Summary
The Washington Supreme Court considered whether the Seattle Police Department violated the Public Records Act by denying requests for records concerning retained police dash-camera recordings. The court held that the department properly denied the request for officers’ log sheets but violated the Act by failing to produce a partially responsive list of retained videos. It further held that the privacy statute provides only a limited exemption for videos relating to actual, pending litigation, and remanded for further proceedings.
Holdings
- The Seattle Police Department complied with the Public Records Act when it denied the request for officer log sheets because the requested paper forms had not been used since 2002 and had been destroyed in 2004.
- The Department violated the Public Records Act by telling the requester that no responsive records existed when it had the capacity to produce at least a partially responsive electronic record.
- RCW 9.73.090(1)(c) is a limited exception to immediate Public Records Act disclosure that applies only when the recordings relate to actual, pending criminal or civil litigation; it does not create a blanket exemption for recordings that might later become relevant to litigation.
Questions Presented
- Whether the Seattle Police Department complied with the Public Records Act by denying the request for officer log sheets on the ground that no responsive records existed.
- Whether the Department violated the Public Records Act by refusing to provide a list of retained in-car video and audio recordings because generating the requested compilation required querying or combining database information.
- Whether RCW 9.73.090(1)(c) created a blanket exemption from Public Records Act disclosure for law-enforcement vehicle recordings or instead applied only to recordings relating to actual, pending criminal or civil litigation.
Disposition
reversed_and_remanded
Cases Cited (14)
- Sargent v. Seattle Police Department, 179 Wn.2d 376, 314 P.3d 1093 (2013)(followed)
- Hearst Corp. v. Hoppe, 90 Wn.2d 123, 580 P.2d 246 (1978)(followed)
- Gendler v. Batiste, 174 Wn.2d 244, 274 P.3d 346 (2012)(followed)
- Newman v. King County, 133 Wn.2d 565, 947 P.2d 712 (1997)(followed)
- Sperr v. City of Spokane, 123 Wn. App. 132, 96 P.3d 1012 (2004)(followed)
- Neighborhood Alliance of Spokane County v. Spokane County, 172 Wn.2d 702, 261 P.3d 119 (2011)(followed)
- Citizens for Fair Share v. Department of Corrections, 117 Wn. App. 411, 72 P.3d 206 (2003)(followed)
- Smith v. Okanogan County, 100 Wn. App. 7, 994 P.2d 857 (2000)(followed)
- O'Neill v. City of Shoreline, 170 Wn.2d 138, 240 P.3d 1149 (2010)(distinguished)
- Ameriquest Mortgage Co. v. Office of the Attorney General, 170 Wn.2d 418, 241 P.3d 1245 (2010)(followed)
Showing top 10 of 14.
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…