Threshold & Readiness hearings

Court hearing held on October 22, 2025, presided over by a judge. The hearing was a threshold hearing for a motion to dismiss filed by Ms. Finnegan under court rule 3.6. The judge explained that the purpose of the hearing was to determine if the motion had enough merit to proceed to a full hearing. The city did not file a written response to the motion and deferred to the judge's ruling.

The judge reviewed the points raised in Ms. Finnegan's motion, including issues related to the statute of limitations, subject matter jurisdiction, governmental misconduct, and procedural errors. The judge found that the statute of limitations was not an issue, as the case was filed within the required timeframe. The judge also ruled that the court had proper subject matter jurisdiction and that the allegations of governmental misconduct were conclusory and lacked sufficient evidence.

Ms. Finnegan raised objections and concerns about her arrest, detention, and the handling of her case, including claims of not being brought before a magistrate, lack of paperwork, and issues with public records requests. The judge addressed these concerns by referring to court records and previous rulings, noting that probable cause was found on June 17, 2015, and a warrant was issued.

Ultimately, the judge denied Ms. Finnegan's motion to dismiss at the threshold level, stating that it did not have a legal basis to proceed to a full hearing. The judge set a readiness hearing for November 5, 2025, and a trial date for November 20, 2025, within the speedy trial deadline of December 9, 2025. Ms. Finnegan was advised to appear in person for the readiness hearing and was offered the assistance of standby counsel, which she tentatively accepted. The court also discussed communication issues and confirmed Ms. Finnegan's email address for future correspondence.