SEATTLE — Current and former Seattle police officers who attended President Donald Trump’s “Stop the Steal” political rally on Jan. 6, 2021 at the U.S. Capitol are asking the nation’s highest court to keep their identities anonymous in public court records.
Using “John Doe” pseudonyms, they sued over whether the investigation into their activities should be made public. The Washington State Supreme Court ruled in February that they can be identified and that they haven’t shown that public release of their names violates their right to privacy. The state supreme court denied reconsideration earlier this month and lawyers for the four officers submitted a petition to the U.S. Supreme Court, asking that the names remain protected during their legal challenge.
Four officers who attended events in the nation’s capital on the day of an insurrection claimed they are protected under the state’s public records law. They say they did nothing wrong and that revealing their names would violate their privacy.
In the aftermath of the Jan. 6, 2021 events, the Seattle Police Department ordered an investigation into whether any of its officers who traveled to Washington, D.C. to attend the rally had violated any laws or department policies.
The investigation found that married officers Caitlin and Alexander Everett crossed barriers set up by the Capitol police and were next to the Capitol Building, in violation of the law, prompting Diaz to fire the pair. Investigators said three other officers had not violated policies and the fourth case was ruled “inconclusive.”
Sam Sueoka, a law student at the time, filed records requests seeking disclosure of the investigation’s records for the participating officers.
“We are reviewing the Does’ motion for a stay,” Neil Fox, one of the Sueoka’s attorneys, said in an email to The Associated Press Saturday.
Requiring the officers to use their real names in the litigation would create a chilling effect on voicing unpopular opinions, the petition to the Supreme Court said.
“At its core, this appeal involves whether a government agency can ignore the chilling effect resulting from an employer requiring an employee to disclose their off-duty political activities and attendant impressions or motivations associated therewith, followed by widespread dissemination to those who deliberately seek this information to subject these public servants to vilification without the commission of any misconduct whatsoever,” the petition said.
A response to the petition is due next week on Friday.
