Current and former Seattle police officers who attended President Donald Trump’s “Stop the Steal” rally on January 6, 2021, at the U.S. Capitol are appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court to maintain their anonymity in public court records. Under “John Doe” pseudonyms, these officers have initiated a lawsuit concerning whether the investigation into their actions should be disclosed publicly. The Washington State Supreme Court previously decided in February that their identities could be revealed, stating that the officers failed to demonstrate any violation of their privacy rights through public disclosure. After the state supreme court declined a reconsideration earlier this month, the officers’ legal representatives filed a petition with the U.S. Supreme Court, aiming to keep their names confidential during the ongoing legal proceedings.
The four officers contend that they are protected under the state’s public records law, asserting they committed no wrongdoing and that disclosing their names would infringe on their privacy. Following the events of January 6, 2021, the Seattle Police Department initiated an investigation to determine if any officers who traveled to Washington, D.C., for the rally breached any laws or departmental policies. The inquiry concluded that officers Caitlin and Alexander Everett breached barriers established by Capitol police and were found near the Capitol Building, leading to legal violations and their subsequent dismissal by the department. Investigators cleared three other officers of policy violations, while the outcome for a fourth officer remained “inconclusive.”
Sam Sueoka, then a law student, submitted records requests for the investigation details pertaining to the officers involved. Neil Fox, Sueoka’s attorney, stated in an email that the motion for a stay by the officers is under review. The petition to the Supreme Court argues that requiring the officers to disclose their real names could deter individuals from expressing unpopular opinions. It questions whether a governmental agency can disregard the potential chilling effect of mandating employees to disclose their off-duty political activities, particularly when this information is sought by individuals intending to vilify public servants despite no misconduct.
The Supreme Court is expected to respond to the petition by next Friday.
