SEATTLE (CN) — After attorneys debated privacy and First Amendment issues related to public records requests for the names of six Seattle police officers who attended the “Stop the Steal” rally preceding the Jan. 6 Capitol riot, the final lawyer arguing for the records’ release presented a workaround to the Washington Supreme Court.
“There is a pending motion to change the case title and to bar the use of pseudonyms,” said Neil Fox, an attorney for a Seattle University law student who filed a public disclosure request for the names of the officers. “This court can address that issue up front and decide it, and the plaintiffs would have to decide either to use their true names or withdraw their appeal.”
Since the six officers filed lawsuit under pseudonyms this past February seeking to block the release of their names, citing fear of harassment and harm to their reputations, two officers were fired for trespassing at the Capitol as a result of findings from an internal investigation that concluded in June. Investigators cleared three officers of wrongdoing and findings against the fourth were inconclusive.
The names of the two fired officers — Alexander Everett and Caitlin Rochelle Everett, a married couple — have since been released in disciplinary reports.
“There has been no evidence of threats or harassment towards these officers,” Fox said. “There has been no evidence that anyone has picketed outside the officers’ homes, that people sent them death threats.”
Fox said the officers have had the opportunity to provide this type of evidence in briefings or during depositions, which they declined to appear for. And the state Supreme Court has previously rejected arguments that suing to prevent the release of names is enough of a serious and imminent threat to privacy interests to warrant the use of pseudonyms.
Chief Justice Steven Gonzalez pressed attorneys representing the officers as to why their fears of being subjected to harsh opinions should weigh heavier than the case of a family facing homelessness because court records showed a past eviction action against them. In the end, the Supreme Court declined to change court records to list their initials rather than their full names.
“The interest that’s implicated is effectively mooting the merits and the necessity to proceed in pseudonym effectively decides the case,” attorney Blair Russ said during his rebuttal. He added later, “You just can’t get to the merits of whether you have a privacy interest.”
In his opening argument, Russ argued that just because the officers attended a public rally did not mean they no longer had privacy concerns related to intimate details about their trip planning and reasons for participating, which was part of the internal investigation into their conduct.
The officers’ other attorney, Aric Bomsztyk, argued they had a clear First Amendment right to participate in a protest anonymously even when exercising that right in plain sight.
“These officers weren’t in D.C. wearing name tags, these officers weren’t in D.C. saying, “We agree with all of the views,” some of which are extremist and reprehensible,” Russ said.
Both attorneys expressed concern that if the justices remanded the case to the trial court in King County without specific instructions as to the officers’ privacy rights that the judge would make the same ruling: the officers voluntarily participated in the rally so they could have no expectation of privacy.
Separately, an attorney representing the city of Seattle warned of a “sea change” in the way public records officials handle requests if the state Supreme Court handed down a ruling requiring them to consider abstract privacy questions.
“It would be unworkable and untenable,” said Carolyn Boies, noting the officers’ request to redact any and all information that could lead to their identification.
“That is far beyond what the public records act normally focuses on,” she said.
Bomsztyk, on the other hand, said a finding in favor of the officers would not set a new precedent for public records requests. Instead, others with similar privacy concerns could go to the courts as the officers did.
The Seattle University law student who requested the officers’ names, Sam Sueoka, did so because he was concerned about who polices him in the streets when he expresses his First Amendment rights. He experienced violence during clashes with officers during the summer 2020 racial justice demonstrations, according to one of his attorneys, Janet Thoman.
“Mr. Sueoka considered that to be one of the most terrifying experiences of his life,” said Thoman, adding her client doesn’t have the luxury of remaining anonymous at protests when encountering law enforcement.
Follow @@byjaredbrown
Subscribe to Closing Arguments
Sign up for new weekly newsletter Closing Arguments to get the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and hot cases and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world.
Additional Reads
-
Minnesota governor appoints two Supreme Court justices April 22, 2024 -
