WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness -- That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed...

That is us.

Of the People, by the People and for the People. Do you feel the WA. Dept. of L&I is working for your best interests (prompt & efficent - sure & certain relief, RCW 51) in regards to how they Administer the Industrial Insurnace Act?

We, the people, need to, in numbers, contact our Government Officials and demand that this WA. Dept. of L&I conduct itself in a manner concurring with the Legislated Laws. By asking for information to be discloused it is easier to point out, to your Legislators, what is already known.

Find your Legislator;
http://www.leg.wa.gov/

Contact the Gov.'s Office;
360-902-4111
Barbara Kendrick, Constituents Services Manager
http://www.governor.wa.gov/

King County v. Sheehan, 114 Wn.App. 325 (11/12/02) - [Public Disclosure/List of Names] - A list of the full names - not merely the last names - of police officers is not exempt from public disclosure and must be disclosed upon request. Additionally, "a penalty of at least $5 per day is now mandatory where an agency erroneously withholds a public record, whether or not the agency acted in good faith reliance upon a statutory exemption that is not in fact applicable."



How it all started!


The governor signed a bill SB6700 that forbids the publication or posting of public information about police officers.

A Web site featuring the home addresses, phone numbers, salaries and, in some cases, maps to the houses of Washington state police officers became illegal on April 3 after the governor signed a bill that regulates public information that can be disclosed about police officers.

Proponents of the bill describe the measure as protection for police officers and their families, but the Web site's engineer, Bill Sheehan, calls the bill "anti-Bill Sheehan legislation" aimed specifically at eliminating his site.

Sheehan describes his Web site, JusticeFiles.org, as a public tool for watching and holding accountable local police officers in Kirkland, Wash. He claims the Kirkland Police Department has covered up several officers' criminal records, and he said the public needs to be aware when police officers do something unlawful.

Sheehan said he obtained all the information on his Web site legally using public records searches. He said he was amazed at how easy it was to obtain the information. And because he obtained it from public sources, Sheehan said there is no reason why the information should not be republished.

He also said information about police officers should be publishable since the same information about the general public is publishable and widely available.

But Scott Armstrong, a spokesman for Washington state Sen. Bill Finkbeiner, who supports the bill, said the Web site is "one-stop shopping" for information about police officers, which encourages those offended by officers to pursue them and seek retribution.

Armstrong said more protection should be extended to police officers and their families because they are "putting their lives on the line for other families."

The bill, S.B. 6700, which will become law on June 10, says: "A person or organization shall not, with the intent to harm or intimidate, sell, trade, give, publish, distribute or otherwise release the residential address, residential telephone number, birth date or social security number of any law enforcement-related, corrections officer-related, or court-related employee or volunteer or someone with a similar name, and categorize them as such, without the express written permission of the employee or volunteer unless specifically exempted by law or court order."

The conflict over Sheehan's Web site has existed for more than a year now. Initially, Sheehan posted the Social Security numbers of some police officers on his Web site. But Judge Robert H. Alsdorf of King County, Wash., in May 2001, ruled that the Social Security numbers had to be deleted. Alsdorf said publishing the police officers' phone numbers and home addresses was distasteful but covered by the First Amendment.

"This state and all the police departments need to stop worrying about me and start dealing with their departments," Sheehan said. "The departments have shown here that they can't police themselves."



Wednesday, May 22, 2002 - 12:00 a.m. Pacific


Police-privacy law challenged: Creator of personal-data Web site sues over 'censorship'

By Michael Ko
Seattle Times Eastside bureau



The creator of a controversial Web site that lists the personal information of police officers has fired back at a state law intended to shut him down.

Bill Sheehan, a network engineer who lives in Mill Creek, yesterday filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Seattle challenging Senate Bill 6700, which was approved by the state Legislature this past session.

The law makes it illegal to do what Sheehan has done since March 2001: collect and giving out personal addresses, home phone numbers, birth dates and other private information about police officers and court employees without their permission.

Under the law, which becomes effective June 13, Sheehan could be sued for monetary damages for posting that information on his Web site.

Prosecuting attorneys would have to prove that the information has an "intent to harm or intimidate."

"Free speech isn't exactly a novel concept — it's withstood a lot of challenges thrown at it," said Sheehan, who says his Web site is protected political speech.

"The only thing that's changed over time is the technology — television, radio, now the Internet. But it will survive."

State Attorney General Christine Gregoire and King County Prosecuting Attorney Norm Maleng are named as defendants in the claim because they have the authority to enforce the state law.

Spokesmen for Gregoire and Maleng said they had received notices of the suit yesterday. But they said they would withhold comment until their respective legal departments had reviewed the complaint in detail.

Elena Garella, Sheehan's attorney, wrote in the suit that the law is unconstitutional because it punishes people with a certain viewpoint. Sheehan and another network engineer, Aaron Rosenstein, said they created the Web site because they wanted to hold police accountable, contending that departments were secretive and inaccessible.

Sheehan is being targeted only because he is criticizing police departments and officers, Garella said. On the other hand, if someone wanted to use the same information to send a thank-you note to a police officer, this law would not apply, she said.

Governments should not make that distinction, Garella said.

"The (law) places an instrument of punishment and censorship in the hands of the prosecuting attorney or any person affected," Garella wrote.

Sheehan's complaint asks U.S. District Judge John Coughenour to declare the law unconstitutional.

The bulk of Sheehan's Web site is devoted to the rosters of 22 law-enforcement agencies in the Puget Sound area. Most are incomplete, but there are names, salaries, ranks and addresses. Some officers' names have links to civil records or personal-bankruptcy files.

Sheehan said all the information posted on his Web site was obtained legally from government records, public databases and pay-for-information Internet businesses.

At one time, Sheehan also had listed Social Security numbers of police officers in Kirkland. But King County Superior Court Judge Robert Alsdorf ordered them removed a year ago, saying they were an invasion of privacy.

Alsdorf also ruled the site was legitimate, albeit distasteful, political speech.

After that ruling, the city of Kirkland sued Sheehan for $609,000. The site could lead to harassment, identity theft or worse, city attorneys argued.

That lawsuit is still pending.

Michael Ko can be reached at 206- 515-5653 or mko@seattletimes.com.

Court of Appeals Division I
State of Washington

Opinion Information Sheet

Docket Number: 48161-4-I
Title of Case: King County, Respondent-Cross-Appellant
v.
William A. Sheehan Iii, Appellant/Cross-Respondent
File Date: 11/12/2002


SOURCE OF APPEAL
----------------
Appeal from Superior Court of King County
Docket No: 002201702
Judgment or order under review
Date filed: 01/26/2001
Judge signing: Hon. Michael J. Fox


JUDGES
------
Authored by Faye C. Kennedy
Concurring: William W. Baker
Ronald E. Cox


COUNSEL OF RECORD
-----------------
Counsel for Appellant(s)
Elena L. Garella
Ste 301
927 N Northlake Way
Seattle, WA 98103

Counsel for Respondent(s)
Janine E. Joly
Deputy Pros Atty
E 550 King Co Courthouse
516 Third Ave
Seattle, WA 98104

COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT INTERVENOR(S)
Patrick D. Brown
6112 24th Ave NE
Seattle, WA 98115

Amicus Curiae on behalf of The Media Associations
Michael J. Killeen
Davis Wright Tremaine
2600 Century Square
1501 4th Ave.
Seattle, WA 98101-1688

Michele L. Earl-Hubbard
Davis Wright Tremaine
Ste 2600
1501 4th Ave
Seattle, WA 98101-1688

Alison P. Howard
Davis Wright Tremaine
2600 Century Square
1501 4th Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

KING COUNTY, )
) NO. 48161-4-I
Respondent/ )
Cross-Appellant, ) DIVISION ONE
)
v. )
)
WILLIAM A. SHEEHAN III, )
)
Cross-Respondent, )
)
and ) PUBLISHED OPINION
)
AARON ROSENSTEIN, )
)
Appellant/Intervener. ) FILEDKENNEDY, J. -- Appellants William A. Sheehan III and Aaron Rosenstein
maintain controversial websites that are critical of police agencies in
Washington. They submitted public records act requests seeking a list of
the full names and ranks of every police officer employed by King County.
The County refused the request and filed suit to enjoin disclosure,
contending that the information was exempt from disclosure because it would
hinder effective law enforcement and infringe on the police officers' right
to privacy. The trial court granted the County's suit in part and denied
it in part, ordering the County to provide only the last names and ranks of
all King County police officers. In a subsequent proceeding, a different
judge awarded attorney fees to appellants but denied statutory penalties on
the ground that the County acted in good faith when it denied the
disclosure request. Both sides appeal. Sheehan and Rosenstein contend,
and we agree, that the trial court erred by refusing to order the County to
disclose the full names of the police officers it employs. They also
contend, and we agree, that there is no good-faith exemption from the
statutory penalty. These rulings essentially moot the County's cross-
appeal, in which the County contends that the trial court erred by
requiring that even the officers' last names be disclosed and by awarding
Sheehan and Rosenstein the full amount of their attorney fees.
Accordingly, we reverse the trial court's rulings insofar as they conflict
with this opinion, and remand for entry of an order requiring the County to
disclose the full names and ranks of the police officers the county
employs.1 We also direct the trial court to impose a statutory penalty of
at least $5 and not more than $100 for each day that Sheehan and Rosenstein
have not been provided with the records they sought, provided however, that
no penalty shall be imposed for the days from June 7, 2001, to the date
this court issues its mandate, a commissioner of this court having stayed
that portion of the trial court's order requiring disclosure of the last
names and ranks of all police officers hired by the County, pending the
outcome of this appeal. We award Sheehan and Rosenstein their reasonable
attorney fees and costs for their appeal and for defending against the
County's cross-appeal.
FACTS

In May 2000, William A. Sheehan III submitted public records requests to
local
police agencies throughout the Puget Sound area asking for a list of the
full names of every law enforcement officer and attorney employed by each
of the agencies, along with job titles and pay scales for each position.
Almost all of the police agencies complied with Sheehan's requests.
The King County Sheriff's Office responded to Sheehan's request within the
required five-day period by acknowledging the request and informing him
that it was being reviewed. The Sheriff's Office did provide some portions
of the information Sheehan requested, including pay scales for each rank
within the Sheriff's Office. In an attempt to learn what information might
be obtainable by a person who had access to the full names of law
enforcement officers, a Sheriff's Office employee determined that it was
possible to obtain officers' home addresses and other personal information
via the public access section of the King County Assessor's Office.
The King County Prosecutor, acting on behalf of the Sheriff, denied the
remainder of Sheehan's request by letter dated July 20, 2000. The letter
stated that the list of officers' full names was exempt under RCW
42.17.310(1)(b) because it "would allow access to additional information
regarding individual employees that is both highly offensive and not of
legitimate concern to the public." Clerk's Papers at 34. The letter also
stated that the list was exempt under RCW 42.17.310(1)(d) because "release
of the list will hinder effective law enforcement because it will make
identifying information beyond just the names of officers accessible." Id.
Accordingly, the County refused to release any portion of the names of its
officers, except for the Sheriff himself; neither did it release officer
ranks at that time.2
Sheehan threatened to bring suit under the public records act unless the
County released the requested records. In response, the County filed a
complaint and motion to enjoin examination of records, repeating its
assertions that the list of the full names of all law enforcement officers
employed by King County was exempt under RCW 42.17.310(1)(b) and (d), and
also contending that the release of officers' names would threaten their
safety and privacy and would compromise undercover operations. Sheehan
answered and filed a counterclaim for release of the requested records and
for attorney fees and statutory penalties.
After Sheehan was served with the County's complaint and motion to enjoin,
King County received a public records request from Aaron Rosenstein, also
seeking a list of law enforcement officers in King County. The County
responded to this request in the same manner as it had responded to
Sheehan's request: it sent a letter denying Rosenstein access to the list
and explaining its position regarding the applicable exemptions.
Rosenstein then moved to intervene in the County's lawsuit against Sheehan.
The County did not oppose the motion, and Rosenstein was allowed to
intervene.
It is undisputed that both Sheehan and Rosenstein run controversial
internet web
sites that are highly critical of police, and that Mr. Sheehan, at least,
has previously posted identifying information regarding King County police
officers, including their home addresses, on his web site. The record
contains a declaration from an undercover officer (identified in the
declaration only by his or her initials, "R. T.") stating that after one
suspect was arrested as the result of a recent undercover police operation,
an undercover officer's car description and license plate were published on
an internet web site for other suspects to read. The declaration does not
allege that this information was published on either Sheehan or
Rosenstein's web site; rather, the declaration illustrates the problems
that police already face in the internet age, and the County's concerns
that this kind of interference with undercover operations could happen with
more frequency if it is required to disclose the full names of all of its
police officers, some of whom are working undercover at any given time.
A judge of the King County Superior Court decided the merits of the case at
a hearing on November 17, 2000. The court made the following conclusions
of law:
1. The court must read the Public Disclosure Act and the Freedom of
Information Act together and must consider public policy;
2. Under the circumstances of this case and based on defendant
William Sheehan's statements regarding his intended use of the information,
the Court must balance the interests of disclosure with the interests in
effective law enforcement;
3. The Court concludes the following relief is authorized under RCW
42.17.310(1)(d) and the Court's ruling is based solely on that exemption.

Clerk's Papers at 155.
The court granted the County's motion in part and denied it in part,
ordering the County to provide the surnames and ranks of all King County
police officers, but allowing it to withhold the officers' first and middle
names. Sheehan and Rosenstein moved for reconsideration, which the trial
court denied.
The remainder of the case was then assigned to a different trial court
judge. Sheehan and Rosenstein moved for an award of attorney fees and
penalties under RCW 42.17.340(4). The court found that Sheehan and
Rosenstein were entitled to the full amount of requested fees, with the
exception of fees associated with the unsuccessful motion for
reconsideration and the notice of appeal. However, the court declined to
award statutory penalties, concluding that the County had acted in good
faith when it denied the requests.
This appeal and cross-appeal followed. We granted the motions of Allied
Daily Newspapers of Washington, Inc., Washington bureaus of the Associated
Press, and Washington Association of Broadcasters (collectively, Media
Associations) to file an amicus brief.
STANDARD OF REVIEW

Courts review agency denials of disclosure de novo. RCW 42.17.340(3).
Courts review the award and amount of penalties under the abuse of
discretion standard. Progressive Animal Welfare Soc'y v. U.W., 114 Wn.2d
677, 683-84, 790 P.2d 604 (1990) ("PAWS I").
DISCUSSION

1. Is a list of the full names of King County police officers exempt from
disclosure under RCW 42.17.310(1)(d) on the ground that it is "specific
intelligence information," nondisclosure of which is "essential to
effective law enforcement"?

The Public Disclosure Act was passed by initiative in 1972. See Laws of
1973, ch. 1; RCW 42.17. The public records portion of the act, RCW
42.17.250-.348, requires all state and local agencies to disclose any
public record upon request, unless it falls within certain specific
enumerated exemptions. RCW 42.17.260(1).
The central purpose of the act is "nothing less than the preservation of
the most central tenets of representative government, namely, the
sovereignty of the people and the accountability to the people of public
officials and institutions." Progressive Animal Welfare Soc'y v. U.W., 125
Wn.2d 243, 251, 884 P.2d 592 (1994) ("PAWS II"); RCW 42.17.251. Our courts
have repeatedly held that the act is "a strongly worded mandate for broad
disclosure of public records." Hearst Corp. v. Hoppe, 90 Wn.2d 123, 127,
580 P.2d 246 (1978); Amren v. City of Kalama, 131 Wn.2d 25, 31, 929 P.2d
389 (1997); PAWS II, 125 Wn.2d at 251. Accordingly, the act's disclosure
provisions must be liberally construed, and its exemptions narrowly
construed. RCW 42.17.251; RCW 42.17.010(11); PAWS II, 125 Wn.2d at 251;
Amren, 131 Wn.2d at 31.
Courts must take into account the policy of the act "that free and open
examination of public records is in the public interest, even though such
examination may cause inconvenience or embarrassment to public officials or
others." RCW 42.17.340(3). The agency bears the burden of proving that
refusal to disclose "is in accordance with a statute that exempts or
prohibits disclosure in whole or in part of specific information or
records." RCW 42.17.340(1). In addition, agencies "shall not distinguish
among persons requesting records, and such persons shall not be required to
provide information as to the purpose for the request" except under very
limited circumstances not applicable to this case. RCW 42.17.270. If the
requested material contains both exempt and nonexempt material, the exempt
material may be redacted but the remaining material must be disclosed. RCW
42.17.310(2); Amren, 131 Wn.2d at 32.
The County first argues that the list of officer names is exempt because
nondisclosure is essential to effective law enforcement. RCW
42.17.310(1)(d) exempts from disclosure:
Specific intelligence information and specific investigative records
compiled by investigative, law enforcement, and penology agencies, and
state agencies vested with the responsibility to discipline members of any
profession, the nondisclosure of which is essential to effective law
enforcement or for the protection of any person's right to privacy.

The trial court based its decision to require disclosure of only the
officers' last names on this exemption. Neither party is content with this
ruling: the County contends that not even the surnames of police officers
are disclosable under this exemption, while Sheehan, Rosenstein, and amici
Media Associations argue that the exemption does not apply at all.
The County does not argue that the list of officers' names constitutes an
"investigative record." Nor should it. Records are exempt under that
category only "if they were compiled as a result of a specific
investigation focusing with special intensity upon a particular party."
Dawson v. Daly, 120 Wn.2d 782, 792-93, 845 P.2d 995 (1993). Instead, the
County argues that the list of names constitutes "specific intelligence
information," the nondisclosure of which is "essential to effective law
enforcement."
The act does not define the term "specific intelligence information." In
the absence of a statutory definition, courts give words their ordinary
meaning. Washington State Coalition for the Homeless v. D.S.H.S., 133
Wn.2d 894, 905, 949 P.2d 1291 (1997). Courts may look to dictionary
definitions to determine ordinary meaning. Id. at 905. In this context,
"intelligence" may be defined as "the gathering or distribution of
information, especially secret information," or "information about an
enemy" or "the evaluated conclusions drawn from such information." Random
House Unabridged Dictionary 990 (1993). With the possible exception of the
names of police officers who are actively engaged in undercover operations
at the time of a request for disclosure, it is difficult to see how a list
of police officers' names could fall under these definitions. In addition,
the exemption applies only to specific intelligence information, suggesting
an even narrower interpretation. Other jurisdictions and courts have
narrowly defined "intelligence information" in a manner that would clearly
not include a general list of officers' names. See, e.g., Multnomah County
Code sec. 15.551 ("{i}nformation compiled in an effort to anticipate,
prevent or monitor possible criminal activity, or compiled in a course of
investigation of known or suspected crimes"); Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 6 sec.
167 ("records and data compiled by a criminal justice agency for the
purpose of criminal investigation, including reports of informants,
investigators or other persons"); A.C.L.U. v. Deukmejian, 32 Cal. 3d 440,
651 P.2d 822, 827 (1982) ("intelligence information" exemption applies to
information identifying confidential sources or subjects in organized crime
records; rejecting position that exemption applies to all information
"reasonably related to criminal activity" on grounds that such an
interpretation would "effectively exclude the law enforcement function of
state and local governments from any public scrutiny").
The County has not convincingly explained why officers' names that are
routinely released on a daily basis in court, on the streets, in the media,
or to individuals on a per-incident basis are not intelligence information,
whereas a list of names released pursuant to a public records act request
by a known critic of law enforcement is intelligence information. The
County suggests that the list of names is intelligence information because
it contains the names of undercover officers, and officers who might
someday go undercover. But Sheehan and Rosenstein did not ask for a
breakdown of which officers are presently operating undercover and which
are not. Neither has the County offered to provide a list with the names
of undercover officers redacted. Moreover, to construe the "specific
intelligence information" exemption so broadly as to include the names of
officers who might someday go undercover would fly in the face of the
thrice-repeated legislative mandate that exemptions under the public
records act are to be narrowly construed. See RCW 42.17.010(11); RCW
42.17.251; RCW 42.17.920.
In sum, the County's proposal to include law enforcement officers' names
within the "intelligence information" exemption contradicts the common-
sense definition of the term "intelligence information" and runs counter to
the act's purpose of broad disclosure of public records. As our Supreme
Court has said in another context, "{e}xemptions from remedial legislation
. . . are narrowly construed and applied only to the situations which are
plainly and unmistakably consistent with the terms and spirit of the
legislation." Drinkwitz v. Alliant Techsystems, Inc., 140 Wn.2d 291, 301,
996 P.2d 582 (2000). Our state and local law enforcement officers do not
operate as "secret police" whose names are exempt from public disclosure.
The County next argues that the list of officers' names is exempt because
it is "essential to effective law enforcement." The County relies on
Newman v. King County, 133 Wn.2d 565, 947 P.2d 712 (1997) in arguing that
documents are exempt for purposes of law enforcement if they meet a two-
part test.3 First, the information must be compiled by law enforcement,
and second, its nondisclosure must be essential to effective law
enforcement. Id. at 572-73. There is no question that the list of
officers' names was "compiled by law enforcement." The County advances two
theories in support of its argument that nondisclosure of the officers'
names is essential to law enforcement. First, the County asserts that
maintaining officer confidentiality is critical to the success of
undercover operations. According to the County, all of the precautions it
takes to protect the identity of its undercover officers would be useless
if a full list of officers' names could be obtained through the act. The
County acknowledges that Sheehan and Rosenstein did not ask the County to
identify which officers are undercover and which are not. However, it
asserts that suspected violators of criminal law could use the list of
names to obtain officers' home addresses from other sources. The suspected
violators could then take pictures of the officers leaving their homes, and
use the photographs to spot undercover officers that they might encounter
while engaging in criminal behavior. Second, the County argues that
nondisclosure is also essential to officers who do not work undercover
because if they know that their
residential addresses can easily be obtained by any individual who has a
list of the names of all police officers employed by the County, they will
constantly fear for their own safety and the safety of their families.
Over time, the County contends that this will induce a state of "hyper-
vigilance" that will deplete the officers' "perceptual resources," placing
the officers in a double-bind, because they must constantly face the
possibility that angry suspects will threaten their families.
There can be no doubt that the threats faced each day by police officers
are real, and that police officers and their families experience stress as
a result of the dangers inherent in the occupation. We sympathize with
these concerns; indeed, we empathize with them, for judges are not immune
from threats by angry litigants. We also are not insulated from news
reports about physicians who perform abortions being identified by name and
residential address on anti-abortion web sites and subsequently being
murdered, and are not so na719501IP1