“John Doe” takes GPS tracking case back to Nevada Supreme Court and tries to preserve his anonymity

An ongoing legal battle over whether a private investigator's client can remain anonymous continues. “John Doe” appealed a judge's decision in August. Second District Court Judge David Hardy upheld an investigative commissioner's finding that Doe's anonymity was not protected by law.

Doe hired private investigator David McNeely. McNeely placed GPS tracking devices on the vehicles of Reno Mayor Hillary Schieve and then-Washoe County Commissioner Vaughn Hartung. Both sued McNeely and Doe in December 2022 after discovering the GPS devices.

“John Doe has not demonstrated that disclosing his identity would reveal highly personal and sensitive information about him or that disclosure would place him at significant risk of physical or emotional retaliation,” Discovery Commissioner Wesley Ayres wrote in late June. “His claims of harassment are unpersuasive, nor are his arguments that disclosing his identity would violate his First Amendment rights.”

Hardy agreed and ordered Doe's identity to be released by September 9. However, Doe appealed on September 6.

“John Doe therefore had (and has) a vested interest in anonymously investigating possible misconduct in office and making that information available to the public so that they can make informed decisions about the people they elect to public office,” attorney Jeffrey Barr wrote on Doe's behalf. “Anonymous participation in political discourse is a venerable and important American tradition that predates even the ratification of the First Amendment.”

He further said that he did not authorize the GPS tracking and was assured that his identity would remain anonymous.

“When Doe hired the defendant investigators to investigate the allegations against Schieve and Hartung, Mr. McNeely assured him that his identity would be kept confidential,” Barr wrote. “Without that guarantee of confidentiality, John Doe would not have hired the defendant investigators.”

The Nevada Supreme Court had already ruled in April that Doe's identity “does not meet the definition of a trade secret.”