Plaintiff Gaspar was a general manager who sued his employer for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy.?? He alleged he was fired for assisting ?a? police ?investigation? into ?an employee?s purchase of postage stamps at discount prices from a defective post office machine resulting in the employee admitting the improper? purchase? and? paying? back? the? post office ?by altering a pretyped check.??? Gaspar informed the Board of Directors of the incidents and discussed terminating the employee.?? After placing the employee on administrative leave the Board fired Gaspar. ?The trial court dismissed the Complaint finding no clear mandate of public policy ?for ??helping ?law ?enforcement.????? On appeal, Gaspar identified four sources of public policy: ?(1) RCW 7.69.010 (Witnesses and crime victims have civic and moral duty to cooperate with law enforcement and prosecutors); (2) RCW 9.01.055 (citizens who aid police have same civil and? ?criminal? ?immunity? ?as? ?police);? ?(3)? ?RCW 9A.76.020 (crime to willfully obstruct police); and (4) RCW 9A.76.030 (crime to unreasonably refuse to comply with officer?s request to summon aid for officer).? ?Noting ?The same statutes were offered in Gardner, 128 Wn.2d at 938-39, as proof that there is a clear public policy encouraging citizens to assist law enforcement in the apprehension and prosecution of criminals? the Court reversed and remanded for trial.?? Without parsing among the particular statutes cited, the Court explained: ?[R]ecognition of a public policy to assist law enforcement is fundamental? and ?There is no public policy more important or more fundamental than the one favoring the effective protection of the lives and property of citizens.??? ?Gaspar v. Peshastin Hi-Up Growers, No. 24225-1-III (Feb. 14, 2006, Schultheis, Sweeney, Thompson)