Merry Christmas and Happy New Year from Intravaia Investigations LLC, Se...

Merry Christmas from Intravaia Investigations LLC, Seattle, WA

Intravaia Investigations LLC, Seattle, WA

Whistler blower protection

This is exactly what happened to me with another agency in Snohomish County, which is where Lake Stevens is located. I personal have gone through what this commander is going through, therefore, I know he is right in fighting this mayor and city official. The irony is, state law requires law enforcement to tell the truth during any investigation or he/she will lose their certification with the state, therefore it's a dilemma. Tell the truth and be fired by your agency or lie to possibly save your job; however, if you get caught lying, then your fired.

http://www.komonews.com/news/local/Lake-Stevens-police-commander-files-lawsuit-against-city-352779621.html

Another great story by Jeffery Burnside about people exploiting low incoming housing.

Another great story by Jeffery Burnside from Komo4. Another way of identifying the occupants that earn more than the maximum allowable income, is to follow residents that walk out of their building parking lots, to adjacent city streets where their new cars are parked.http://www.komonews.com/news/investigations/Not-everyone-in-low-income-housing-has-low-income-344090342.html

Failed due diligence

 

"Tech Millions Were Smoke, SEC Says"
This would not have happened if just one of these clients/victims would have contacted us.  We have worked these cases before and done our due diligence, identifying this exact same scam that goes on throughout the software/hardware industry.  

http://www.courthousenews.com/2015/10/08/tech-millions-were-smoke-sec-says.htm

Washington Supreme Court rules sex trafficking victims can sue Backpage.com or otherwise known as Village Voice Media.

http://www.courts.wa.gov/content/Briefs/A08/90510-0%20Resps%27%20Answer%20to%20Amicus.pdf#search=backpage

Important legal update regarding DUI search warrant for blood

DUI: A warrant authorizing testing of a blood sample for intoxicants does not require separate findings of PC for drugs and for alcohol so long as there is PC to suspect intoxication caused by alcohol, drugs or a combination of both. 

DUI: A search warrant authorizing a blood draw authorizes testing of the blood for intoxicants.

St v. Martines, ___ Wn.2d ___ (No. 90926-1)(Aug. 27, 2015)(En Banc)

Following an arrest for DUI, a WSP Trooper obtained a search warrant to draw Mr. Martines’ blood.   The warrant did not include express authorization to test the blood sample.  Mr. Martines argue the State lacked PC to test for the presence of drugs in his blood and that the warrant was insufficient to permit testing of the blood because it did not specifically authorize blood testing.

HELD: A warrant authorizing a blood draw necessarily authorizes the blood testing consistent with and confined to the finding of probable cause. A warrant authorizing the testing of a blood sample for intoxicants does not require separate findings of PC for drugs and for alcohol so long as there is PC to suspect intoxication caused by alcohol, drugs or a combination of both. 

Missing, Endangered and Armed

Intravaia is currently working a missing person's case in Seattle involving Shimeld, AARON M. whom just turned 25 in September.  Aaron also goes by the last name: Arnett.  His Height is

6-03, 150-160 pounds, blue eyes, brownish red hair with a full beard.  Aaron resides down town Seattle and was seen leaving his apartment on 09/22/15.  

On 09/22/15, the last known location for him was the West Coast Armory in Bellevue, where he practiced firing his hand gun, and purchased a annual membership.  Aaron works at Rocky Mountain Chocolate Factory, Seattle.  His girlfriend is eight months pregnant.  Aaron doesn't own a car and uses public transportation.  He doesn't own a cell phone.  His mother and father filed a missing person's report with the Seattle Missing Person Unit, and the I/O is Detective Tonya Kinnie 206-684-5582 Or 206-233-2016 Case Number 2015-336970.  Aaron is considered missing, endangered and armed.  There has been no activity on his credit/debit or financial history.  His October rent payment is due and he has never been late in making a payment.  Nor has he ever been late to work.

Aaron's parents reside out of state and he comes from a large hard working close knit family.  Aaron is an extremely talented folk singer, song writer and percussion guitar player.  He is also an avid outdoors-man - hiker.  He frequents Mt. Sai and Mt. Summit. 

False Hopes for Restitution

http://www.komonews.com/news/investigations/More-than-a-third-of-crime-victims-will-never-get-full-restitution-326523041.html

This is a story we assisted one of the best investigative reporters with, Jeff Burnside.

Skagit County Public Defender's Office

Intravaia is very pleased to be conducting investigative work for the Skagit County Public Defender's Office conducting services for indigents charged with criminal offenses, juveniles charged with criminal offenses, At-Risk juveniles, indigent parents in child dependency cases, and respondents in mental health proceedings.

http://www.skagitcounty.net/Depart…/PublicDefender/main.htm

Personal cellphone used to conduct employee's official duties

Text messages sent and received from the personal cell phone of a public employee in the employee’s official capacity are public records of the employer and subject to the PRA.

Nissen v Pierce Co, ___ Wn.2d ___ (No.  90875-3)(Aug. 27, 2015)

Glenda Nissen, a sheriff’s detective, sent a public records request for text messages sent from a personal cell phone by Mark Lindquist, the Pierce County Prosecutor. Held, if text messages are sent and received on the personal cell phone of a public employee but they are sent/ and eceived in the employee’s official capacity they are public records of the employer and subject to the PRA.

Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund website

http://vvmf.org/items/

Items Left at The Wall - The Virtual Collection

Since the Vietnam Veterans Memorial (The Wall) was dedicated in November 1982, more than 400,000 items have been left by visitors as remembrances and tributes. The National Park Service collects, catalogs, and preserves these objects as part of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial collection, with curatorial support from the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund.

These are the curatorial records of a small portion of the items that have been left at The Wall over the years, but this is the largest collection of items left at The Wall ever made available to the public. Once the Education Center is funded and constructed, approximately 4,000-6,000 items will be on public display.

- See more at: http://vvmf.org/items/#sthash.e4Cz0QPq.dpuf

Kerri Kasem visit to Seattle

http://www.komonews.com/news/local/Daughter-of-Casey-Kasem-breaks-her-silence-about-dads-death-320832971.html

We attended the 2015 National Legislative Summit in Seattle. It is the nation's largest gathering of legislators and legislative staff. I got to discuss the need for WA State to have a Police & Fire Commission to oversee agencies. 

http://www.ncsl.org/meetings-tra…/legislative-summit-15.aspx 

Intravaia Investigations LLC, Seattle, WA

Special Focus: Employment Law A Female Police Officer’s Fight for Equal Pay at the City of Aberdeen by Benjamin P. Compton

Kristi Lougheed, now a 20-year veteran police officer, was hired by the Aberdeen Police Department in 2010. She is the only female police officer in Aberdeen. Despite her experience, the Police Chief started her at the lowest pay step for a lateral hire, lower than male officers with similar and even less experience. She later learned of the pay disparity and requested equal pay, but was forced to go through two years of litigation. At the end of March 2015, she secured a substantial monetary settlement along with major concessions and changes to the City’s personnel policies and practices. The settlement followed the trial court’s entry of partial summary judgment on liability, declaring the City discriminated against Officer Lougheed as a matter of law. Although her economic loss was less than $15,000, the City agreed to pay $375,000 in damages and to make the following changes: Establish a personnel policy that starts lateral officers at Step 3, with exceptions granted only if supported by written justification based on exceptional qualifications, experience or abilities, and approved by the Mayor, Personnel Committee and by the City Counsel. This oversight will help to ensure equal pay for all officers hired. Establish and fund a two-year Task Force to gather information, serve as a resource, and make recommendations to improve diversity within the police department, including educational programs and training. The Task Force is to utilize members of under-represented populations and must include a female patrol officer. Revise the procedure for promotions within the police department, to include use of an outside testing and evaluation center to objectively determine those who are qualified and eligible, and to rank them on an eligibility register. Officer Lougheed was represented by Victoria Vreeland and Benjamin Compton of Vreeland Law, with local counsel Erik Kupka. In 1943, the Washington State Legislature enacted Washington’s Equal Pay Act, RCW 49.12.175, “to sweep away outmoded inequities and assure women equal pay for equal work.”1 The act prohibits employers from discriminating “in any way in the payment of wages as between sexes” or from paying “any female a less wage . . . than is being paid to males similarly employed.”2 To achieve its purpose, the act provides a cause of action “[i]f any female employee shall receive less compensation because of being discriminated against on account of her sex, and in violation of this section.”3 Twenty years later, Congress passed the Equal Pay Act of 1963, establishing the “principle of equal pay for equal work regardless of sex.” 4 Like Washington’s analogue, the federal Equal Pay Act was enacted to remedy the “ancient but outmoded belief” that a man should be paid more than a woman for performing the same duties.5 Yet, women today are still paid less than men. According to the United States Census Bureau’s latest report, Income and Poverty in the United States: 2013, women working full time in the United States were paid just 78 percent of what men were paid, a gap of 22 percent. Women working in Washington fare a little better, but are nonetheless paid only 80 percent of what men are paid.6 Equal pay is not a women’s issue only; it is a family issue. A 2015 study, The Simple Truth About The Gender Pay Gap, by the American Association of University Women (AAUW) reports that between 1967 and 2012, the percentage of mothers who brought home at least a quarter of their family’s earnings rose from less than a third (28 percent) to nearly twothirds (63 percent). In 2012, the latest year for which data are available, 40.9 percent of mothers were the sole or primary breadwinners, bringing home at least half of their family’s earnings. Another 22.4 percent were co-breadwinners, bringing in between 25 percent and 49 percent of earnings.7 Families, in other words, increasingly rely on women’s wages to make ends meet. The same is true of Officer Kristi Lougheed, and her family. Her claims to end wage discrimination at the City and to achieve equal pay were brought under Washington’s Equal Pay Act, RCW 49.12.175, and chapter 49.60 RCW, the Washington Law Against Discrimination (“WLAD”). Aberdeen’s Police Chief Robert Torgerson hired seven lateral patrol officers from 2005 to 2011. All were male, except Officer Lougheed, who was then, and is now, the only female officer at the City. The lateral officers were required to, and did in fact, perform jobs requiring substantially equal skill, effort, and responsibility. Yet, they did not receive equal pay. Chief Torgerson—the sole decision-maker on starting salary for lateral hires—started the males at a higher “step” on the five-step salary scale. He started the males on average at Step 3. He started Lougheed at Step 2, even though she had more experience than all but one of the other lateral hires, and had fifteen years of law enforcement experience at that time. She had been a Deputy Sheriff with Grays Harbor County from 1994 to 2008, and a police officer with the Cosmopolis Police Department from 2009 to 2010. In deciding the starting pay for a lateral hire, Chief Torgerson testified that he “look[s] at what the Officer was making at their last place of law enforcement employment and tr[ies] to place them at a level that will give them a raise when they start at Aberdeen Police Department.” He did not consider any factor except prior salary, and repeatedly stated: “the consideration that I give and the only consideration is what [the lateral hires] were making at their last job prior to me – or the last agency they were working at prior to coming to Aberdeen.” The Chief’s so-called “method” violated the City’s long-standing written policy for how starting salary must be set. The City’s Personnel Policy 7.20 required that all “new employees,” including lateral hires, “be appointed at the minimum step of the range for their position classifications” (Step 1) unless the Mayor grants an exception in writing “based upon exceptional qualifications, experience, or ability of the employee.” Chief Torgerson and former Human Resources Director, Linda Hein, admitted under oath that they did not follow this policy at all for the full seven years Chief Torgerson was hiring lateral officers. Chief Torgerson also did not apply his claimed method consistently. He started one male officer at a salary that was less than the salary he was making at his last agency. And, the amount over prior salary that the Chief gave lateral officers also varied, and was inconsistent. For example, he started one officer at a Step 4 salary, when a Step 2 or Step 3 would have been a raise over the amount he was earning at his last agency. He started another officer at a Step 4 salary when a Step 3 would have been a raise. But, he started other officers at the lowest pay step constituting a raise. And, in fact, the City admitted its use of prior salary to set starting salary step at Aberdeen was not consistently applied, as the Deputy Chief and current Human Resources Director so testified. Moreover, Chief Torgerson testified he did not even find out what Lougheed’s prior salary was before setting her starting salary, and he admitted he looked at prior salary only “[w]hen possible.” The Chief did not have City Council, Personnel Committee, mayoral, nor HR approval to avoid and violate the City’s written policy in setting any of the starting pay steps. But after Lougheed questioned the pay disparity internally, and he realized he had violated the City’s personnel policy, the Chief initiated a revision to the policy to permit exactly what he had been doing: subjective decision-making on starting pay step by department heads without oversight. In advancing his proposal to the City Personnel Committee and the City Council, he deliberately failed to disclose his real reasons for the request (to cover his past violations) and relied upon false and phony reasons and justification for the change. With the acquiescence and similar omissions by the HR director, the Chief persuaded the Personnel Committee to recommend to the City Council revisions to the written City policy. To revise the policy, the Chief misrepresented to both the Personnel Committee and the Council that the requested change was necessary “to expedite the hiring process of good quality candidates and reduce the risk of losing those candidates to other agencies.” However, the Chief admitted in testimony that such a situation had never come up with any of the hires he made. He had never faced a situation where a candidate refused his initial offer due to starting pay step. He had never faced a situation where the Aberdeen Police Department was at any risk of losing a candidate because he needed to obtain proper approval, or because the approval process was too slow. In fact, the Chief did not even negotiate starting salary step with any candidate. He simply told candidates at what pay step he would start them and if a candidate wanted a higher step, the Chief “wouldn’t give it to them.” Although the legislature enacted Washington’s Equal Pay Act in 1943, there are only two Washington appellate decisions substantively addressing the act. Thus, Lougheed drew upon both Washington and federal case law in establishing her equal pay claims against the City, along with the case law and language of the WLAD. After completion of necessary discovery, Lougheed moved for partial summary judgment on liability, arguing that for a number of reasons the City did not have and could not present a legitimate defense and that a violation of Washington’s Equal Pay Act automatically establishes a violation of the WLAD. The City filed a cross-motion for partial summary judgment, arguing that Lougheed could neither establish a prima facie case nor show that the City’s reason for her starting salary is pretext for intentional discrimination. A plaintiff states a prima facie case of wage discrimination under RCW 49.12.175 by proving men and women received different pay for substantially similar work. The City conceded that Lougheed and the male comparators (the other lateral hires) performed substantially similar work. The critical issue, therefore, was whether Lougheed could establish pay disparity when the City started her at a pay step that was lower than the average pay step given to the males, but when Lougheed’s actual dollar salary was greater than what the males were given at the time they were hired. In this case, the lateral officers were hired over a period of seven years. Pursuant to collective bargaining, the actual dollar amount assigned to each step in the five-step salary scale increased ever year during this period, and Lougheed was the only officer who started in 2010. Lougheed argued that comparing actual dollar amount would produce absurd, unintended and unfair results under equal pay law when, as in this case, the female plaintiff and the male comparators did not begin employment the same year. She also argued that RCW 49.12.175 and the WLAD must be broadly construed to fulfill the underlying purpose of the legislature and that, because Washington’s Equal Pay Act is “virtually identical” to its federal counterpart,8 principles garnered from federal cases should be applied. Under federal law, “the proper test for establishing a prima facie case . . . is whether the plaintiff is receiving lower wages than the average of wages paid to all employees of the opposite sex performing substantially equal work and similarly situated with respect to any other factors, such as seniority, that affect the wage scale.”9 In this case, the biggest factor affecting the wage scale is that it increases every year. Eliminating this factor by focusing on salary step instead of dollar amount, Lougheed argued, allows courts to determine relative equality of treatment, and eliminates the possibility cases will be decided based on a wage differential caused by a factor that cannot possibly be attributed to discriminatory treatment, i.e., a compensation system where pay at each step increases yearly. Because Washington courts had not yet addressed whether pay disparity may be established by unequal starting salary steps in a case involving a compensation system where pay at each step increases yearly, Lougheed pointed to federal decisions that focused on salary steps, rather than actual dollar amount, when the defendant hired employees over a period of time. The City, on the other hand, did not point to any cases supporting its contention it is proper to consider only dollar amount. “Once the prima facie case is established, the burden shifts to the employer to prove the wage differential is justified under a statutory exception. In Washington, the sole defense is that the wage disparity is ‘based in good faith on a factor or factors other than sex.’”10 This defense is nearly identical to the catch-all defense available under the federal act – that the wage differential is “based on any other factor other than sex.”11 The City claimed its “method for setting starting salaries for laterally transferring police officers was based on a gender neutral policy of paying lateral transfers a higher salary than they received in their prior law enforcement job in order to entice experienced officers to transfer to Aberdeen.” This argument, Lougheed asserted, is insufficient to establish a “factor other than sex” defense, for several reasons. First, the City had no such “policy.” The Chief acted entirely on his own, and in violation of the City’s written policy, which did not allow the use of prior salary in setting starting salary at the City. Second, attempting to label the Chief’s so-called “method” as “gender neutral” is no defense. As Washington courts rightly recognize, “a discriminatory factor may be facially neutral.”12 Third, and more importantly, courts look with scrutiny and skepticism and require further proof of any proffered business reason for setting a starting salary based on prior salary. This is a so-called “market forces” theory – i.e., any policy based on offering salaries said to be necessary to induce the candidate to accept the employment. This theory has been singled out by many federal courts as requiring additional scrutiny because of the tendency of these policies to simply perpetuate the historical trend of paying women less for the same work. Under federal authority, relying merely on the prior salary of an employee, without analyzing the market value of the employee’s skills, is insufficient to establish an equal pay defense.13 Similarly, in Hudon v. West Valley Sch. Dist. No. 208, the Washington Court of Appeals rejected the employer’s market forces defense that it increased the salary of a comparator who threatened to leave in order to entice him to stay. The employer did not present any evidence of any bona fide outside employment offer, did not present any evidence of the applicable job market, did not perform any research and did not undertake any negotiations before meeting the alleged outside offer. Under Washington law, “underpaying women simply because the market will bear it . . . is not allowed.” 14 The City never claimed the officers it started at higher pay steps possessed unique skills justifying a higher pay step. The evidence indisputably established that Chief Torgerson did not consider skills, experience or any other factor apart from prior salary in determining at which salary step to start each officer. The City did not present any evidence that it performed any research as to market forces or that it negotiated in any way with any lateral officer. Fourth, the City did not articulate any adequate business reason for using prior salary as a factor in fixing starting pay step. Washington law requires the employer to “not only articulate a business purpose served by the factor but also show that it reasonably relied on the factor to achieve this purpose.” 15 The City did not present any evidence supporting its putative “business reason” of attracting experienced officers. And, in actuality, “enticing experienced officers” is not a business reason at all, but the very type of market forces argument routinely rejected by federal courts, and by the court in Hudon. The plain and undisputed truth, Lougheed argued, is the City had no legitimate business reason for using prior salary to set the starting salary step because (1) such method was not the City’s actual policy, (2) it was in direct violation of the City’s policy, (3) it was the subjective method the police chief claimed he did, and (4) was not even consistently applied by the police chief. Fifth, even if “attempting to hire experienced officers” is a “legitimate business reason” (it is not; it is a market forces rationale), which is served by a legitimate factor (which prior salary, standing alone, is not), the City “must also show that it reasonably relied on the factor to achieve this purpose.”16 In this case, the City did not make any showing that it reasonably relied on the factor to achieve its purpose. In fact, the City acknowledged and admitted the use of prior salary to establish starting step and salary was not consistently applied. This evidence was undisputed. It was also undisputed that Washington courts have declared that “[a] factor selectively applied . . . would be discriminatory.”17 The trial court granted Lougheed’s motion for partial summary judgment and denied the City’s cross-motion. The trial court ruled that Lougheed established a prima facie case because (1) the City agreed that Lougheed and the male comparators performed substantially equal work; and (2) the correct measure of wage disparity in this case is the difference between Lougheed’s starting step and the average step of the male comparators. The trial court also ruled that the City did not establish a legitimate defense because the City (1) failed to present evidence of a business purpose served by using prior salary in setting starting pay; (2) failed to support its “market forces defense” with evidence that it conducted any market research; (3) failed to present evidence that it reasonably relied on the factor of prior salary to achieve its “post hoc business purpose;” and (4) failed to present any evidence contradicting Lougheed’s evidence that the use of prior salary to establish starting step was selectively and inconsistently applied. In short, the trial court determined the City failed to create a genuine issue of fact related to the statutory affirmative defense and was liable under RCW 49.12.175 and, by extension, the WLAD as a matter of law. The City moved the Court of Appeals for discretionary review, which was denied by a commissioner in a 19-page written decision, who agreed with Lougheed on all points of law, concluding there was no probable error in the trial court’s rulings. The City then moved for reconsideration of the commissioner’s ruling, which was later denied by a panel of judges. The City agreed to mediation after the Court of Appeals ruled in Lougheed’s favor, and a settlement was reached. The settlement is significant for its broad changes for equal opportunity and compensation to be included in written policies of the City. Officer Lougheed remains on the City’s police force, and the settlement required the Chief of Police to sign a letter of apology to her for the humiliation and unfairness, stating she is a valued officer, and commending her for bringing this matter to the public’s attention to advance the public policy of non-discriminatory treatment of employees. Lougheed, the Police Guild President from 2013 to 2015, sued the City for back wages, but more importantly, she sued to bring change -- for future female police officers and officers of color. In her complaint, she requested the Court intervene to make orders to ensure that pay is based on legitimate, non-discriminatory policies consistently applied. Her settlement terms do just that – change the City policies and practices. As she has repeatedly stated: It is very important to me that women and minorities feel welcome in law enforcement and that they know that if they choose to pursue it as a career, that their rights will be protected by their public entity employer. Police officers, more than anyone, should step in when there is unfairness or a violation of law, and fix it. That’s what cops should do. And, that’s what Officer Lougheed has done. Benjamin P. Compton, WSAJ EAGLE member, is an associate at Vreeland Law in Bellevue, Washington, practicing in the areas of employment, discrimination, personal injury, sexual misconduct and appeals. 1 Hudon v. West Valley Sch. Dist. No. 208, 123 Wn. App. 116, 124, 97 P.3d 39 (2004). 2 RCW 49.12.175. 3 Id. 4 Corning Glass Works v. Brennan, 417 U.S. 188, 190, 94 S. Ct. 2223, 41 L. Ed. 2d 1 (1974). 5 Id. at 195 (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Goodrich v. Int’l Bhd. of Elec. Workers, 712 F.2d 1488, 1489-90, 229 U.S. App. D.C. 456 (D.C. Cir. 1983) (recognizing the Equal Pay Act as “firmly establish[ing] as federal law the ‘principle of equal pay for equal work regardless of sex’” (quoting Brennan, 417 U.S. at 190)). 6 U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 American Community Survey. 7 Glynn, Sarah J. (2014). Breadwinning Mothers, Then and Now. Washington, DC: Center for American Progress. 8 See Adams v. Univ. of Wash., 106 Wn.2d 312, 317, 722 P.2d 74 (1986). 9 Hein v. Oregon College of Edu., 718 F.2d 910, 916 (9th Cir. 1983). 10 Hudon, 123 Wn. App. at 124 (quoting RCW 49.12.175). 11 29 U.S.C. § 206(d)(1). 12 Hudon, 123 Wn. App. at 127. 13 See, e.g., Lewis v. Smith, 255 F. Supp. 2d 1054, 1062-63 (D. Ariz. 2003). 14 Hudon, 123 Wn. App. at 128-29. 15 Id. at 127. 16 Id. 17 Id.

Intravaia Investigations LLC - Michael Javorsky

Ninja Rocks

I recently spoke to a new police officer complaining about the increase in car prowls.  Every evening at dusk, she had been taking three to four car prowl reports that occurred in close proximity to one another, and immediately after the victims walked away from their vehicles.  Classic car prowler.  Basically, smash and grabs, extremely quick thefts.  Victims reported hearing the glass break, just as they rounded a street corner.  No suspect information with any case.  She said they had detained several people and patted them down for weapons.  No screwdrivers, hammers, etc... to break the windows out.  But they had rocks in their pockets.   

I suggested she look for "Ninja Rocks" next time she responds to a car prowl, she asked what the hell are ninja rocks.  Ninja rocks are the ceramic portion of a spark plug.  Car prowlers, break up a spark plug and have a pocket full of ceramic pieces.

The very next night, she detained a guy casing the area where all the car prowls had been occurring, and during a pat-down, felt the ninja rocks in his pocket.  So now, she identified the car prowler.  She also, telephoned previous car prowl victims and asked if there were ninja rocks on the car seats.  "Yep!" one victim stated.  Two other said they found a white ceramic rock between the vehicle door and seat/floor board. 

Now the officer is basically waiting to catch this identified guy in the process of using his ninja rocks, but I suggested she talk with the prosecutor regarding arresting subjects for RCW 9A.56.063 Making or possessing motor vehicle theft tools.  The officer said at no  point while in the police academy or during FTO, did anyone mention ninja rocks.   

    

Acquittal

I hope these officers get their jobs back and sue everyone responsible for this injustice.  This was a political witch hunt from the start.  Don't think for a second, that this cannot happen to you. 

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/20150515_Six_narcotics_officers_acquitted_in_federal_corruption_trial.html

UWPD Officers are finally heard.

This is an amazing article that clearly documented the facts, which support the immediate termination of this police chief and an immediate investigation of his supervisor by an outside agency. Burnside, who investigated this case, did not do what hundreds of reporters in the Pacific Northwest have done for years, protect UW. Have no doubt, UW Attorney General's Office will be telephoning Burnside's employer, Komo4/Sinclair Broadcast Group tomorrow morning.http://www.komonews.com/news/local/Warning-of-tragedy-as-UW-police-lose-50-of-patrol-staff-303796681.html

Mothers Day Greeting Video

Office of Professional Accountability busted, how ironic

It's going to be very interesting to see what the mayor's reaction is to this. This will add fuel to the fire, and when the Justice Department reads this, they will take more severe action against the mayor's office and command staff.

Intravaia Investigations LLC in Piccadilly Circus

Washington Defense Association

Intravaia Investigations LLC, Seattle, WA is now a part of Washington Defender Association.  We will be assisting the association in many ways, preparing training and networking opportunities.  They provide exceptional forensics/investigator training as well. http://www.defensenet.org/

Freedom 2015

At the beginning of March, we received a case from the public defender's office.  The defendant was currently in jail.  He had been there for three months and bail was one-hundred-thousand-dollars.  The case involved multiple serious felonies involving the use of a shotgun.  The defendant's options were, plead guilty and take a ten year sentence or risk going to trial and if found guilty, face a sixteen year sentence.  I reviewed discovery and had numerous immediate questions.  First step, was I needed to locate and interview the victim and separate "witness."

Back in the early years of my law enforcement career, I had the forever appreciative opportunity to be mentored and work with some of the best and talented veteran narcotics detectives with SPD.  One of the things, I learned was how to locate people that did not want to be found.  I located the victim and interviewed him.  His comment was: "How the fuck did you find me."  The other important step I learned, was when trying to locate and interview a homeless person and/or drug addict, was to put on a pair of tennis shoes and walk to every homeless shelter in downtown Seattle, which is what I did.  I left my business card and a handwritten letter for the witness at each shelter.  I also checked the motels on Aurora Ave N.  The very next day, I received a call from the witness and he agreed to meet me.  I also followed up on information learned during the case by LE, which lead me to Snohomish County where I interviewed another subject.  His information paramount and no LE had ever telephoned him.   

You would think it would be easier to get into contact, schedule a date and time, to interview a detective and/or officer, but that is not the case.  There was a total of seven to eight LE involved in this case.      

After two weeks of investigating this case and reviewing case law, we made our recommendation to the public defender.  On Tuesday morning, the senior deputy prosecutor office signed the order for release, by the afternoon the defendant, an innocent man, walked out of jail a free man and into the arms of his family and children. 

Besides the obvious, our investigation coupled with the extraordinary talent and dedication of the public defender, we saved the tax payers a costly trial and the cost to incarcerate an innocent man.  Washington State tax payers would have ultimately paid the cost to incarcerate the defendant, which is approximately between $23.00 and $26.00? a day, times 365 days, times 16 years: $151,840 total.  

Social Networking Searches

Today we had a meeting and was given a demonstration by a large records management company that the U.S. Government and other law enforcement agencies use.  One of the assets of the database is global social networking, which instagram and twitter companies voluntarily are integrated into. We ran Andreas Lubitz the co pilot of Lufthansa that killed all those people.  Social media records instantly came up raising instant red flags going back two years indicating he should never have been operating a plane, not even a model airplane.

Google location reporting utilizing your gmail account

We had been wondering where the tracking information on smartphones was going and how it was being retained.  If you have a gmail account and smart phone, you can log onto the google website and locate your movement history. 

https://support.google.com/accounts/answer/4388034?hl=en

Judge orders USPS to pay damages to whistleblower.

Even though the evidence is overwhelming, USPS supervisors would look you straight in the eye and deny each and every allegation even after a federal judge made their ruling.  This is what public employees face every day from tiny public agencies to large ones such as USPS.  The unfortunate aspect is only a fraction of the time does an employee win their case.  The other issue is, USPS, will continue in a practice of harassment and retaliation because the odds of getting caught is so minimal.  USPS stacked the policy violations against the employee, made changes to his work environment, and created a confusing paper trail against the employee.  This is a classic example which should be taught in law school, but it is not.  

SEATTLE (AP) - A federal judge has ordered the U.S. Postal Service to pay a worker almost $230,000 in damages for the retaliation he suffered when he helped a co-worker with her workplace health concerns.

The worker had started with the Postal Service as a mail carrier in 1995 and worked his way up to safety specialist. But in 2008, everything changed and he found himself in a hostile work environment after he advised his co-worker to report her concerns to the U.S. Department of Labor's Occupational Safety and Health Administration, the agency said in a statement.

He was transferred to another office, forced to work in an unheated storage room, demoted, publicly humiliated and refused a promotion, the agency said. He filed a whistleblower complaint with OSHA in Seattle, and an investigation confirmed his complaints. The man's name was not released because OSHA does not release the names of whistleblowers.

After a five-day bench trial, U.S. District Judge Ricardo Martinez found that the worker's actions were protected by a federal act that prohibits managers from retaliating against workers.

Martinez said the worker is entitled to $229,228 in damages and said the Postal Service must promote him to the same pay rate he would have now, had he not been denied a promotion. The judge enjoined the Seattle-area Postal Service from discriminating against employees who complain to or cooperate with OSHA, and from failing to take action against managers who interfere with employees exercising their rights under the Occupational Safety and Health Act.

In a statement, the Postal Service said it was disappointed in the ruling and disagrees with the conclusions. The agency said it was "reviewing the decision for possible post-judgment relief and/or appeal."

"This 20-year veteran Postal Service employee is a true hero, and we hope that this court decision will be of some comfort to him for the retribution he suffered and a lesson to those employers, large or small, believing that they can act with impunity and without consequences," said Janet Herold, the Labor Department's regional solicitor in San Francisco.

Capital Hill Assault Case

http://q13fox.com/2015/02/19/family-asks-for-publics-help-in-finding-man-who-attacked-son-outside-bar/

This is our case, and I was able to get Q13 Fox and Komo4 to cover the story.  I had the composite sketch done by a LE forensic sketch artist and put together the bulletin.  My hopes in raising the reward from $1000 to $5000 would cause one of the suspect's friends to come forward.  Four of his friends witnessed the assault and did nothing to help the victim.  Suspect's girlfriend was also there and witnessed the incident.  Hopefully, the coverage will reach the suspect as well and he shows up at a Seattle Police Precinct with an attorney.