In a decision that's likely to shed light on police misconduct investigations in Seattle, the Washington State Supreme Court ruled this morning that internal police misconduct reports must be made public—even in cases where allegations against an officer aren't sustained.

The case before the court concerned Bainbridge Island Police Department Officer Steven Cain, who allegedly rubbed his crotch on a female suspect and allegedly "choked her until she defecated out of fear." The Puyallup Police Department investigated the case and provided its report to the Kitsap County Prosecuting Attorney, but prosecutors found there was "not sufficient evidence to establish that there was any inappropriate behavior by this police officer." Nonetheless, media outlets had requested copies of the report.

But the Bainbridge Island Police Guild (BIPG) and Officer Cain filed a complaint saying the records must be withheld. The state's highest court, however, found the records could be released under the Public Record Act, provided that the officer's name is removed. "[A]lthough the public clearly has an interest in the nature of a police department's response to an allegation of sexual misconduct, production of the [reports] with only Officer Cain's identity redacted would not infringe upon that interest," the court found.

While City Attorney Pete Holmes could not be reached for comment, the ruling will apparently compel Seattle's Office of Professional Accountability—which has withheld the misconduct reports in the past—to release them in the future. “This decision sheds some much needed light on the murky issue about where the line protecting legitimate privacy interests of public employees’ ends and where the public’s right to know begins,” said a statement issued this afternoon by Seattle City Council member Nick Licata. And the decision could affect a dispute between the Seattle Police Officers Guild (SPOG) and the city, in which SPOG says officers' names cannot be released, even when the misconduct allegations are sustained. Licata added, “I hope that the Court’s decision also clears the way for determining when the City is obligated to shield the identity of an officer who has engaged in misconduct.”