Seattle police might be compelled to release certain records but they alone can decide if the case is still open, effectively stifling FOIA requests.

As The Seattle Times reports today, the Seattle Police Department is, in one respect, opening up its records. The department is now providing misconduct investigation documents even in cases where an officer has been cleared. According to a court declaration by Assistant Chief Dick Reed, the department is miserable about doing so, but has no choice given a recent state Supreme Court ruling. But when the department is obligated to disclose those and other records is another matter, one a different court ruling this week took up. That ruling was not so friendly to the cause of open records.

The Monday ruling by the state Court of Appeals concerns the case of Evan Sargent, a young man who had a nasty confrontation with an off-duty officer in an alley where Sargent was parked, one the officer was itching to drive through. Sargent claims that the officer, Don Waters, smashed his side mirror, and to boot had Waters arrested for assault because the young man held up a baseball bat to defend himself.

Prosecutors declined to press charges, but the case blew up anyway. Sargent retained Mike McKay, the former U.S. attorney, to look into a possible civil rights suit. McKay cited the Sargent case in calling for a civil rights probe of SPD, a plea that pissed off the mayor's office.

Sargent also sued SPD for withholding records about the road rage incident. The trial judge said the department had indeed failed to comply with the Public Records Act, and ordered a $100-a-day fine. But the appeals court, while saying that the department made some minor errors, largely reversed the trial court's ruling.

Monday's judgment declares SPD justified in claiming that it didn't have to turn over records because the case was still open--even though the King County Prosecutor's office by that time had declined to press charges. The prosecutor's office had sent the case back to SPD for further investigation, the ruling points out.

The appeals court further emphasizes that it's up to the police--and the police alone-- to determine when a case is over. One can't simply say, as the trial court did, that a case is closed "with the final witness interview."


http://blogs.seattleweekly.com/dailyweekly/2011/09/seattle_police_department_comp.php