CRIME WATCH FOLLOWUP: Court appearances for two women arrested at Duwamish Head

Through court documents and a police summary, we know more about what investigators allege happened Saturday night leading up to and during a big response at Duwamish Head.

Police arrested two women, the 28-year-old driver and a 24-year-old passenger. The court document for their respective probable-cause hearings today says it started with a 911 call just after 8:30 pm Saturday from someone who alleged they were shot at by someone in a silver Chevy Malibu. The officer-written narrative continues:

The 911 caller followed the suspect vehicle and provided updates to SPD dispatch as they drove around Alki AV SW. The suspect vehicle eventually turned southbound on Alki AV SW and SPD officers stopped the vehicle within the 1500 block of Alki AV SW. … SPD officers instructed (the driver) to stop and to turn off the vehicle, which she did not do. She pulled around the SPD patrol vehicle, almost striking an officer and proceeded to drive away at a high rate of speed. Because the vehicle was involved in a shooting, I attempted to stop the vehicle with my lights and siren. (She) continued to drive southbound on Alki AV SW. (She) willfully and failed to immediately bring her vehicle to a stop. (She) continued to drive recklessly (drove into oncoming traffic) and reached speeds up to 55 MPH (on a 25 MPH road), on a busy main arterial street (with both heavy vehicle and foot traffic). (She) slowed due to an oncoming police vehicle and heavy traffic in the oncoming lane. Because of this, I believed (her) only route to escape was the
public sidewalk. I used my police vehicle and pushed (slow speed) her vehicle into the other police vehicle, ending the pursuit. (She) and another female passenger were both arrested.

This reader video we added to our original report last night shows part of what was described above:

The document says the car belonged to a relative of the driver. Meantime, a separate court document explains why the passenger was arrested:

Subject was the passenger in a vehicle that was allegedly involved in a drive-by shooting incident and subsequently attempted to flee the scene to avoid apprehension. Once in custody, a check of her identity revealed that the subject was determined to have several outstanding warrants out of the State of Oregon for Theft 1st Degree.

Now, here’s what happened in court today, according to the King County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office:

Probable cause was found in the eluding allegation against the driver. Prosecutors say they argued for $30,000 bail but the first-appearance-court judge said she could go free on personal recognizance (though police had checked the “law enforcement objects to release” box on the document that was submitted). The court document does not say where she lives. As for the passenger, who is listed as living in Auburn, probable cause was found for “being a fugitive from justice,” and bail was set at $60,000, the amount of her Oregon warrants. She remains in the King County Jail tonight, while the driver was released about two hours ago. Both still may face felony charges. Meantime, the police summary adds two things that weren’t in either court document:

Officers returned to the original scene and recovered a single 9mm shell casing. Investigation determined that the suspect and victim are known to each other and have an ongoing history.

35 Replies to "CRIME WATCH FOLLOWUP: Court appearances for two women arrested at Duwamish Head"

  • Alki resident August 11, 2025 (9:41 pm)

    Nothing but catch and release with these judges. You can elude police, endanger other drivers, and disregard authorities. Nothing to see here. 

  • W Seattle August 11, 2025 (9:44 pm)

    Amazing that a driver who evaded police and endangered other pedestrians and drivers was released on their own recognizance. Disheartening to say the least and speaks volumes about our broken judicial system.

  • Ronald foust August 11, 2025 (9:44 pm)

    Just what 🤷🏻‍♂️🤷🏻‍♂️🤷🏻‍♂️

  • NorthAdmiralNeighbor August 11, 2025 (9:48 pm)

    Pretty disappointing that a suspect charged with a felony eluding charge and involved in a drive-by shooting (along with harboring a fugitive) was released without bail. We shouldn’t be locking up folks for petty crimes like minor shoplifting but I think most of us can agree that when guns are involved there shouldn’t be a question of whether a suspect is at least required to post bail before being released.

    • Thomas August 12, 2025 (9:01 am)

      How in the world could this judge release this woman on personal recognize.? We deserve a answer on why she will be released C’mon judge we want to hear from.you!

  • Dwg August 11, 2025 (10:13 pm)

    Let me get this straight. You can commit a drive by shooting, put the public at risk while attempting to evade the police, ram a police car, and get released on your own recognize. Unfreakingbelieveable. 

    • WSB August 11, 2025 (10:30 pm)

      Neither document nor the summary indicates which suspect was believed to have fired shot(s) and there’s no mention of whether a gun was found, just the casing.

      • dwg August 12, 2025 (11:53 am)

        Ah, ok. So then just the latter two crimes, then. I guess it’s more reasonable to release her since she “only” put the public at risk while attempting to evade the police, and rammed a police car, but maybe didn’t fire the shots herself. 

    • Thomas August 12, 2025 (9:04 am)

      WSB do you know who the judge was?

      • WSB August 12, 2025 (9:08 am)

        If I did I would have included that.

  • Arch Stanton August 11, 2025 (10:14 pm)

    I shouldn’t be surprised anymore and yet I still am. In what world does a driver who has several warrants, shoots at people in public, and evades arrest get sprung from jail on a whim?? WHY are Washington judges like this? It makes zero logical sense.

    • WSB August 11, 2025 (10:29 pm)

      I know it’s a bit confusing but as noted above in two places, the passenger was the one with the warrants, not the driver. The passenger is the one that’s being kept in jail – because of those warrants – not the driver. Both might be charged – this was just the initial probable cause/bail decision.

      • JLaw August 11, 2025 (11:49 pm)

        WSB,
        Thank you for the clarification.
        Much appreciation of WSB’s patient response to those who write inflammatory and false comments before reading the carefully responsible crime reporting.  

        In this case the facts are bad enough.

  • Mike August 12, 2025 (5:13 am)

    Fugitive crossing state lines, firearms offense, sounds like the FBI and ATF should be involved.  The judge should be removed from the bench too.

  • anonyme August 12, 2025 (5:33 am)

    Understandable why police might have a “why bother?” attitude.

    • helpermonkey August 12, 2025 (8:22 am)

      “why bother” to do the jobs they’re paid very highly to do? I hope you’re not beating that tired old “SPD was defunded” horse to death here. 

      • Suge August 12, 2025 (9:55 am)

        I think what they meant was “why bother” when the judge is just going to let them out with no bail immediately. I understand having compassion, but when a gun, a shooting, a car and reckless driving are involved, it needs to be taken seriously. Also, you already have one fugitive from justice  in the group. If they decide by some miracle to charge the driver do you think she will show up for court on her own? She refused to stop when pulled over.

        • k August 12, 2025 (1:46 pm)

          So teachers should have a “why bother” attitude when they see the district promoting students to the next grade who didn’t do any work all year?  Firefighters should have a “why bother” attitude because people keep flicking their cigarettes out the window during droughts and heat warnings?  SDOT should just say “why bother” filling potholes because they’re just going to reappear?  Parks should say “why bother” having off leash laws because too many people ignore them?  No.  Police should do they job they are being paid to do.  They don’t get to give up, do a crap job and still draw a paycheck just because they have big feelings about how other people in the system function.  No one else gets to.  Police are not special.

  • CJ August 12, 2025 (7:27 am)

    Who was the Judge that released the driver?

  • Christopher B. August 12, 2025 (9:00 am)

    Excellent reader video! Talk about Johnny on the spot. Steady hands, well-framed. Terrific work.

  • DRW August 12, 2025 (10:06 am)

    Yes, can we please have the judges name?

  • Admiral Rear August 12, 2025 (11:42 am)

    We vote for these judges but are rarely given their names so that we can cast informed votes. Maybe you want judges who lock people up…maybe you want judges who let people go. But nobody knows which judges are which without better information shared with the public. (Not blaming you, WSB!)

    • N in Seattle August 12, 2025 (12:41 pm)

      In most cases, your only decision in judicial elections is whether to vote for the unopposed candidate or leave it blank.

      • WSzombie August 12, 2025 (2:26 pm)

        @N in Seattle – This is what so few people understand.

        In 2024, there were 8 judicial seats up for election across state, district, county, and appeals. Of those 8, 6 candidates ran unopposed. In 2023, 3/3 seats ran unopposed.  

        How can we vote for change if there’s no candidates? 

    • Nope! August 12, 2025 (5:06 pm)

      Actually, we don’t vote for the judges, although we the people are supposed to. Have you noticed last several years, and several election cycles within, judges are listed on the ballot running unopposed. So in reality there is no other person to vote for/against. In other words we don’t get a choice and we really need to start holding the city/state accountable for this voting process. here’s a random example, I have more examples. I’ve been tracking this on ballots for several years now  I think it’s a very serious issue, but I don’t know how to solve  

  • AE August 12, 2025 (11:51 am)

    A lot of people up in arms over someone having a constitutional right to bail. There’s no evidence announced tieing the driver to the actual shooting, and no apparent previous recorded offenses to warrant not getting out on PR. If they don’t think she’s a threat to skip town and no proof she’s a danger to anyone, there’s no reason to keep her in jail until the trial. What you really think making her friends/family cough up 30K in bail money to get out changes anything? People really need to learn how the justice system works before commenting about the Judge.     

    • Thomas August 12, 2025 (12:51 pm)

      So let me see if I understand your point.So you think evading police refusing to get out of the car.And then only reason she was stopped was her path was blocked by another police car.And this constitutes a get out of jail free?That’s some pretty perverse reasoning.

    • Tax Payer August 12, 2025 (1:55 pm)

       What you really think making her friends/family cough up 30K in bail money to get out changes anything?’   Yes. 

      • K August 12, 2025 (6:09 pm)

        It only takes 3k to get out on 30k vail, so no, that’s not much to a lot of people.

  • valvashon August 12, 2025 (1:56 pm)

    +1 on the comment about the video.  Watch and learn, people- the shot is held steady, the pan is necessary and at a good speed, there are no unnecessary zooms and it’s in 16×9 widescreen, the way video should be for YouTube and TV.  You can make a vertical video cut down later out of 16×9 video but you can’t make 16×9 out of vertical video which is why widescreen is the way to shoot.Also, the driver should have had some bail set- maybt 10k?  I’m no big fan of the cops but fleeing from the cops on a busy Alki Avenue shows reckless disregard for both pedestrian and officer safety.

  • Neighbor August 12, 2025 (3:32 pm)

    No surprise that the WSB comment section is full of people misunderstanding the officer’s account and lamenting the release of a still-presumably-innocent person who was *accused* of a crime.   The lack of reading comprehension here proves exactly why the presumption of innocence is so important.  Being released doesn’t mean the driver has escaped justice.  It only means we don’t have to pay to revoke her rights on nothing but an allegation.  I hope it is only a vocal minority that have such a disappointingly poor understanding of our own legal system.

    • Question Authority August 12, 2025 (5:00 pm)

      You forgot the part about how she tried to escape “justice” by ramming a SPD car, drove on the wrong side of the pedestrian/vehicle crowded road and attempted to escape.  Prior events are irrelevant and supposed innocence out the window when you pull that crap

      • Neighbor August 12, 2025 (6:41 pm)

        You don’t know the circumstances.  The passenger could have been holding her at gunpoint.  The cops could have arrested the wrong person.  Something else could be happening, we just don’t know.  The presumption of innocence can never be suspended.  Your suggestion that it can betrays your ignorance.  Our legal system exists to protect law abiding citizens from people like you who are eager to ignore evidence in service of emotional vengeance.

        • Mike August 12, 2025 (8:59 pm)

          I’ll give you a better version of the law on this situation.  The driver is lucky the police didn’t use lawful lethal force against her when she intentionally drove into a police car and at officers. The person driving isn’t innocent.  The passenger is a fugitive who’s crossed state lines and in illegal possession of a firearm.  Both driver and passenger are by definition, not innocent and should be in jail.  They’re both a deadly threat to society.

      • AE August 13, 2025 (4:42 pm)

        Cool, they can then prove that in the trial in a court of law. Until then, there’s no reason to make us taxpayers pay to hold her in jail for the duration. 

Sorry, comment time is over.