a different chapter—negates any "authority oflaw" Southwick might have had under
ROW 68.56.060, even though the former statute makes no reference to the latter
statute. Majority at 8, 13-14 (citing ROW 68.50.220).
Neither interpretation of RCW 68.50.140(4) is perfect. Southwick's
interpretation does not address the existence of RCW 68.50.220 at all. The
majority's interpretation ignores the fact that the Department could have charged
Southwick with failing to notify next of kin in violation ofRCW 68.50.220—^which
is not a criminal statute and which cross-references RCW 68.50.200 and 68.50.210,
but not RCW 68.50.140(4)—but did not. The Department charged Southwick with
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
Southwick, Inc. v. Dep't ofLicensing Bus. & Professions Div.,l>\o. 95237-0
(Gordon McCloud, J., dissenting)
disinterring cremains "without lawful authority" in violation ofRCW 68.50.140(4).
To reach its result, the majority has to make the interpretive leap that a violation of
RCW 68.50.220 (in one chapter of Title 68 RCW)abrogates the "authority of law"
that RCW 68.56.060(in another chapter ofTitle 68 RCW)gave Southwick to govern
and police its cemetery, so that Southwick now acted without such authority in
violation of criminal statute RCW 68.50.140(4). To repeat, neither interpretation of
the undefined term "without authority of law" is perfect.
We might then turn to our prior case law to help interpret the phrase "without
authority oflaw" to see ifthat supplies the clarity that Title 68 RCW lacks. See State
V. Smith, 111 Wn.2d 1, 8-11, 759 P.2d 372(1988).
It does not. In fact, our prior case law shows that this phrase, "without
authority of law," is usually considered ambiguous. In State v. Richmond, for