Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 989681.pdf

Citation: Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 989681.pdf
Jurisdiction: Washington (state)
Source: Official source
Original Source: https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/989681.pdf ↗

Related Parts of This Source

Full Text

1,683 chars

store the ammunition at his house. However, the declarations of numerous officers

indicate that the amount of ammunition possessed was highly unreasonable. The

amount of ammunition in his possession, having ammunition that is incompatible

with department-issued firearms (but compatible with his personal firearms), and the

many officers’ declarations all show that Sheriff Hatcher exercised his discretion in a

manifestly unreasonable manner. His conduct affects and interferes with the

performance of his duties as sheriff.

13
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
In re Recall Charges Against Benton County Sheriff Gerald D. Hatcher,
No. 98968-1

In addition, Sheriff Hatcher alleges, without authority, that the charge fails for

legal sufficiency because the proper avenue for criminal law is the criminal process.1

An elected official need not be charged and found guilty of a crime prior to a recall

on said allegations. As alleged by the recall petitioner, Sheriff Hatcher’s acts rise to

the level of a knowing and intentional violation of criminal law. Therefore, the recall

petitioner has established a prima facie case that Sheriff Hatcher committed

misfeasance or malfeasance without any legal justification.

2. Illegally tampered with physical evidence by directing the distribution of
ammunition that was potential evidence of his own alleged unlawful acts
(petition charges 5 and 6)

Sergeant Erickson alleges that Sheriff Hatcher violated RCW 9A.72.150 by

soliciting another officer to redistribute evidence and violated RCW 9A.80.010 by

committing an unauthorized act without color of law. Under RCW 9A.72.150,