Opinion ID: 2791069
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Investigative record exemption

Text: Predisik and Katke also argue that the investigative records exemption requires that the District withhold the three records. RCW 42.56.240(1 ). A record falling within this exemption must, among other requisites, be essential to law enforcement or essential to the protection of privacy. Koenig v. Thurston County, 175 Wn.2d 837, 843,287 P.3d 523 (2012) (citing Cowles Publ'g Co. v. State Patrol, 109 Wn.2d 712, 728, 748 P.2d 597 (1988)). The three records here are neither. The leave letter and spreadsheets are not essential to law enforcement. Our decision in Brouillet v. Cowles Publishing Co., 114 Wn.2d 788, 795, 791 P.2d 526 (1990), is dispositive. There we considered whether the superintendent of public instruction (SPI), who actually wields disciplinary authority over teaching credentials, performed law enforcement functions. We concluded the SPI could not rely on the investigative records exemption to withhold records because it does not enforce law, and we rejected the agency's attempt to characterize its supervision of its employees as law enforcement activity under the exemption. !d. at 795-96. The District has even less investigative and disciplinary authority than the SPI, and its records similarly are not exempted under RCW 42.56.240(1 ). Nor are the leave letter and spreadsheets essential to the protection of privacy. The PRA is consistent in its definition of privacy, which is the same 12 Predisikv. Spokane Sch. Dist. No. 81, No. 90129-5 definition we announced in Hearst Corp. and applied above. RCW 42.56.050; LAWS OF 1987, ch. 403, § 1. As discussed in detail earlier, Predisik and Katke have no right to privacy in records disclosing only the fact that they are the subjects of an open investigation.