Seattle Police Officers Guild asks court to narrow public-records disclosures for alleged misconduct

May it please the court, this dispute is between the Guild and the city and how a clause in the collective bargaining agreement between them is wrongly and consistently interpreted by the city, counsel for the Seattle Police Officers Guild told the panel.

The guild's attorney, Arik Bomsick, urged the court to grant declaratory relief that would limit disclosures under the parties' collective-bargaining agreement and to recognize several enumerated, highly stigmatizing categories of allegations (including claims of racism and dishonesty) as warranting redaction and third‑party notice. "If you accuse a police officer of being racist or you accuse a police officer of being dishonest, that is per se highly offensive," Bomsick argued, saying the union repeatedly faces the same factual patterns that lead to disclosures and repeated litigation costs.

The city's lawyer, Jessica Leiser, countered that the guild is effectively asking the court to create a new, categorical exemption to the Washington Public Records Act. "There is no highly offensive exemption in the PRA," Leiser said, urging the court to resolve disputes by applying the PRA's established framework and existing case law rather than by expanding exemptions.

At oral argument the panel pressed both sides on two core issues: whether prior decisions (including references to Bellevue John Doe) are limited to the particular facts of the earlier case and whether the guild has a live, ongoing injury that makes declaratory relief appropriate. A judge asked whether the prior case turned on specific facts such as a pattern of harassment and agency records and whether Officer Doe's earlier injunctive relief resolved the injury for purposes of this appeal.

Bomsick responded that the guild's injury is ongoing because the city repeatedly applies the CBA in a way that requires the union to litigate over the same kinds of disclosures. He pointed to declarations in the trial record and analogized to past union litigation to argue that recurring litigation costs and compelled disclosures produce a continuing controversy.

Leiser said the city's position is that allegations of biased policing are not per se highly offensive and that privacy exemptions under the PRA must be rooted in statutory authority and assessed on the facts of each request. She argued the guild asks the court to expand a statutory exemption beyond what existing law supports.

The argument concluded with the guild asking the court to review Bellevue John Doe and the appellate record for guidance on how prior courts characterized particular allegations and whether similar protections should extend in this case. The panel did not announce a decision at the hearing's close.