Skip to main content

Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 989681.pdf

Citation
Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 989681.pdf
Jurisdiction
Washington (state)
Source
Official source

Related Parts of This Source

Full Text

1,771 chars
how much ammunition they had taken. Commander Law indicated Sheriff Hatcher

knew they took the ammunition because he was supposed to go on the trip. The

sheriff agreed but again stated he did not know how much ammunition they took.

When asked if he told Detective Carlson, Sheriff Hatcher admitted he had.

Commander Law indicated this did not make sense, as they had permission to take

the ammunition for training. Sheriff Hatcher again agreed that they did have

permission to take the ammunition on the trip.

Turning to Lieutenant Magnuson’s complaint, Sheriff Hatcher stated that “it

feels like this is all being used against him and he will know who has been loyal or

not and there will be consequences.” Id. at 173. He said that “he will not have a

commander that is not committed to him and will not stand with him,” and asked

the commanders multiple times if they would stand by him. Id. The commanders

did not reply. Sheriff Hatcher reiterated that they had to stand by him.

33
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

Commanders Law and Caughey both felt as though they could be demoted or fired

if they had shared negative information in the investigations.

After this conversation, Sheriff Hatcher changed the structure of meetings

within the office. Although for two years Sheriff Hatcher had met with

Commanders Law and Caughey together, he initiated a “change in the meeting

structure whereby [Commander] Law and [Commander Caughey] do not meet

with Sheriff Hatcher at the same time.” Id. at 174-75. Commander Caughey stated

that this creates additional work for the commanders to coordinate related to their

duties.