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

1,785 chars
Sergeant Erickson alleges that on February 14, 2020, he and Commander

Croskrey were public servants with a statutory duty to report criminal activity. He

alleges that when Sheriff Hatcher indicated that he would begin a criminal

investigation and administrative review, he made a false statement to two public

43
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

officials in violation of RCW 9A.76.175 (as discussed in the previous section).

Contrary to his statement, Sheriff Hatcher did not begin a criminal investigation. A

reasonable inference can be made that both Sergeant Erickson and Commander

Croskrey relied on this material statement when they did not report the alleged

criminal activity to another party.

Sheriff Hatcher challenges this accusation, stating that Sergeant Erickson

does not establish substantial conduct and that it was a discretionary decision to not

begin a criminal investigation. To the contrary, given the implications that the false

statement involves no criminal investigation of the sheriff’s alleged crimes, this

was substantial conduct with no tenable justification. In addition, when the

sheriff’s behavior is viewed as a whole, Sheriff Hatcher’s repeated attempts to

avoid criminal charges and his belief that his retaliatory acts would prevent

Sergeant Erickson from reporting his allegations to others, Sheriff Hatcher’s

behavior constitutes a manifest abuse of discretion given his oath to uphold the

laws and his duty to investigate.

8. Falsified a public record by placing a false date on an investigation
request (petition charge 10)
In the wake of the conversation regarding Sergeant Erickson’s decision to