EMT cleared in May Day clash claims SPD officer lied about assault
Attorney: Officer’s statement ‘a complete fabrication’ By LEVI PULKKINEN, SEATTLEPI.COM STAFF
A Seattle woman who lost her job and home after she was wrongly charged with attacking a police officer now claims officers lied in an effort to cover up excessive force during last spring's May Day demonstration.
Maria Morales was among the first demonstrators charged after the riotous protest swept through downtown Seattle on May 1. A Seattle police officer claimed she was punched by Morales, a 30-year-old emergency medical technician. King County prosecutors followed up with an assault charge.
Those allegations – publicized on seattlepi.com and elsewhere – cost Morales her job and apartment, as well as thousands of dollars in attorneys’ fees. They were also baseless; video of the scene, included above, refuted the police account and prompted prosecutors to drop the case.
“It’s a complete fabrication, and the reason that we know that is because it was on video,” said Darryl Parker, who is representing Morales in a civil suit filed in U.S. District Court. “The statement of probable cause that led to her arrest is completely false.”
[...]Two days after the incident, a Seattle police detective filed a statement with prosecutors recounting Officer Fry’s version of events. In it, the detective contended Fry claimed Morales punched her in the chest, kicked another officer and disobeyed police orders.
“Morales got right up to Officer Fry and said, ‘Okay bitch’ then punched Officer Fry in the chest with a closed fist,” the detective told the court in a one-page statement outlining the allegations against Morales.
The detective went on to assert that Morales kicked a second officer. Video of the incident shows Morales' feet were secured by officers immediately after she hit the ground.
None of those allegations was true, and video of the scene shows them to be lies, Parker said by phone Wednesday.
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which in some cases has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available for the purposes of news reporting, education, research, comment, and criticism, which constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. It is our policy to respond to notices of alleged infringement that comply with the DMCA and other applicable intellectual property laws. It is our policy to remove material from public view that we believe in good faith to be copyrighted material that has been illegally copied and distributed by any of our members or users.