Following a four-day trial last week, a man who threatened to give out the address of Oak Harbor’s female city attorney to rapists was found guilty of two counts of intimidating a public servant and one count of telephone harassment.

The Island County Superior Court jury also found Jeremy Dawley, 36, not guilty of a third count of intimidating a public servant.

Sentencing will likely be held Jan. 3. Dawley faces up to a year in jail.

Island County Chief Criminal Prosecuting Attorney Eric Ohme said the evidence and testimony at trial showed that Dawley’s behavior escalated over time. Initially, Dawley was preoccupied with traffic complaints; he made 144 calls to the emergency dispatch center in a three-week period, Ohme said.

The police and public works departments responded to Dawley’s concerns, but he persisted in his complaints.

After Dawley left a message with Oak Harbor Police Chief Kevin Dresker in early January, the chief and Officer Lisa Powers-Rang called Dawley back and put him on speaker phone.

Dawley told them he could do a records request and get the home addresses of the chief, mayor and police chief.

Dawley said he would give out the Oak Harbor city attorney’s personal information to rapists and violent offenders; he threatened to give the chief’s personal information to jaywalkers, the report states.

During the rambling conversation, Dawley told the officers that he has a sniper rifle; he also said he knows how to deal with motion sensor lights and would be able to cover them and enter through a window.

On Jan. 10, Dawley went to the police station and filled out a public records request form. He wrote that he wished to review records of violent offenders, including those who committed sexual assaults. Dawley walked across the street to City Hall and went into the legal department, where staff members hit the panic alarm.

A detective arrived and arrested Dawley.

Dawley also went to public works and spoke to an engineer about parking signs. The engineer testified that he felt intimidated by Dawley’s behavior; the jury, however, disagreed that Dawley’s actions were criminal.

Dawley’s attorney argued that his client was only speaking hypothetically and that his complaints were protected by the First Amendment.