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

Full Text

1,738 chars

During this meeting, Sergeant Erickson did not want to answer questions, but

Sheriff Hatcher told him he would be subject to discipline up to termination if he

did not. Sergeant Erickson then requested the presence of his attorney, Alan

Harvey. Sheriff Hatcher initially refused and then gave him a “short amount of

18
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

time to produce [his] attorney.” Id. at 115. After Mr. Harvey arrived, Sheriff

Hatcher ordered Sergeant Erickson to undergo questioning. Sheriff Hatcher was

informed that Sergeant Erickson was a whistleblower in regards to the sheriff’s

actions, but he proceeded with questioning anyway. At the end of the interview,

Sheriff Hatcher indicated that he would be initiating a criminal investigation and

an administrative review with the Franklin County Sheriff’s Office (FCSO) into

the ammunition. In his request for the FCSO to conduct the investigation, Sheriff

Hatcher told Sheriff Jim Raymond, “If the Review turns towards any wrongdoing,

I would request you contact me immediately and I will have you forward the

information to the appropriate agency or authority.” Id. at 324.

Regarding the investigation of the ammunition, Sheriff Hatcher told

Commander Croskrey that the commander was going to be the liaison with the

FCSO for the purposes of the investigation. However, according to Commander

Croskrey, during the FCSO investigation he saw Sheriff Hatcher “obstruct his own

investigation and secretly change the course of the investigation.” Id. at 94.

Commander Croskrey explained that after his first interaction with the two FCSO