Judge Barnhart Denies Petition for Search Warrant Logs

The Clallam County Superior Court has refused to release its own search warrant logs.

In a two-page memorandum opinion dated July 13, Judge Simon Barnhart denied my formal Petition for Internal Review, upholding the court administration's blanket refusal to produce the search warrant logs of former Court Commissioner Brian Parker and then-Commissioner Brent Basden.

The Herald will not stop here. I intend to seek a writ challenging this decision in a higher court. More on that filing tomorrow.

What the Court Decided

Judge Barnhart's opinion rests on a single proposition: that search warrant logs are "chambers records" and therefore fall entirely outside GR 31.1, the rule governing access to court administrative records.

Quoting the rule's definition, the opinion states that a chambers record is "any writing that is created by or maintained by any judicial officer or chambers staff, and is maintained under chambers control." 

From there, the court goes further than the Public Records Officer's original denial. Chambers records, Judge Barnhart writes, "are not subject to GR 31.1 at all," and it is therefore "a sufficient and correct response" to deny such a request as "not a proper request under GR 31.1."

Applying that framework, the opinion concludes the logs I requested "are plainly chambers records," reasoning that their "only purpose is to assist the judicial officers in performing their duties," that they are "used exclusively by the judicial officers," and that they are "maintained solely under chambers control."

On that basis, the court held the denial was proper.

What the Court Did Not Decide

Readers of our prior coverage will notice what is missing. My petition raised three central arguments. The July 13 opinion engages with none of them directly.

The pre-2016 records. The petition argued that GR 31.1 applies only to records created on or after January 1, 2016, and that Judge Basden's 2007 to 2011 logs are instead governed by the common law right of access, which strongly favors disclosure of search warrant materials. 

The opinion analyzes the entire request through GR 31.1's chambers records definition and does not address the rule's effective date, the common law test, or the Washington Constitution.

The Parker log. The petition pointed to the court's own conduct: after Commissioner Parker's termination this past February, the court could not locate his search warrant log, and Clallam County's Human Resources Director had to formally demand that Parker return it to the courthouse. 

The opinion asserts these logs are "maintained solely under chambers control" without mentioning that episode.

The procedural violations. The petition documented that the original denial failed to include the summary of review procedures that GR 31.1 requires in every response, and instead declared itself "the final communication" on the matter. 

The opinion is silent on this as well.

It is also worth stating plainly, as a matter of record, that the internal review was decided by Presiding Judge Barnhart, the same judicial officer who terminated Commissioner Parker in February and to whom I sent my statutory deadline reminder. 

That is how GR 31.1's internal review process works: the court reviews itself. It is precisely why the rule, and Washington law more broadly, contemplate review beyond the courthouse walls.

Why This Matters

The Washington Supreme Court has recognized that access to search warrant materials allows the public to evaluate the conduct of police and prosecutors, and to confirm that judges are acting as neutral magistrates rather than rubber stamps. 

Under the reasoning adopted on July 13, a multi-year log of every warrant a judicial officer handled can be withheld categorically, with no balancing of the public's interest at all.

The internal review process has now run its course. Tomorrow I will detail the writ I am preparing to file to put this question before a higher court.

Accountability litigation is slow, technical, and not free. 

The Herald has no paywall and no corporate owner. It is reader support that pays for the records requests, the filings, and the follow-through that a fight like this demands. 

If this reporting matters to you, consider chipping in or subscribing for free so you don't miss what comes next.