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
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 989681.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 989681.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 989681.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 989681.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 989681.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 989681.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 989681.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 989681.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 989681.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 989681.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 989681.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 989681.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 989681.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 989681.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 989681.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 989681.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 989681.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 989681.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 989681.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 989681.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 989681.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 989681.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 989681.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 989681.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 989681.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 989681.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 989681.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 989681.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 989681.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 989681.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 989681.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 989681.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 989681.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 989681.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 989681.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 989681.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 989681.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 989681.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 989681.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 989681.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 989681.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 989681.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 989681.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 989681.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 989681.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 989681.pdf
Full Text
1,758 chars(1) A person is guilty of tampering with physical evidence if, having reason to believe that an official proceeding is pending or about to be instituted and acting without legal right or authority, he or she: (a) Destroys, mutilates, conceals, removes, or alters physical evidence with intent to impair its appearance, character, or availability in such pending or prospective official proceeding. Further, under RCW 9A.80.010, (1) A public servant is guilty of official misconduct if, with intent to obtain a benefit or to deprive another person of a lawful right or privilege: 1 Sheriff Hatcher makes similar criminal process arguments as to many of the charges, but we do not recount it each time. 14 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 (a) He or she intentionally commits an unauthorized act under color of law. On January 13, 2020, KPD executed the order to surrender firearms at Ms. Hatcher’s house. According to the recall petitioners, KPD then met with BCSO Commander Steve Caughey to return the BCSO property. Based on Commander Caughey’s interaction with KPD he documented the event because “the sheer volume of ammunition could be evidence of a crime.” CP at 158. Shortly thereafter Sheriff Hatcher asked Commander Caughey to redistribute the ammunition. Commander Caughey did not redistribute the ammunition as he believed this would “chang[e] the nature and character” of the evidence. Id. at 159. This alone would constitute a violation of RCW 9A.72.150. But the proponents of recall allege that Sheriff Hatcher was not finished attempting to tamper with evidence. On February 14, 2020, immediately after