Supreme court: Officials’ personal texts are public record

The Washington Supreme Court has ruled that any messages relating to official business, even if they’re on a private phone, are considered public records.

It’s the official who sends the messages, however, who gets to decide which ones are public.

The case involves Pierce County detective Glenda Nissen who claims she was banned from the office of Pierce County Prosecutor Mark Lindquist because she backed his opponent in a previous election.

And to prove her case, she wanted his text messages from his personal cellphone. Nissen told KING 5 that she believed she had a right to see the text messages and that there is reason to believe her life has been affected by what is written in those messages.

Related: How far is too far for public records requests?

So in 2011, she sued Lindquist to get full transcripts of conversations he wrote through his personal cellphone.

The matter went all the way to the state Supreme Court which recently ruled 9-0 that Detective Nissen has the right to see any text messages involving public business that Lindquist may have sent or received on his private phone.

But here’s the catch: Lindquist explained to KING 5 that the court also ruled that he gets to determine which messages involve public business.

In such a situation, a public official does have to submit a sworn affidavit stating that any messages they withhold do not pertain to government business.

Lindquist notes that what’s important to understand is the difference between public disclosure and unrestricted access to personal records.

“The requester specifically wanted to fish through the private phones of public employees, including me in this case, and the court said ‘no,'” Lindquist told KIRO Radio’s Dave Ross. “You don’t’ have to be a lawyer to know that the plaintiff loses when the court says ‘no.'”

And so as a result, Lindquist says this ruling will not require him to disclose any additional messages.

“We already turned over any records we could obtain that may be work related,” Lindquist said. “We were exceedingly open and the court recognized that we acted in good faith.”

So he says the decision is a victory; not just for him but for all public employees.

“This is a big win for teachers, firefighters, police officers and all of us who serve the public,” Lindquist said.

And this doesn’t end Lindquist’s troubles. He is still facing a recall election over allegations by several county employees that he misused his power by hiring and promoting more attractive female workers, and pursued frivolous and personally motivated prosecutions.

Backers of the recall need 38,642 valid voter signatures to put the measure on the ballot in April.