Using “John Doe” pseudonyms, they sued over whether the investigation into their activities should be made public. The Washington State Supreme Court ruled in February that they can be identified and that they haven’t shown that public release of their names violates their right to privacy. The state supreme court denied reconsideration earlier this month and lawyers for the four officers submitted a petition to the U.S. Supreme Court, asking that the names remain protected during their legal challenge.

Four officers who attended events in the nation’s capital on the day of an insurrection claimed they are protected under the state’s public records law. They say they did nothing wrong and that revealing their names would violate their privacy.

    • mosiacmango@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      They have been leaked. It happened pretty much instantly after people found out.

      Officer #1: Alexander Everett

      Officer #2: Caitlin Rochelle

      Officer #3: Jason Marchione

      Officer #4: Sgt. Scotty Bach

      Officer #5: Vice detective Michael Settle

      Officer #6: Jacob Briskey

      This is just some complex legal maneuvering for lawsuits from the traitor cops.

    • kreskin@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      29 days ago

      yes, pardoning them does not reset the conclusion that what they did was criminal. Trump lacks the power to reclassify it-- he can only let them out of jail. So it was a crime. Cops have no expectation of privacy while committing crimes-- pardoned for those crimes or not.

  • Cocopanda@futurology.today
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    Just so folks know. Republicans are considering anyone a terrorist because we charged them as terrorists for Jan6th. Until I’m out of country. I won’t be saying anything to give them grounds to charge me. But I would careful about getting caught up by their spider webs.

  • Chozo@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    Yes, because innocent people always love to hide their innocence. Right.

    • Lka1988@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      I mean, there’s nothing inherently bad about wanting to keep your identity private. That should be a human right, if anything.

      That said, J6ers need to be named and shamed, especially those in positions of power and authority. The latter part should be the single exception for the “privacy is a right” idea.

      • kreskin@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        29 days ago

        Except cops are allowed to act with their extended cop powers even when they are not on duty. So they are not just private citizens. If they want to keep those after work powers they should waive their right to privacy in all cases where they are out in public. They shouldnt get to pick and choose whatever is convenient for them-- they need to be fully accountable if they wield extra authority. Those particular J6ers have no right to privacy.

      • madcaesar@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        It’s not just that, cops use the bullshit “if you have nothing to hide…” line all the time

        • Lka1988@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 month ago

          Yep. I fell for that exactly once, and looking back on it I was incredibly lucky it worked in my favor (I’m also white, which absolutely helped).