The harbormaster’s boat approached silently and pulled up alongside the young woman’s sailboat anchored in Richardson Bay. She wasn’t expecting him, and he deliberately didn’t announce himself.
Sneaking up on a woman alone, especially one isolated from other people during a worldwide pandemic, seems fraught with risk. Other dynamics also came into play on that sunny morning almost five years ago, all building to an unfortunate crescendo.
Kimberly Slater is currently on trial for three felony charges as a result of the July 7, 2020 incident with Curtis Havel, then-harbormaster of the Richardson Bay Regional Agency (RBRA).
The Marin County District Attorney’s Office seems to have thrown the proverbial book at Slater for allegedly pepper-spraying Havel. Count 1—obstruct/resist an executive officer. Count 2—assault with force likely to produce great bodily injury. Count 3—assault throwing acid/etc.
I spent three days last week in Marin County Superior Court Judge Kevin Murphy’s courtroom watching jury selection in Slater’s trial, listening to opening arguments from the prosecutor and defense attorney, viewing videos and hearing the testimony of the first three prosecution witnesses, including Havel’s.
Although simply a spectator, I have found the entire process riveting. During voir dire, the process where the judge and attorneys question potential jurors to determine whether they could be fair and impartial, a fascinating cross-section of Marinites discussed their backgrounds and biases. Many topics were addressed, including the weighty responsibility of jury service.
A man who had strong feelings about physical violence didn’t seem comforted when Murphy advised that a self-defense theory might involve a level of violence.
“Some people feel violence is OK in certain circumstances,” the potential juror said. “I’m not sure I do.”
One by one, the citizens answered questions, and several asked a few of their own. From where I sat, they appeared serious, thoughtful and honest.
The judge excused a man who claimed to be a former Black Ops agent and a woman who admitted bias toward law enforcement because her son is a police officer. Others were let go to keep a doctor’s appointment, attend a work meeting, care for a spouse and grieve the recent loss of a family member.
Next up, prosecutor Matthew Jacobs and defense attorney Charles Dresow exercised peremptory challenges—excusing potential jurors without explanation. Jacobs ousted a woman who had expressed concern about someone receiving punishment because of her decision. Dresow also released a woman from service, although I don’t have an inkling about the reason.
The man with strong feelings about violence passed muster and took his seat in the jury box. Ditto for a young woman who had bought and tested pepper spray. It took about a day and half to approve a jury of three women and nine men. Two alternates, a man and woman, were also selected.
Jacobs then made his opening statement. He identified Havel as an executive officer who was directed by a legitimate agency. Slater resisted him by force or fear, using an entire can of bear spray.
In Dresow’s opening, he asserted that the video evidence is very different from what Jacobs described. He maintained Havel was not an executive officer, and his lack of training put him on a collision course with Slater.
The prosecutor called his first witness, and the evidentiary portion of The People versus Kimberly Slater began.
Frankly, I’m now baffled by the charges. Video evidence and Havel’s testimony demonstrated that he went to Slater’s boat intending to avoid detection, with the goal of tossing important information from the RBRA into her cockpit.
But how could Slater have known Havel’s plan? When he stepped across his boat and leaned forward, just inches from her boat, without saying a word, did this appear to be a goodwill gesture?
And Havel and Slater had history. Although never elaborated upon, the attorneys, judge and Havel spoke of a previous unpleasant interaction between the two.
Not to mention that the RBRA, a coalition of local municipalities, developed a “transition plan” to clear all vessels from the bay, with Havel brought in as the enforcer. In fact, the paperwork he delivered contained info on the topic.
From the video, a reasonable person could believe that in a single stride, he would be boarding Slater’s sailboat. At precisely that moment, a spraying sound is heard. Slater cursed; Havel said his eyes hurt.
Full disclosure: I know Havel and Slater through years of reporting on the “anchor-outs,” a community of mariners living aboard vessels on Richardson Bay, just off the Sausalito coastline. I also have interviewed Slater’s defense attorney, Charles Dresow, about other cases.
Slater, 34, has lived aboard her boat in Richardson Bay since 2013. A San Francisco State University student at the time, her home offered solitude as she worked toward a music degree.
Havel, 54, served as the RBRA harbormaster from 2019 to 2021. Prior to joining the RBRA, he spent about 19 years as a county planner, reviewing plans for homes.
The extent of his RBRA training, according to his testimony, included one week of overlap with the former harbormaster—who had never been tasked with enforcing a plan to clear the bay of boats.
It seems the RBRA threw Havel into a mess. About 190 boats were on Richardson Bay when he took over, he said. A policy limiting boats to 72 hours on the anchorage had not been consistently enforced—if at all.
Tensions were often high when mariners caught sight of the new harbormaster in his patrol boat. Havel’s duties included citing, seizing and destroying boats.
On July 7, 2020, just before 11am, Havel was bringing information about the transition plan to Slater. Based on his trial testimony, Marin County Sheriff’s deputies had accompanied him on previous days to deliver the information packets to other mariners.
Havel claimed the deputies were unavailable that morning; however, he proceeded to Slater’s live-aboard, anchored hundreds of yards away from the closest neighbor. The decision seemed imprudent.
Furthermore, the next trial witness, Roy Olson, a deputy on marine patrol at the time, could not confirm that Havel asked for assistance before heading out that day. He said the deputies tried to accompany the harbormaster when they received a request.
A video entered into evidence shows Slater’s skiff, a small boat used to travel back and forth to shore, tied to her boat when Havel arrived. Experienced mariners know it as a sign that someone is likely aboard the main vessel.
While Havel said he didn’t know whether Slater was home, his goal was to deliver the papers without any contact. Obviously, his plan went awry.
Comparing the effects of the pepper spray to the “worst sunburn,” Havel declined medical treatment and chose to drive himself home—approximately 20 miles—to rinse off using water and baby shampoo.
“It hurt a lot, like when you get jalapeno pepper on your finger and touch your eye,” Havel said. “On my skin, a slow burn lasted 12 to 16 hours.”
Upon questioning by the prosecutor, the former harbormaster used stronger language, saying he’d never been assaulted like that before, and he was in shock.
Even the judge jumped in.
“Was this a significant injury to you?” Murphy asked.
“Yes,” Havel replied.
I’m not downplaying Havel’s temporary discomfort and pain. Still, it seemed that he was coaxed from his initial description of the “worst sunburn” to calling it an assault causing “significant injury.” Fortunately, he was clad in sunglasses, a baseball cap, long sleeves, a vest and long pants.
For the record, the deputy testified that Slater used bear spray, which contains a higher concentration of oleoresin capsicum (OC), the active ingredient in pepper spray and bear spray. OC actually comes from pepper plants; hence the name.
Yet when is spraying OC considered akin to “throwing acid?” That charge has not yet been explained.
It’s clear from Dresow’s opening statement that Slater will claim self-defense when he presents her case. The videos entered into evidence have swayed me already.
The jurors, well, they have pretty good poker faces.
Trial testimony continues on Wednesday, March 26. Stay tuned.
Where ARE the “reasonable” people?
This seems like a waste of time and money and resources, all the way around, and really, seems like she should be suing him as an unannounced assailant