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
1,772 chars(b) Charges 21 and 22: May 7, 2020 Intimidating Witnesses Sergeant Erickson alleges that on or about May 7, 2020, Sheriff Hatcher did intimidate witnesses (Commanders Law and Caughey) in violation of RCW 9A.72.110 during their six-and-a-half-hour meeting. Consistent with sections 4(c) and 5(a), the allegations from this meeting establish a prima facie case of malfeasance and misfeasance for wrongful conduct that interferes with the duties of the sheriff. For an elected official to threaten jobs of employees who are not “loyal” to the official is a violation of the oath of office and is wrongful conduct. 39 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 Sheriff Hatcher unpersuasively argues that the command staff’s employment is within his discretion in that his employees “serve at his pleasure.” Appellant’s Br. at 29. However, the sheriff who threatens jobs as retaliation and intimidation against those who are witnesses in an investigation against him manifestly abuses his discretion. (c) Charge 25: June 23, 2020 Intimidating a Witness Sergeant Erickson alleges that the June 23, 2020 public radio announcement (as discussed in section 4 (c)) when Sheriff Hatcher alleged, on public radio, that Commander Croskrey had “issues with his timecard or accounting for his time,” that Sheriff Hatcher’s conduct amounts to intimidation of Commander Croskrey in violation of RCW 9A.72.110. CP at 61-62. Pursuant to the definition of “threat,” Sergeant Erickson alleges that the comments were made to damage Commander Croskrey’s reputation, allege impropriety, and make the witness believe he was being investigated for time card