• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

WA Supreme Court: police misconduct investigations are public information

KBCraig

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2007
Messages
4,886
Location
Granite State of Mind
Quite a good ruling!

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2015946104_courtruling19m.html

In a landmark decision, the state Supreme Court ruled Thursday that investigative reports into alleged misconduct by police officers must be made public even if the accusations are not upheld.

Eight of the nine justices found that the reports can't be withheld on privacy grounds because the public has a "legitimate interest" in knowing how the allegations were investigated.

But five justices found that the names of officers who have been exonerated may be redacted from the records for privacy reasons.

The ruling means the public, private attorneys and the media will have greater access to information that could shed more light on police investigations and help shape decisions regarding potential lawsuits and news stories.

The decision stemmed from criminal and internal investigations of Bainbridge Island police Officer Steven Cain, who was cleared of allegations that he sexually assaulted and choked a woman during a traffic stop in 2007.
 

Dave_pro2a

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2007
Messages
2,132
Location
, ,
Good. We should all know the names of officers involved with stuff like this http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2015969310_lawsuit21m.html

If fear is a deterrent, if punishment is a deterrent, if social stigma is a deterrent, then this sort of information MUST be releases. If those things are not deterrents, then there's a fundamental problem with our modern system of incarceration. If such motives won't work to alter the behavior of cops, then they won't alter the behavior of criminals.
 

Lightning Jeff

New member
Joined
Dec 27, 2010
Messages
9
Location
Duvall, WA
Good. We should all know the names of officers involved with stuff like this http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2015969310_lawsuit21m.html

Ironically, though, that's the one thing the decision says is exempt from public disclosure. The court's ruling is that a public employee has a right to privacy in his identity if an allegation of misconduct is unfounded. The complaint, investigative documents, etc., must still be released, but the employee's name and other identifying information can be redacted. Of course, if you know the name of the officer and ask for the documents by that name, you'll get them, albeit with the name redacted...
 
Top