Seattle – Current and previous Seattle Police officers Who attended the political concentration of President Donald Trump in “Stop The Weal” on January 6, 2021 at the United States Capitol is asking the highest court in the nation to maintain its anonymous identities in public judicial records.
Using “John Doe” pseudonyms, they demanded whether research on their activities must be made public. The Supreme Court of the State of Washington ruled in February that they can be identified and that they have not shown that the public release of their names violates their right to privacy. The Supreme Court of the State denied the reconsideration earlier this month and the lawyers of the four officials presented a request to the Supreme Court of the United States, asking that the names remain protected during their legal challenge.
Four officers attending events in the capital of the nation on the day of an insurrection affirmed that they are protected by the State Public Registries Law. They say they did nothing wrong with and that revealing their names would violate your privacy.
Following the events of January 6, 2021, the Seattle Police Department ordered an investigation into whether any of its officers who traveled to Washington, DC, attended the demonstration, had violated the laws or policies of the department.
The investigation found that married officers Caitlin and Alexander Everett crossed the barriers established by the Capitol Police and were next to the Capitol building, in violation of the law, inciting Díaz to shoot the couple. The investigators said that three other officers had not violated the policies and that the fourth case was declared “not conclusive.”
Sam Sooka, a law student at that time, submitted records for records in search of the dissemination of investigation records for participating officials.
“We are reviewing Does’ motion for a stay,” said Neil Fox, one of Sueoka’s lawyers, in an email to Associated Press on Saturday.
Demanding officers to use their real names in litigation would create a chilling effect on the expression of unpopular opinions, the request To the Supreme Court he said.
“In essence, this appeal implies whether a government agency can ignore the chilling effect resulting from an employer who demands an employee who reveals his political activities out of service and the impressions or motivations associated associated with it, followed by a generalized dissemination to those who deliberately seek this information to submit these public servants to vilice viliseques without the commission of misconduct.
An answer to the petition will be presented next week on Friday.
