Spokane Police Guild v. Washington State Liquor Control Bd., 55432-3
| Decision Date | 16 February 1989 |
| Docket Number | No. 55432-3,55432-3 |
| Citation | 769 P.2d 283,112 Wn.2d 30 |
| Parties | SPOKANE POLICE GUILD, a nonprofit corporation, and Jerry Poindexter, its president and John Doe, Appellants, v. WASHINGTON STATE LIQUOR CONTROL BOARD; City of Spokane; and Cowles Publishing Company, Respondents. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Kain & Snow, Gregory G. Staeheli, Spokane, for Spokane Police Guild, et al.
James C. Sloane, City Atty., Rocco Treppiedi, Asst., Spokane, for Spokane.
Witherspoon, Kelley, Davenport & Toole, P.S., Duane M. Swinton, Michael D. Currin, Spokane, for Cowles Publishing Co.
Ken Eikenberry, Atty. Gen., Paul D. Solomon, Asst., Liquor Control Bd., Olympia, for State.
This is an appeal from an order of the Superior Court for Spokane County wherein the court declined to enjoin the Washington State Liquor Control Board from releasing an investigative report to the public and news media. We affirm.
On or about March 19, 1986, a party was held on the Spokane Police Guild Club premises. These were premises licensed by the Washington State Liquor Control Board (Liquor Board). The party has been variously referred to as a bachelor party, stag show and strip show. The party was, in any event, given for a prospective bridegroom by his brother. A dancer performed at the party in a manner which, as it was subsequently determined, violated Liquor Board regulations. Forty or more people were in attendance. Following an investigation by an investigator for the Liquor Board, the club's liquor license was suspended for 21 days.
A reporter for the Spokesman Review and Spokane Chronicle newspapers requested a copy of the Liquor Board's investigative report. The Liquor Board ultimately determined that it would release its full report on the incident. This suit was thereupon commenced by the Spokane Police Guild to enjoin the release of the records. The publisher of the newspapers, Cowles Publishing Company, and the City of Spokane were permitted to intervene in the suit.
Following consideration of affidavits, briefs and arguments, and after reviewing the investigative report in camera, the trial court filed its memorandum decision stating in part as follows:
Nothing this court can do will ever erase the fact that this regrettable incident occurred. And probably nothing the news media can do from here on out will really be considered a benefit to this community. But it seems obvious to this court that the full story must be made public, including the names of persons involved.
The trial court then entered an order denying the injunction and ordering that a complete and unedited copy of the investigative report be disclosed. An appeal was taken to the Court of Appeals and the trial court stayed disclosure pending appeal. The Court of Appeals, in turn, certified the appeal to this court and we accepted review. 1
The appeal presents one primary issue.
Should the Liquor Board's report of its investigation of liquor law violations at a party held on the premises of one of its licensees be exempt from disclosure under the state freedom of information act?
CONCLUSION. We hold that the trial court properly concluded that the records in question were not exempt from disclosure and that a complete and unedited copy of the Liquor Board's report should be made available to the public and news media.
This suit was brought under the state freedom of information act, RCW 42.17.250-.340 (the act). The parties concede that the Liquor Board's investigative report of the event in question is a public record. Thus, we turn to the act for guidance.
The act originally became law in 1972 as a part of Initiative Measure 276, adopted by a direct vote of the people. The purpose and policy are as follows. 2 It is a strongly worded mandate for broad disclosure of public records. While mindful of the right of individuals to privacy and of the desirability of the efficient administration of government, full access to information concerning the conduct of government on every level must be assured as a fundamental and necessary precondition to the sound governance of a free society. The provisions of the act are to be liberally construed to promote full access to public records so as to assure continuing public confidence in governmental processes, and to assure that the public interest will be fully protected.
Achieving an informed citizenry is a goal sometimes counterpoised against other important societal aims. Indeed, as the act recognizes, society's interest in an open government can conflict with its interest in protecting personal privacy rights and with the public need for preserving the confidentiality of criminal investigatory matters, among other concerns. Though tensions among these competing interests are characteristic of a democratic society, their resolution lies in providing a workable formula which encompasses, balances and appropriately protects all interests, while placing emphasis on responsible disclosure. It is this task of accommodating opposing concerns, with disclosure as the primary objective, that the state freedom of information act seeks to accomplish. 3
Under the act, judicial intervention in the release of public records can come about in one of two ways.
First, the courts can become involved if the agency refuses to provide the requested public records, or attempts to edit them in a fashion deemed unacceptable by the requester. In that event, the requester may proceed under RCW 42.17.340 and obtain judicial review of the agency's action refusing disclosure. Most reported appellate decisions involving the act, including our recent decision in Cowles Pub'g Co. v. State Patrol, 109 Wash.2d 712, 748 P.2d 597 (1988), have dealt with this kind of an action. 4 In such a proceeding, the following rules apply: the agency has the burden of proving that the records should be exempt from disclosure; 5 judicial review of the agency decision is de novo; 6 and a party successfully obtaining disclosure over agency objection may recover costs including reasonable attorneys' fees. 7
The second route to judicial intervention in the release of public records is where, as in this case, the agency intends to disclose the public records to a requester and an interested third party seeks to prevent disclosure. In this situation, the objector may proceed under the injunction statute. It provides:
Court protection of public records. The examination of any specific public record may be enjoined if, upon motion and affidavit, the superior court for the county in which the movant resides or in which the record is maintained, finds that such examination would clearly not be in the public interest and would substantially and irreparably damage any person, or would substantially and irreparably damage vital governmental functions.
In a proceeding brought under this injunction statute, the party seeking to prevent disclosure has the burden of proof. 8 Although the act does not expressly declare such a proceeding to be de novo, the injunction statute by its terms contemplates that the court may go beyond the confines of any agency record in making its decision. It is clear, therefore, that judicial review of the agency decision is also de novo in actions brought under this statute. 9 While no provision of the act authorizes the award of actual costs and attorneys' fees to an objector who successfully obtains an injunction against disclosure, such costs and fees may be awarded where a party succeeds in getting a wrongfully issued injunction dissolved. 10 Where, as in this case, the record on both trial and appeal consists of affidavits and documents, and the trial court has neither seen nor heard testimony requiring it to assess the credibility or competency of witnesses, nor had to weigh the evidence or reconcile conflicting evidence in reaching a decision, the appellate court stands in the same position as did the trial court in reviewing the record. 11
To analyze the case, we start with the proposition that the act establishes an affirmative duty to disclose public records unless the records fall within specific statutory exemptions or prohibitions. 12 It follows, that in an action brought pursuant to the injunction statute (RCW 42.17.330) the initial determination will ordinarily be whether the information involved is in fact within one of the act's exemptions or within some other statute which exempts or prohibits disclosure of specific information or records. 13 If it is not so exempted or prohibited, then the records are to be released subject to the agency's right in certain situations to delete identifying details from the record, in accordance with another specific provision of the act. 14 If it is exempted or prohibited, then the judicial inquiry commences.
In the present case, the documents sought are within the investigative records exemption of the act. That exemption provides:
(1) The following are exempt from public inspection and copying:
* * * (d) Specific intelligence information and specific investigative records compiled by investigative, law enforcement, and penology agencies, and state agencies vested with the responsibility to discipline members of any profession, the nondisclosure of which is essential to effective law enforcement or for the protection of any person's right to privacy.
Deleting the portions of this exemption not here applicable, the act thus declares "exempt from public inspection and copying ... specific investigative records compiled by investigative ... agencies, ... the nondisclosure of which is essential to effective law enforcement or for the protection of any person's right to privacy."
Applying this investigative records exemption to the facts of the case before us, we conclude as follows. The file covering the investigation is obviously an...
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
... ... v. Texas Indus. Accident Bd., 540 S.W.2d 668 (Tex.1976) (holding that Open ... to records within their possession and control ... In its order granting ... Applying this standard, the Washington Supreme Court, in Cowles Publishing Co. v. State ... of an employee's personal life.' "); Spokane Police v. Liquor Control Board, 112 Wash.2d 30, ... at bachelor party held at private police guild club and attended by police officers did not ... ...
-
Ameriquest Mortg. Co. v. Office of the Attorney Gen. of Wash.
...trial court when reviewing declarations, memoranda of law, and other documentary evidence. See Spokane Police Guild v. Wash. State Liquor Control Bd., 112 Wash.2d 30, 35–36, 769 P.2d 283 (1989). ¶ 17 Trial court discovery rulings are subject to review for abuse of discretion. In re Det. of ......
-
Confederated Tribes of Chehalis Reservation v. Johnson
... ... James M. JOHNSON; State of Washington, Washington State ... Gambling ... 131 Wash.2d 25, 32, 929 P.2d 389 (1997); Spokane Police Guild v. Liquor Control Bd., 112 Wash.2d ... ...
-
Freedom Found. v. Wash. State Dep't of Transp.
...243, 884 P.2d 592 (1994); Brouillet v. Cowles Pub. Co., 114 Wash.2d 788, 791 P.2d 526 (1990); Spokane Police Guild v. Washington State Liquor Control Bd., 112 Wash.2d 30, 769 P.2d 283 (1989); Hearst Corp. v. Hoppe, 90 Wash.2d 123, 580 P.2d 246 (1978). But, as noted, none of these cases addr......
-
§16.3 Procedural Aspects of Requestor-Initiated Actions
...see Cowles Publishing v. Spokane Police, 139 Wn.2d at 475; Dawson, 120 Wn.2d at 788; Spokane Police Guild v. State Liquor Control Bd., 112 Wn.2d 30, 32, 769 P.2d 283 (1989); Ameriquest Mortgage, 148 Wn.App. at 154; Cowles Publishing v. City of Spokane, 69 Wn.App. at 682; Tacoma News, Inc. v......
-
Table of Cases
...18.5(3)(b) Spokane & E. Lawyer v. Tompkins, 136 Wn.App. 616, 150 P.3d 158 (2007): 4.1(1) Spokane Police Guild v. State Liquor Control Bd., 112 Wn.2d 30, 769 P.2d 283 (1989): 8.3(1)(b), 10.2(2), 10.2(3)(b)(iii), 10.2(3)(b)(iv), 16.3(8), 17.2(1), 18.4(4) Spokane Research & Def. Fund v. City o......
-
§18.4 Attorney Fees
...agreed to release the requested public records. See, e.g., Morgan, 166 Wn.2d at 751-52; Spokane Police Guild u. State Liquor Control Bd., 112 Wn.2d 30, 32, 769 P.2d 283 (1989); Nw. Gas Ass'n v. Wash. Utils. and Transp. Comm'n, 141 Wn.App. 98, 168 P.3d 443 (2007);Dragonslayer, Inc. v. State ......
-
Procedural Rules Under Washington's Public Records Act: the Case for Agency Discretion
...language in numerous cases over the next several decades. See Spokane Police Guild v. Wash. State Liquor Control Bd., 112 Wash. 2d 30, 33, 769 P.2d 283, 284 (1989); Progressive Animal Welfare Soc'y v. Univ. of Wash., 114 Wash. 2d 677, 682, 790 P.2d 604, 606 (1990); Dawson v. Daly, 120 Wash.......