Washington Supreme Court Reverses Premature Public Record Ruling; Requester Identity Irrelevant to Whether Records Exempt

The en banc Washington State Supreme Court held that a lower court prematurely decided that the identity of a requester of public records could be considered when enjoining disclosure.

As we have previously reported, Washington prisoner Allan Parmelee is a prolific government records requester, under Washington's Public Records Act (PRA). The Department of Corrections "has received more than 800 requests from Parmelee, 215 were for the personnel files" of guards, officials and other staff.

"In 2008, Parmelee made 81 separate public records requests to Franklin County's sheriff’s office, jail, and prosecutor seeking the names, gender, age, race, job title, pay rate, training records, and photographs of the guards and staff." He also requested records of complaints, use-of-force, "videotaped records of jail areas where staff used force on prisoners, and jail policies."

The County provided a staff list but sought an injunction against further disclosure, pursuant to RCW 42.56.540, citing "other cases involving Parmelee where courts enjoined release of records after finding his requests were made to harass or threaten staff."

Initially, the superior court granted a permanent injunction without allowing Parmelee to respond. On reconsideration, however, the court set aside the injunction and struck the portion of the county's petition relating to his identity. Finding that the requester's identity is irrelevant to whether records may be withheld, the court ruled that it could not consider the requester's identity. The superior court made no ruling on whether the records were exempt from disclosure, but the County filed an interlocutory appeal on the identity ruling.

While the appeal was pending, the Washington legislature enacted RCW 42.56.565, permitting an injunction against a prisoner's present and future public record requests.

The Court of Appeals held that the requester's identity could be considered under RCW 42.56.540 and under RCW 42.56.565, which it held applies retroactively. See: Franklin County Sheriff's Office v. Parmelee, 162 Wn.App. 289, 253 P3d 1131 (2011).

The En Banc Supreme Court reversed, holding that if the trial court had "ruled the records were exempt from disclosure, there would have been no need for Franklin County to argue that Parmelee's identity be considered." Therefore, "seeking review of this preliminary decision was simply premature," the court found, and "the Court of Appeals erred by deciding the identity issue under RCW 42.56.540."

Since no motion for an injunction under RCW 42.56.565 had been filed, the Court also held that it was improper to decide whether that statute applies retroactively. Even so, the Court found that nothing bars the trial court from entertaining such a motion and it "will consider this statute, and any other matters or arguments raised during further proceedings." See: Franklin County Sheriff's Office v. Parmelee, 285 P.3d 67 (Wa. 2012)(En Banc).

Subscribe today

Already a subscriber? Login