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
1,780 charsBCSO’s policy and, arguably, the law. Commander Caughey explicitly warned the sheriff that the conversation may be against the law or the policy, and a reasonable inference under Pearsall-Stipek is that Sheriff Hatcher thus intended to violate the policy. Sheriff Hatcher was the subject of the investigation, and he was not tasked with overseeing the investigation. Therefore, the constant badgering and attempts to gain information coupled with the clear threats of demotion, termination, or disciplinary action is a violation of his oath of office or misfeasance. (b) Charges 13 and 14: Witness Interviews with a Representative These charges present essentially the same facts and reasoning as ballot synopsis charge 3. The facts and analysis discussed in that section apply in full here. (c) Charges 19, 20, 23, 24, 26: Retaliating against a Witness Sergeant Erickson alleges that between February 2020 and June 2020, Sheriff Hatcher retaliated against witnesses (Commander Law, Commander Caughey, and Commander Croskrey) in violation of the Anti-Discrimination Policy on three different dates. The text of the policy provision at issue is quoted in ballot synopsis charge 3. The facts alleged establish that Sheriff Hatcher repeatedly retaliated against the commanders in his attempt to manipulate the testimony of the witnesses and the overall investigation. 29 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 The investigation conducted by Ms. Blatt found that Sheriff Hatcher retaliated against Lieutenant Magnuson because of his union activity and suspected involvement with the Guild’s letters. The retaliatory behavior included making