Top court hands former Mesa mayor win in long fight over WA ‘John Doe’ sex offenders
AI-generated summary reviewed by our newsroom.
- Washington Supreme Court ordered unsealing of names in sex offender case.
- Donna Zink's legal campaign continues to expand public access to Level 1 data.
- Court ruled pseudonyms can't conceal convicted offenders in public records.
Donna Zink has racked up a new victory related to her long-running legal battle for access to Level I sex offender records in Washington state.
It’s been more than a decade since the onetime Mesa mayor and her husband, Jeff, prevailed in their original cases and received most of the records they sought under the Washington Public Records Act. It was one of several initiatives that earned Donna a statewide reputation for her dogged pursuit of records.
In 2016, Zink posted a spreadsheet containing more than 21,000 names of convicted sex offenders to her now-defunct Google+ page.
The new victory stems from a Thurston County case involving four John Does. The John Does were convicted sex offenders who sought to keep their names from being released to the public, lost, then sought to have the case dismissed without revealing their identities.
In a decision published June 12, the Washington State Supreme Court said a Thurston County trial court and an appellate court abused their discretion by sealing disclosure statements that would have given their real names.
They are known only as John Does P, Q, R and S. The court sent the case back to the trial court with instructions to replace the pseudonyms with real names.
“Our state constitution requires that ‘(j)ustice in all cases shall be administered openly, and without unnecessary delay,’” the court wrote in a 20-page opinion signed by nine of 10 justices. The 10th did not participate in the case.
“The open administration of justice presumptively includes public access to the actual names of litigants.”
Zink said the ruling is a victory for transparency in justice.
“It’s a total win on this one,” she told the Tri-City Herald.
Replace pseudonyms
The state’s top court ordered that the Does’ actual names be used in future court proceedings, if there are any, and that their actual names replace their pseudonyms in the Superior Court Management Information System electronic records system.
Zink began requesting the records related to Level I offenders in 2013 when she found a known offender was not included in a public database. She investigated and learned only Level II and III offenders were being identified to the public.
Those classified as Level I were only included if they weren’t in compliance with registry requirements.
Zink felt withholding the information violated the records act and meant important background information was being kept from the public — illegally, in her opinion.
“Just because they’re Level I doesn’t mean they’re safe,” she said.
When agencies weren’t forthcoming or the offenders filed John Doe suits to redact their names, her requests landed in various courts.
The Thurston County case that inspired the supreme court opinion dates to October 2014. That’s when the Zinks requested the county’s sex offender records and related documents.
The county notified offenders. Four using John Doe as pseudonyms sued to stop the release. Their arguments failed in court and the court confirms they were identified by name in the database. They’ve never been identified as plaintiffs in the John Doe case.
A similar case in Benton County case was ultimately resolved in Zink’s favor.
Zink’s work to include Level I offenders in public registries drew praise from some, who viewed her as a champion of open government, and criticism from others, including the John Does who feared being publicly identified could draw unwanted attention.
Zink was called a vigilante, a label she rejects. She said she was motivated by the law, which says public records belong to the public.
People who use the offender database to perform background and neighborhood checks rely on its accuracy, she said.
In the case of the John Does, Zink said she was disturbed that courts allowed offenders to hide behind pseudonyms after their case was finished
“I’m so sick of hearing about ‘poor sex offenders’ I could scream,” she said. “It’s our courts. Why have this constitutional requirement that the courts are open if everyone is just, ‘meh’? It was important to me.”
Sex offender searches
Zink updated her Google+ list until 2019, when the platform was eliminated. She hasn’t requested updated information for several years, she said.
It appears Level I offenders are no longer routinely included in public offender lists online.
As of 2025, the Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs (WASPC) maintains a sex offender registry that largely redacts Level I offenders. A spokesperson confirmed it includes Level II and III offenders but not Level I offenders unless they are out of compliance with registry requirements.
The only way to reliably find information about a Level I sex offender is to make a public records request.
The WASPC site urges visitors not to misuse search results.
“The information should not be used to threaten, harass or intimidate registered sex offenders. The individuals listed have served the sentenced imposed by the court, law enforcement does not have the authority to direct where an offender may or may not live unless court ordered restrictions exist,” it states.
Case information: John Doe P et al v. Thurston County et al., Donna Zink and Jeff Zink, Respondents/Cross Petitioners. No 102974-4.