Cowles Pub. Co. v. State Patrol
| Decision Date | 07 January 1988 |
| Docket Number | No. 53097-1,53097-1 |
| Citation | 109 Wn.2d 712,748 P.2d 597 |
| Parties | , 14 Media L. Rep. 2177 COWLES PUBLISHING COMPANY, Respondent, v. THE STATE PATROL, et al., Petitioners. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Ken Eikenberry, Atty. Gen., Chip Holcomb, Asst. Atty. Gen., Olympia, James C. Sloane, City Atty., Rocco N. Treppiedi, Richard Robinson, Asst. City Attys., Spokane, Donald C. Brockett, Spokane County Pros., David Saraceno, Deputy County Pros., Spokane, for petitioners State, et al.
Kain & Snow, Gregory Staeheli, Spokane, for petitioner Spokane Police Guild.
Witherspoon, Kelley, Davenport & Toole, P.S., Duane M. Swinton, Spokane, for respondent.
Leo Poort, Seattle, for amicus curiae on behalf of Washington Ass'n of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs for petitioners.
Richard W. Kuhling, Spokane, on behalf of the American Civil Liberties Union for respondent.
Michael Killeen, Seattle, on behalf of Allied Daily Newspapers and Washington Ass'n of Broadcasters for respondent.
Cowles Publishing Company is the owner of two newspapers, the Spokane Chronicle and the Spokesman-Review. The newspapers seek access to the names of law enforcement officers against whom complaints have been sustained after internal investigations conducted by their respective law enforcement agencies. We hold that those names were properly withheld pursuant to the RCW 42.17.310(1)(d) investigative records exemption to the public disclosure act.
During the summer of 1983, a reporter investigating an incident in which two Spokane police officers shot and killed a man, was told that the same officers might have been involved in a prior incident in which they allegedly used excessive force. The reporter also heard that the prior incident generated a citizen's complaint resulting in the officers being reprimanded. In an effort to substantiate this information, the newspapers requested, pursuant to the public disclosure act, RCW 42.17, that the Spokane Police Department release all internal investigation records pertaining to citizens' complaints against police officers. The newspapers sought the information on the same basis available to a private citizen. This request was later amended to seek only those records or files generated by complaints filed during 1983 which were determined to be true, i.e., "sustained", following an internal affairs investigation. Similar requests were made to the Spokane County Sheriff's Department and the Washington State Patrol relating to instances occurring in Spokane County during 1983.
The three agencies consented to provide edited copies of the documents requested, but intended to delete information relating to the identity of the officers involved, the complaining parties, and other witnesses who had been interviewed. The agencies claimed the deletions were necessary to protect the privacy interests of the persons named in the documents, to insure effective internal affairs investigations, and the confidentiality of reported complaints. Subsequently, the Spokane Police Department and the Spokane Sheriff's Department did release eight edited files with the aforementioned deletions. 1 The Washington State Patrol offered to provide similar information, but was not requested to do so.
The newspapers initiated this action and obtained an order requiring the three agencies to show cause why they should not disclose the unedited versions of the records. The Spokane Police Guild was allowed to intervene and a hearing was held on July 12 and 13, 1984.
Each agency maintains an internal affairs division, which upon receipt of a complaint, investigates each incident. The officer involved is required to disclose his or her recollections with the understanding that no evidence thus disclosed may be used in any criminal investigation. The officer does not have the right to interrogate other witnesses, is not entitled to assert the privilege against self-incrimination, and is subject to dismissal upon refusal to respond. Seattle Police Officers' Guild v. Seattle, 80 Wash.2d 307, 494 P.2d 485 (1972). The head of the agency, on the basis of all the evidence, determines whether to sustain the complaint and impose a sanction or dismiss it. Approximately 10 percent of the complaints registered either by citizens or from within an agency are sustained. The officer may appeal from the determination and is accorded a public hearing on appeal. RCW 43.43.070 (Washington State Patrol); RCW 41.14.120 (county sheriffs); and RCW 41.12.090 (city police). 2
Internal affairs investigative files are maintained separately from the officer's personnel file, although a notice of sanction is placed in the personnel file. The Washington State Patrol disseminates information concerning sanctions through its teletype network to each of its divisional offices, which in turn discloses within the organization the name of the disciplined officer and the infraction.
Officers of each agency testified concerning the apprehension and anxiety arising from the filing of complaints. This tension and concern is felt by the officers, their families and the department. This testimony was supported by a police psychologist. The psychologist testified that the usual high level of stress accompanying the duties of an officer was significantly increased by the added stress of an internal affairs investigation. He also described the stress, aggravation, and humiliation visited upon the families of officers who complained against colleagues. The psychologist stated that disclosure of this information could result in a "code of silence" among the officers, resulting in instances of misconduct not being reported. Several high ranking officers in positions of leadership within their internal affairs departments also testified that if the names of complainants, witnesses or the officers complained against could be released to the public, such a situation would inhibit the investigative process. One such officer testified that all of the witnesses who were asked as to their wishes desired to remain anonymous insofar as the public was concerned. These witnesses testified, in general, that if the names of complainants, witnesses or of the officers complained against were to be released to the public, fellow officers would be reluctant to assist internal affairs and the system so needed to combat inefficiency and misconduct would be severely handicapped or ineffective.
The court entered findings of fact, conclusions of law, and an order concluding that the names of complainants, witnesses and the officers complained against in internal investigative reports were exempt from disclosure. The court found that release of the names of the individual officers, coupled with other factual data in the reports, would violate the officers' rights of privacy within the context of the personal information exemption, RCW 42.17.310(1)(b). Further, the court held the requested information constituted "specific investigative records" and concluded the nondisclosure of the officers' names was "essential to effective law enforcement" as exempt under RCW 42.17.310(1)(d).
The trial court specifically found:
The Internal Affairs Investigations are essential to: a) the management of each law enforcement agency; b) the maintenance of the integrity of each law enforcement agency; and c) the maintenance of the public's confidence in each law enforcement agency.
Confidentiality is necessary in order to encourage complaints to be made, rather than to the contrary. Each defendant agency encourages citizens and employees to file complaints whenever s/he believes the agency employee acted inappropriately.
If the individual law enforcement agencies were unable to assure confidentiality to the complaining witnesses, the ability of the specific law enforcement agencies to carry out their functions in investigating complaints against individual law enforcement officers would be seriously hampered. If the complaining witness is a law enforcement officer and if the name of the charged officer would be made public, the ability of the Internal Affairs Section of each law enforcement agency to obtain open and candid comments from complaining witnesses who happen to be law enforcement officers would be seriously hampered.
Law enforcement officers agree that it is necessary to investigate all complaints about their conduct in a thorough and objective manner.
Defendant CITY OF SPOKANE has approved of the method by which citizen complaints are investigated by the SPOKANE POLICE DEPARTMENT'S Internal Affairs Officer, who reports directly to the Office of the Chief of Police. Defendant CITY OF SPOKANE has recognized the need for maintaining the confidentiality of the names of people who file complaints or whose right to privacy would be violated. Further, Defendant CITY OF SPOKANE is able to monitor the integrity and effectiveness of the Spokane Police Department via the "chain of command" whereby the Chief of Police, who utilizes the Internal Affairs process, is directly responsible and reportable to the City Manager, who is directly responsible and reportable to the Spokane City Council, who is directly responsible and reportable to the citizens of the City of Spokane.
Compelled disclosure of the identities of those persons involved in investigations of alleged police misconduct would seriously hinder the ability of law enforcement agencies to receive and investigate the alleged misconduct. Law enforcement agencies cannot compel private citizens to provide evidence or information regarding alleged misconduct; accordingly, they must depend upon cooperation and information that is produced voluntarily. If disclosure were required, some citizens would never complain and some would refuse to provide any evidence, or would refuse to cooperate in a complete manner. Further, if disclosure of identities were required, some police officers would be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
83 Hawai'i 378, State of Hawai'i Organization of Police Officers (SHOPO) v. Society of Professional Journalists-University of Hawai'i Chapter
...public interest. Id. at 386, comment b. Applying this standard, the Washington Supreme Court, in Cowles Publishing Co. v. State Patrol, 109 Wash.2d 712, 748 P.2d 597 (1988), held that names of law enforcement officers, against whom complaints had been sustained after internal investigations......
-
Multicare Medical Center v. State, Dept. of Social and Health Services
...the general rule of statutory interpretation that an undefined term is afforded its common law meaning. Cowles Pub'g Co. v. State Patrol, 109 Wash.2d 712, 720, 748 P.2d 597 (1988) (citing Hearst Corp. v. Hoppe, 90 Wash.2d 123, 580 P.2d 246 (1978)); In re Brazier Forest Prods., Inc., 106 Was......
-
Ameriquest Mortg. Co. v. Office of the Attorney Gen. of Wash.
...law enforcement is a question of fact. See Ames, 71 Wash.App. at 295, 857 P.2d 1083 (citing Cowles Publ'g Co. v. State Patrol, 109 Wash.2d 712, 715–18, 729–30, 748 P.2d 597 (1988)). When making this factual determination, courts will consider the testimony, declarations, and affidavits of t......
-
Bellevue John Does 1-11 v. Bellevue School
...in some information within a personnel file, but the scope of this right is unclear. In Cowles Publishing Co. v. State Patrol, 109 Wash.2d 712, 727, 748 P.2d 597 (1988) (plurality opinion), we held a police officer's right to privacy is not violated when a complaint about a specific instanc......
-
§16.3 Procedural Aspects of Requestor-Initiated Actions
...issues "solely on affidavits," although courts will sometimes hear live testimony. RCW 42.56.550(3); Cowles Publ'g Co. v. State Patrol, 109 Wn.2d 712, 715-16, 748 P.2d 597 (1988) (trial court heard testimony from police officers and psychologists); Zink v. City of Mesa (Zink I), 140 Wn.App.......
-
Table of Cases
...P.2d 620 (1999): 8.3(2)(b)(iii), 9.1(4), 16.3(3), 16.3(8) Cowles Publ'g Co. v. State Patrol, 44 Wn.App. 882, 724 P.2d 379 (1986), rev'd, 109 Wn.2d 712, 748 P.2d 597 (1988): 7.3(3), 8.3(1)(b), 9.1(1), 9.1(3), 9.2(2), 10.2(2), 10.2(3)(b)(iv), 16.3(2), 16.3(5), 16.3(8), 20.2(2) Creer Legal v. ......
-
§10.2 Relevant Exemptions
...see also Bainbridge Island Police Guild v. City of Puyallup, 172 Wn.2d 398, 419, 259 P.3d 190 (2011); Cowles Publ'g Co. v. State Patrol, 109 Wn.2d 712, 728-29, 748 P.2d 597 (1988). But when the investigation is not performed by a law enforcement officer and the investigating body does not h......
-
§7.3 Other Rules of Construction
...awarding attorney fees because such awards are discretionary, unlike mandatory awards under the PRA); Cowles Publ'g Co. v. State Patrol, 109 Wn.2d 712, 731-32, 748 P.2d 597 (1988) (distinguishing PRA's investigative records provision, RCW 42.56.240(1), from FOIA's "enforcement proceedings" ......