university of washington is at a new inflection point in the aftermath of last year’s Interdisciplinary Engineering Building (IEB) occupation, after the King County Prosecutor’s Office charged 33 people with criminal trespass tied to the takeover.
What happens when prosecutors file trespass charges but stop short of vandalism allegations at the University Of Washington?
The King County Prosecutor’s Office filed charges against 33 people for criminal trespass related to the occupation of the Interdisciplinary Engineering Building at the University of Washington. The filings came on a Tuesday, more than 300 days after the incident in May 2025.
Prosecutors said they believe they can prove each defendant either entered or knowingly remained in the building unlawfully. James Daniels, Chief of the King County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office District Court Unit, said prosecutors have body camera footage from officers at the scene, officer observations placing individuals inside the building, and evidence that people were given opportunities to leave but did not.
At the same time, prosecutors declined to pursue felony charges tied to alleged vandalism or destruction inside the building. Susan Harrison, who chairs the office’s Economic Crimes Unit, said the available evidence did not allow prosecutors to prove for each individual defendant that they either entered or remained unlawfully with intent to commit a crime against a person or property, or that they personally caused the physical damage. Dan Clark, the Chief Deputy of the Criminal Division, said that without evidence establishing those elements, prosecutors could not make a filing decision for those allegations.
Prosecutors also pointed to the lack of security cameras inside the IEB as a key issue affecting what they could charge and prove.
What if the evidence gap shapes outcomes for the 33 defendants and the wider campus community?
The 33 people charged face gross misdemeanor allegations tied to criminal trespass. Charging documents state they were arrested inside the building after officers physically removed them. It was not immediately clear how many were or are active University of Washington students.
Prosecutors described the case as one where the admissible evidence supports trespass allegations, but does not establish who caused property damage. Casey McNerthney, a spokesperson for the King County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office, said that trespassing in a building is not enough on its own to support felony liability, and that additional elements are required that prosecutors cannot show with the admissible evidence available. McNerthney said that if prosecutors could show exactly who caused the damage, the matter would move toward a felony case.
The occupation itself lasted several hours. The university had accused the group that called itself “Super UW” of breaking into the IEB, spray-painting inside, and damaging new equipment. Separately, prosecutors noted that authorities said the group caused about $1 million in damage, while emphasizing they cannot determine who caused the damage for charging purposes.
Arraignments are scheduled for March 25.
The list of individuals named in charging documents includes: Tayler Hart; Max Rulff; Zachary Wallaced-Wells; Jade Wu; Jessica Schutz; Luisa Ortega Subdiaz; Ginger Newberry; Kimaya Mahajan; Gina Liu; Lea Keating; Akira Junyaprusert; Anna Hattle; Julia Fraczek; Cade Jackson; Jonas Piper; Ty Park; Lucy Zern; Tasbeet Iman; Ricardo Colon-Galvez; Roberta Collison; Ella Tunduwani; Zainab Chattha; Riley Centerwall; Catherine Brown; Brett Anton; Claire Berger; Yasmin Ahmed; Yafate Yared; Geneveve Konijisky; Finn Brown; Bailey Keen; Lucas Nichols-Mcauslan; Sam Sueoka.
What happens when protest demands collide with long-running institutional ties?
Super UW publicly claimed responsibility for the takeover and set out demands related to the university’s ties to Boeing. The group called for the university to stop receiving funding or donations from Boeing, to return existing donations and financial investments, and to eliminate other material ties. It also called for prohibiting Boeing executives and employees from teaching classes or having influence over curriculum.
Boeing is described as one of the premier airplane manufacturers in the world and one of the largest defense companies in the United States. The University of Washington has previously stated that its relationship with Boeing dates back more than a century.
In internal communications referenced in the case file, Lt. Anthony Stewart of the UW Police Department wrote to a prosecutor and university officials outlining a theory that two distinct groups may have been involved: one that carried out property destruction and exited, and a second group that occupied the building. Stewart wrote that the second group appeared to have been selected based on affiliation with the school, such as students or staff, and hypothesized that institutional ties were leveraged to reduce the likelihood of an aggressive police response and to prompt a prolonged occupation.
For university of washington, the immediate next phase centers on how the trespass cases proceed, how the evidentiary limits shape accountability for alleged damage, and how campus decision-makers manage ongoing pressure around institutional relationships and protest activity as arraignments approach.
