State v. Plaggemeier
93 Wash. App. 472, 969 P.2d 519 (1999)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The consent provision of a mutual aid agreement between law enforcement agencies, authorizing extrajurisdictional arrests, is independently enforceable under the Washington Mutual Aid Peace Officers Powers Act of 1985 (RCW 10.93.070(1)) even if the broader administrative portions of the agreement fail to comply with the ratification and filing requirements of the Interlocal Cooperation Act (RCW 39.34).
Facts:
- On December 15, 1995, the Kitsap County Sheriff and the police chiefs of Bainbridge Island, Bremerton, Port Orchard, and Poulsbo signed a Mutual Aid Agreement (Agreement).
- The Agreement's preamble stated its purpose was to create the Bremerton-Kitsap County DWI Task Force for targeting and prosecuting traffic infractions and DUIs.
- Sections 1-10 of the Agreement established administrative procedures, including the agreement's length, financial responsibility, a joint board, and a task force coordinator.
- Sections 11 and 12 of the Agreement contained provisions for signatories to consent to the full exercise of peace officer powers within their respective jurisdictions by officers engaged in Task Force operations.
- None of the five law enforcement agencies submitted the Agreement to their governing legislative bodies for ratification, nor did they file it with their county auditor.
- In April 1996, a Poulsbo police officer, acting under the Agreement, arrested Thomas Plaggemeier outside Poulsbo city limits and cited him for driving while under the influence of intoxicants.
Procedural Posture:
- Thomas Plaggemeier moved for dismissal of the DUI charge in Kitsap County District Court, claiming the arresting officer was acting outside his geographic jurisdiction and the arrest was unlawful.
- The Kitsap County District Court agreed with Plaggemeier and dismissed the charge, concluding the Mutual Aid Agreement was invalid for failing to comply with the Interlocal Cooperation Act (RCW 39.34).
- The State appealed the dismissal to the Kitsap County Superior Court.
- The Kitsap County Superior Court affirmed the dismissal.
- The Washington Court of Appeals accepted discretionary review.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is the consent provision of a mutual aid agreement, allowing extrajurisdictional law enforcement, enforceable under the Washington Mutual Aid Peace Officers Powers Act (RCW 10.93) if the overall agreement fails to comply with the Interlocal Cooperation Act (RCW 39.34)?
Opinions:
Majority - Seinfeld, J.
Yes, the consent provision of the mutual aid agreement, allowing extrajurisdictional law enforcement, is enforceable under the Washington Mutual Aid Peace Officers Powers Act (RCW 10.93) even though the broader administrative agreement fails to comply with the Interlocal Cooperation Act (RCW 39.34). The court found that a mutual law enforcement assistance agreement, particularly one dealing with administrative matters and the allocation of fiscal resources, does indeed fall under and require compliance with the Interlocal Cooperation Act (RCW 39.34) for legislative ratification and filing. The Agreement as a whole, specifically Sections 1-10, was drafted to closely follow RCW 39.34 and explicitly referenced it, thereby making its overall administrative portions invalid due to a lack of ratification and filing. However, RCW 10.93.070(1) independently permits a peace officer to enforce laws outside their jurisdiction "[u]pon the prior written consent of the sheriff or chief of police" of the jurisdiction in question. This specific form of consent does not require the legislative ratification mandated by RCW 39.34 for broader agreements. The court determined, applying principles of contract severability, that the Agreement contained two distinct, independent parts: an administrative agreement (Sections 1-10) and a consent agreement (Sections 11-12) for extrajurisdictional law enforcement. These parts did not significantly cross-reference each other, and their differing tenures further indicated their independent nature. Therefore, the consent provisions, capable of standing alone under RCW 10.93.070(1) and not concerning the allocation of fiscal resources, are severable and enforceable despite the invalidity of the rest of the Agreement under RCW 39.34. The Poulsbo officer's arrest of Plaggemeier was thus authorized.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the scope and requirements for inter-agency law enforcement cooperation in Washington. It establishes a critical distinction between comprehensive mutual aid agreements that involve administrative and financial commitments, which necessitate compliance with the Interlocal Cooperation Act (RCW 39.34), and simpler direct consent for extrajurisdictional enforcement under RCW 10.93.070(1). The application of contract severability allows for the enforcement of the legislative intent to facilitate mutual aid, preventing technical procedural flaws in broader agreements from nullifying essential aspects of police cooperation. This ruling enables law enforcement agencies to maintain flexibility in providing immediate cross-jurisdictional assistance through basic written consent, thereby enhancing public safety and operational efficiency.
