In re Adams

• Decision Date: 01 September 2015
• Docket Number: No. 32012–0–III.,32012–0–III.
• Parties: James V. ADAMS, Respondent and Cross Appellant, v. WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Appellant.
• Court: Washington Court of Appeals

189 Wash.App. 925

361 P.3d 749

James V. ADAMS, Respondent and Cross Appellant,

v.WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Appellant.

No. 32012–0–III.

Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 3.

Sept. 1, 2015.

Candie M. Dibble, Office of the Attorney General, Spokane, WA, for Appellant.

James V. Adams, Walla Walla, WA, Appearing Pro Se.

Opinion

SIDDOWAY, C.J.

¶ 1 Both parties to this Public Records Act (PRA)¹dispute appeal decisions of the Franklin County Superior Court, which concluded that the Washington State Department of Corrections (DOC) improperly withheld records that inmate James Adams requested from his offender file, acted in bad faith in doing so, and should pay a penalty of $24,535. The DOC challenges the conclusion that it acted in bad faith. Mr. Adams argues that the penalty awarded was insufficient and was arrived at without full consideration of all of the relevant evidence.

¶ 2 The trial court found that the DOC's position that the documents were subject to an exemption from disclosure was legally indefensible and that the DOC simply deferred to what it was being told by individuals with the Washington State Patrol, without engaging in any critical analysis of its own. It found that the intentional bad faith character of the DOC's decision to withhold the documents was further demonstrated by the DOC's persistence, after a Spokane County Superior Court squarely rejected any claim of exemption, in continuing to rely on views of the state patrol that it preferred over the views of the court. We hold that “bad faith” for purposes of imposing penalties under RCW 42.56.565(1)includes an agency's failure to engage in any serious independent analysis of the exempt status of documents it withholds. For that reason, and because Mr. Adams fails to demonstrate any error in his cross appeal, we affirm all of the decisions of the trial court.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶ 3 James Adams is incarcerated at the Coyote Ridge Corrections Center, a facility operated by the DOC. In July 2011, Mr. Adams submitted a request to the corrections center's records unit to review his inmate central file. Among other documents included in an offender's central file is his criminal conviction record packet. That packet consists of criminal history obtained from the Washington State Patrol and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) at the time the inmate's fingerprint cards are forwarded following his admission to DOC custody. It also includes updated information obtained as part of the DOC's annual review thereafter. Updated information for the packet is obtained by submitting the inmate's name and date of birth into ACCESS, an acronym for “A Central Computerized Enforcement Service System,” which is the Washington State Patrol's telecommunications system providing linkage to law enforcement and other criminal justice agencies. SeeWashington State Patrol,http://www.wsp.wa.gov/crime/isbhome.htm (last visited Aug. 12, 2015).

¶ 4 In response to Mr. Adams's record request, a corrections center records manager reviewed his file and removed documents she believed were exempt from disclosure under the PRA, including Mr. Adams' 23–page criminal conviction record packet. The first two pages of Mr. Adams's packet were a Defendant's Case History Report. The remaining 21 pages were printouts from ACCESS. The ACCESS printouts included information on Mr. Adams from Washington State, from the FBI, and from the Interstate Identification Index System, a “cooperative federal-state system for the exchange of criminal history records.” 28 C.F.R. § 20.3(m).

¶ 5 The records manager completed a “Denial of Disclosure of Public Records” form dated July 14, 2011, that stated in pertinent part:

1. TO: ADAMS, JAMES

2. YOUR REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE OF THE RECORDS IDENTIFIED BELOW HAS BEEN DENIED TO THE EXTENT AND FOR THE REASON(S) SET FORTH BELOW.

....

SPECIFIC INTELLIGENCE AND OR INVESTIGATION RECORDS FBI & SID²RAP SHEETS; CCR PACKET

Clerk's Papers (CP) at 343. There was no identification of how many pages of documents were being withheld or any more specific description of their contents.

¶ 6 When Mr. Adams reviewed the portion of his central file produced on that same day, he was presented with the “denial of disclosure” form, which he signed. Later that day, the records department sent Mr. Adams the following explanation for its withholding:

EXEMPTION(S) II[sic]—FBI RAP AND WASHINGTON STATE RAP SHEET—

These records, consisting of the Federal Bureau of Investigation Rap Sheet and/or the Washington Rap Sheet, are protected from disclosure and have been withheld in their entirety per the following citations: ... [citing 28 CFR § 513.11(a)(1), 28 CFR § 513.20(b), and RCW 4.56.070(1)].

Id.at 289.

¶ 7 Mr. Adams appealed the withholding of his state and federal criminal information to the DOC's Public Disclosure Appeals Office, arguing that he was exempt “from all of the above-mentioned citations that would necessarily deny my review of my own FBI and SID RAP Sheets.” Id.at 404. The appeals office denied his appeal. It again cited 28 CFR § 513.11(a)(1), 28 CFR § 513.20(b)and RCW 4.56.070(1), quoting in part from each, and also stated that “[n]on-conviction criminal history information is for law enforcement use only, and restricted from dissemination under provisions of RCW 10.97.050and 28 U.S.C. § 534and 28 CFR Part 20.” CP at 406. The denial letter advised Mr. Adams to contact the WSP and the FBI directly, explaining that “these entities can create and provide official copies of FBI Rap Sheets and Washington State Rap Sheets, respectively.” Id.

Commencement of the PRA action

¶ 8 Mr. Adams commenced this action in Franklin County shortly thereafter, on October 31, alleging that the DOC violated the PRA in responding to his request.

¶ 9 Three days before Mr. Adams filed his complaint, the Spokane County Superior Court had entered a memorandum decision in an action entitled David Chester v. Department of Corrections,in which Mr. Chester “alleg[ed] violations of [the PRA] as several groups of public records (criminal rap sheets) belonging to [Mr. Chester] were withheld from production and inspection or review during [his] central file reviews on June 17, 2010, and June 7, 2011.” CP at 57 (Memorandum Opinion and Order, Cause No. 11–2–00329–3 (Oct. 28, 2011)). At Mr. Chester's request, the court had reviewed in camera a number of documents withheld from Mr. Chester by the DOC, including six pages of Mr. Chester's own Washington State Patrol rap sheet dated April 2002, six pages of his state patrol rap sheet dated May 2006, eight pages of his state patrol rap sheet dated February 2002, and two pages of his FBI rap sheet dated April 2002.

¶ 10 The Spokane court's decision stated that “[a]fter an additional review of potentially applicable exemptions, ... it does not seem that Plaintiff's [requested records, WSP and] FBI rap sheets, are exempt under any provision.” Id.at 59. The court ordered the DOC to provide Mr. Chester with copies of his state and FBI rap sheets, among other documents. The DOC moved for reconsideration, which the court denied in November.

¶ 11 Almost 10 months later, on September 4, 2012, DOC filed a motion for a show cause hearing to resolve Mr. Adams's PRA complaint. It conceded that it violated the PRA by withholding the two-page Defendant's Case History report during Mr. Adams's offender central file review the year before. But it argued that the remaining 21 pages of documents had been withheld based on its signed user agreement with the state patrol and its understanding that the state patrol (at least at one time) viewed dissemination of ACCESS printouts to inmates as sanctionable misuse of the system.

¶ 12 The DOC filed declarations of the correctional records manager for the DOC and the Coyote Ridge records supervisor that undercut its position in part, since they admitted that the state patrol had “modified its position” with respect to state patrol rap sheets on January 10, 2012, and now took the position that the ACCESS use agreement was not violated by allowing an offender to inspect his or her own Washington State rap sheet information. According to the declarations, federal and out of state rap sheet information remained nondisclosable.

¶ 13 The Coyote Ridge records supervisor further stated in her declaration that in light of the state patrol's changed position, she had scheduled a time on August 23, 2012, for Mr. Adams to review pages one through 11 of his packet, consisting of the Defendant's Case History document and the Washington State portion of the ACCESS printout. She stated that although Mr. Adams appeared at the scheduled time, he refused to review the records.

¶ 14 In its motion to dismiss, the DOC persisted in arguing that it did not violate the PRA in withholding ACCESS printouts because state and federal law prohibited it from providing Mr. Adams's FBI and WSP rap sheets to him. It persisted in claiming that its position was supported by requirements of the state patrol's ACCESS Standard Procedures and its 2009 and 2011 user agreements, unsigned copies of which it provided to the court.

Show Cause Hearing

¶ 15 The trial court found the DOC's justification for its withholding indefensibly deficient. At the hearing of the show cause motion, it pointed out that DOC's legal support for its position was limited to a state patrol records section manager's conclusory declaration as to applicable law, regulation, policy, and federal-state agreement. The court stated it had been unable to locate a single document or legal citation provided by DOC that prohibited the DOC from disseminating an offender's state patrol or FBI rap sheet to that offender. The court asked the DOC's lawyer three times during the hearing to draw the court's attention to any record evidence of an edict or agreement that prohibited the offender from being provided with the ACCESS printouts. None was identified.

¶ 16 After hearing the parties' argument, the trial...