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
1,785 charsSergeant Erickson alleges that on February 14, 2020, he and Commander Croskrey were public servants with a statutory duty to report criminal activity. He alleges that when Sheriff Hatcher indicated that he would begin a criminal investigation and administrative review, he made a false statement to two public 43 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 officials in violation of RCW 9A.76.175 (as discussed in the previous section). Contrary to his statement, Sheriff Hatcher did not begin a criminal investigation. A reasonable inference can be made that both Sergeant Erickson and Commander Croskrey relied on this material statement when they did not report the alleged criminal activity to another party. Sheriff Hatcher challenges this accusation, stating that Sergeant Erickson does not establish substantial conduct and that it was a discretionary decision to not begin a criminal investigation. To the contrary, given the implications that the false statement involves no criminal investigation of the sheriff’s alleged crimes, this was substantial conduct with no tenable justification. In addition, when the sheriff’s behavior is viewed as a whole, Sheriff Hatcher’s repeated attempts to avoid criminal charges and his belief that his retaliatory acts would prevent Sergeant Erickson from reporting his allegations to others, Sheriff Hatcher’s behavior constitutes a manifest abuse of discretion given his oath to uphold the laws and his duty to investigate. 8. Falsified a public record by placing a false date on an investigation request (petition charge 10) In the wake of the conversation regarding Sergeant Erickson’s decision to