A federal probation report filed in U.S. District Court in Tacoma alleges that the former Clallam County Drug Court coordinator, currently facing a federal drug charge, provided samples testing positive for methamphetamine and fentanyl while out on pretrial release.
The document, submitted by the U.S. Probation and Pretrial Services Office, details alleged breaches of release conditions that prohibit the use, consumption, or possession of controlled substances.
Chief U.S. Magistrate Judge Theresa L. Fricke endorsed the probation officer's actions by signing the report on Tuesday. The section of the filing reserved for authorizing a summons, an arrest warrant, or other judicial relief remained unmarked.
The 50-year-old defendant is charged with possession of a controlled substance with intent to distribute. He has entered a plea of not guilty.
The federal case stems from a two-day operation conducted in March by the Olympic Peninsula Narcotics Enforcement Team, which began near Port Angeles and concluded at the 7 Cedars Casino near Sequim.
Details Regarding the Alleged Violations
According to the filing, the first alleged violation occurred in June, shortly after the defendant was released from custody.
Pretrial services records indicate that while being escorted from the U.S. Marshals to the pretrial office for intake processing, a urine sample was collected. The sample initially tested presumptively positive for amphetamines and was subsequently confirmed positive for methamphetamine by a national laboratory.
The report states that when confronted with the results, the defendant admitted to using methamphetamine a few days prior.
The document further outlines two instances in June where samples tested presumptively positive for fentanyl. During the first incident, a probation officer visited the defendant's residence, where he provided an unobserved urinalysis. The report states he initially denied using fentanyl.
In the second instance, the defendant reported to the pretrial office and submitted another sample that also returned presumptively positive. The report states he attributed this result to sexual relations with his girlfriend.
Both samples were sent to a national laboratory and confirmed positive for fentanyl and norfentanyl, a metabolite produced by the body after fentanyl enters the system.
When the confirmed results were discussed with him, the report states, Watts acknowledged he has been struggling with drug use and should not be associating with negative peers.
He agreed to attend appointments for both substance use disorder and mental health evaluations and to comply with all recommended treatment. The officer noted that Watts reported attending sober support groups frequently.
The officer recommended continued supervision with a referral for substance use disorder and mental health assessments, and asked the court to endorse the actions already taken rather than impose new sanctions.
The report states that the assistant U.S. attorney and defense counsel John Black were consulted and concurred.
Watts's conditions of release, reprinted in the filing, include drug and alcohol testing, a mental health evaluation, surrender of passports, an employment requirement, and no contact with co-defendants or witnesses in the case.
Trial Date in Question
Two other documents landed on the docket the same day. Port Angeles attorney John D. Black filed an unopposed motion asking U.S. District Judge Tiffany M. Cartwright to move the trial from August 17, 2026, to a date up to and including February 28, 2027.
Watts separately executed a written waiver of his rights to a speedy trial under both the Sixth Amendment and the Speedy Trial Act, affirming he received counsel's advice and acted knowingly and voluntarily. The documents were dated August 2 and filed August 4.
The waiver acknowledges that should the court accept it, the intervening period will be excluded from the speedy trial calculation.
The request mirrors one filed a week earlier by co-defendant Jonathan E. Karns, whose attorney sought the same window. As of Tuesday, the court had not ruled on either motion.
The pretrial services report is an allegation of noncompliance with conditions of release and is not a criminal conviction. No hearing on the violations has been set.