.

Kirkland State Rep. Goodman Reportedly Drove After Using Marijuana

The Sammamish Review reports that in divorce proceedings, the legislator's wife accused Goodman -- a champion of tougher DUI laws -- of driving after using pot. Goodman denies ever having driven under the influence.

State Rep. Roger Goodman of Kirkland--chairman of the House Public Safety Committee--has been accused in divorce proceedings of driving after using marijuana, according to a story by the Sammamish Review.


Goodman, a Democrat who represents the 45th District, is in the midst of a divorce from his wife of 16 years, Liv Grohn. In an Oct. 4 court filing, the Sammamish Review reports, Grohn accused Goodman of “willful disregard for our children’s safety by repeatedly driving them while stoned.”

Goodman, re-elected to a third term last November, has built a reputation in the state House of Representatives as a champion of tougher laws on driving under the influence. His 45th Legislative District includes much of Kirkland, Redmond, Woodinville and Sammamish.

But the Review, citing court filings, said Grohn recounted an incident in June of 2011 when she found him “reeking of marijuana” as he was preparing to drive their children to the beach.

The story said Goodman denied ever having driven within three hours of using pot, and that he noted he had never been pulled over or arrested for driving under the influence.

Goodman, who supported the legalization of marijuana, told the Review that he “is not perfect” regarding drug use, but denied ever having driven while under the influence.

Grohn apparently filed for divorce from Goodman last October.

Patch has left a message with Goodman and will update this story if he responds.

For the Sammamish Review story, click here.

Trent Latta February 28, 2013 at 01:29 AM
Uncorroborated and unconfirmed private divorce proceeding allegations do not undermine the stellar credentials of Roger Goodman, who is a state legislator that has proven, over and over, that he is a stalwart for public safety. Someone need not personally undergo divorce proceedings to understand that a soon-to-be-former spouse’s comments are often regrettable and said merely in the heat of an emotionally taxing time. Roger Goodman is a legislator who is helping our state by making our streets safer, as so many organizations, including Mothers Against Drunk Driving, have publicly acknowledged.
Toby Nixon February 28, 2013 at 02:10 AM
Really, Trent? You're basically calling Liv a liar, so you can support your incumbent partisan comrade? Seriously?
Toby Nixon February 28, 2013 at 02:13 AM
Your comment would have been just as effective without the middle sentence.
Dale Fonk February 28, 2013 at 03:07 AM
Let’s remember, recreational use of marijuana only very recently became legal. For Roger Goodman to clearly own up to recreational use prior to that date is admission of criminal behavior, the issue of DUI aside. He is not just another guy in the community, he is an elected lawmaker. We, as his constituents, deserve public servants that are willing to obey the laws, regardless of their personal opinions of the particular law. He owes us a higher standard of duty than that. For him to advocate changes in the law is absolutely his prerogative. For him to break the law because he does not like the law is not. And then legislators express their frustration that the public holds them in such low self esteem. Honestly, is it any wonder?? And in the interest of full disclosure, I am the Chairman of the 45th Leg Dist GOP
Suzann Vincent February 28, 2013 at 03:00 PM
If those elected to office would simply stop saying "do as I say, not as I do", "we are smarter than you and know what is good for you" things would operate much better and that goes for both parties. I've never been so disappointed with the state of our country and our politicians and unfortunately the only choice would be not to vote and that is exactly the wrong option.
Lise Quinn February 28, 2013 at 03:14 PM
Hahaha! Like this is viable coming from a a pissed off spouse in the middle of a divorce.
Laura Latta February 28, 2013 at 04:25 PM
No one is calling Ms. Grohn a liar. The only critisizm here is of the Patch for for treating accusations made in an emotional and private matter as news. It may be true, it may not be true, but without corroboration or additional facts it's not news worthy. Mr. Goodman may be a public figure, but his children are not and they are sure to be negatively impacted by a tabloid story of this nature. If there was real news value here I could understand it, but that's not the case. It's disappointing.
Michaela February 28, 2013 at 07:33 PM
How did these documents become available? Since when are divorce communications available for public consumption? I do agree that public servants should obey the law. I also believe that if everyone who smoked pot before it was legal became ineligible for elected office, that would clear a lot of seats in Olympia. Come to think of it, maybe that's a good idea!
Russ February 28, 2013 at 07:34 PM
I agree with mr fonk
Lise Quinn February 28, 2013 at 07:50 PM
I don't care if any of them smoke, drink, have extra-marital sex, or play World of Warcraft. It's their political platform, their pursuit of the policies that I agree with. I will vote for Roger Goodman again!
Bonnie Mutton February 28, 2013 at 09:45 PM
Agree
Toby Nixon February 28, 2013 at 09:47 PM
Michaela, Article 1 Section 10 of the state constitution says "Justice in all cases shall be administered openly". This means all court case files are presumed to be open to the public, including divorce case filings, unless they are sealed by the court, so the public can exercise its soveriegnty in overseeing the courts and ensuring justice is administered fairly. In order to seal any court record, the court must make findings on what are known as the "Ishikawa factors", which include (1) the proponent of closure must show the need for it (a serious or imminent threat to an important interest), (2) anyone present when the sealing motion is made must have an opportunity to object, (3) whether sealing is the least restrictive effective means of protecting the endangered interests, (4) whether the public interest in the open administration of justice outweighs the endangered interest, and (5) that the sealing be no broader or longer in duration than necessary to protect the identified interest. I have no idea if sealing of the case file was sought in this matter.
Eric Laliberte February 28, 2013 at 09:59 PM
This is not the type a story that a reputable news source should be running. It's gossip, not news.
Jason Rothkowitz February 28, 2013 at 11:18 PM
This is simply gossip mongering. This is obviously a personal matter. Can we please focus on the work that Roger is doing in the legislature right now? We can certalnly spend time looking at his voting record in the House for a sense of Roger’s character, but not this stuff. Divorces are devastating enough, let’s not make it worse by propagating gossip. In my work as an education advocate, I have always found Roger to be one of the most honest and approachable legislators we have.
Jeanette Merki February 28, 2013 at 11:31 PM
I agree with the Lattas and Lise Quinn. Uncorroborated allegations do not undermine Goodman's record in the Legislature. I will vote for him again whereas I never have and never will vote for Toby Nixon. Jeanette Merki
Trent Latta March 01, 2013 at 07:09 PM
I'm positive the majority of Washington's residents will continue their support of Roger, despite the allegations being made during what can only be a taxing time for Roger, his wife Liv, and his children. Ultimately, what is said during his divorce - as sad as it is to see any marriage fall apart - has no bearing on his ability to effectively represent our community. https://www.facebook.com/pages/Roger-Goodman-Great-Father-Great-Public-Servant/404615516302092
POL March 02, 2013 at 08:52 AM
As I read through this "article" I kept coming back to the same emotions - disappointment, anger, disgust. There really is no redeeming value in speculating on people's personal lives and there is certainly the ability to harm. If you want to write an article about any legislator, write about way he votes on bills, or bills that he sponsors, or the way he works on his committees. Those are the things that he was elected to do and speak to how he represents his constituents. Taking the low road and repeating rumor adds no value and is, at best, a cheap and lazy substitution for actual journalism. What's more, there seems to be no recognition or respect for the most innocent involved - their children. In this age of social media, speculation quickly becomes "fact" and is repeated incessantly. At what is likely the most vulnerable and emotionally distraught time in their young lives, do these children really need to be subjected to irresponsible adults speculating on their parent’s lives? Do they need to be subject to questions from others when they are likely trying to grapple with the only family life they’ve known being turned upside down? Is sensationalism worth that price?
Mike Lewis (Editor) March 03, 2013 at 11:00 PM
I understand your concern so let me explain why Patch chose to publish this story. Most members of the public (echoed by numerous court decisions) do see a value in at least some coverage of public figures' professional and private lives. Disagreement generally occurs at where the line is drawn. Should the press publish information about a public figure simply because it is available? (Take for example, a home address or other personal data.) Generally, the answer is no. But if that information dovetails with another more serious matter -- say a possible crime at that home address -- then perhaps. We weigh those decisions carefully. If a public figure is accused of illegal and/or questionable acts in the course of his or her private life, if the source of the accusation is credible and if the accusation is within the public record, the decision about publishing often is yes (again, there can be exceptions). In this instance, the accusation wasn't anonymous and wasn't obviously lacking in credibility. Moreover, it dovetails with the subject's legislative agenda. Public figures are held to different standards than private citizens. They accept this when they run for office. (Sometimes, people decline to run for office because of this standard.) But rest assured, if the claims are proven baseless, or are withdrawn, we'll cover that just as aggressively and prominently. -- Mike Lewis, Regional Editor, Patch.com

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something