Opinion ID: 2463751
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 11

Heading: The Lead Opinion Misapplies RCW 42.56.050

Text: ¶ 75 The lead opinion does not reach this result because it misapplies the legitimate public concern prong of RCW 42.56.050. As the lead opinion puts it, [a]lthough lacking a legitimate interest in the name of a police officer who is the subject of an unsubstantiated allegation of sexual misconduct, the public does have a legitimate interest in how a police department responds to and investigates such an allegation against an officer. Lead opinion at 17. It then remands to the trial court for production of the PCIR and the MIIIR after redaction of the officer's identity. Id. at 23. ¶ 76 The lead opinion recognizes that we have previously permitted redacted disclosure in one case even though redaction of only the person's name was insufficient to protect their identity. Id. at 17 (citing Koenig v. City of Des Moines, 158 Wash.2d 173, 142 P.3d 162 (2006)). Koenig, however, does not support the lead opinion's compromise. The claims of sexual misconduct were not unsubstantiated or proven false in Koenig. Koenig, 158 Wash.2d at 177-78, 142 P.3d 162. In other words, the public had some legitimate interest in disclosure of information about the person in Koenig. See id. at 186-87, 142 P.3d 162. Here, as in Bellevue John Does, the public does not have a legitimate interest in the identity of an officer who was the subject of false and unsubstantiated allegations of sexual misconduct.