Opinion ID: 2498924
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Limited Federal Privilege

Text: ¶ 24 In 1966, the United States Congress adopted the Highway Safety Act to improve highway safety by encouraging closer federal and state cooperation with respect to road improvement projects. 23 U.S.C. § 402. As part of this effort to improve the nation's highways, Congress also adopted the hazard elimination program in 1973. 23 U.S.C. § 152. Under this program, state governments are provided federal funding to improve the most dangerous sections of their roads. Id. To be eligible for the funding, states are required to systematically undertake a thorough evaluation of their public roads. Id. Specifically, states must conduct and systematically maintain an engineering survey of all public roads to identify hazardous locations, sections, and elements, including roadside obstacles and unmarked or poorly marked roads, which may constitute a danger to motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians, assign priorities for the correction of such locations, sections, and elements, and establish and implement a schedule of projects for their improvement. 23 U.S.C. § 152(a)(1). ¶ 25 This program raised concerns among the states because the increased self-reporting of data increased the risk of tort liability. See Guillen II, 537 U.S. at 133-34, 123 S.Ct. 720. In 1987, Congress enacted 23 U.S.C. § 409 at least in part to address these concerns. Section 409 generally provided that information compiled by states pursuant to 23 U.S.C. § 152 could not be admitted into evidence in any action for damages. The statute was amended in 1991 to add that such information may not be the subject of discovery. [4] Today, § 409 reads: Notwithstanding any other provision of law, reports, surveys, schedules, lists, or data compiled or collected for the purpose of identifying, evaluating, or planning the safety enhancement of potential accident sites, hazardous roadway conditions, or railway-highway crossings, pursuant to sections 130, 144, and 148[ [5] ] of this title or for the purpose of developing any highway safety construction improvement project which may be implemented utilizing Federal-aid highway funds shall not be subject to discovery or admitted into evidence in a Federal or State court proceeding or considered for other purposes in any action for damages arising from any occurrence at a location mentioned or addressed in such reports, surveys, schedules, lists, or data.
¶ 26 The United States Supreme Court limited the scope of this protection in Guillen II. That case arose from Ignacio Guillen's request for accident reports and other materials and data under our state's PRA [6] at the location of an intersection where his wife was killed in an automobile accident. Guillen II, 537 U.S. at 136, 123 S.Ct. 720. When Pierce County refused to provide any responsive information, Guillen brought an action for violation of the PRA. Id. Like the WSP in this case, the county attempted to justify its refusal by claiming the accident reports were privileged under § 409 because another agency, the public works department, collected the records for a purpose related to § 152. Guillen II, 537 U.S. at 136, 123 S.Ct. 720. The Court disagreed. ¶ 27 Three different interpretations were argued. The county argued that a document initially prepared and held by an agency for purposes unrelated to § 152 became protected under § 409 when a copy of that document was collected by another agency for purposes of § 152. Guillen II, 537 U.S. at 143, 123 S.Ct. 720. Guillen countered that § 409 protected only materials actually created by the agency responsible for compliance with § 152. Guillen II, 537 U.S. at 144, 123 S.Ct. 720. ¶ 28 The United States, as intervenor, proposed a third interpretation that was adopted by the Court:  § 409 protects only information compiled or collected for § 152 purposes, and does not protect information compiled or collected for purposes unrelated to § 152, as held by the agencies that compiled or collected that information. Guillen II, 537 U.S. at 146, 123 S.Ct. 720. The Court explained that this was the proper scope of the rule because it was broad enough to encompass information collected from other agencies for § 152 purposes, while at the same time taking a narrower view of the privilege by making it inapplicable to information compiled or collected for purposes unrelated to § 152 and held by agencies that are not pursuing § 152 objectives. Guillen II, 537 U.S. at 145-46, 123 S.Ct. 720. The Court also held § 409 was an evidentiary privilege and, as such, must be construed narrowly because privileges impede the search for the truth. Guillen II, 537 U.S. at 144, 123 S.Ct. 720. ¶ 29 Under this rule, an accident report collected only for law enforcement purposes and held by the county sheriff would not be protected under § 409 even if the same report was held by another agency that obtained the report for § 152 purposes. Guillen II, 537 U.S. at 144, 123 S.Ct. 720. This approach is consistent with the purpose of § 409 because the statute is not intended to make tort victims worse off than they would have been had § 152 never existed. Guillen II, 537 U.S. at 146, 123 S.Ct. 720. In other words, there is no reason to interpret § 409 as prohibiting the disclosure of information compiled or collected for purposes unrelated to § 152, held by government agencies not involved in administering § 152, if, before § 152 was adopted, plaintiffs would have been free to obtain such information from those very agencies. Id.
¶ 30 Months after the decision in Guillen II was published, WSP and DOT entered into a memorandum of understanding (MOU) pursuant to the Interlocal Cooperation Act, chapter 39.34 RCW. See CP at 205-07(MOU). The Interlocal Cooperation Act allows state agencies to exercise their respective authority jointly and cooperatively. RCW 39.34.030(2). However, No agreement made pursuant to th[e Act] relieves any public agency of any obligation or responsibility imposed upon it by law. RCW 39.34.030(5). [7] ¶ 31 The MOU provides that DOT is to maintain all accident reports in its database. CP at 205. It does not explicitly reference the § 152 hazard elimination program, but the State asserts the DOT collects the data for purposes of compliance with the program. See, e.g., Pet. for Review at 7. To this end, the DOT implemented a uniform accident report form that contains specific data points required under § 152. CP at 194. This form is now filled out by law enforcement officers at the scene of a collision. Id. The WSP then scans the accident report into the DOT computer system and destroys the paper originals. CP at 205. The scanned image is then deemed to be the report of record. Id. ¶ 32 With respect to funding, both parties reference 2003 legislative budget notes, wherein the WSP and DOT are encouraged to enter into an interagency agreement for reimbursement to DOT for the accident report activities previously performed by WSP. See Washington State Legislative Budget Notes: 2003-05 Biennium and 2003 Supplemental, Program T-Transportation Planning, Date, & Research cmt. 8, at 388 (Oct. 2003), http://lead.leg.wa.gov/leap/budget/index_lbns. asp. We note that this document is not law but a publication of various House and Senate committees, prepared with the assistance of the Legislative Evaluation and Accountability Program Committee, and intended to provide detail for enacted budgets. The referenced note specifically stated, It is the intent of the Legislature that funding the costs associated with the collection, compilation, tabulation, analysis, and publication of accident reports, police officer and investigator reports ... shall not impair or impinge on any party's rights under the state [PRA]. Id. cmt. 13 at 389. At least according to the budget notes, the reappropriation of funds was not intended to affect any citizen's rights under the PRA. ¶ 33 Furthermore, the MOU does not limit WSP's access to, or use of, the reports. CP at 205-07. Rather, the MOU establishes that the original reports and the scanned images remain the property of the WSP. CP at 206. The [d]ata collected and tabulated by the DOT, however, is considered to be the property and responsibility of the DOT. Id. When a request is made for multiple accident reports based solely on a location, it is treated as a request for data and is referred to the DOT. CP at 209. Before receiving the reports, the requester must sign a certification that he or she will not use the reports in any litigation against the state, tribal, or local government involving a collision at the location in question. CP at 27. ¶ 34 Based on this arrangement, the State claims the reports requested by Gendler are privileged under § 409 because they are compiled or collected by the DOT pursuant to its § 152 federal highway safety reporting obligation. We disagree.