September 6, 2006

Turning Over the Evidence
Attorney claims cops won’t examine photos, statements from bike scuffle

By Rosette Royale
Staff Writer

Carte blanche: that’s what attorney David Speikers says he offered an investigating officer from the King County Sheriff’s department recently. But the officer, he says, turned him down.

The free and open access Speikers says he was willing to provide the sheriff’s office pertained to evidence he had gathered on behalf of his client, Zachary Treisman, who was arrested during a Critical Mass bike event on June 30. Speikers says he expected his invitation to be taken up by the officer, but was surprised when he wasn’t.

“It’s their job to gather evidence,” says Speikers says of the sheriff’s office. “They’re supposed to talk to all witness who could have an impact on charges that could be filed.”

Deputy Rodney Chinnick of the King County Sheriff’s Office says since he doesn’t know if Speikers did indeed contact the investigator officer, “I can’t speak to that.”

The evidence Speikers says he has in hand — photos and, at last count, 18 statements — refers back to an altercation that occurred during last month’s Critical Mass event as it swept through Belltown. There, at the intersection of Western and Vine, an unmarked van tried to progress on to Western. As a number of cyclists, including 18-year old Jason Brien, sought to block the van’s forward movement, a man jumped out of the vehicle to chase Brien. When the man, whom one witness described as being “enraged,” caught Brien, he dragged him to the ground.

Treisman, along with other cyclists, went to Brien’s aid, with Treisman pulling the man off Brien. But a second man leapt from the van and latched onto Treisman, allegedly throwing him, face first, into the ground. A scuffle ensued. One witness says that as a third man exited the van, he identified himself as an officer. At that point, more witnesses claim, the other two men revealed badges on chains hidden under their street clothes, identifying themselves as officers as well. Witnesses assert it was only during the altercation, not preceding it, that the men voiced their identities as plainclothes officers.

The sheriff’s office maintains that plainclothes officers identified themselves by sounding a siren in the unmarked van, prior to the melee.

Both Brien and Treisman were arrested, with Brien still being investigated for disturbing the peace and possession of a beer. Treisman, a 30-year-old doctoral candidate in mathematics at the University of Washington, is currently free on bail, though he is under investigation for third-degree felony assault. The charge, which is specific to assault on an officer, carries a potential sentence of up to five years and a potential $10,000 fine.

One of the officers who arrested Treisman, says Speikers, also happens to be the investigating officer on the case, a fact he finds troubling: “That’s a conflict of interest.” He says he may speak to the King County Prosecutor’s Office — which is responsible for looking at all the evidence to see if Treisman will ultimately be charged — about his concerns.

A spokesman for the Prosecutor’s Office, Dan Donohoe, says he doesn’t know if having an arresting officer double as an investigating officer on a case represents a conflict. “Check with the Sheriff’s office about that,” says Donohoe.

“No,” answers Chinnick, “it’s not a conflict of interest.”

Chinnick says the sheriff’s office is in the process of collecting reports on the incident, which it will then present as a referral to prosecutors about whether or not to charge Treisman. Asked how long the process might take, Chinnick replies, “We will send the referral in when it’s complete.”

At a press conference given outside of the King County Jail last week, Speikers said that the prosecutor’s office indicated it would probably make a charging decision on July 17.

“That’s an estimate,” refutes Donohoe. “We’re reviewing the case and it’s going to be a couple of weeks before we make a decision.”

But if charges are handed down, Speikers says that the prosecutor’s office will have to prove, “beyond a reasonable doubt,” that Treisman was aware at the time that the man he pulled from the other cyclist was a plainclothes officer.

“That’s the key issue: that he knew, or should have reasonably known,” says Speikers of Treisman. “He didn’t. He was acting in defense of another.”