Johannes Mak v. City Of Kent
75827-6
| Wash. Ct. App. | Dec 26, 2017Background
- Johannes Mak, a Kent police officer, learned a confidential informant had accused Mark Bryant of having officers "in his pocket."
- Mak, on duty in uniform, confronted Bryant at his auto shop and later called Bryant while off duty; Mak admits these interactions were personal and not official police actions and he did not document them.
- Federal investigators alleged Mak told Bryant his niece was a confidential informant; Mak was investigated for obstruction of justice and placed on administrative leave.
- Mak hired counsel and requested indemnification from the City of Kent under KCC 2.96.010 for legal fees; the City denied the request.
- Mak negotiated a settlement with federal prosecutors (no charges pursued), retired, then sued the City to recover attorney fees; the trial court granted summary judgment for the City.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding the indemnity ordinance covers actions "by reason of the fact" the person is a city employee, not all conduct that merely occurs while on duty.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether KCC 2.96.010 requires indemnification for Mak's legal fees | Mak: He learned informant identity as an officer and was on duty when he confronted Bryant, so the investigation arose "by reason of the fact" he was a city employee | City: Ordinance covers only actions and proceedings initiated because of the person's official role—not private acts even if they occur on duty | Court: Denied indemnification; Mak's disclosures were personal and not by reason of his status as an employee |
Key Cases Cited
- Wash. Fed. v. Harvey, 182 Wn.2d 335 (2015) (standard of review for summary judgment)
- Dep't of Ecology v. Campbell & Gwinn, LLC, 146 Wn.2d 1 (2002) (statutory construction principles and reliance on plain language)
- State v. Evans, 177 Wn.2d 186 (2013) (textual and contextual interpretation rules)
- State v. Ervin, 169 Wn.2d 815 (2010) (related statutory interpretation authority)
- World Wide Video, Inc. v. City of Tukwila, 117 Wn.2d 382 (1991) (ordinance construction follows statutory rules)
- Sanders v. State, 166 Wn.2d 164 (2009) (refusing to interpret immunity statutes to cover private acts occurring during official visits)