Another Court Says Personal Email Accounts Still Subject To Public Records Requests

from the not-the-way-that-works dept

Another decision has been handed down that should further discourage public officials from utilizing private email accounts to conduct public business. Certainly public officials are welcome to use any email account they wish, but they shouldn't expect the use of a non-government account to shield their communications from the public. (And, if that's the case, why bother using a private email account while working for the government? All it really does is give the impression you're trying to hide something.)

In this case, a Puyallup, Washington councilman (Steve Vermillion) set up his own personal website and email address to use in conjunction with his state congressional run. He continued to use it after this effort had ended, and frequently received emails from constituents and city employees at the private email address. For the most part, Vermillion handled city business through a city account, but still answered questions and engaged in communications related to public work through his private account.

These emails were requested under the state's public records law. Vermillion claimed emails contained in this account were not subject to the law. His legal theory -- backed up by the city itself -- was that any emails contained in this account were his "private papers." The denial of the records request resulted in this lawsuit. A lower court found in favor of the records requester and the city immediately appealed it to the state's Supreme Court. The Supreme Court dumped it back down a level to the Appeals Court, forcing the line-jumping defendants to exhaust their other options first.

Unusually (for a public records lawsuit), Vermillion theorized his constitutional rights were violated by the records request. These theories failed to persuade the lower court. From the decision [PDF] (via

The superior court denied the City’s motion, but granted West’s motion in part, ruling that (1) the Fourth Amendment’s protections against search and seizure were not implicated because Vermillion had no reasonable expectation of privacy in communications “related to the public’s business”; (2) the privacy protections under article I, section 7 did not apply because West was not seeking private information; (3) the First Amendment was not implicated because West was not asking for political activity records; (4) Vermillion was not subject to the City’s policy prohibiting City employees and volunteers from performing city business on personal or third-party “technology resource[s],” which include electronic or digital communications and commingling of City and non-City data files; and (5) the public has a right to inspect public records located on a personal computer unless the records are “highly offensive to a reasonable person and are not of legitimate public concern.” The superior court then ordered Vermillion “under penalty of perjury [to] produce records that are within the scope of [p]laintiff’s records request.”

The Fourth Amendment claim is especially interesting because I have yet to see this raised in conjunction with a public records request. The argument so completely misconstrues these protections it's amazing the city stepped in to help support it. Then again, most government bodies will take any pitch-black port in a transparency storm, so pushing an argument that posits that a government entity searching for government documents somehow violates a government employee's Fourth Amendment protections is one of those things you do just in case it might provide a blueprint for future opacity.

Fortunately, the court makes it clear that personal email accounts cannot be used to route around public records requests.

Appellants argue that the superior court erred in ordering Vermillion “to produce e[-]mails from his personal e[-]mail account and swear under [penalty of] perjury that he had complied.” Specifically, Vermillion argues that the PRA does not “authorize an agency to require an elected official to search a personal e[-]mail account.” We reject Vermillion’s argument. Nissen squarely addressed this argument and held that an agency’s employees or agents must search their own “files, devices, and accounts,” and produce any public records, including “e-mails,” to the employer agency that are responsive to the PRA request. The Nissen court also held that affidavits by the agency employees, submitted in good faith, sufficient to satisfy the agency’s burden to show it conducted an adequate search for records. Thus, we hold that it was proper for the superior court to require Vermillion to produce to the City e-mails in his personal e-mail account that meet the definition of a public record under RCW 42.56.010(3) and to submit an affidavit in good faith attesting to the adequacy of his search for the requested records.

The city raised another interesting argument on appeal. And by interesting, I mean novel. The city (and Council member Vermillion) attempted to push the brand new theory that Vermillion's specific position within the city government somehow made his communications unreachable through records requests. The court found this theory equally unpersuasive.

In reply, appellants argue, for the first time, that the result must be different as applied to them because Vermillion was an elected legislative official, rather than an elected executive official. Appellants contend that this distinction is important because “unlike an elected executive official such as a county prosecutor, an elected legislative official has no legal authority to act on behalf of the city through e[-]mail, or to take any unilateral action on behalf of the City at all.” We disagree.

A record subject to disclosure under the PRA is not contingent on its possessor’s ability to take unilateral action on behalf of the agency. Instead, a record is subject to disclosure under the PRA if it is “a record that an agency employee prepares, owns, uses, or retains in the scope of employment.”

Despite there being very little legal precedent to support these obfuscatory tactics, government employees still hold out hope that the use of private email accounts and personal devices will allow them to skirt their obligations to the public. Sometimes it works simply because the public is unaware of these accounts or devices. You can't FOIA what you don't know exists. But even when the public is aware, it far too often requires going through the time and expense of a lawsuit to force the government to turn over these documents.

Hide this

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: email, personal email, public records, puyallup, steve vermillion, washington

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

  1. identicon
    Jimb, 15 Nov 2016 @ 5:21pm

    Private email address

    I think you mean non-government-issued email address.

    It makes it seem as if you don't use an email address through the big three then that that's private -- I maintain my own email server so it's private, hence if I use google, Microsoft, or yahoo, then it's non-private. I know this isn't what you meant, but it would be better if you were a bit more precise.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  2. icon
    Falindraun (profile), 15 Nov 2016 @ 6:01pm

    yet another reason why i use a protonmail account.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  3. icon
    Wyrm (profile), 15 Nov 2016 @ 8:39pm

    Re: Private email address

    You're mistaking "private email account" for "private email server".

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  4. icon
    afn29129 (profile), 16 Nov 2016 @ 5:23am

    Archival requirements

    Archival requirements. I would also add that government controlled email server could, and probably do, have archival requirements and private email doesn't.. So it's easy to delete emails on the private side, and not so easy on to govt side.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  5. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 16 Nov 2016 @ 6:25am

    So .. we all get to see those Pence emails then - no?

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  6. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 16 Nov 2016 @ 8:06am


    This is a Washington State law.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  7. icon
    Oninoshiko (profile), 16 Nov 2016 @ 9:27am

    Re: Archival requirements

    If it's subject to records requests, I see no reason it wouldn't be subject to retention laws as well. That it's not getting retained is a problem, but it's a legal problem for the person using the account.


    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  8. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 18 Nov 2016 @ 11:45am

    You're painting with a very broad brush sir.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  9. identicon
    Hillal Roy, 21 Nov 2016 @ 9:51am


    ol india

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  10. identicon
    Hillal Roy, 21 Nov 2016 @ 9:53am

    intarnet 9093425485


    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  11. identicon
    abdullahi amina, 3 Dec 2016 @ 11:46am


    Love u

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter

Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Make this the First Word or Last Word. No thanks. (get credits or sign in to see balance)    
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)


Add A Reply

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter

Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Make this the First Word or Last Word. No thanks. (get credits or sign in to see balance)    
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Sponsored Promotion
Public Money, Public Code - Sign The Open Letter at
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Recent Stories

This site, like most other sites on the web, uses cookies. For more information, see our privacy policy. Got it

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.