Case No. 658959 —

The City of Seattle vs Shane Lozenich

Cause: Violation Of No Contact Order, Theft
Incarceration Dates: 03/10–03/24/2021
Judge: Catherine McDowall & Damon Shadid

Status: Case Dismissed w/o Prejudice

CASE ANALYSIS

"Delayed TB Diagnoses During the COVID-19 Pandemic King County, Washignton 2020"

Key Findings from 2021 Reports

TB Complications: In 2021, 48% of King County TB cases required hospitalization, and 10% of those patients were co-infected with COVID-19.

Syphilis Severity: Health officials noted that untreated syphilis was leading to severe complications, including neurosyphilis (which can cause stroke and blindness). In 2021, the rise was particularly sharp among cisgender women and people experiencing homelessness.

Pandemic Impact: Officials attribute these rises to disruptions in routine screening and healthcare access during the COVID-19 pandemic, which allowed latent infections to progress or spread undetected.

Executive Summary

The legal proceedings in Case No. 658959 initiated on March 10, 2021, following an arrest for an alleged violation of a no-contact order and theft. The arrest was marked by significant procedural anomalies, including the presence of an unidentified individual in military camouflage and an unexplained one-hour detention at a fenced police vehicle lot prior to booking at the county jail. While the charges were ultimately dismissed without prejudice—as the visit was intended only to retrieve personal belongings with the consent of a roommate—the procedural handling of the arrest suggests a departure from standard law enforcement protocols.

Procedural Breach

The initial phase of this case was marked by significant detention irregularities, starting with an arrest on March 10, 2021, for an alleged no-contact order violation and theft. Before booking, the subject was detained for one hour in a fenced police vehicle lot, a notable departure from standard protocol. Following an arraignment on March 11, the legal focus shifted from evidentiary facts to mental fitness when a scheduled competency hearing was canceled on March 22. By March 24, the criminal charges were dismissed without prejudice, but the subject was immediately referred for an involuntary psychiatric evaluation. This resulted in a 22-day involuntary hold at Harborview Hospital characterized by forced medication and a transfer that lacked a documented court order. While a motion to rescind the no-contact order was filed in April, and a subsequent arrest occurred in May, the case officially reached closure on June 26, 2021.

I. Competency as a Procedural Shortcut

Following the arrest, a stand-in public defender moved to raise the issue of competency rather than investigating the substantive facts of the case. This analysis characterizes the use of competency evaluations as a "procedural bypass" or "legal shortcut". By shifting the focus to the defendant's mental fitness, the judicial system effectively sidelined complex claims regarding surveillance, data breaches, and emerging technological harms, avoiding a forensic inquiry into the underlying legal merits.

II. Involuntary Hospitalization and Medical Battery

Upon the dismissal of charges on March 24, 2021, a "dismiss and defer" ruling resulted in an immediate transfer to Harborview Hospital for an involuntary psychiatric hold. This transfer occurred without a documented court order in the jail release paperwork. During the 22-day detention, the experience was defined by coercive treatment, including the forced administration of Haloperidol and Risperdal, which triggered severe involuntary muscle contractions and physical distress. Furthermore, the detention involved the use of public restraints and confinement in a room lacking basic amenities, raising critical questions regarding medical ethics and the protection of personal autonomy.

III. Forced Medication & Public Restraint

Upon arrival at Harborview, Lozenich was subjected to forced medical intervention without consent. A nurse approached with a syringe and, despite his clear verbal refusal, injected Lozenich with an unidentified substance while officers physically restrained him. Lozenich was then strapped to a hospital bed and rolled publicly through the emergency department, an experience he described as humiliating and disorienting. Over the following hours and days, Lozenich was administered Haloperidol, Risperdal, and additional injections, including one that triggered a severe dystonic reaction. Lozenich reported involuntary muscle contractions, locked limbs, abdominal spasms, and difficulty speaking—symptoms consistent with acute medication‑induced dystonia. These events occurred without explanation, without a medical screening, and without any attempt to obtain voluntary agreement, transforming what should have been a clinical evaluation into an episode of coercive physical control.

IV. Lack of Informed Consent

Throughout the hospitalization, informed consent was absent at every stage. Lozenich was not screened prior to treatment, not told what medications were being administered, and not given an opportunity to decline or understand the risks. His account makes clear that no clinician explained the purpose of the injections, the rationale for his admission, or the nature of the procedures performed, including the MRI, IV medications, and subsequent psychiatric transfer. Instead, treatment was imposed under conditions of restraint and duress, with decisions made unilaterally by staff who neither sought nor respected the defendent's consent. This absence of voluntary agreement undermined the legitimacy of the medical interventions and contributed to a broader pattern in which clinical authority replaced legal process, leaving him without meaningful agency or procedural protection.

Evidence & Information

The evidentiary record in Case No. 658959 is defined by fragmentation, contradiction, and the absence of standard investigative follow‑through. The subject’s attempt to retrieve belongings and check on a neighbor produced a series of identity anomalies, including a woman claiming to be the neighbor despite bearing no resemblance to her, followed by the appearance of officers in camouflage whose authority, affiliation, and purpose were never documented. The subject was detained at a fenced lot prior to formal booking, creating an undocumented gap in the custodial timeline. During this encounter, he disclosed ongoing technological‑harassment experiences—such as V2K intrusions, threatening messages, and a prior emergency‑room visit where a physician claimed to detect a “microchip”—yet these statements were dismissed without inquiry, notation, or referral. No body‑worn camera footage, dispatch logs, or field reports have been produced to clarify the identities of the responding personnel or the basis for their intervention. Likewise, no investigative record exists regarding the identity discrepancy at the residence, the fenced‑lot detention, or the technological‑harassment disclosures. The absence of corroborating documentation, combined with the lack of responsive discovery, leaves the evidentiary landscape dominated by omissions rather than verifiable facts, allowing administrative interpretation to supersede empirical review.

Unexplained Chest X‑Ray & Infectious‑Disease Misclassification

Upon transfer from the King County Jail to Harborview Hospital on March 24, 2021, the first medical action taken was a chest X‑ray ordered without explanation or consent. No clinician informed the defendant of the purpose of the imaging, and no screening questions were asked prior to the procedure. Only after the X‑ray was completed did staff state that “they saw something on my lungs and thought it might be TB,” initiating an infectious‑disease protocol that was never documented in the jail release paperwork or the court record.

This suspicion of tuberculosis—raised abruptly and without clinical context—occurred during a period when King County was reporting high rates of TB complications, with 48% of TB cases requiring hospitalization and 10% co‑infected with COVID‑19 (as noted in the 2021 public‑health reports included in the case file). The hospital’s response appeared to mirror these institutional anxieties rather than the defendant’s actual presentation. After additional testing, clinicians concluded that TB was negative, yet no corrective documentation or explanation was provided.

Instead, the focus shifted to neurosyphilis, a diagnosis that resulted in a lower‑lumbar spinal tap and two weeks of intravenous antibiotic treatment, all administered without informed consent. As documented elsewhere in the case record, “no clinician explained the purpose of the injections, the rationale for his admission, or the nature of the procedures performed,” and treatment was imposed “under conditions of restraint and duress.” The spinal tap and IV regimen were never preceded by a voluntary agreement, nor was the defendant given an opportunity to review risks, alternatives, or the basis for the diagnosis.

The sequence—an unexplained chest X‑ray, a speculative TB concern, a pivot to neurosyphilis, and the initiation of invasive procedures without consent—reflects a broader pattern in this case: medical authority operating without legal oversight, and clinical decisions made in a vacuum of documentation, transparency, or patient autonomy. The absence of a court order authorizing the transfer, combined with the lack of informed consent for diagnostic and treatment interventions, underscores how infectious‑disease protocols were used as a gateway to coercive medical control, rather than as evidence‑based clinical care.

Contextual Origins

During the period in which Case No. 658959 unfolded, King County was experiencing a convergence of public‑health crises that strained both medical and judicial systems. Syphilis and neurosyphilis had surged to record levels between 2021 and 2024, with public‑health reports noting a growing reservoir of late‑stage and undiagnosed infections. This rise increased the likelihood of neurological complications and created a clinical environment where providers were instructed to maintain heightened vigilance for symptoms that could indicate advanced disease. At the same time, tuberculosis—after decades of national decline—began to resurface. Between 2022 and 2023, TB cases rose by more than 15% across the United States, a trend mirrored in King County, where clinicians were urged to monitor high‑risk populations closely, including individuals experiencing housing instability or recent incarceration.

These epidemiological pressures were compounded by post‑pandemic institutional vulnerabilities. Between 2021 and 2023, disruptions in healthcare access, staffing shortages, and medical supply chain failures created systemic delays in diagnosis and treatment. Hospitals and correctional facilities, already operating under strained conditions, faced increased difficulty managing infectious‑disease risks. Within this environment, individuals moving through the criminal‑legal system—particularly those without stable housing or consistent medical care—were disproportionately affected by delayed evaluations, inconsistent documentation, and fragmented inter‑agency communication. This broader context shaped the conditions under which the subject's arrest, competency referral, and subsequent involuntary hospitalization occurred, revealing how public‑health instability can amplify procedural failures within the judicial system.

Background Summary

Case No. 658959 originated in March 2021, set against a backdrop of pandemic-era institutional instability and systemic data insecurity. The incident began when the subject attempted to retrieve personal property and verify the welfare of a neighbor, only to be met with a series of immediate procedural anomalies—including an encounter with unidentified personnel in military camouflage and a non-standard detention at a fenced police lot. While the encounter was sparked by a reported no-contact order violation, the ensuing 22-day involuntary hospitalization suggests a shift from criminal-legal processing to medicalized coercion. This case serves as a primary example of 'administrative momentum,' where unverified allegations and institutional stress combined to bypass standard evidentiary review in favor of a restrictive, undocumented clinical intervention.

Procedural Collapse

The procedural breakdown in Case No. 658959 unfolded across multiple stages, beginning with arrest irregularities that included the presence of an unidentified individual in military camouflage and officers whose identities did not match those listed in the police report. The defendant was transported to a fenced police vehicle lot prior to booking, where he was held for approximately an hour without explanation, creating an undocumented gap in the custodial timeline. Once court proceedings began, competency was invoked as a procedural bypass: a stand‑in public defender raised competency concerns instead of investigating the underlying facts, the March 22 hearing was cancelled, and a new hearing on March 24 proceeded without the defendant’s presence. Competency thus became a substitute for evidentiary review. Upon dismissal of the charges that same day, the defendant was subjected to an undocumented medical transfer—“No such order was documented in my release paperwork… I was officially released… but was not permitted to leave”—and was taken directly to Harborview Hospital. There, he experienced forced medication and public restraint, including injections of unknown substances, physical restraint while being rolled through the emergency department, and the administration of Haloperidol, Risperdal, and additional injections that triggered a severe dystonic reaction. Throughout this period, informed consent was entirely absent: no medical screening was performed, no explanation of medications was provided, and no voluntary agreement to treatment was sought. Despite Apple Health recommending release on April 5, the defendant remained detained until April 15, extending the involuntary confinement beyond medical justification. Collectively, these failures illustrate a systemic collapse in which administrative processes continued to operate even as the legal and medical foundations required to justify them were missing.

Violations

Case No. 658959 demonstrates a pattern of constitutional and procedural violations rooted in selective enforcement, evidentiary omission, and the systemic reframing of the subject’s safety concerns. The failure to document or investigate counter‑claims, combined with the reliance on unverified allegations, produced an environment where equal protection was compromised and due process was subordinated to administrative convenience. As in other pandemic‑era cases, the subject’s attempts to report threats, harassment, or contextual factors were dismissed or redirected into competency‑based narratives, effectively erasing critical information from the record. This convergence of non‑documentation, investigative refusal, and procedural inconsistency resulted in a deprivation of liberty and legal standing without the evidentiary foundation required by constitutional standards.

Systemic Vulnerabilities

The procedural handling of this case reveals a "mental health and competency bias" that often sidelines substantive claims of technological surveillance. By repeatedly questioning the defendant's mental competency without investigating the underlying evidence of stalking or hardware misuse, the system effectively delegitimized the victim's narrative. Furthermore, the case demonstrates the "low threshold" for issuing protective orders, which allowed an alleged abuser to weaponize the legal system to trigger an eviction and arrest while the defendant’s own reports of abuse remained undocumented. This fragmentation between law enforcement, legal representation, and mental health evaluations created a vacuum where procedural justice was unattainable.

Proposed Reforms

The events of Case No. 658959 reveal a profound breakdown in the coordination between the judiciary, law enforcement, and healthcare systems. The lack of transparency in medical transfers, the reliance on redacted evaluations, and the absence of informed consent protocols suggest that the system functioned as a mechanism of coercion rather than protection. This case underscores an urgent need for mandatory documentation and clearer judicial standards to ensure that defendants are not relegated to a state of permanent legal and medical limbo.

I. Authorization for Medical Transfers:

Require documented judicial authorization for medical transfers. No individual should be transferred to a hospital without a written, reviewable order.

II. Independent Reviews:

Independent forensic review of technological‑harassment claims. Claims should not be dismissed as psychiatric without investigation.

III. Enforce informed‑consent standards:

Forced medication must meet strict legal thresholds.

IV. Prevent competency from replacing investigation:

Competency should not be used to avoid evidentiary review.

V. Cross‑agency documentation systems:

To prevent erasure, miscommunication, and unreviewable transfers.

VI. Oversight of psychiatric confinement:

Especially when triggered by criminal‑legal processes.

Technological Torture

Central to the record are documented reports of "voice-to-skull" (V2K) harassment and psycho-electromagnetic weaponry. These experiences involve a persistent auditory barrage, remote signaling, and sensations of thoughts being read aloud. The report links these occurrences to a "CSC data breach" and broader systemic failures in data security. Despite the presentation of physical symptoms such as sharp pains and heart rate fluctuations, these claims were treated as purely symptomatic of a mental health condition rather than being subjected to a formal forensic inquiry.

REPOSITORY

Case Documents

Related Media

Seattle Police Officer Alexandra 'Lexi' Harris (2021) Carter, M., & Green, S. (2021, June 13). "Seattle Police Remember Officer Alexandra ‘Lexi’ Harris, Killed in Overnight Crash on I-5". The Seattle Times. Link: Read at The Seattle Times

Tuberculosis Outbreak in Washington State Prisons (2023) Stalter, R. M., Pecha, M., Dov, L., et al. (2023). "Tuberculosis Outbreak in a State Prison System — Washington, 2021–2022". MMWR. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. Link: Read at CDC.gov

Tuberculosis in Seattle & King County Annual Report (2021) Public Health — Seattle & King County. (2021). "Tuberculosis in Seattle & King County: 2021 Annual Report". Link: Download Report (PDF)

HHS Civil Rights Investigations (Current) U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office for Civil Rights. (n.d.). Cases Currently Under Investigation. Link: View OCR Breach Portal

T-Mobile Sued Over 2021 Data Breach (2024/2025) Bloomberg Law. (2024, May 14). "T-Mobile Sued by Washington State Over 2021 Data Breach". Bloomberg Law News. Link: Read at Bloomberg Law

SAO Third-Party Data Breach FAQ (2021) Washington State Auditor’s Office. (2021, February 1). Frequently Asked Questions Regarding a Data Breach at SAO’s Third-party Service Provider. Link: View at SAO.wa.gov

1.6 Million Washingtonians Unemployment Breach (2021) KIRO 7 News. (2021, February 1). "Completely Unacceptable: Data Breach Compromised Info of 1.6 million Washingtonians Who Sought Unemployment". KIRO 7 News Seattle. Link: Read at KIRO 7

J&J Risperdal Settlement (2021) Reuters. (2021, October 30). "J&J Settles Most Risperdal lawsuits, with $800 Million in Expenses". Reuters Business. Link: Read at Reuters

Classification

Case 658959 Systemic Classifications Taxonomy Framework

Contacts

☎︎ Dexter Horton Building

710 Second Ave Suite 1000 Seattle, WA 98104 (206) 477-5814 (office)

☎︎ Elizabeth Mustin, Attorney

emustin@kingcounty.gov

(206) 623-2056 (office)

☎︎ Kris Shaw, Legal Staff

kris.shaw@kingcounty.gov

(206) 305-1977 (cell)

☎︎ Harborview Hospital

325 9th Ave Main Hospital, Seattle, WA

(206) 744-3000 (main)

☎︎ Molly McNamera, Hospital Staff

Harborview Hospital LICSW (Unit 5WA)

mollymcn@uw.edu (206) 744-6631 (office)

Timeline

Case Timeline: March – June 2021

March 10, 2021 | Initial Arrest

Shane Lozenich was detained for an alleged violation of a no-contact order and theft. The incident involved procedural anomalies, including detention at an unexplained fenced facility prior to being booked at the county jail.

March 11, 2021 | Arraignment

An initial hearing was held while the defendant was in custody.

March 22, 2021 | Competency Evaluation

A scheduled hearing regarding competency was ultimately cancelled.

March 24, 2021 | Dismissal and Referral

The court dismissed all charges without prejudice citing incompetency. Simultaneously, the court issued a referral for an involuntary psychiatric evaluation.

March 24 – April 15, 2021 | Involuntary Psychiatric Hold

Lozenich was held at Harborview Hospital for the duration of the evaluation period.

April 12, 2021 | Motion to Modify

A legal motion was filed to modify or rescind the standing no-contact order.

May 15, 2021 | Subsequent Arrest

A second arrest occurred, associated with an alleged violation of a court order.

June 26, 2021 | Case Closure

The case status was officially marked as closed.

Page updated

Google Sites

Report abuse