In Gronquist v. State of Washington, Department of Corrections, Division II of the Court of Appeals held that RCW 42.56.565(1) prohibits an award of PRA penalties to a prison inmate serving a criminal sentence absent a showing of bad faith by the agency who denied the request.
Prison inmate Gronquist had requested several records from the Department of Corrections, including certain surveillance videos of the prison where he was incarcerated. DOC withheld the surveillance videos as exempt investigative records essential to effective law enforcement under RCW 42.56.240. DOC also inadvertently failed to disclose one page in a 96-page production of documents, which it later provided to Gronquist upon discovery of the error. The trial court awarded penalties of $15 per day ($260 total) to Gronquist, but found no bad faith on DOC’s part. Gronquist appealed on several grounds.
Although neither party advanced the argument, the court rejected Gronquist’s appeal of the PRA penalties on the ground that RCW 42.56.565(1) barred any penalties to a prison inmate absent a showing of bad faith. Because the trial court found no bad faith by DOC, Gronquist was not entitled to any PRA penalties, although the penalties were ultimately left intact because DOC had not cross-appealed the award. The court also confirmed that the statute applied to Gronquist’s lawsuit because “final judgment” (broadly defined to include exhaustion of appellate review) had not been entered when the statute took effect in 2011.
With respect to the prison surveillance videos, the court observed that such videos fall squarely within the core definitions of “law enforcement” under RCW 42.56.240. The court further held that DOC met its burden of showing that the nondisclosure was “essential to effective law enforcement” by submitting the affidavit of DOC’s Director of Prisons, who explained that providing inmates access to surveillance videos would allow them to exploit weaknesses in the surveillance system. The court concluded that the videos were properly withheld as exempt from disclosure under the Public Records Act.
In the remainder of the opinion, which was unpublished, the court rejected Gronquist’s other arguments as insufficiently supported, abandoned on appeal, or moot. The court also reiterated prior cases stating that the PRA does not require public agencies to research or explain public records, or to create records that do not exist.