- Request for sample ordinances that ban specific breeds of dogs
Some cities have completely banned certain breeds of dogs. Cities that have banned pit bulls, include Yakima, Selah, Algona and Enumclaw. See, for example, Ch. 6.18, "Pit Bull Dogs," Yakima Municipal Code.
Bainbridge Island prohibits wolves and wolf hybrids (See Sec. 6.04.115, Bainbridge Island Municipal Code). King County (see Ch. 11.28 King County Code) and Bellevue (see Ch. 8.08, Bellevue Municipal Code) prohibit wolves and coyote hybrids, with some exceptions. Some jurisdictions also regulate wolf hybrids under their dangerous dog regulations (including Blaine and SeaTac).
In adopting local ordinances based upon state laws regulating dangerous or potentially dangerous dogs (see Ch. 16.08 RCW), some cities have modified the definition of "potentially dangerous dog" and/or "dangerous dog" to include references to specific breeds such as pit bull terriers. See, for example:
-
Ch. 6.05, SeaTac Municipal Code - Dangerous Dogs (defines dangerous dogs to include "American Pit Bull Terrier" or "Staffordshire Bull Terrier" or "American Staffordshire Terrier" breed of dog)
-
Ch. 8.05, Kirkland Municipal Code - Dangerous Dogs - (defines dangerous dogs to include "American Pit Bull Terrier" or "Staffordshire Bull Terrier" or "American Staffordshire Terrier" breed of dog)
-
Auburn Ordinance No. 5996 (includes pit bull terriers and other breeds as "potentially dangerous dogs.")
Other cities that define dangerous dogs to include pit bulls include Eatonville and Pasco.
For more information on this subject, including case law references, an overview of state laws regarding dangerous and potentially dangerous dogs, and sample ordinances, see our Web page on "Dangerous Dogs." See also MRSC's Web pages on Breed-Specific Regulations and Regulation of Wolves and Wolf Hybrids.
- May an animal control officer enter private property without consent of the property owner and without a warrant where, in plain view, a dog is being abused?
There appears to be only one situation where an animal control officer may enter private property without a warrant. RCW 16.52.085(1) provides: If a law enforcement officer or animal control officer has probable cause to believe that an owner of a domestic animal has violated this chapter and no responsible person can be found to assume the animal's care, the officer may authorize, with a warrant, the removal of the animal to a suitable place for feeding and care, or may place the animal under the custody of an animal care and control agency. In determining what is a suitable place, the officer shall consider the animal&s needs, including its size and behavioral characteristics. An officer may remove an animal under this subsection without a warrant only if the animal is in an immediate life-threatening condition. See also, RCW 16.52.015(3)(d) (giving an animal control officer the "power to prepare affidavits in support of search warrants and to execute search warrants when accompanied by law enforcement officers to investigate violations of this chapter ").
- Have any cities adopted ordinances prohibiting Rottweilers?
We are not aware of any Washington cities that have prohibited Rottweiler dogs and it is not clear whether reasonable grounds exist to distinguish between Rottweilers and other dogs. A city would have to show that Rottweilers have unique traits and characteristics that pose a greater threat of serious injury or death to humans than other dogs. However, any dog that can be classified as either a "potentially dangerous dog" or "dangerous dog" based on past vicious behavior may be subject to the controls authorized under the state law. When adopting ordinances based upon the provisions contained in Ch. 16.08 RCW, some cities have modified the definition of "potentially dangerous dog" or "dangerous dog" to include a specific reference to the "pit bull terrier" breed. As a result, in these cities restrictions which apply to either "potentially dangerous dogs" or "dangerous dogs" apply automatically to pit bull terriers. Note that the city of Yakima's ordinance banning pit bull terriers was challenged and upheld in American Dog Owners v. Yakima, 113 Wn.2d 213 (1989).
- May a town adopt an ordinance prohibiting animals from riding unsecured in the back of a vehicle (pickup)?
It appears that such a regulation would be permissible. See RCW 35.27.370 (7), (14) and (16), and also RCW 16.52.080.
- Request for information on procedures for granting a limited commission to an animal control officer to enforce and issue citations for violations of the town's animal control ordinance, and the form for the oath of office for this position.
Various statutes authorize municipalities to give designated employment positions, other than law enforcement officers, the authority to enforce laws, such as local animal control laws, that carry civil penalties (civil infractions). For example, RCW 7.80.040, dealing with civil infractions, defines "enforcement officer" as "a person authorized to enforce the provisions of the title or ordinance in which the civil infraction is established." See also IRLJ 1.2(j), a court rule that defines "citing officer" as "a law enforcement officer or other official authorized by law to issue a notice of infraction."
So, the town may give an animal control officer a "limited commission" to issue citations for civil infractions under the town's ordinances. A "commission" is, in the sense discussed here, merely formal evidence of an appointment. There are no statutorily-required procedures for granting a limited commission. The only requirements for an animal control officer would be those established by the town for the position.
Here are a few example code provisions establishing limited commissions:
Mount Vernon Municipal Code
10.10.020(C ) . “Limited commission code enforcement officer” means that person who has been appointed by the mayor and whose work is directed by the director of development services for the purpose of administering and enforcing the provisions of this chapter, including all persons granted such authority and responsibility by contract with the city. In addition, the director of development services shall be an ex officio code enforcement officer and have like enforcement authority.
Bellevue Municipal Code
3.33.060 Appointment of deputies and other officers – Administrative structure. The chief of police may appoint, with the consent of the city manager, subject to any applicable civil service provisions, deputies and other public officers from other city departments. Such officers shall have the power of citation as may be appropriate and necessary for the proper performance of the duties of their office. Upon such appointment being made, the chief of police shall issue to the appointee a limited commission card. The appointment shall continue until the appointee is permanently terminated from city employment, but may be revoked at any time by the chief of police or the city manager.
Burlington Municipal Code
2.38.030(B) Members – Appointment and commissioning. ... [a] limited commission or deputation may be issued upon approval of the mayor and police chief to persons outside the department who have a need to have limited enforcement capabilities such as parking, parks, animal control, and arson. These limited commissions will specifically state the authority of the holder to enforce specific identified ordinances. These limited commissions shall be valid for a period of one year and shall automatically expire on December 31st of that year.
As to the form for the oath of office, no state statute sets out the exact form for this. There are several variations used, although most are similar to the one set out below:
I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution and laws of the State of Washington, and all local ordinances, and that I will faithfully and impartially perform and discharge the duties of the office of _____, according to law and the best of my ability.
- Are counties allowed to issue business licenses?
Counties are only allowed to impose business licenses for activities established by state statute, or by county charter. RCW 36.32.120, sets out the powers of county legislative authorities. The pertinent provision is as follows:
The legislative authorities of the several counties shall:
. . . (3) License and fix the rates of ferriage; grant grocery and other licenses authorized by law to be by them granted at fees set by the legislative authorities which shall not exceed the costs of administration and operation of such licensed activities. . . .
There is specific statutory authority for noncharter counties to impose a license requirement for: dog or kennel licenses (RCW 36.49.020); private ferries (Ch. 36.53 RCW); peddlers and hawkers (Ch. 36.71 RCW); massage practitioners (RCW 36.32.122 RCW); retail liquor (RCW 67.14.040); trading stamp license (RCW 19.83.020). There may be others.
- May a city require a business license from a private business located on port property?
Yes. We are not aware of any provision that would exempt a private business from obtaining a city business license just because they are located on port property. The requirement for a business license would seem to apply to all private businesses, even if located on governmental property.
- May a city deny a business license if the applicant is a convicted felon?
It depends upon the circumstances. A city may deny a business license to a convicted felon if the felony relates to the type of business for which the license is sought. RCW 9.96A.020. For example, a city could refuse to issue a business license for a tax preparation business to a person convicted of tax fraud. On the other hand, a city could not deny that same person a license for a dry cleaning business.
- May cities require the purchaser of a business to obtain a new business license?
Yes, although the city's business license ordinance should impose this requirement. From a regulatory standpoint, it makes sense for a city to require the purchaser of a business to apply for a new business license. This requirement will help ensure that new businesses comply with any conditions that the business license ordinance may impose.
- What is the benefit to the city and the public of business licensing?
Regulatory business licenses fall into two categories. First, there are general business registration licenses and fees. One purpose of such licenses and fees is to register all businesses to provide the city with a record of the owners, in the event a citizen or a city department has a problem with a business. Another basic purpose would be to help ensure compliance with city ordinances (e.g., zoning regulations). Cities that levy a gross receipts business and occupation tax also need to register businesses to be able to check for their compliance in the payment of taxes.
Second, there are professional and occupational licenses. These are levied on such businesses as pawnbrokers, used goods stores, taxis and taxi drivers, and other similar businesses. These businesses are often subject to regulations that apply specifically to them and/or may require investigations and background checks prior to issuance of the license. The license requirement facilitates the city's monitoring and enforcement of these regulations.
Implementing a business license program is considered to be a sound management practice to protect the corporate city and its citizens. Here are the "top ten" (well ... there aren't exactly ten) reasons and/or purposes cited by most cities for business license requirements:
- To facilitate the regulation of business activities (applicants can be made aware of business regulations, state or local, that apply to them ... and may have their licenses suspended or revoked for failure to comply with these)
- To facilitate the application of zoning regulations (is the proposed business activity allowed in the proposed location?)
- To provide a means of determining in advance the legality of a proposed business activity
- To facilitate health and safety inspections
- To finance the municipality's inspection and regulatory costs
- To facilitate consumer protection
- To facilitate the collection of local excise taxes (for those cities that collect a B&O tax)
- Will cities still be able to ban all gambling within their borders if Initiative 862 passes?
Yes, if Intiative 862 passes, cities will still have the authority to ban all gambling within their borders.
Initiative 862 allows for electronic slot machines where they are now prohibited. Electronic slot machines are partially regulated by Ch. 9.46 RCW relating to Gambling and partly the state lottery commission, in Ch. 67.70 RCW. Electronic slot machines will be allowed wherever a licensee already holds a valid license for another gambling activity.
The initiative does not, however, explicitly preempt the authority of a city to prohibit gambling activities altogether. RCW 9.46.295 still authorizes cities to absolutely prohibit any or all gambling activities. Implied amendments or repeals are not favored in the law. See State v. Strauss, 119 Wn.2d 401 (1992) and Chao v. Bremerton Metal Trades Council, 294 F.3rd 1114 (2002).
So cities can apparently still ban all gambling activities. If a city does this, then it would not be possible to license an electronic slot machine because such a licenses will be limited to those businesses or organizations which already are licensed for a gambling activity. However, it does not appear that a city could allow other types of gambling activities and ban only electronic slot machines.
- May a tavern that allows pulltabs continue such gambling if it is annexed by a city that prohibits pulltabs?
The state gambling commission has taken the position that the tavern may continue with pulltabs until their state license for such activities expires. This issue has not been addressed by the state appellate courts.
- Who has authority in a mayor-council city to respond to the liquor control board concerning a new or renewal liquor license application?
This is covered in RCW 66.24.010, which was amended at the 2007 legislative session See Chapter 473, Laws of 2007(
29 KB). This statute provides at subsection (8) that, before the state liquor control board issues a liquor license or renews a liquor license, it is to give notice to the “chief executive officer” of the city. The city has the right to object to the application through the officer or employee selected by it. So, the council could designate the mayor to be the responsible official with authority to respond.
Note that the 2007 amendments require the liquor control board to give greater weight to objections of the city than was previously the case.
- What if a church locates across the street from a tavern?
"State law prohibits a tavern from locating within a certain distance of a church or a school. Does this law apply if the tavern was there first?"
No. RCW 66.24.010(9), which contains the restriction, does not apply to taverns already licensed. Also, RCW 66.24.010(10) allows the Liquor Control Board to authorize the transfer of an existing license if it already is in the restricted area so the owner may sell an established business.
- May alcohol be served in a city-owned community hall when it is rented to a private group?
Yes, if the private group obtains the proper license from the Washington State Liquor Control Board. See RCW 66.24.481, and the definition of "public place" in RCW 66.04.010(23). However, a city does have the authority to adopt a policy prohibiting the serving of any alcohol in the community hall.
- Can a city or town enact a "Green River ordinance" banning all door to door solicitation?
The term "Green River Ordinance" refers to ordinances that prohibit door-to-door peddling or solicitation without distinguishing between commercial and noncommercial endeavors. The name comes from Ordinance No. 175, adopted by the Town of Green River, Wyoming, in 1931. These types of ordinances have been ruled unconstitutional when they prohibit religious or noncommercial door-to-door solicitation. The U.S. Supreme Court, on June 17, 2002, invalidated a Stratton, Ohio, ordinance that required canvassers to register and obtain a permit from the mayor's office before going door-to-door promoting any cause (Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of New York, Inc. v. Village of Stratton, 00-1737). The Court held that the ordinance violated the First Amendment as it applied to religious proselytizing, anonymous political speech, and the distribution of handbills.
In 2000, the ACLU filed a federal suit and successfully challenged an overbroad Medina ordinance regulating solicitors - see "Medina To Repeal "Get a License to Talk" Law, Court Approves Final Settlement of ACLU Lawsuit."
In Washington State, the general regulations for charitable solicitations are covered by Chapter 19.09 RCW. We suggest you review those statutes.
- Can a city or county enforce an ordinance that makes all uninvited commercial solicitation a public nuisance?
Ordinances that broadly prohibit door-to-door soliciting, sometimes called "Green River" ordinances (after a city in Colorado whose anti-soliciting ordinance had been challenged and upheld), were at one time very common. However, more recent court decisions have raised doubts as to whether such ordinances would be similarly upheld today.
A federal court decision from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that a city ordinance that prohibited door-to-door solicitation unless the homeowner placed a "solicitor's welcome" sign on their door was an unconstitutional infringement of free speech rights. The court held that the ordinance did not provide the least restrictive alternative available to accomplish the legitimate governmental interests of protecting residential privacy and preventing crime.
Some jurisdictions still have these types of broad prohibitions in their ordinances and may therefore be subject to similar court challenges. This does not mean that cities and counties cannot regulate peddlers or solicitors at all. Cities and counties may still require commercial solicitors to register and obtain a license. These ordinances can also contain more limited prohibitions, such as prohibiting solicitors from contacting residences that have posted "no soliciting" signs.
For more information and some sample ordinances, see MRSC's Web page on "Regulation of Peddlers, Solicitors, Temporary Merchants and Mobile Vendors."