Disciplinary Action Support

To Whom It May Concern:

Pursuant to the Washington Public Records Act, I hereby request the following records:

Ms. Circelli,

BACKGROUND

A disciplinary action was written on January 11, 2017 by Sgt. Main (#729) in the format of an Employee Incident Report (EIR) then issued as a written warning to Officer Nathan Lynch #734. Violations listed on the action include:

-Use of department information for their own or another's personal benefit or interest,
-Unauthorized personal use of Police Vehicle.
-Police issued vehicle driven to a private residence.

These violations by Officer Lynch on the written action to have occurred between date range of December 2016 and January 2017.

October 21, 2017 began a round of requests for all records, documentation and information including complaints, inter office emails, photos, video recordings, citizen complaints, anonymous tips, memos including any attachments, GPS data, MCT data, logs, documents and/or any information used, accessed or that the POPD became aware of to identify and support that disciplinary action. All responses have been “No Responsive Documents” found.

This is confusing and befuddling to me because the Port Orchard Police Department (“POPD”) General Orders Manual mandates that there are written records for situations and issues such as this. For example, in POPD General Orders Manual 1430 it mandates there shall be a written report regarding internal investigations. Another example of this is in POPD General Orders Manual 1440 that disciplinary actions will be documented and will be maintained in the office of the Commander. Lastly, Contract No. 084-16 Port Orchard Police Guild – Patrol Officers states that discipline related documents are property of the employer (the Port Orchard Police Department), and thus documents subject to Public Records Act.

Request:

I hereby request any and all records that identify or reference to or were used to establish the actions of Officer Lynch that were written in the action.

Please construe this request to the broadest possible extent under the Public Records Act. Based on the content of the information provided I do not believe that the Port Orchard Police Department made an adequate search for records responsive to my request regarding the same subject matter, request number P20DOC102617-009. Your response indicates that no staff were consulted and instead of providing me the responsive documents as you should have under the Public Records Act, you instead told me to make a request for information to Sgt. Main. Perform a full and adequate search pursuant to Public Records Act because the Public Records Act “treats a failure to properly respond as a denial.” Neighborhood Alliance of Spokane Cty. v. Cty. of Spokane, 261 P. 3d 119, 128 (Wash. 2011) (quoting Soter v. Cowles Publ'g Co., 162 Wash.2d 716, 750 (2007)).

Cordially,

Penny Allen

The requested documents will be made available to the general public, and this request is not being made for commercial purposes.

In the event that there are fees, I would be grateful if you would inform me of the total charges in advance of fulfilling my request. I would prefer the request filled electronically, by e-mail attachment if available or CD-ROM if not.

Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation in this matter. I look forward to receiving your response to this request within 5 business days, as the statute requires.

Sincerely,

Penny Allen