Former Pierce County drug unit’s lawsuit zeros in on actions of 2 ex-prosecutors
The scope of the lawsuit seeking to clear the names of nine former members of a disbanded Pierce County Sheriff’s Office drug investigations unit has narrowed to two retired deputy prosecutors accused of retaliating against the investigators for their public speech.
Former members of the unit, including now-Undersheriff Cynthia Fajardo, allege that prosecutors James Schacht and Fred Wist targeted them for supporting Fajardo’s 2020 campaign for sheriff — which she lost to former Sheriff Ed Troyer. They also claim they faced retaliation for complaining about prosecutors’ implementation of a new protocol concerning the use of informants in criminal investigations and for speaking about how that policy was affecting the Sheriff’s Office’s independence from the Prosecutor’s Office.
The former narcotics investigators claim the prosecutors spread a “false corruption narrative” about the unit to external investigators and The News Tribune, ruining the detectives’ reputations and forcing Fajardo, who led the Special Investigations Unit (SIU), to defend against the accusations before she lost the election.
The lawsuit has dragged on since it was filed in 2021, months after nine $1.5 million claims were filed on behalf of each of the former members of the SIU. U.S. District Court Judge Tiffany Cartwright dismissed the case on summary judgment in 2024, but in August the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit revived parts of it.
The Ninth Circuit judges reversed the dismissal of claims against Schacht and Wist and ruled that the prosecutors’ allegedly retaliatory actions were not entitled to absolute immunity — a defense from civil liability for government officials carrying out the functions of their office. The court sent the case back to Cartwright to determine if the prosecutors are instead entitled to qualified immunity.
At this stage of the litigation, Cartwright ruled May 6, they are not. The judge also denied prosecutors’ motion to dismiss the case for failure to state a claim.
Cartwright directed the former drug investigators to file a clean copy of their amended complaint by May 13, which the defendants must answer. The judge said the only operative claims are against Schacht and Wist, and that the dismissals against the other defendants — Pierce County, former Sheriff Paul Pastor and former Undersheriff Brent Bomkamp — were affirmed on appeal.
Cartwright ordered the parties to meet and confer to file a joint status report proposing a new trial date.
Prosecutors promoted ‘false corruption’ narrative
The former narcotics investigators claim Schacht and Wist retaliated against them by contacting the FBI based on a hunch from seized text messages that investigators had planted methamphetamine on a suspected drug dealer — which an investigation found to be false.
Also claimed as retaliation are prosecutors’ statements to the Kitsap County Sheriff’s Office and The News Tribune.
The Kitsap County Sheriff’s office was contacted in April 2020 by Pastor and Bomkamp to investigate the SIU’s actions in two cases. The former investigators allege that the prosecutors made false accusations to Kitsap County, including that they were creating “fake search warrants” and violating informant protocols.
The unit was disbanded in April 2020, and 10 of its 13 members were reassigned. It relaunched in July 2020 with new leadership and some new detectives. The Sheriff’s Office shut it down again that month after The News Tribune published “Failure to follow protocol: Sheriff’s drug unit investigated for alleged false reports.” The former narcotics investigators claim the story adopted prosecutors’ “false corruption narrative” from the Prosecutor’s Office’s spokesperson and the Sheriff’s Office’s chief of staff.
The story reported that the SIU was being investigated for possible policy violations, including falsifying records and conducting improper searches. It also identified drug investigators who prosecutors had placed on a list of witnesses with credibility problems, commonly known as the Brady list. The article included a collective statement from SIU members who said prosecutors had “permanently damaged” their reputations by placing them on the list.
The former SIU members have alleged that being identified by name in the article, as undercover operatives working cartel-level cases, put them and their families at heightened risk of deadly harm.
The Clark County Sheriff’s Office later reviewed the Kitsap County Sheriff’s Office’s investigation of the SIU, largely clearing the unit of wrongdoing and sustaining seven minor violations. The review determined most problems came from a contentious relationship between SIU members and prosecutors.
Cartwright ruled that the investigators had plausibly alleged that retaliation was the substantial or motivating factor behind prosecutors’ referral of SIU cases to the FBI and statements to the Kitsap County Sheriff’s Office and The News Tribune. Cartwright also said the plaintiffs successfully alleged the prosecutors violated a constitutional right.
The timing of those actions supports the idea that they were retaliation, according to the investigators. Cartwright, citing the investigators, wrote that in 2019 it became well known that Fajardo was likely to run for sheriff, and the narcotics investigators complained about the relationship between the Prosecutor’s Office and the SIU.
“Soon after, Schacht referred Plaintiffs to the FBI on March 29, 2020,” Cartwright wrote, citing the investigators. “Fajardo would formally announce her campaign on May 15, 2020, which Plaintiffs publicly supported. Nearly two months later, Schacht provided allegedly false statements about Plaintiffs in an interview with [the Kitsap County Sheriff’s Office], and [The News Tribune] published an article about SIU using the Prosecutor Defendants’ ‘false narrative.’”
“Plaintiffs’ allegations concerning their speech and the Prosecutor Defendants’ actions are close enough in time to allow an inference that the actions were retaliatory,” Cartwright wrote.
Attorney says Pierce County shouldn’t foot the bill
The attorney representing the former drug investigators is Joan Mell. Asked in an email Monday if she expected to go to trial over the actions of Schacht and Wist, or if there was the possibility of a settlement, Mell said there is always room for resolution, and this is the perfect time for Prosecutor Mary Robnett to come to the table.
Mell said the matter could not be settled if Robnett thinks a jury should decide the dispute. Mell said she sat down with Robnett six years ago to invite her to stop warring with the SIU investigators, and she could have restored the “necessary balance” with the Sheriff’s Office at little cost.
“Instead, after six years of litigation at taxpayer expense, we are basically starting over on the constitutional claims. The SIU Investigators deserve their names cleared,” Mell wrote.
“We have the Clark County report affirming name clearing is warranted,” Mell wrote. “The SIU investigators made an impact in Pierce County having seized over thirty-two pounds of meth, heroin, and illegal guns off Mexican Cartel drug runners in Pierce County in one arrest and one stop. Overall, their achievements were unmatched. The facts speak favorably for them. There were no policy violations. Schacht and Wist should not expect Pierce County to foot the bill to defend their untrue accusations for ego sake. They have since retired and should have moved on.”
Adam Faber, a spokesperson for the Prosecutor’s Office, said in an email Monday that the office is defending Schacht and Wist because the case involves their duties when they were county employees, per Pierce County code 2.120.010. Faber said the office was gratified that most claims have been dismissed, and only a few narrow issues remain.
“This ruling was based on pleadings only, without additional factual development,” Faber said. “We look forward to the filing of our summary judgment motion at a later time based on a full development of the record.”
