SEATTLE (AP) – The current and former police officers who attended the political rally “Stop the Vol” of President Donald Trump on January 6, 2021 in the American Capitol asked the highest court of the nation to keep their anonymous identities in the judicial archives.
Using pseudonyms “John Doe”, they continued to find out if the investigation into their activities should be made public. Washington’s Supreme Court judged in February that they could 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 rejected the review earlier this month and the lawyers of the four officers submitted a request to the Supreme Court of the United States, requesting that the names remain protected during their judicial dispute.
Four officers who attended events in the national capital on the day of an insurrection said that they were protected by the law on state public files. They say they have done nothing wrong and that revealing their names would violate their privacy.
In the aftermath of the events of January 6, 2021, the Seattle police department ordered an investigation to find out if one of its officers who went to Washington, DC to attend the rally, had violated the laws or policies of the department.
The investigation revealed that the married officers Caitlin and Alexander Everett had crossed barriers created by the Capitol police and were next to the Capitol building, in violation of the law, which prompted Diaz to dismiss the pair. Investigators said that three other officers had not violated the policies and that the fourth case had been deemed “not conclusive”.
Sam Sueoka, a law student at the time, filed requests for files requesting the disclosure of the investigation files for participating agents.
“We review the Motion of the Do ‘for a stay,” said Neil Fox, one of the lawyers in Sueoka, in an email at the Associated Press on Saturday.
Obligning officers to use their real names in the dispute would create a scary effect on unpopular opinions, the request told the Supreme Court.
“Basically, this appeal consists in knowing whether a government agency can ignore the scary effect resulting from an employer forcing an employee to disclose his political activities on leave and his impressions or motivations that result from it, followed by the generalized dissemination to those who deliberately seek this information to submit these officials to the dissemination without the commission of any other drawback,” said the petition.
Friday, a response to the petition is due next week.
Originally published:
California Daily Newspapers
