Introduction

Seattle Municipal Court case 613225 presents compelling evidence of malicious prosecution, procedural violations, and civil rights deprivations under both Washington state law and federal constitutional protections. The case, filed against Elvis Nuno based on false reports from Danielle Chard, was dismissed with prejudice due to complete absence of evidence[1]. The circumstances surrounding this case reveal systematic procedural failures, ethical violations by Seattle police officers, and clear instances of malicious prosecution that warrant comprehensive legal analysis.

Case 613225: Dismissal Analysis

Dismissal Order Details

The Seattle Municipal Court's Order of Dismissal in case 613225 demonstrates a clear finding of prosecutorial failure[1]. The court marked "Dismissed with prejudice" and selected "Proof" as the reason code (MCIS reason code PRF), indicating a complete lack of evidence to support the charges[1]. Notably, the order also terminated the "No contact Order for Danielle chard," further supporting the conclusion that the underlying allegations were baseless[1].

Legal Significance of Dismissal With Prejudice

Under Washington law, a dismissal with prejudice indicates that the prosecution was so fundamentally flawed that refiling the charges would be inappropriate[2]. This finding, combined with the specific notation of lack of proof, establishes a strong foundation for malicious prosecution claims under RCW 9.62.010, which criminalizes causing "another to be arrested or proceeded against for any crime of which he or she is innocent" when done "maliciously and without probable cause"[2][3].

Elements of Malicious Prosecution

Washington State Law Analysis

Under RCW 9.62.010, malicious prosecution requires proof of:

1. Malicious intent - acting with improper motive rather than bringing someone to justice[4]
2. Absence of probable cause - lack of reasonable basis for prosecution[5]
3. Prosecution of an innocent person - ultimate dismissal with prejudice demonstrates innocence[2]

The documentation reveals that all three elements are satisfied in case 613225.

Evidence of Malicious Intent

The correspondence with Seattle's Office for Professional Accountability (OPA) reveals clear evidence of malicious intent[6][7][8]. In his complaint 2016OPA-1167, Nuno documented that:

• The original Edmonds Police report (2016-00009660) specifically stated that "Nuno did not attempt to contact Chard or have another party contact her on his behalf, there was no violation of the order"[7][8]
• Seattle Police Officer Erik Eastgard wrote a contradictory report claiming Chard "received an e-mail sent directly from me, in violation of the Order of Protection"[9][10]
• No email was ever produced or investigated, despite this being the central allegation[7][8]