Click here to skip to main content.
scenic picture from Washington state
SUBJECTS › PUBLIC SAFETY › City and County Court Services
Updated 01/09

City and County Court Services

Contents

About Court Services

"Each county, city, and town is responsible for the prosecution, adjudication, sentencing, and incarceration of misdemeanor and gross misdemeanor offenses committed by adults in their respective jurisdictions, and referred from their respective law enforcement agencies, whether filed under state law or city ordinance, and must carry out these responsibilities through the use of their own courts, staff, and facilities, or by entering into contracts or interlocal agreements under this chapter to provide these services." (RCW 39.34.180.)

The courts administered by local governments include the county superior court (see description in New Commissioners Handbook) and the courts of limited jurisdiction: district courts; municipal departments in district courts; and municipal courts.  (See description in Citizens Guide to Courts).

Because of the recent significant decrease in revenues for local jurisdictions and the continuing increase in costs related to courts, county and city governments are exploring other options for providing court services to their citizens.  This page is intended to provide information related to various court services, including interlocal contracting, and to highlight some of the court service programs, with Web descriptions.  If you have information to add to this page, please contact the page editor.

For more information about courts:

Court Related Statutes

Current Court Reform

  • Washington Court Funding Task Force - created to study the funding of Washington’s trial courts
  • Courts of Limited Jurisdiction Work Group (CLJWG) - charged with responsibility to study the structural and court funding issues in the courts of limited jurisdiction, to propose efficient and effective methods of delivering judicial services, including the possibility of consolidation of these courts, and to recommend appropriate legislation.

Interlocal Agreements for Court Services

    Background: In City of Medina v. Primm, 160 Wn.2d 268 (2007), the Washington Supreme Court upheld the use of interlocal agreements to share municipal court facilities, and it determined that cities had the authority to enter into intercity agreements for the provision of court services outside the geographical limits of the contracting cities. In 2008 the statutes were amended to incorporate this decision. See also AWC Municipal Court Contracting Update

Currently, the following cities are providing municipal court services for other cities: Auburn (Algona);  Battle Ground (Ridgefield, La Center);  Buckley (Carbonado);  Enumclaw (Maple Valley);  Kirkland (Clyde Hill, Yarrow Point, Medina, Hunts Point);  Marysville (Lake Stevens, Arlington);  Napavine (Vader);  Nooksack (Everson);  Pateros (Brewster);  Sunnyside (Mabton);  Tenino (Rainier);  and Wilkeson (South Prairie).

The following are examples of intercity contracts for court services:

  • Des Moines and Normandy Park ( 253 KB) - Des Moines provides municipal court services to Normandy Park for a two-year period beginning 1-05.
  • Kirkland provides municipal court services (Interlocal Agreement ( 110 KB) to Clyde Hill, Yarrow Point, Medina, and Hunts Point, beginning 1-00 for a term of 10 years.
  • Mercer Island and Newcastle ( 126 KB) - Mercer Island provides court services to Newcastle; initial termination 12-31-05, with annual renewals.
  • Issaquah and Snoqualmie ( 43 KB)- Issaquah provides court services to Snoqualmie; term ends 12-31-09.

Municipal vs District Court Studies

Public Defense Services

Specialized Courts

Court Administration - Service Illustrations

Probation Programs  See also Alternatives to Incarceration

Volunteer Programs