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

1,757 chars
going to defend me, I will take great exception to that, but this is not a threat.’” Id.

at 186. He also told them that they could participate in the interview if “he could

have a representative sit in on their interviews.” Id. at 272-73. Sheriff Hatcher also

21
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

told Ms. Blatt, when contacted, that she could interview Commanders Law and

Caughey during work hours if they did not have an attorney present.

Retired BCSO Detective Cantu indicates in his declaration that to have a

“representative” for the sheriff sit in is “unprecedented at this stage of an

investigation.” Id. at 86. He analogizes this to “having the suspect in a domestic

violence matter in the room when the victim is interviewed and/or the suspect

alleged to have committed crimes against a child present when the child is

interviewed.” Id. at 86-87. He states, “Sheriff Hatcher’s request is not just outside

‘best practices’ it is not practiced at all in my experience at this stage of any

internal or criminal investigations.” Id. at 87.

Ms. Blatt was finally able to interview Commander Law and Commander

Caughey on April 13, 2020. Ms. Blatt interviewed Sheriff Hatcher by telephone on

April 7, 9, and 23.

According to Ms. Blatt’s final report, Lieutenant Magnuson reported that the

Sheriff “constantly threatens his livelihood, interferes with his ability to express

support through personal social media of the members of his Guild and the

Corrections Department employees, makes offensive comments about his religious

beliefs, and has made threats of violence to him.” Id. at 182. This included the