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

1,726 chars

captains investigating the matter, Sheriff Hatcher asked the commander about the

interaction and when told the conversation was several hours long, he appeared

annoyed with the length of the interaction and “expressed concern and his

dissatisfaction with me about the amount of time.” Id. at 92. In subsequent

19
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

interactions, Sheriff Hatcher inserted himself into the investigative process, even

telling Commander Croskrey that the investigating officers would need to contact

him, Sheriff Hatcher, directly for access to some of the information.

Other officers also expressed concerns about interference and retaliation

involving Sheriff Hatcher during the ammunition investigation. Commander

Caughey, in his declaration, indicates that when interviewed by the captains in

relation to the ammunition investigation, he expressed that he “had never seen an

administrative investigation commence with no companion criminal investigation

when the allegations related to potential criminal conduct.” Id. at 162. He stated

that this was not a practice he was familiar with, that he thought it would

negatively impact any criminal investigation, and that he was concerned about

retaliation from the sheriff based on his answers in the interview.

At the close of the FCSO ammunition investigation, one captain informed

Commander Croskrey that “there appeared to be probable cause on a number of

criminal acts with respect to Sheriff Hatcher.” Id. at 94. Further in the captains’

investigatory report they indicate, “Many of the issues raised had legal