In an apparent attempt to crack down on the handful of people who show up to sweeps to try to stop the City from trashing the possessions of homeless people, this week Seattle City Attorney Ann Davison’s office spent three days–and more than a few taxpayer dollars–prosecuting 26-year-old Aidan Carroll, a Stop the Sweeps protestor who allegedly ignored police orders when he tried to buy some time for a woman to repair and move her RV before the cops impounded it. After deliberating for more than seven hours, the jury ultimately could not reach a verdict, with four out of six finding Carroll not guilty.
In the wake of the mistrial, prosecutors scheduled the case for pretrial Monday, and CAO spokesperson Tim Robinson said the City still needed to discuss the way forward.
Retrying the case after most of the jurors opposed the prosecution would signal that Davison is more interested in bullying her political enemies than stewarding taxpayer dollars efficiently, calling into question her priorities as head of an agency still struggling under the weight of a 1,000-case strong backlog. Plus, if she believes this tactic will deter others from standing up for homeless people in the face of police, then she seems misguided. Members of ‘Stop the Sweeps’ have continued to show up and protest homeless encampment tear-downs in the aftermath of Carroll’s arrest.
The case against Carroll began during an RV sweep in April, when officers with the Seattle Police Department and Seattle Parking Enforcement told a woman they planned to tow away her RV. In response, she said she could repair her vehicle and move it herself, but she needed a little time and a spare tire, according to Carroll’s public defense team. After parking enforcement agreed to wait, two of her family members left to pick up a tire.
Then along came Officer Nicholas Boys, who told the woman she needed to remove what items she could from the vehicle and leave. She tried to explain the situation and “pleaded” for more time, but cops threatened to arrest her if she stayed in her RV, so she grabbed what she could from inside and left. However, Carroll and other activists remained on the scene to frustrate police efforts to impound the vehicle until the tire could arrive.
After hearing that the woman and her tire were only two minutes away, and with cops insisting he and another activist move so they could tow the RV, Carroll scrambled up a ladder attached to the back of the vehicle. Body camera footage played at trial showed Carroll climbing about halfway up the ladder before cops grabbed his legs and ordered him to climb down. Carroll stayed up there for about 12 minutes, according to the police report. Carroll only climbed down after the tire arrived and SPD made it clear they wouldn’t allow the woman to install it. Boys then arrested Carroll for obstructing a public officer.
A key part of proving Carroll committed that crime required Assistant City Attorney Joshua Shea to show that Carroll endangered himself and others by ignoring police orders to climb down.
First, Shea argued that the RV was unstable. Carroll testified that he never felt the RV shift under him, and body cam evidence showed that at least one cop also climbed onto the RV after Carroll, which seems like a risky move if you believed it could tip at any time. Shea also mentioned that some telephone or electrical wires above the RV posed some risk to Carroll, though Shea never really elaborated on that risk. Finally, he argued that officers on the scene expressed deep concern about Carroll falling off the RV and potentially hitting his head. However, the footage kind of undercut Shea’s argument, as it showed that at one point a bike helmet Carroll wore fell off and the cops just confiscated it, seemingly not at all concerned about protecting Carroll from a head injury.
In her closing statement, Public Defender Jaclyn Tani argued the prosecution failed to prove that the RV was unstable, that the wires above the RV dangled close enough to hurt Carroll, and that Carroll was close to falling off the ladder and hitting his head.
But the real meat of her closer came when she argued that this case had nothing to do with whether Carroll created a public safety risk and everything to do with his enthusiastic participation in Stop the Sweeps. The case exemplifies, she said, how the City prefers to punish the unhoused and the people who support them rather than help them. Prosecutors spent nine months on this case, ultimately leading to a trial that for three days required a court staff, seven jurors, and three witnesses–not to mention the public defense team–all because “the officers didn’t want to wait a few more minutes for a tire to be put on an RV.”
While Davison and SPD claim the City needs more resources and tools to keep people safe, this case offers an example of the way the department’s ideology leads to mismanagement. Here, Davison is throwing the book at a 26-year-old activist for trying to force cops to behave with a modicum of respect and consideration for the enormous financial and mental toll that impounding that woman’s RV would have on her life.
And it’s not just antifa who finds that decision a little silly. Two of the jurors were surprised that Davison brought such a small case to trial, and they were further shocked when they found out it would be retried.
“Why?” said Chelsea Anderson. “…Let it go.”
The “1,000 case backlog” comes courtesy of City Attorney Davison’s immediate predecessor. Under his ‘leadership,’ the city delayed and/or ultimately dismissed two-thirds of all theft and assault reports referred to it by the SPD. Davison and her team have needed two whole years just to get his backlog down to 1,000. Here’s what the Stranger wrote about her predecessor’s job performance:
“He’s been an active partner in standing up the city’s diversion programs, and he’s excited about Seattle’s latest version of community court. He also has decades of experience in civil law, and he’s used that experience to help defend Seattle from lawsuits against the city’s tenant protections, worker protections, and progressive taxes.”
Nope, nothing in there about the thousands of assault and theft reports he simply left to rot on his watch. But it’s Davison’s fault for not cleaning up his mess fast enough. (And, according to the Stranger, his backlog should bind her decisions. Neat trick, that.)
The Stranger… where you can’t be a criminal unless you’re Israel after being attacked and having your women raped. I say in print you may use that as your new slogan without giving me any royalties.
Absolutely comical that TS is now worried about “efficientl” use of city resources. Where was that same level of concern when the city was and still is sending millions of dollars to the myriad of advocacy groups who have shown zero results. As @2 noted this is about sending a message. This person won’t serve a day in jail but now the activists know there are consequences for doing stupid things maybe they’ll think twice about doing them.
@4 what kind of “help” would those teams have offered her? I very much doubt someone with an RV to live in wants a shelter referral for example
@6: “… the program says it has transitioned more than 2000 people out of vehicles and into permanent housing. If someone is so inclined, the vans will transport people directly to shelter or treatment.”
https://komonews.com/news/local/salvation-army-street-level-outreach-king-county-homelessness-authority-kcrha-housing-rvs-seattle-ballard-neighborhood-12-million-funding-community-safety-treatment-private-donations-washington-state-homeless-crisis
@7 “Launched in South King County by Lewis in 2019, Salvation Army says the team has helped more than 1,200 people gain housing last year … In June, Street Level received a new $1.2 million contract with the King County Regional Homelessness Authority to expand its efforts to Central Seattle.”
https://www.capitolhillseattle.com/2023/12/in-countys-hopes-to-house-its-homeless-the-salvation-army-part-of-growing-effort-on-the-streets-of-capitol-hill-and-the-central-district/
Luckily for the SPD there are no shortage of overprivileged white folks who love performative protest. On the long list of things this city wastes money on I don’t care if there’s a few more trials for these asshole protesters. Nobody cares for folks in filthy RVs and they care even less for their apologizers.
“Plus, if she believes this tactic will deter others from standing up for homeless people in the face of police, then she seems misguided. Members of ‘Stop the Sweeps’ have continued to show up and protest homeless encampment tear-downs in the aftermath of Carroll’s arrest.”
Hence City Attorney Davison’s decision to prosecute, despite the mistrial. Arrest of one interloper didn’t deter other persons from pursuing illegal behavior, so perhaps conviction and punishment will.
@10: “Nobody cares for folks in filthy RVs and they care even less for their apologizers.”
The Stranger cares deeply for enabling homeless campers, and always celebrates their enablers. As commenter Bax has noted, “… for The Stranger, nobody — not kids, not low income neighbors, not anyone — is more important than those in homeless encampments. Where there are trade offs, they should always be resolved in favor of the encampments. And any mention of the impacts the encampments have on those other people is absolutely verboten in The Stranger.”
(https://www.thestranger.com/news/2023/03/21/78913110/the-parents-dont-want-shelter-they-want-sweeps/comments/23)
@2 sure but how is persisting with this case helping resolve that situation? I agree they should focus on assaults and other cases where people actually caused harm.
@9 “nobody cares about these peope, but they have apologizers/sympathizers”. Self contradiction within the same sentence is impressive.
@10 Can you cite the law the protester broke, since you’re saying they’re doing something illegal despite the mistrial’s inability to prove this to be the case?
Just like in Germany, libs will vote for the fascist every single time rather than the Lefty.
Pay up, MFers…
@12
like Hillary
versus Bernie?
and hell Yes
we’re Paying
thanks to the
“D”NC mostly.
@11: “Can you cite the law the protester broke, since you’re saying they’re doing something illegal despite the mistrial’s inability to prove this to be the case?”
Yeah, that would’ve been a great detail for the Stranger to have included in their ‘reporting’ on this case, wouldn’t it? (Among many other benefits, the lack of it leaves an opening for the gullible to imply Seattle somehow prosecuted someone for not breaking any law.) Why don’t you take that up with the Stranger?
@14 well I believe they illustrated that there was no law broken since all the prosecutors could throw at them were flimsy “safety concerns”, so maybe protesters need to start doing illegal stuff in order to be scared into stopping eh?
A cop’s gotta do what a cop’s gotta do.
Head busted yet? Hit ’em again.
@15: There’s actually a huge difference between, “there was no law broken,” and, “this jury, with the evidence provided, could not reach a verdict,” and no, I’m not going to explain it to you.
We’ll see if the ‘Stop the Sweeps’ folks really want to keep going to trial or not.
@2–Apparently you weren’t paying attention when Davison dismissed 2,000 criminal cases her first month in office. She didn’t notify any of the victims.
@18: Those were old cases, left to rot by her predecessor. (He’d literally left thousands of cases to rot, without informing the victims. No word from the Stranger back then about this being in any way objectionable.) The probability of having successful trials had long since declined to the point the expenses would not have been worth incurring.
Glad to see you agree with me on the mess her immediate predecessor had left her to clean up.
@31 “We’ll see if the ‘Stop the Sweeps’ folks really want to keep going to trial or not.”
Probably will since this person won. Now we’ll see if Davison wants to keep wasting money or not
@20: It was a mistrial, not a victory. The City Attorney’s Office could choose to retry the case at any time, such as after another arrest of the same person for the same or similar nonsense. Then the City Attorney’s Office could try both charges at once, thus saving time and money.
If that happens, no doubt you and the Stranger will be full of praise at the efficiency with which City Attorney Davison runs the office Seattle’s voters entrusted to her.
@21 nope the City already dismissed it with prejudice, it’s over. Search by the defendant’s name here:
https://web.seattle.gov/SMC/ECFPortal/default.aspx
Nobody will ever mistake the way Davison’s office handled this case for efficient or praiseworthy, and it remains to be seen whether Seattle’s voters entrust such a bumbler with a second term.
@22: At least the City Attorney’s Office now takes complaints to trial, instead of just letting them rot for years and then dismissing them.
(You’re free to argue for a return to that previous policy, of course.)
@23 not according to this (see page 27):
https://www.seattle.gov/documents/Departments/CityAttorney/Reports/CAO2022Q3Report.pdf
Couldn’t find a more recent report so it is possible they’ve quadrupled their trial rate since then
@23 nevermind found a newer report, looks like they’re alllllllmost up to Homes’s trial rate:
https://www.seattle.gov/documents/Departments/CityAttorney/Reports/CAO2023Q3Report.pdf
@25: Yes, it has literally taken years to restore the City Attorney’s Office to a barely-functional state. Such is the damage ‘progressive’ policies have done to Seattle. Hopefully, most of the rest can be fixed by the end of this decade.
(There’s a reason the previous, four-term incumbent was soundly defeated in the primary election, and it wasn’t entirely because the Stranger endorsed NTK in the hope of defeating Davison in the primary.)
@26 it’s funny how quick you pivot from “she’s doing so much better” to “ok she’s not but that’s Holmes’s fault,” as if anything he did could have any bearing on her office’s decisions whether to take cases to trial in 2023
@27: It’s funny how quickly you’ve pivoted from “progressive policies are great!” to, “if you don’t immediately fix the mess progressive policies made, then YOU are a failure!!1!” (You’re not fooling anyone, you know.)
As the “System Failure” reports explained, after many years of City Attorney Holmes simply refusing to do his job, the victims of thefts and assaults in Seattle largely stopped reporting them. Police stopped following up on the reports they still did receive, and the employees in the City Attorney’s Office became used to not doing their jobs. Clearing out all of this rot will take some time, and in that time, matters will improve slowly.
Please recall that “doing better than City Attorney Holmes,” is one of the lowest bars in all of Seattle.
@28 confronted with evidence that Holmes was better than Davison at a metric you previously considered important, you don’t miss a stride in continuing to insist Holmes was the problem and Davison is “fixing” things. Impressive commitment to never changing your mind regardless of new information.
@29: What evidence? P. 27 of the 2022 report contains two graphs, titled “Suspects Found Guilty vs. Not Guilty After A Jury Trial,” and “Percent of Suspects Found Guilty vs. Not Guilty After A Jury Trial.” There’s nothing in either graph about a “trial rate.” (Also, when did I write that a “trial rate” was an important metric? Once actually charged, many suspects plead guilty rather than go to trial.)
In the 2023 report, the “Decline Rate” (p. 5) had dropped from ~67% (recall “two-thirds” cited in the “System Failure” reports) during Q4 2021 (Holmes’ last quarter in office, after voters had terminated his employment) to consistently less than 50% since Davison took office.
“Backlog of Cases Awaiting Review” (p. 6) had declined from ~5,000 when Holmes left office, to ~500, in less than two years. (Was this not a big or rapid enough change for you?)
“Median Time to Make A Filing Decision” (p. 7) had dropped from 133 days in Holmes’ last quarter, to FOUR days two years later. (This was another point of complaint in the “System Failure” reports.)
So, tell us again — by which metric(s) in the 2023 report was Davison’s performance inferior to Holmes’?
@30 At this point I’m 90% sure you’re paid by The Stranger to drive engagement, but either way you need to do better my guy.
You wrote: “At least the City Attorney’s Office now takes complaints to trial”
The reports I linked show the office under Davison is actually taking fewer cases to trial than under Holmes. They also show total referrals are way down and the office is actually filing around the same number of cases as under Holmes, so in context that decline rate is much less impressive than advertised, but that’s a whole other conversation. Bottom line is you seemed to believe taking cases to trial was important and the City’s own data reports show Davison’s office does that less often than Holmes’s. And if you can’t comprehend that after I’ve showed you the evidence and spelled it out for you, well, you can lead a horse to water…
@31: Again, I ask, what is a “trial rate,” and what data have you cited in support of your claims about it? As I’ve already noted, you saying you’ve cited data doesn’t actually mean anything.
This isn’t even the first time you’ve completely misread one of these reports (e.g. https://www.thestranger.com/guest-editorial/2023/08/07/79107351/seattles-budget-cannot-absorb-drug-war-costs-without-massive-cuts-to-city-services/comments/78). You really need to do better, my guy.