Guild v. the City of Puyallup, s. 82374–0
| Decision Date | 18 August 2011 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 82374–0,82803–2.,s. 82374–0 |
| Citation | 259 P.3d 190,172 Wash.2d 398 |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
| Parties | BAINBRIDGE ISLAND POLICE GUILD and Steven Cain, Respondents,v.The CITY OF PUYALLUP, a municipal corporation, Defendant,andKim Koenig, an individual; and Lawrence Koss, an individual, Appellants.Bainbridge Island Police Guild and Steven Cain, Respondents,v.The City of Mercer Island, a municipal corporation, Defendant,andKim Koenig, an individual; and Lawrence Koss, an individual; and Althea Paulson, an individual; and Tristan Baurick, an individual, Appellants. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
John Rolfing Muenster, Muenster & Koenig, Bainbridge Island, WA, Daniel P. Mallove, Daniel P. Mallove, PLLC, Seattle, WA, for Appellants.Robert L. Christie, Ann Elizabeth Mitchell, Christie Law Group, PLLC, Seattle, WA, Steven M. Kirkelie, City of Puyallup, Puyallup, WA, Jeffrey Scott Myers, Law Lyman Daniel Kamerrer, et al., Olympia, WA, for Respondents.Margaret Ji Yong Pak, Douglas B. Klunder, Seattle, WA, amicus counsel for ACLU.Michele Lynn Earl–Hubbard, Christopher Roslaniec, Allied Law Group, LLC, Seattle, WA, amicus counsel for Allied Daily Newspapers of Washington, Center for Justice, Tacoma News Tribune, The Seattle Times, Tri–City Herald, and Washington Newspapers Publishers Association.William John Crittenden, Patrick Denis Brown, Seattle, WA, amicus counsel for Washington Coalition for Open Government.FAIRHURST, J.
[172 Wash.2d 404] ¶ 1 Appellants, Kim Koenig, Lawrence Koss, and Althea Paulson, seek direct review of two separate superior court orders enjoining disclosure of investigative records compiled by the cities of Puyallup and Mercer Island. Appellants argue that the records were wrongfully withheld. We remand these cases to the trial courts and direct them to order the production of the Puyallup criminal investigation report (PCIR) and the Mercer Island internal investigation report (MIIIR) with Bainbridge Island Police Officer Steven Cain's identity redacted.
¶ 2 Koenig filed a complaint against Officer Cain alleging sexual assault and strangulation during the course of a traffic stop on September 30, 2007. Koenig alleged that Officer Cain sexually assaulted her by pinning her against a car and rubbing his crotch against hers. Koenig also claimed that Officer Cain choked her until she defecated out of fear. Bainbridge Island Police Chief Matt Haney asked the Puyallup Police Department to conduct a criminal investigation and the Mercer Island Police Department to conduct an internal investigation into Officer Cain's conduct.
¶ 3 The Puyallup Police Department forwarded the results of its criminal investigation to the Kitsap County Prosecuting Attorney for review. Relying on the PCIR, the prosecutor declined to initiate any charges against Officer Cain, because there was “not sufficient evidence to establish that there was any inappropriate behavior by this police officer.” Clerk's Papers (CP) (Puyallup) at 72. The MIIIR yielded similar results, recommending that Officer Cain be “EXONERATED.” 1 CP (Mercer Island) at 66. After receiving the MIIIR and the PCIR, Chief Haney closed the case and informed Officer Cain that each investigation found the allegations “unsubstantiated.” CP (Puyallup) at 70.
¶ 4 In February 2008, Bainbridge Island received multiple public records requests for the MIIIR and the PCIR, including requests from Tristan Baurick, a reporter from the Kitsap Sun, and Paulson, author of the Bainbridge Notebook blog. Paulson was permitted to view the PCIR as “non-conviction data,” and Bainbridge Island informed her that the MIIIR would be produced absent an injunction. CP (Puyallup) at 131–32.
¶ 5 On March 31, 2008, Puyallup notified Officer Cain that Baurick had also submitted a public records request to Puyallup for the PCIR. Puyallup disagreed that the PCIR was nonconviction data, and informed Officer Cain that it intended to produce the PCIR absent an order enjoining release. No injunction was obtained and the PCIR was produced for Baurick.
¶ 6 The Bainbridge Island Police Guild (BIPG) and Officer Cain filed a complaint in the Kitsap County Superior Court to prevent Bainbridge Island from providing the MIIIR and the PCIR to Paulson and Baurick. Neither Mercer Island nor Puyallup was joined as a party. Judge Russell W. Hartman reviewed the documents in camera and ruled that production of any portion of the reports would violate Officer Cain's right to privacy. Therefore, both the PCIR and the MIIIR were withheld under the investigative report exemption of the Public Records Act (PRA), RCW 42.56.240(1). However, the court refused to enjoin the Kitsap Sun from publishing an article based on the PCIR produced by Puyallup for Baurick because Puyallup was not a party to the case.
¶ 7 On May 11, 2008, the Kitsap Sun published an article describing the allegations and identifying Officer Cain in connection to them. Additional articles were also published in the Bainbridge Islander newspaper, the Bainbridge Review newspaper, and many Internet sources.
[172 Wash.2d 406] ¶ 8 In June and July 2008, Koss and Koenig separately submitted public records requests to Puyallup for the PCIR. On July 18, 2008, Officer Cain and BIPG moved in the Pierce County Superior Court to enjoin Puyallup from producing the PCIR. The court denied a temporary injunction and Puyallup released the report to Koss and Koenig. However, the court later ruled that the entire report was exempt from production under the personal information exemption, former RCW 42.56.230(2) (2010). The entire report was exempted, not just Officer Cain's name, because the request was specific to information regarding the investigation of Koenig's allegation against Officer Cain, and thus any production would reveal his identity in connection with the incident. Koss and Koenig were ordered to return the report to Puyallup.
¶ 9 Koss and Koenig appealed the Pierce County Superior Court order directly to this court. Meanwhile, Koss, Koenig, Baurick, and Paulson all submitted public records requests to Mercer Island for the MIIIR. Officer Cain and BIPG moved in the King County Superior Court to enjoin production, and the injunction was again granted for the entirety of both reports. Koenig, Koss, and Paulson appealed the King County Superior Court order directly to this court. Because both appeals involve a public records request for the same reports held by different agencies, involving the same underlying facts, the cases were consolidated for review.
¶ 10 A. Under the PRA, did the trial court properly grant injunctive relief preventing production of the entire PCIR and MIIIR?
¶ 11 B. Under the Washington State Criminal Records Privacy Act (CRPA), chapter 10.97 RCW, did the trial court properly grant injunctive relief preventing production of the entire PCIR and MIIIR?
¶ 12 Under the PRA, appellants argue that the trial court erroneously granted Officer Cain and the BIPG's motion for injunctive relief to prevent production of the entire PCIR and MIIIR. If an agency intends to produce public records for a requester, an interested third party may seek to enjoin production under RCW 42.56.540.2 Judicial review under the PRA and this injunction statute is de novo. RCW 42.56.550(3); Spokane Police Guild v. Liquor Control Bd., 112 Wash.2d 30, 34–35, 769 P.2d 283 (1989). Where the record consists only of affidavits, memoranda of law, other documentary evidence, and where the trial court has not seen or heard testimony requiring it to assess the witnesses' credibility or competency, we are not bound by the trial court's factual findings and stand in the same position as the trial court. Progressive Animal Welfare Soc'y v. Univ. of Wash., 125 Wash.2d 243, 252–53, 884 P.2d 592 (1994) (PAWS).
¶ 13 The PRA requires state and local agencies to produce all public records upon request, unless the record falls within a PRA exemption or other statutory exemption. RCW 42.56.070(1); PAWS, 125 Wash.2d at 250, 884 P.2d 592. To the extent necessary to prevent an unreasonable invasion of personal privacy interests protected by the PRA, the agency shall redact identifying details and produce the remainder of the record. RCW 42.56.070(1). The party seeking to enjoin production bears the burden of proving an exemption or statute prohibits production in whole or in part. Spokane Police Guild, 112 Wash.2d at 35, 769 P.2d 283.
¶ 14 The PRA is “a strongly worded mandate for broad disclosure of public records.” Hearst Corp. v. Hoppe, 90 Wash.2d 123, 127, 580 P.2d 246 (1978).
The people of this state do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies that serve them. The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know. The people insist on remaining informed so that they may maintain control over the instruments that they have created.
RCW 42.56.030. Therefore, the PRA is to be “liberally construed and its exemptions narrowly construed to promote this public policy and to assure that the public interest will be fully protected.” Id.
¶ 15 The parties to this case do not dispute that the PCIR and the MIIIR are public records falling within the PRA.3 Therefore, we must decide whether any exemptions apply to prevent production of either report. If an exemption does apply, we then decide whether the trial court properly enjoined production of the PCIR and the MIIIR under the injunction requirements of RCW 42.56.540. Both trial courts in these consolidated cases granted the motions for injunction under the personal information exemption, former RCW 42.56.230(2).4 Additionally, the BIPG and Officer Cain argue that the investigative records exemption, RCW 42.56.240(1),5 also exempts the PCIR and the MIIIR from production. Before analyzing both of these exemptions, and whether an...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ameriquest Mortg. Co. v. Office of the Attorney Gen. of Wash.
...exclusively on affidavits, declarations, and other documents in making its determination de novo. Bainbridge Island Police Guild v. City of Puyallup, 172 Wash.2d 398, 407, 259 P.3d 190 (2011) (citing PAWS, 125 Wash.2d at 252–53, 884 P.2d 592). ¶ 39 For example, in Newman a freelance journal......
-
Associated Press v. Washington State Legislature
...¶ 10 "The PRA is ‘a strongly worded mandate for broad disclosure of public records.’ " Bainbridge Island Police Guild v. City of Puyallup, 172 Wash.2d 398, 408, 259 P.3d 190 (2011) (plurality opinion) (quoting Hearst Corp. v. Hoppe, 90 Wash.2d 123, 127, 580 P.2d 246 (1978) ). The PRA’s gene......
-
Gazette v. Smithers
...to the officer, such as his or her identity, as well as home addresses and phone numbers. See Bainbridge Island Police Guild v. City of Puyallup, 172 Wash.2d 398, 259 P.3d 190, 198 (2011) (holding that police officer “has a right to privacy in his identity, regardless of the media coverage ......
-
Wash. Pub. Emps. Ass'n v. Wash. State Ctr. for Childhood Deafness & Hearing
Loss
...is accessed does not place it outside the realm of article I, section 7's protection"); Bainbridge Island Police Guild v. City of Puyallup, 172 Wash.2d 398, 259 P.3d 190 (2011) (plurality opinion) (holding that a police officer maintains his right to privacy in his identity despite media co......
-
Table of Cases
...Bainbridge Island Police Guild v. City of Puyallup, 172 Wn.2d 398, 259 P.3d 190 (2011): 2.2(3), 4.2(2), 6.7(1)(a), 6.7(1)(a), 8.3, 8.3(1)(b), 8.3(1)(d), 9.3(1), 10.2(2), 10.2(3)(b)(iv), 10.2(3)(c)(ii), 10.2(3)(c)(iii), 10.2(3)(c)(iii), 11.2(3), 17.2(1), 17.3(1)(a) Bartz v. State Dep't of Co......
-
§52.6 Analysis
...to review factual findings based solely on documentary evidence. Bainbridge Island Police Guild v. City ofPuyallup, 172 Wn.2d 398, 407, 259 P.3d 190 (2011) (de novo review of trial court's ruling under the Public Records Act when evidence consists solely of documentary evidence); CLEAN v. C......
-
§10.2 Relevant Exemptions
...Liquor Control Bd., 112 Wn.2d 30, 769 P.2d 283 (1989); 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 en......
-
§8.3 The Definition of Privacy-The Evolution of the Doctrine
...based on privacy must meet both prongs of this test. See Bainbridge Island Police Guild v. City of Puyallup, 172 Wn.2d 398, 417, 259 P.3d 190 (2011). It is not enough that disclosure of such personal information "may cause inconvenience or embarrassment to public officials or others." RCW 4......