Tap any paragraph to write a margin note. Your notes collect in the Desk below the text and file under cases with @. The side-by-side margin rail opens on a larger screen.

Code · Washington · Title 3 — District Courts—Courts of Limited Jurisdiction · Chapter 3.66

RCW 3.66.070

402 words·~2 min read·/wa/title-3/chapter-3-66/3-66-070

A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.

(1)All criminal actions shall be brought in the district where the alleged violation occurred: PROVIDED, That
(a)the prosecuting attorney may file felony cases in the district in which the county seat is located,
(b)with the consent of the defendant criminal actions other than those arising out of violations of city ordinances may be brought in or transferred to the district in which the county seat is located,
(c)if the alleged violation relates to driving, or being in actual physical control of, a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or any drug and the alleged violation occurred within a judicial district which has been designated an enhanced enforcement district under RCW 2.56.110 , the charges may be filed in that district or in a district within the same county which is adjacent to the district in which the alleged violation occurred, and
(d)a district court participating in the program established by the administrative office of the courts pursuant to RCW 2.56.160 shall have jurisdiction to take recognizance, approve bail, and arraign defendants held within its jurisdiction on warrants issued by any other court of limited jurisdiction participating in the program.
(2)In the event of an emergency created by act of nature, civil unrest, technological failure, or other hazardous condition, temporary venue for court of limited jurisdiction matters may be had in a court district not impacted by the emergency. Such emergency venue is appropriate only for the duration of the emergency.
(3)A criminal action commenced under a local ordinance or state statute is deemed to be properly heard by the court of original jurisdiction even though the hearing may take place by video or other electronic means as approved by the supreme court and the defendant is appearing by an electronic method from a location outside the court's geographic jurisdiction or boundaries.
[ 2005 c 282 s 16 ; 2002 c 59 s 1 ; 2001 c 15 s 1 ; 2000 c 111 s 4 ; 1991 c 290 s 2 ; 1984 c 258 s 47 ; 1983 c 165 s 32 ; 1961 c 299 s 118 .]
Notes:
Court Improvement Act of 1984 — Effective dates — Severability — Short title — 1984 c 258: See notes following RCW 3.30.010 .
Legislative finding, intent — Effective dates — Severability — 1983 c 165: See notes following RCW 46.20.308 .
★   the supreme law of the land   ★
Don't Tread on Me
E Pluribus Unum — out of many, one

"If you don't know your rights, you don't have any."

Marginalia · a citizen's law index
A research desk, not legal advice. Always read the cited source before relying on a summary.
Questions or an issue? support@self-law.org
disclaimerMarginalia is a research index, not a law firm. Nothing on this site is legal, tax, or financial advice and no attorney–client relationship is formed by using it. Statutes, regulations, and case law change; summaries, search results, AI output, and member posts may be incomplete, out of date, or wrong. Any interpretation drawn from material on this site should be validated by a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction before you act on it.