<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
<channel>
<title>SSOSA - Local Open Government Blog</title>
<link>http://www.localopengovernment.com/articles/in-the-courts/</link>
<description></description>
<language>en-us</language>
<copyright>Copyright 2011</copyright>
<lastBuildDate>Tue, 13 Apr 2010 10:38:26 -0800</lastBuildDate>
<pubDate>Wed, 31 Aug 2011 07:33:31 -0800</pubDate>
<generator>http://www.movabletype.org/?v=3.34</generator>
<docs>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss</docs> 

<item>
<title>Divided Court Examines Exemption for Law Enforcement Investigative Reports</title>
<description><![CDATA[<p>David Koenig, a regular plaintiff in Public Records Act cases, sought certain records from Thurston County.&nbsp;The records were a Victim Impact Statement and a Special Sex Offender Sentencing Alternative (SSOSA) evaluation.&nbsp;The documents are used in evaluation and sentencing of sex offenders.</p>
<p>The trial court ordered the documents sealed.&nbsp;But Koenig&rsquo;s request had been sent to the Prosecutor&rsquo;s Office, and not to the court.&nbsp;The Prosecutor&rsquo;s Office denied disclosure under <a target="_blank" href="http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=42.56.240">RCW 42.56.240(1)</a>, which exempts from public inspection and copying,</p>
<blockquote> &ldquo;specific investigative records compiled by investigative, law enforcement, and penology agencies&hellip;.the non-disclosure of which is essential to effective law enforcement or for the protection of any person&rsquo;s right to privacy.&quot; </blockquote>
<p><span>The Washington Court of Appeals ruled, on April 6, 2010, in a divided opinion that Victim Impact Statements are exempt under the PRA.&nbsp;But, the court held that SSOSA evaluations must be disclosed after redaction of any identifying information regarding the victim and certain other third parties.&nbsp;Notwithstanding the difficulty in determining the exemption from disclosure of these particular public records, the court determined that it had no discretion regarding the award of penalties to Koenig under <a target="_blank" href="http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=42.56.550">RCW 42.56.550(4)</a>.&nbsp;The matter was remanded to the trial court to set the amount of penalties that Koenig may receive. </span></p>
<p>To view the court's decision, click <a target="_blank" href="http://www.localopengovernment.com/uploads/file/CourtofAppealsOpinion-Koenig_v_ThurstonCounty_et_al.pdf">HERE</a>.<br />
&nbsp;</p>]]></description>
<link>http://www.localopengovernment.com/2010/04/articles/in-the-courts/divided-court-examines-exemption-for-law-enforcement-investigative-reports/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.localopengovernment.com/2010/04/articles/in-the-courts/divided-court-examines-exemption-for-law-enforcement-investigative-reports/</guid>
<category>In the courts</category><category>Koenig</category><category>Public Records</category><category>Public Records Act</category><category>SSOSA</category><category>Thurston County</category>
<pubDate>Tue, 13 Apr 2010 10:38:26 -0800</pubDate>
<dc:creator>Steve DiJulio</dc:creator>

</item>


</channel>
</rss>
