Privacy v. Public Access in the Emerald City

For the past few years here in Seattle, a fascinating debate has been brewing about the balance between governmenttransparency and citizens' privacy, particularly at the intersection of the statePublic Records Act and the state Privacy Act.

The current controversy involvesa lawsuit for declaratory relieffiled in January by the City of Seattle against localattorney James Egan, after he submitted a public records request for 36 Seattle PoliceDepartment dash-cam videos (see the complaint here).  Egan requested the videos from the SPD under the Washington Public Records Act in relation to his representation of clients with misconduct claims against the police. (Egan has publicly posted priorvideos that he received from the SPD underearlier Public Records Act.  The 36 videos at issue in the new request don’tnecessarily relate to police interactions with Egan’s clients, but rather tothe officers involved in the earlier incidents.)

The city refused to produce the videos, citing a potential conflict with the state’sPrivacy Act and the department's concerns over potential liability for turning over videos that might violate the privacy of theindividuals depicted in the footage. Days later, Egan filed a second request for thevideo footage, this time requesting the visual footage only, without audio, which was also rejected.  He has also moved to strike the City’s claims under the state anti-SLAPPstatute. 

Thiswhole controversy is especially interesting to me as a researcher interested ingovernment transparency and as a supporter of proper policing.  A close reading of the statutes at issue is enlightening.

Washington's PublicRecords Act heavily favors public disclosure, but City Attorney Pete Holmes isconcerned that one provision of the Privacy Act, RCW 9.73.090(1)(c), limits the city’s ability to disclose the videos toanyone except the individuals involved in the recorded incidents.  (Holmesrecently posted his thoughtful take on the issues here, and I applaud his willingness to discuss the matterpublicly.)  The provision of the Privacy Act that most concerns the city readsin part:

No sound or videorecording made under this subsection [which allows police to record dash-camvideo] may be duplicated and made available to the public by a law enforcementagency subject to this section until final disposition of any criminal orcivil litigation which arises from the event or events which were recorded.(emphasis added)

The cityalso claims that the Privacy Act allowsthem to keep the dash-cam videos sealed from the public for three years.  Reportedly, this is alsothe timeframefor when Egan says the videos are "slated for deletion" from the SPD’s electronicvideo system.  If true and the Privacy Act does bar the SPDfrom releasing the videos, it would appear that SPD dash-cam videos would beeffectively exempted from public records requests in the future.  

Interestingly, another lawsuit has also addressed whether the SPD may retain dash-cam videos under the Privacy Act, and a decision on April 11 may give a glimpse into the future of Egan's case.  Last year, Seattle-based KOMO 4 News also filed a lawsuit against the city for refusing to release dash-cam videos to the station’s investigators, after allegations that the city was routinely denying all public records requests for dash-cam footage.  On Wednesday, KOMO News announced that a King County judge had ruled in their case that the SPD could legitimately withhold the video for three years, but fined the city for not producing log and database information.  As a result, despite reports that indicate that the SPD d