Fisher Broadcasting-Seattle TV LLC v. City of Seattle
326 P.3d 688
Wash.2014Background
- SPD dash-cam system not integrated with records management; searches by officer name, serial number, date/time only.
- Videos kept for 90 days unless tagged for case/prosecution; three-year retention if tagged, else destruction.
- Vedder made PRA requests in Aug–Sept 2010 seeking manuals, logs, and retention lists; SPD denied or mischaracterized records.
- COBAN provided a database-like list to a different requester (Rachner) in 2011 showing the kind of data Vedder sought.
- KOMO sued SPD in 2011 under PRA for failing to timely respond; summary judgment proceedings followed; trial court split on log sheets, retention list, and video disclosures.
- Majority remands on scope of RCW 9.73.090(1)(c) as a narrow, not blanket, exemption; overall disposition: log sheets allowed, retention list violated, dash-cam videos may be exempt only under the privacy statute with pending litigation constraints.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether SPD violated PRA by failing to provide retention list | Vedder; SPD could have produced a partial responsive record | SPD cannot query or generate full retention list; not required to create record | SPD violated PRA by not producing the retention list |
| Whether SPD complied with PRA re officer log sheets | Vedder sought log sheets; records existed as of 2005–2007 | Log sheets refer to obsolete paper forms destroyed in 2004 | SPD complied; no responsive records existed |
| What is the scope of RCW 9.73.090(1)(c) as an exemption to PRA | Dash-cam videos should be disclosed after public records request | 9.73.090(1)(c) creates privacy-like exemption delaying disclosure | RCW 9.73.090(1)(c) is a limited exemption governing disclosure before final disposition, not a blanket exemption; applies only in pending litigation contexts; remand for application |
Key Cases Cited
- Sargent v. Seattle Police Dep’t, 179 Wn.2d 376 (2013) (PRA broad disclosure, exemptions narrowly construed; burden on agency to justify nondisclosure)
- Hearst Corp. v. Hoppe, 90 Wn.2d 123 (1978) (PRA is liberally construed to promote public access)
- Gendler v. Batiste, 174 Wn.2d 244 (2012) (PRA does not require production of nonexistent records; search duties implied)
- O’Neill v. City of Shoreline, 170 Wn.2d 138 (2010) (Metadata and electronic records; context for production vs creation of records)