdiction over DUI offenses committed within the City, notwithstanding that the City 

enacted an ordinance that adopted the DUI statute. 

Affirmed. 

WE CONCUR: 

Siddow?J~ W~-12 

6