Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Citation
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Jurisdiction
- Washington (state)
- Source verification
- official_capture_completeness_unverified
- Original Source
- https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/850661.pdf ↗
Related Parts of This Source
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
Full Text
1,754 charsI’ve worked in this precinct for 17 years and have medically documented ailments I see are listed as symptoms of short/long term CO exposure. My doctors have always been stumped as to the cause. I’d like to figure out if the 40+ idling patrol cars and lack of ventilation have been the culprit the whole time. Lt. Kibbee replied, “I am sure Steve Redmond will make all of the facts known when complete.” In September 2017, an L&I inspector issued a report concluding that SPD had not violated any workplace safety laws regarding CO levels in the West Garage. But the report recommended that SPD (1) upgrade its ventilation system because it “does not appear to provide adequate air exchanges to ensure employee exposure to vehicle exhaust is kept to a minimum” and (2) prohibit officers from completing reports in their vehicles in the West Garage. Dissatisfied with the lack of transparency from his superiors about the car exhaust issue and the lack of any meaningful solution, Sgt. Hockett placed his own CO monitors throughout the West Garage. Additionally, in October 2017, Sgt. Hockett asked an Idleright representative whether it was safe for multiple vehicles equipped with the device to be left running all day in the enclosed West Garage, to which the representative responded that the device was “not intended to be used in the manner you describe.” This e-mail was eventually forwarded to Assistant Chief Wilske, who e-mailed Sgt. Hockett’s supervisors commanding them to “insure that Sgt Hockett knows that he is not an authorized [SPD] representative 4 For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/. No. 85066-1-I to be contacting a vendor and questioning them, and that any further safety