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.

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 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


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
See more »