In the city of Seattle, current and former police officers who participated in the “Stop the Steal” rally on January 6, 2021, are advocating for their anonymity in court documents regarding their involvement. They attended the rally supporting former President Donald Trump at the U.S. Capitol.
Challenging the public disclosure of their identities, they have filed a petition under the pseudonym “John Doe.” This lawsuit questions whether the investigation into their actions should remain confidential. Earlier this year, the Washington State Supreme Court ruled that their names could be disclosed, asserting that releasing them does not infringe upon their privacy rights. The court recently denied a request to revisit this decision.
Four officers associated with the events on that significant day maintain that state public records laws protect their anonymity, insisting on their innocence and privacy concerns if their names were to be made public. Post-January 6, the Seattle Police Department launched an inquiry to determine if any policies or laws had been breached by the officers who journeyed to the rally in Washington, D.C.
This inquiry concluded with the dismissal of Caitlin and Alexander Everett, a married officer couple, who reportedly breached police barricades outside the Capitol Building. Their actions were deemed unlawful, leading to their termination as affirmed by Diaz. Other officers were found not to have contravened regulations, with one case remaining “inconclusive.”
During this period, Sam Sueoka, then studying law, sought access to the investigation’s documents by filing records requests to reveal details regarding officers’ involvement. Neil Fox, representing Sueoka, stated awareness of the motion filed by the officers seeking continuance of anonymity.
The officers’ plea to the U.S. Supreme Court outlines concerns that forcing them to reveal their identities might deter public expression of controversial opinions. The petition argues that a government entity should not overlook the potentially suppressive effect of demanding the revelation of personnel’s political affiliations and motivations, particularly when such disclosure could lead to stigmatization without any actual misconduct.
A response from the concerned parties is anticipated next Friday, as per the ongoing legal journey.