Opinion ID: 497986
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Prison Record Information

Text: 16 Magistrate Burgess did not discuss Hernandez' separable claim of a due process right to accurate information in his prison record. We address the issue, and hold that Hernandez was not deprived of liberty by the presence of the challenged statements. 17 The Washington State Criminal Records Privacy Act, Wash.Rev.Code Ann. Secs. 10.97.010-120 (1980), and the regulations promulgated under it, Wash.Admin.Code Secs. 446-20-010-450 (1983), grant a limited right to inspect and correct erroneous records. See Wash.Rev.Code Ann. Sec. 10.97.080 (1980); Wash.Admin.Code Secs. 446-20-070, 120, 140-50 (1983). Detailed regulations outline the time, place, and manner in which challenges may be made and are the type of substantive limitations on the exercise of official discretion that create liberty interests. Baumann, 754 F.2d at 844. 18 The Washington state law provisions do not apply to Hernandez' claim, however, for at least two reasons. First, even if Hernandez' December 1985 memorandum to MICC Correctional Unit Supervisor Houser requesting removal of the violent offender status from his classification report fulfilled the regulatory requirements, the information Hernandez questions is not subject to challenge under Washington law. The state provisions apply only to criminal history record information, which is limited to:identifiable descriptions and notations of arrests, detentions, indictments, informations, or other formal criminal charges, and any dispositions arising therefrom, including sentences, correctional supervision and release.... 19 Wash.Admin.Code Sec. 446-20-070 (1983). Hernandez has not challenged the accuracy of his FBI Rap Sheet, which formed the basis of the statements in his file. Opinions and evaluations such as a violent offender characterization do not constitute criminal history record information. 20 Second, Hernandez has not otherwise filed a formal, written inspection request and record challenge with the appropriate state criminal justice agency, nor satisfied the procedural prerequisites of Wash.Admin.Code Secs. 446-20-080, 090, and 120 (1983). 21 Because Washington law provides a liberty interest in accurate prison record information in the proper case, we do not reach the question of whether in the absence of the statute, such a right is grounded in the due process clause itself. Paine v. Baker, 595 F.2d 197, 199 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 925, 100 S.Ct. 263, 62 L.Ed.2d 181 (1979).