City will not pursue revocation in Dan Ivanov case; monitoring to continue until July 31

The city declined to pursue revocation of Dan Ivanov’s supervision at a May 28 revocation hearing after prosecutors said new evidence raised questions about whether Ivanov was the driver in a separate incident.

Carmen McDonald, prosecutor for the city, told the court, "the city is not going to be moving forward with a revocation based upon these new charges because I think there is enough question as to whether or not, he was the driver of the vehicle." The judge acknowledged the city’s position and left the case open for continued monitoring.

The decision followed review of materials submitted by both sides, including a defense declaration and body-worn camera footage. McDonald said she had also discussed the matter with the Kirkland prosecutor and that the Kirkland case had been dismissed "without prejudice." Scott Lawrence, defense attorney for Ivanov, told the court he had submitted declaration and body-worn-camera evidence for review.

Court staff confirmed Ivanov has completed the court-ordered evaluations, victims panel and community service. "0 balance. Nothing. Nothing there," the clerk reported when the judge asked about financial obligations. A court statement said Ivanov is on court-monitored supervision, not active supervision, and has satisfied affirmative conditions to date.

There was some discrepancy about the end date for court jurisdiction: one calculation referenced in the hearing was "July eighth of 2025 plus 23 days," while the docket indicated July 31, 2025, as the end date. The judge ordered the case to remain open for monitoring until July 31, 2025; if no further violations are noted by that date, the case will close.

During the hearing the judge also and asked Ivanov about his health. Ivanov said, "Not quite. I think my, speech is not at the level that I used to have, so I have to sort of concentrate of, what I'm saying to make it more or less coherent." The judge and counsel briefly exchanged personal remarks before and after the hearing concluded.

The court recorded no formal motion or vote; the outcome was a prosecutorial decision not to seek revocation at this time and continued monitoring of the case until the stated jurisdiction end date.

The hearing concluded and the judge noted the court would keep the matter open until the listed date to allow for any additional developments.