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
1,757 charsgoing to defend me, I will take great exception to that, but this is not a threat.’” Id. at 186. He also told them that they could participate in the interview if “he could have a representative sit in on their interviews.” Id. at 272-73. Sheriff Hatcher also 21 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 told Ms. Blatt, when contacted, that she could interview Commanders Law and Caughey during work hours if they did not have an attorney present. Retired BCSO Detective Cantu indicates in his declaration that to have a “representative” for the sheriff sit in is “unprecedented at this stage of an investigation.” Id. at 86. He analogizes this to “having the suspect in a domestic violence matter in the room when the victim is interviewed and/or the suspect alleged to have committed crimes against a child present when the child is interviewed.” Id. at 86-87. He states, “Sheriff Hatcher’s request is not just outside ‘best practices’ it is not practiced at all in my experience at this stage of any internal or criminal investigations.” Id. at 87. Ms. Blatt was finally able to interview Commander Law and Commander Caughey on April 13, 2020. Ms. Blatt interviewed Sheriff Hatcher by telephone on April 7, 9, and 23. According to Ms. Blatt’s final report, Lieutenant Magnuson reported that the Sheriff “constantly threatens his livelihood, interferes with his ability to express support through personal social media of the members of his Guild and the Corrections Department employees, makes offensive comments about his religious beliefs, and has made threats of violence to him.” Id. at 182. This included the