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

1,780 chars
BCSO’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