This morning, we gave Seattle City Attorney Pete Holmes a guest Slog post to explain why he, a longtime police accountability watchdog, filed a lawsuit against attorney James Egan that would block the release of 36 police car dash-cam videos. In short, Holmes argued that releasing the footage to individuals with no stake in the cases—not victims, defendants, nor attorneys with a client involved—could violate the state's privacy protections for the people caught on camera.

Well... only a few hours later, Egan is firing back with his own lawsuit.

Egan contends that Holmes's action amounts to what's called a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation, or SLAPP suit, designed to burden and deter citizens from tangling with government. (I've posted Egan's lawsuit here.) And such, Egan argues, King County Superior Court Judge Dean Lum should strike Holmes's claim and force the city to pay Egan $10,000 in damages.

"The fact that the Plaintiff has filed a law suit against the Defendant for making a public records request creates a chilling effect on all citizens who are contemplating making a public records request," Egan argues. "What citizen would dare appeal a denial of a video request from the SPD when there is a possibility they will be served with a lawsuit by doing so?"

Egan responds to Holmes's privacy claims by saying that the Public Records Act specifically trumps privacy concerns. The statute says: “in the event of conflict between the provisions of the [PRA] and any other act, the [PRA] shall govern.” The statute further clears government of liability—a concern Holmes raised—if it releases records in good-faith compliance with records laws.

Lacking a true risk to the city, Egan continues, Holmes's suit prevents him from fighting for the videos, instead bogging him down in a second lawsuit. The complaint puts it like this: "Rather than be free to contemplate whether or not to pursue legal action over SPD's denial of the request, the Defendants is forced to immediately defend against the suit, or simply not respond to the lawsuit and lose by default. This creates an undue burden on the Defendants that he did not anticipate when making the initial citizen request."

By way of background, the case stems from Egan's role representing two Latino clients stopped by police in 2010, when an officer said, among other offensive things, that his "badge is the only thing preventing me from skull-fucking you and dragging you down the street." The Seattle Police Department long-withheld the footage, eventually relinquishing it to Egan in 2011 (the officers received only a few weeks suspension). In September of last year, Egan requested 36 videos only involving those four officers, each relating a complaint of misconduct.

"We are entitled to know if misconduct occurred on our dime," Egan says on the phone today. "I am not interested in the people who are abused, just the officers who are the abusers." As for the idea that people are legally entitled to privacy, Egan points out that when people are in public, their they lose rights to images of their public activity—particularly activity captured by police car videos.