the rule of lenity).
In this case, though, it does not matter; both point to the same result.
Regarding legislative history, the crime of disinterring the dead now codified
at RCW 68.50.140 was originally intended to punish grave robbing. It was titled
"Opening Grave—Stealing Body—^Receiving Same."LAWS OF 1909,ch. 249,§ 239.
This history suggests that acquiescing in the City's lawful demand that Southwick
13
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
Southwick, Inc. v. Dep't ofLicensing Bus. & Professions Div., No. 95237-0
(Gordon McCloud, J., dissenting)
vacate the City's easement so the City could assure public health was not the type of
grave robbing that the legislature intended to target with this statute.
The rule of lenity compels the same conclusion. It is a rule that ambiguous
criminal statutes must be construed strictly against the government. This also weighs
in favor of interpreting the statutory phrase "without authority of law" against the
government and in favor of Southwick's position that using its delegated police
powers to accommodate the City's lawful demand for access to its property was not
without authority of law.
Conclusion
After examining the statute's plain language and context, RCW
68.50.140(4)'s phrase "without authority of law" is ambiguous as applied to
Southwick's actions. We must resolve that phrase's ambiguity against the
government. Southwick's actions cannot, therefore, be deemed to have been taken
"without authority of law."
I respectfully dissent.
14
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
Southwick, Inc. v. Dep't ofLicensing Bus. &Prof'lDiv., No. 95231
(Gordon McCloud, J., dissenting)
^cua huA^i. a
f
(Qovizk kz
15