Koenig v. City of Des Moines
| Decision Date | 31 August 2006 |
| Docket Number | No. 75889-1.,75889-1. |
| Citation | 158 Wn.2d 173,142 P.3d 162 |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
| Parties | David KOENIG, Respondent, v. CITY OF DES MOINES and Des Moines Police Department, Petitioners. |
Linda Anne Marousek, City of Des Moines, Des Moines, David Nelson Bruce, Savitt & Bruce LLP, Seattle, for Petitioner/Appellants.
William John Crittenden, Elena Luisa Garella, Seattle, for Appellee/Respondent.
Douglas B. Klunder, Aaron Hugh Caplan, ACLU of Washington, Seattle, for Amicus Curiae ACLU of Washington.
Michael John Killeen, Eric B. Martin, Michele Lynn Earl-Hubbard, Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, Seattle, for Amicus Curiae Allied Daily Newspapers of Washington, Inc.
William Berggren Collins, Olympia, for Amicus Curiae Attorney General of Washington.
Michele Lynn Earl Hubbard, Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, Seattle, for Amicus Curiae Evergreen Freedom Foundation.
Sara Lyle Ainsworth, Northwest Women's Law Center, Seattle, Catherine Carroll, WA Coalition of Sexual Assault Programs, Olympia, for Amicus Curiae Northwest Womens Law Center.
Pamela Beth Loginsky, Washington Assoc. of Prosecuting Attorneys, Olympia, for Amicus Curiae Washington Association of Prosecuting Attorneys.
Michele Lynn Earl-Hubbard, Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, Seattle, for Amicus Curiae Washington Coalition for Open Government.
Michael John Killeen, Eric B. Martin, Michele Lynn Earl-Hubbard, Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, Seattle, for Amicus Curiae Washington Newspaper Publishers Ass'n.
Robert Gerard Beaumier, Jr., Office of the City Attorney, Spokane, Rocco Nicholas Treppiedi, Spokane City Attorney's Office, for Amicus Curiae Washington State Association of Municipal Attorneys.
Sara Lyle Ainsworth, Northwest Women's Law Center, Seattle, Catherine Carroll, WA Coalition of Sexual Assault Programs, Olympia, for Amicus Curiae Washington State Coalition of Sexual Assault Programs.
¶ 1 The issue is whether the city of Des Moines and its police department (collectively the city) properly withheld the records regarding the sexual molestation of Jane Doe, a minor child, from her father, David Koenig. The plain and unambiguous language of former RCW 42.17.31901 (1992)1 exempts from disclosure only the specifically defined information identifying child victims of sexual assault. The details of the underlying crime, including the sexually explicit information redacted by the Court of Appeals, are of legitimate concern to the public and consequently subject to disclosure. We hold Mr. Koenig is entitled to statutory penalties pursuant to former RCW 42.17.340(4) (2005) for each day the records were withheld as well as reasonable attorney fees. Accordingly the Court of Appeals is affirmed in part and reversed in part.
¶ 2 Jane Doe, Mr. Koenig's daughter, is a child victim of sexual assault. In October 1996 David Koenig requested from the city all records concerning his daughter. The request identified Jane Doe by name and referenced her case number. Citing former RCW 42.17.310 (1996) as authority, the city denied the request, claiming the nondisclosure of the records was essential to law enforcement and that the complainant had requested nondisclosure. Over the next two years Mr. Koenig made several additional written requests for production, each time identifying the documents sought by using Jane Doe's name and case number. The city denied all requests.
¶ 3 In December 1999 Mr. Koenig sued the city to compel the production of the records. In January 2000 the city filed under a separate cause number a motion seeking an injunction protecting the city's records from production. Mr. Koenig moved to intervene. After reviewing the documents in camera, the court ordered the records be withheld from the public, subject to any future orders made by the trial court presiding over Mr. Koenig's suit.
¶ 4 In August 2001 the trial court in Mr. Koenig's suit entered a memorandum opinion and order. After in camera review of the records, the trial court redacted the victim's name, address, and relationship to the assailant, and ordered the redacted records immediately released.2 The court awarded attorney fees and costs to Mr. Koenig but declined to impose any statutory penalties. Mr. Koenig filed a motion for reconsideration of the decision to deny the penalties. The trial court granted the motion but nonetheless declined to impose any penalties on the city because (1) the earlier injunction bound the city not to disclose the records, (2) Mr. Koenig prevailed only partially on account of the redaction, and (3) because it was a close case involving competing and compelling policy considerations. The city appealed the order to release the redacted records and the award of attorney fees. Mr. Koenig cross-appealed the decision to not award any statutory penalties under former RCW 42.17.340(4).
¶ 5 The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision to order the release of the redacted records but also ordered the further redaction of what it termed "sexually explicit descriptive information"3 to protect Jane Doe's privacy under former RCW 42.17.310(1)(d). The Court of Appeals further held the trial court erred when it declined to award daily penalties against the city but also stated the trial court did have the discretion to reduce the number of penalty days to account for factors such as the timeliness of the suit and the injunction secured by the city.
¶ 6 The city sought review of (1) whether former RCW 42.17.31901, which protects the identity of child victims of sexual assault, permits disclosure of records where the request identifies a child victim by name; (2) whether the disclosure of records after the redaction of sexually explicit information nonetheless violates the privacy protections of former RCW 42.17.310(1)(d); and (3) whether the daily monetary penalties under former RCW 42.17.340(4) are mandatory when a court orders disclosure of withheld records. Mr. Koenig's answer to the petition for review raised an additional issue: whether the Court of Appeals properly redacted sexually explicit information. We granted review of all four issues.4 Koenig v. City of Des Moines, 153 Wash.2d 1023, 110 P.3d 755 (2005).
¶ 7 The legislature has made clear the principles governing the construction of the public disclosure act (the act):
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. The public records subdivision of this chapter shall be liberally construed and its exemptions narrowly construed to promote this public policy.
¶ 8 Consistent with this legislative directive, we have interpreted the Washington public disclosure act as "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 act's disclosure provisions are to be construed liberally and its exemptions narrowly. Former RCW 42.17.251; Progressive Animal Welfare Soc'y v. Univ. of Wash., 125 Wash.2d 243, 251, 884 P.2d 592 (1994) (PAWS). The agency must carry the burden of proving the information sought falls within one of the act's exemptions. Former RCW 42.17.340(1); Spokane Police Guild v. Liquor Control Bd., 112 Wash.2d 30, 35, 769 P.2d 283 (1989). Agency determinations are reviewed de novo. Former RCW 42.17.340(3). When reviewing agency actions, "[c]ourts shall take into account the policy of this chapter that free and open examination of public records is in the public interest, even though such examination may cause inconvenience or embarrassment to public officials or others." Former RCW 42.17.340(3).
¶ 9 Former RCW 42.17.31901, enacted in 1992 to protect the identity of child victims of sexual assault, provides:
Information revealing the identity of child victims of sexual assault who are under age eighteen is confidential and not subject to public disclosure. Identifying information means the child victim's name, address, location, photograph, and in cases in which the child victim is a relative or stepchild of the alleged perpetrator, identification of the relationship between the child and the alleged perpetrator.
¶ 10 The city argues former RCW 42.17.31901 bars the disclosure of the records sought by Mr. Koenig because he identified Jane Doe by name in his requests. According to the city, if it released the records in response to such a request, the very act of disclosure would identify Jane Doe as a child victim of sexual assault. Mr. Koenig asserts the statute exempts only the specific facts it defines as "identifying information." The Court of Appeals agreed with Mr. Koenig, concluding "[n]either the plain language of the statute, nor any reasonable interpretation of its terms requires the exemption of entire records simply because a request names a specific child," and declined to "rewrite the statute or construe it in a manner contrary to its unambiguous text." Koenig, 123 Wash.App. at 294, 295, 95 P.3d 777.
¶ 11 When interpreting any statute our primary objective is to "ascertain and give effect to the intent of the Legislature." Nat'l Elec. Contractors Ass'n v. Riveland, 138 Wash.2d 9, 19, 978 P.2d 481 (1999). "In order to determine legislative intent, we begin with the statute's plain language and ordinary meaning." Id. Plain language does not require construction. State v. Thornton, 119 Wash.2d 578, 580, 835 P.2d 216 (1992).
¶ 12 Here, former RCW 42.17.31901 prohibits the disclosure of information revealing the identity of child victims of sexual assault, which it defines as the name, address, location, photograph and, in some instances, the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Porter v. Kirkendoll
...... to effectuate a consistent statutory scheme that maintains the integrity of the respective statute." Koenig v. City of Des Moines, 158 Wash.2d 173, 184, 142 P.3d 162 (2006) (citing State v. Chapman, 140 Wash.2d 436, 448, 998 P.2d 282 (2000) ).¶39 The waste statute reads, in relevant par......
-
Soter v. Cowles Pub. Co.
...trial court is required to impose a penalty within the statutory range for each day records were withheld. Koenig v. City of Des Moines, 158 Wash.2d 173, 189, 142 P.3d 162 (2006). The trial court may not reduce the penalty period, even if the requester could have filed suit against the agen......
-
Densley v. Department of Retirement Systems
...terms in the same statute, courts presume the legislature intends the terms to have different meanings. Koenig v. City of Des Moines, 158 Wash.2d 173, 182, 142 P.3d 162 (2006) (citing Roggenkamp, 153 Wash.2d at 625, 106 P.3d 196); see also State v. Beaver, 148 Wash.2d 338, 343, 60 P.3d 586 ......
-
King Cnty. v. King Cnty. Water Districts Nos. 20, 45, 49, 90, 111, 119, 125
...... to effectuate a consistent statutory scheme that maintains the integrity of the respective statute." Koenig v. City of Des Moines, 158 Wash.2d 173, 184, 142 P.3d 162 (2006) (citing State v. Chapman , 140 Wash.2d 436, 448, 998 P.2d 282 (2000) ).¶50 Under RCW 57.08.005, water-sewer distri......
-
Table of Cases
...Wash. State Criminal Justice Training Comm'n, 185 Wn.App. 832, 342 P.3d 1198 (2015): 6.7(3)(a), 6.7(5)(a) Koenig v. City of Des Moines, 158 Wn.2d 173, 142 P.3d 162 (2006): 6.7(1)(a), 6.7(1)(a), 6.7(1)(c), 6.7(4), 7.2(1), 7.3(1), 8.3, 8.3(1)(d), 8.3(2), 8.3(2)(a), 9.1(3), 9.1(3), 9.3(7), 10.......
-
Procedural Rules Under Washington's Public Records Act: the Case for Agency Discretion
...and Def. Fund v. City of Spokane, 155 Wash. 2d 89, 100, 117 P.3d 1117, 1123 (2005); Koenig v. City of Des Moines, 158 Wash. 2d 173, 180, 142 P.3d 162, 168 (2006); Soter v. Cowles Pub. Co., 162 Wash. 2d 716, 730, 174 P.3d 60, 68 (2007); Bellevue John Does 1-11 v. Bellevue Sch. Dist., 164 Was......
-
§10.2 Relevant Exemptions
...to be of "legitimate concern to the public" it must be reasonable. Dawson, 120 Wn.2d at 797-98; see also Koenig v. City of Des Moines, 158 Wn.2d 173, 185, 142 P.3d 162 A determination of whether disclosure would be reasonable involves a balancing of "public interest in disclosure against th......
-
§7.3 Other Rules of Construction
...general canons of statutory construction include Dawson v. Daly, 120 Wn.2d 782, 791, 845 P.2d 995 (1993); Koenig v. City of Des Moines, 158 Wn.2d 173, 181, 142 P.3d 162 (2006); Telford v. Thurston County Board of Commissioners, 95 Wn.App. 149, 157, 974 P.2d 886, review denied, 138 Wn.2d 101......