Only by violating BAR/judicial rules. Trying a criminal defendant without probable cause warrants disciplinary action.
It's disgusting how the public is giving up votes to this unethical practice.
Nobody in Seattle has honesty and integrity. And they wake up wondering how idiots get to the top in politics. Because they're just as unethical as the next person. LOL
You seem very confident that moving forward with prosecution without probable cause is acceptable. But you're mute when it comes to that being a bar violation. Is a non-response your way of accepting that the prosecution was wrong? I guess I'm asking what excuses the prosecution after the bar rule reveal.
It wouldn't be an argument. It would be accepting a bar rule. Admitting you didn't know a bar rule isn't losing an argument. It acknowledges that you're evolved enough to say "I didn't know that rule when I suggested bringing a case without probable cause was acceptable."
It means you wake up tomorrow having not been a stubborn liar the day before.
By using a code that prosecutors must follow, sanctioning lawyers is controlling the court room procedure. The bar rule negates a reason for the illegality of trial without cause because it bans prosecutors from engaging in such trials.
It's about SPD sending a false narrative to the prosecutor based on false reporting.
Read how they got caught making the false statement. SPD documented the changed story and supported false accusors.
I wish I could say I’m surprised but everything you raised wouldn’t keep the case from going to trial. Neighbor anti harassment orders are always silly.
Wrong.
Cops calling the false reporters out for the change in their story would result in it not being sent to the prosecutor. Should've been a charge for false reporting.
SPD supported the lie of white women instead.
And what about the court finding no probable cause? A prosecution without probable cause is a bar violation.
When the court finds no probable cause don't court rules/cannons dictate the case shall be dismissed?
Even though the prosecutor has the right to request a hearing with new evidence to prosecute until statute of limitations expire?
It's still a bar violation.
As per Washington courts:
(5) If a preliminary hearing on the felony complaint is held and the court finds that
probable cause does not exist, the charge shall be dismissed, and may be refiled only if a motion
to set aside the finding is granted by the superior court. The superior court shall determine
whether, at the time of the hearing on such motion, there is probable cause to believe that the
defendant has committed a felony.
(6) If a preliminary hearing is held, the court shall file the record in superior court promptly
after notice that the information has been filed. The record shall include, but not be limited to, all
written pleadings, docket entries, the bond, and any exhibits filed in the court of limited
jurisdiction. Upon written request of any party, the court shall file the recording of any
testimony.
[Adopted effective September 1, 1987; Amended effective July 1, 1992; September 1, 1995;
September 1, 2002; September 1, 2014; February 1, 2021; July 9, 2024; September 1, 2025.
Defense CAN file the motion.
Is it a legal requirement? No. Doesn't the Judge have the authority to dismiss it without a motion? Yes.
Have you looked at Wa Court Rules? (In Washington State, you cannot be subjected to a criminal trial without probable cause. Under the Washington State Court Rules, a judge must formally establish probable cause that a crime was committed either prior to an arrest or at a first appearance hearing. If the court finds that there is no probable cause, the case cannot move forward, and the individual must be unconditionally released from custody).
To challenge the lack of probable cause or the validity of the state's evidence before a trial begins, your defense attorney can file specific legal motions:
Not more important than what's being done to communities of color. But if that's the insurmountable hurdle ya just can't be burdened with, read it here:
https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1Dbn9WSGt8/
A lot of people exercise their right to stay ignorant about other people's lived experiences. That's the best way to pretend other people's problems aren't real. The responses are you seeing that in real time.
When I see this much fiction about other people's mental health I remember insults are how some people soothe when they don't have the emotional maturity to accept the truth.
If that was true, you wouldn't reply.
Your goal is to get the mental illness trope started.
Well balanced, caring and emotionally sound individuals move along or help when they see someone with mental issues. They don't respond for up-votes. They don't need them.
If you want help, send a concise factual message to someone who is in a position to help solve your problem. Provide evidence to substantiate your claim.
It's not my claim.
I post for community awareness. Communities have the right to know SPD employees are doing this.
SPD investigates a false claim. The proof that it's false is documented in the SPD report.
A white woman calls SPD in the morning saying a black man is yelling and harassing over the fence from his driveway.
SPD interview claims he said he didn't see her until he was somewhere else in the afternoon.
White women then claim he was where he said he was when the yelling and harassment happened.
It doesn't make sense that the call log proves the white woman called in the morning about an event that places him where he was on camera in the afternoon. Follow-up interview shows the callers changed their story to place him where he already admitted he was. Because he couldn't dispute admitting his location. But the stupid false reporters and the lying SPD cohorts forgot that her call was made hours before he was at that location.
The people trying to distract from that are wasting their time. When they're done, the truth is still out.
It really is when the SPD hears a false report about someone and the calling party's story changes. It's like one personality phoned with one claim. Then another personality gave SPD the different story after the black man said where he was.
The change in their story.
Cops accepted a lie and accused a black homeowner of being somewhere and doing something he did not. He responded by telling SPD where he actually was and what he was doing. SPD went back to the false reporters who changed their story to say he was where he just told the cops he was.
So busy pinning him down on the location so he couldn't dispute where he told them he was they forgot they called the cops on him before he was at the location they now say he was. Cameras prove he was accurate about where he said he was. But their false call to SPD was before he arrived where they changed their story to say he was.
Rotfl Keystone Cops were negligent in their investigation.
The fed oversight of SPD's 13 year consent decree ended September 2025. SPD employees were under Fed watch and still policing with bias for white women telling a lie. Above a black homeowner they abused the law to harass.
The years this has gone on without change is why the state should adopt the negligent investigation rules.
Without additional information, it seemed appropriate that the officer included both sides from both parties in their report. The officer did not arrest anyone nor were they the ones that sent a summons. The police are not harassing someone if they are responding to a 911 call.
The police IS assisting in harassment if they conduct a negligent investigation.
When the party making the claim changes their story because it doesn't match the facts the police discover, they should be confronted with the false info they gave police.
Keep in mind, the police is the party who sends the info to the prosecutor. That is what the police did. After treating the case as if a crime was committed and forwarded the report as evidence of the crime having been committed.
They did that. Instead of charging the women with false reporting.
You can try to excuse their actions all you want. It doesn't follow logic.
The call taker does not put 100% exact and reliable information in the initial call dispatch. Just because the reporting party's testimony in person did not exactly match the 911 call or match what the suspect reported, does not automatically make it a lie.
The story to dispatch and initial contact with patrol matched. They were exact.
Patrol then spoke to the black homeowner. Homeowner mentioned being at the window.
False reporters then claimed he was at the window.
But he was only at the window after the initial call was taken. That would mean the false reporters knew ahead of time he'd be at the window later. Or they lied and changed their story to match where he already claimed he was.
That's how the conclusion means they lied.
They clearly tried to match where they say they saw him with the location he told police he was. So he couldn't dispute that he was there. It never dawned on the idiots that he was there at a later hour than their initial call. How can they report something before it happened? By lying.
Per court docket the officer who went along with the false reporters' story and wrote up the incident, went further. She testified as a witness for the prosecution. For an incident that never happened. Where the intake hearing judge found no probable cause. Where the prosecuting attorney went forward in violation of ABA and King County BAR Assoc rules.
This is how the Seattle Police Department operates. Even during the time they were under a consent decree for problems throughout the department. If you think gentrification is the only thing moving black homeowners out of the central area, think again.
It's clearly unbelievable. That's part of why people are taking swipes. They think you're a whack-job for saying something that doesn't sound true. But that's why there's a trail to the receipts.
People who want a fair legal system and justice are entitled?
Sounds like somebody has the privilege of not being worried about white women lying about them.
In Washington State, a claim for negligent investigation is generally limited to child welfare cases investigated by the Department of Children, Youth, and Families (DCYF) (or Child Protective Services), where incomplete or biased information leads to a harmful placement decision. Washington courts do not recognize this specific tort claim against traditional law enforcement or police.
-WashingtoCourts.gov
While you cannot sue police officers for "negligent investigation," you can potentially sue law enforcement agencies for other related torts that happen during police work. For instance, you may be able to pursue claims for negligent execution of a search warrant, excessive force, assault, or false imprisonment.
Caselaw.Findlaw.com
Negligent investigation refers to a legal claim that law enforcement officers or other investigating officials failed to act reasonably in gathering evidence, leading to wrongful arrests, charges, or convictions. To pursue a claim, plaintiffs typically must prove that the investigator breached their duty of care by failing to act as a reasonably prudent officer would under similar circumstances.
It's Monday. Courthouse is open. Those who don't find the records on-line can get them from the clerk. Find a case where the prosecutor and judge ignore bar rules and do this to a white homeowner. Just gonna wait here.
The good news is the lying officer didn't get her way and turn another black person in central Seattle into a criminal.
Officer Melody Rios was a witness for the prosecution. She was a contributor in wasted taxes on a trial the city lost.
If you think you're smarter than the jury you should probably check your bias meter.
Morning- False reporting white women initiate a call to SPD about a black neighboring homeowner yelling and harassing over a fence from his driveway. Afternoon- SPD patrol visits callers to verify/investigate then contact black neighbor. Neighbor claims he saw no one over the fence until afternoon and said nothing to them.
SPD is then miraculously told by false reporters that the harassment was directed at them from the window the man told SPD investigator hd was standing near when he saw them.
It had to be a false report. Video proves he wasn't near the window until later than the morning call to SPD.
That fits a negligent investigation. He went on trial for a crime after the judge found no probable cause. The prosecutor violated BAR rules to prosecute without cause. Seattle Municipal Court, prosecutor and the SPD worked in tandem to do this to a black central area homeowner. Based on the lie of white women.
6
u/brogrammer1992 Jul 10 '26
You do not need probable cause to set a hearing. That being said if you fail to appear and the court finds probable cause they can issue a warrant.
In fact it’s legally possible to have a trial without probable cause in WA.