Washington Supreme Court says Seattle Police Department officers who attended Jan. 6 rally can be identified

Mike Carter, The Seattle Times on Feb 13, 2025

By clicking submit, I authorize Arcamax and its affiliates to: (1) use, sell, and share my information for marketing purposes, including cross-context behavioral advertising, as described in our Privacy Policy , (2) add to information that I provide with other information like interests inferred from web page views, or data lawfully obtained from data brokers, such as past purchase or location data, or publicly available data, (3) contact me or enable others to contact me by email or other means with offers for different types of goods and services, and (4) retain my information while I am engaging with marketing messages that I receive and for a reasonable amount of time thereafter. I understand I can opt out at any time through an email that I receive, or by clicking here

SEATTLE — The Washington Supreme Court has ruled Seattle police officers who attended the Jan. 6, 2021, rally and protests at the U.S. Capitol should be identified in court papers and have not shown that the release of their names through public disclosure will violate their right to privacy.

Four Seattle police officers who attended the rally — but who apparently did not enter restricted grounds or otherwise violate the law or SPD policy — had sued the city and the Office of Police Accountability to prevent the release of their names and documents relating to an investigation into their activities that day. Two other officers who were terminated for their Jan. 6 actions also sued.

The justices unanimously ruled on Thursday the officers failed to cite an applicable exemption to the state’s Public Records Act and have not shown how their right to privacy in this instance would overcome the public’s right to know.

“We conclude they have not met that burden because they have not shown they have a privacy right in public records about their attendance at a highly public event,” wrote Justice Raquel Montoya-Lewis for the majority opinion. The right to privacy is reserved for “personal information” of a sort that its release would be considered “highly offensive” — not the fact that someone attended a public event along with tens of thousands of others, she wrote.

“Further,” she continued, “off-duty acts of a police officer can be disclosable if their actions ‘bear upon (their) fitness to perform public duty’ because ‘privacy considerations are overwhelmed by public accountability.'”

The officers also claimed that revealing their identities would expose their personal political beliefs, which the court rejected.

“While political beliefs may be closely and personally held in general, these public employees made the choice to attend a highly publicized political event in public,” the justices concluded.

The justices sent the case back to the trial court in King County, where litigation will continue. However, in light of the court’s rulings, it appears likely the identities of the four officers will be released, one way or another.

In addition to finding that the officers’ attempts at remaining anonymous likely won’t overcome the Public Disclosure Act’s presumption that the information is public, they also found that allowing them to continue their lawsuit using pseudonyms of John and Jane Doe is no longer justified.

That means any future pleadings in the case should contain their identities in the title.

That was a sticking point for Chief Justice Debra Stephens, who in a separate opinion agreed with her colleagues on the public-records and disclosure issues but felt the officers should be able to argue their right to use pseudonyms once the case is back in the trial court. She was partly joined in the dissent by Justice Sheryl Gordon McCloud.

However, the majority concluded that allowing the case to go forward with the officers using pseudonyms is the same as sealing a courtroom, which requires a judge to make specific findings and justifications.

The ruling comes on an appeal by attorney Sam Sueoka and others, who protested the Court of Appeals’ decision to issue an injunction after the trial court had refused to do so.

“At this time in history in particular, with growing efforts to prevent the public from learning information about our government, we are very pleased with today’s Supreme Court decision,” Sueoka said in a statement issued by his Seattle attorney, Neil Fox.

“We look forward to obtaining the full records about the investigation into the attendance of Seattle Police Department officers at portions of Stop the Steal,” the rally intended to interrupt Congress’ ratification of the 2020 election results.