黑料福利社

A federal jury is deciding whether Yakima city officials targeted a local business owner who opposed plans for a downtown plaza.

The eight-person jury began deliberations around 2:10 p.m. Thursday in Mark Peterson鈥檚 claim against the city and three current and former employees. The trial in U.S. District Court in Yakima started Monday.

In addition to the city, Peterson鈥檚 suit named former City Manager Tony O鈥橰ourke, retired Yakima Deputy Fire Chief Mark Sopitch and Fire Inspector Tony Doan, alleging the officials conspired to target Peterson鈥檚 H&H Furniture with fire-code violations in 2013 in retaliation for opposing the city鈥檚 plans to replace downtown parking lot with a large plaza.

Peterson alleged in his lawsuit that his First Amendment right to free speech was violated and he was a target of malicious prosecution.

Voters and the Yakima City Council turned down the plaza project in 2018.

Matthew Mensik, one of Peterson鈥檚 attorneys, told jurors that they would need to follow a trail of circumstantial evidence he said demonstrated that the three officials targeted Peterson for speaking out on the plaza issue.

鈥淚n cases like this, you are not going to get someone to admit they did it, but there are little traces of what they did, little echoes of their conduct,鈥� Mensik said.

But Megan Coluccio, who represented the defendants, said that the only agenda that Sopitch, Doan and O鈥橰ourke were pursuing was 鈥減ublic safety, fire safety, life safety.鈥�

鈥淭o believe Mr. Peterson鈥檚 case, you have ask yourself why? Why did these individual defendants, these public servants, do what they did?鈥� Coluccio told jurors. 鈥淯sually, the simplest explanation is right. This is not a question about speech but about a city鈥檚 fundamental right to protect its citizens.鈥�

In Peterson鈥檚 civil suit, in which he鈥檚 seeking attorney鈥檚 fees, lost revenue and other damages, the jury must find that it was more likely than not that the city officials used fire inspections in an attempt to silence Peterson.

Peterson, in his suit, alleged that shortly after he and other business owners criticized the city鈥檚 downtown plans in November 2013, Doan inspected his building, found that the basement showroom鈥檚 ceiling violated fire codes, and ordered it fixed within 90 days.

In court papers, Peterson said the ceiling issue was brought up in a 2002 fire inspection, but subsequent inspectors did not cite any violations.

Mensik told jurors that Doan showing up to inspect the building after Peterson spoke at a meeting on the plaza cannot be dismissed as coincidence.

Sopitch, Doan鈥檚 supervisor, upheld Doan鈥檚 findings in his report, court documents said.

Doan tried to conduct follow-up inspections of the property but was told that Peterson was not present, and he would have to reschedule when Peterson was there, court documents said.

Mensik said that Doan had started compiling a timeline on H&H before Peterson was accused of refusing to allow inspectors in, and in drafts of a report Sopitch prepared for O鈥橰ourke on fire inspections, H&H went from the bottom of a list of four unnamed buildings with inspection issues to the top of the list by name with a detailed description of the issues.

鈥淵ou can see all the evidence that Mr. O鈥橰ourke started scheduling senior staff meetings, talking about getting warrants,鈥� Mensik said. 鈥淭hey wanted to get (Peterson) prosecuted. They wanted him to deny a fire inspection.

鈥淢r. O鈥橰ourke sets the agenda, and everybody is talking about H&H.鈥�

The city filed charges that Peterson refused entry to building inspectors, a charge that prosecutors ultimately dropped 鈥渋n the interest of justice鈥� because Doan did not specify the scope of the inspection he sought to perform, court records said.

Prosecutors said he would need the owner鈥檚 permission only if he were inspecting parts of the building that were not public spaces.

Peterson said that before the charge was dismissed, he was offered a deal in which if he pleaded guilty, he would have to pay a fine and spend a night in jail, which he rejected, according to court documents.

But Coluccio reminded jurors that the city鈥檚 prosecutor, Cynthia Martinez, testified that she filed the charges because she had probable cause to believe that there was a violation, and that the case was dismissed after weighing the potential risks of taking the case to court.

But she said that Peterson admitted in court that he has not done the work to address the concerns about the basement ceiling, nor has any intentions of doing so.

Coluccio said O鈥橰ourke had no say over whether Martinez filed charges, nor was he the ultimate authority on city policy, as that is the council鈥檚 purview.

She said any publicity in local media on the matter was generated primarily by Peterson, not the city. And financial records show that his furniture store did not lose money during the time this was going on.

The 90-day 鈥渕andate鈥� was only for Peterson to inform city officials how he planned to bring the building up to code, and the city would have allowed him to take the time needed to do it, she said.

鈥淚 want you to keep in mind when you go back into that jury room that speculation is not causation,鈥� Coluccio said. 鈥淐oincidence is not causation.鈥�