RESPONSE TO SNOHOMISH COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE (SCSO) PUBLIC STATEMENT ON THE CASE OF JONATHAN HOANG

Issued: April 21, 2025

We are deeply thankful to the public for continuing to share Jonathan Hoang’s story and for demanding the accountability he deserves. Jonathan is a 21-year-old autistic adult with complex medical needs who disappeared on March 30, 2025 in Arlington, Washington. This response is offered to address several misleading claims, critical omissions, and factual inaccuracies contained in the Snohomish County Sheriff’s Office (SCSO) press release and FAQ dated April 18, 2025.

1. Initial Reporting, Response Failures & MCU Delay

SCSO Claim:
The Major Crimes Unit (MCU) took over the case on April 4, and search efforts began immediately.

Clarification:
This timeline confirms a five-day delay in initiating a criminal investigation. Given Jonathan’s status as a vulnerable adult with cognitive disabilities, the decision to delay MCU involvement was unacceptable.

Crucial information was available immediately:

  • Jonathan’s shoes, preferred jacket, phone, and other personal effects were left behind.

  • He had never left home without these items before, even for short walks.

  • Temperatures were cold, making his lack of clothing even more concerning.

  • There were clear signs of digital and behavioral anomalies, as relayed by the family.

It is vital to understand that Jonathan, as an adult with autism — someone with rigid routines and sensory needs, — did not have a tendancy to deviate from established behaviors. Leaving behind key items is not typical behavior for Jonathan and should have been treated as a serious red flag indicating potential danger or foul play from the start.

Despite these urgent indicators, SCSO conducted no apparent investigation in the early days aside from fielding 911 calls. There was no proactive outreach from investigators to family, school, or the community. A school resource officer — not an investigator — was deputized to communicate with school staff.

The MCU has not maintained open communication with the family; communication has been initiated by the family, not the lead detective.

This lack of urgency directly undermined the investigation. Early surveillance, canvassing, interviews, and digital forensics could have yielded far more insight if MCU had responded immediately on March 31. Instead, search and rescue was prioritized, without parallel criminal investigative support, wasting precious time in the critical early window.

2. EMPA Issuance Delay & NCIC Entry

SCSO Claim:
The Endangered Missing Person Alert (EMPA) was delayed until April 4 due to system limitations and a review process.

Clarification:
This is an egregious misrepresentation of the EMPA system and while these actions were eventually completed, they were not immediate, and the delay hindered both public awareness and interagency collaboration in the crucial early window. Jonathan met criteria for EMPA activation from the outset due to:

  • His diagnosis of autism

  • His complex medical needs

  • His abrupt and uncharacteristic disappearance

The EMPA process includes NCIC entry, WSP (Washington State Patrol) coordination, and statewide alerts. SCSO has never confirmed if Jonathan was entered into NCIC prior to the EMPA being issued, despite repeated inquiries.

The EMPA was only issued after external pressure from the family and advocates who:

  • Contacted WSP directly

  • Coordinated mass outreach to local and state officials

  • Persistently followed up with SCSO by phone and email

The EMPA system did not delay this alert — SCSO’s inaction did.

Additionally, SCSO continued to assert there was “no evidence of a crime” and “no time or manpower to investigate” — a pattern of dismissiveness that delayed appropriate escalations because ultimately the case was transferred to Major Crimes Unit due to the circumstances of this case. Instead of recognizing the indicators of danger early, the case was downplayed, and crucial tools — like public alerts and database entries — were not immediately activated.

3. Surveillance Failures

SCSO Claim:
Surveillance footage was reviewed as part of early efforts.

Clarification:
This is categorically false.

When the case was transferred to the MCU, no surveillance was proactively obtained or reviewed. The burden of canvassing local businesses and collecting footage was placed on the family. Surveillance videos that might have captured movement or known persons of interest were collected by the family and advocates, not law enforcement.

Additionally, daily information provided by the private investigator has not been processed effectively. Despite the family and PI’s diligent efforts to provide valuable information, much of it has been dismissed as non-evidentiary or irrelevant with no investigation to substantiate this claim. There was no effort to connect the information to Jonathan’s case, leaving crucial leads unexplored.

4. Digital Forensics

SCSO Claim:
Jonathan’s phone and computer were analyzed but yielded no useful leads.

Clarification:
This assertion has been inconsistent and unverified. Initially, the family was told Apple denied access to data. In response, advocates worked intensively to appeal that decision. Later, the narrative shifted — multiple times — raising doubts about whether proper digital forensic protocols were ever followed.

No report has been shared confirming:

  • Whether iCloud or social media data was accessed

  • If metadata or deleted files were recovered

  • If forensic professionals were consulted

In a digital age, failure to promptly pursue and transparently report digital leads in a missing person case involving a vulnerable adult is a major concern.

5. Communication With the Family

SCSO Claim:
The family has been in daily contact with the Sheriff’s Office.

Clarification:
This is unequivocally false.

The family experienced repeated delays in communication. Many updates came only after media attention or public pressure, not through any proactive communication from law enforcement.

As advocates for the family, we began contacting SCSO starting April 2 via email and phone. On the initial call, the administrator who answered refused to provide contact details for the detective handling the case and gave an erroneous email address. Since then:

  • A formal complaint was submitted to the Office of Professional Accountability within SCSO

  • Direct outreach was made to the Office of Professional Accountability Lieutenant

  • Additional efforts were made to contact the officer assigned to handle complaints

  • We initiated contact early in the case through multiple emails and phone calls that were left unanswered.. These outreach efforts occurred well before any public requests were made for additional community support, underscoring that early communication challenges were not due to high call volume.

To date, not one of these contacts has responded.
Only one individual — from the Search and Rescue team — has communicated with us but unfortunately was unable to assist due to the case being handed over to MCU. This was escalated through the proper channels with absolutely no response.

Furthermore, SCSO claims of frequent communication with the family are erroneous. Most of the contact has been to repeatedly assert: "no evidence of a crime" and "no time or manpower to investigate". This approach did not contribute to the investigation's progression but instead downplayed the urgency of Jonathan’s disappearance.

With that, on April 15, we received a text from the detective saying he would contact an external point of contact that the family requested be given approval to proceed. This was not a proactive gesture — it was a delayed reaction to days of silence after the family asked about whether outside help would be permitted. It is false and misleading to present this as a willing collaboration by SCSO.

6. Foul Play Dismissal

SCSO Claim:
There is no evidence of foul play.

Clarification:
This conclusion was reached prematurely, without adequate investigation. No evidence of foul play cannot mean no possibility of foul play — especially when no comprehensive interviews, forensic analysis, or surveillance review had been done during the first week.

We are actively working to ensure all persons of interest are appropriately examined, and to question how and why certain individuals were cleared so quickly, without documentation or transparency.

In addition, the information and updates regularly provided by the PI were not consistently incorporated into the investigative efforts. At times, this information was dismissed as unrelated to Jonathan’s case, which may have contributed to missed opportunities to pursue potentially valuable leads.

7. iPad Tracking

SCSO Claim:
The iPad could not be tracked due to lack of cellular data.

Clarification:
While technically accurate, the response is incomplete. Even without cellular data, iPads can ping Wi-Fi networks. Logs of connected routers, MAC addresses, and geolocation history can often be accessed or cross-referenced by Apple or internet service providers.

There’s no evidence this was pursued or shared. No forensic report has been provided, and no clear explanation has been given as to what steps were taken.

8. Public Engagement

SCSO Claim:
The public has been encouraged to help.

Clarification:
The community rallied — not because of law enforcement guidance, but because of the family’s and public’s persistence. Volunteers handled much of the outreach, search coordination, and flyer distribution.

The Sheriff's Office failed to support or organize these efforts effectively, often issuing incomplete or delayed statements that minimized urgency and created confusion.

Additionally, some public statements released by SCSO included inaccuracies and mischaracterizations of Jonathan which were harmful to the representation of who Jonathan is and his ability to be independent.

For example, they implied he was independently using public transportation and actively applying for jobs — both of which were false. These portrayals paint a misleading picture of his level of independence and daily functioning.

Statements claiming he was barefoot when there was no evidence to support that assertion. In fact, the family had previously shared with investigators that a pair of his mother’s shoes had gone missing from by the unlocked deck door — a detail that was ignored in favor of speculation until much later.

9. Outside Agency Assistance

SCSO Claim:
No other agency offering help has been turned away.

Clarification:
This is misleading. Multiple agencies did not feel empowered to intervene early due to SCSO’s jurisdictional hold on the case. The family and advocates had to independently initiate contact with the FBI and local legislators to move the case forward. Early, open collaboration would have prevented this delay and brought in much-needed resources.

Conclusion

Jonathan Hoang is a vulnerable young man whose disappearance demands a serious, coordinated, and transparent investigation. What he and his family received instead was a fragmented response plagued by:

  • Delays in recognizing the urgency of his disappearance

  • Failure to activate appropriate alerts

  • Lack of proper surveillance and digital forensics

  • Minimal communication

  • Resistance to external assistance

Furthermore, the Snohomish County Sheriff's Office did not understand Jonathan’s medical state or make any efforts to investigate or establish his pattern of life. His vulnerable and developmental state, as attested by school and medical records, teachers, parents, family, and neighbors, was not given the appropriate consideration. Instead, the department’s initial refusal and delay to accept help has only served to cost precious time and energy that should have been directed toward investigating his disappearance.

These systemic failures have not only harmed Jonathan’s case but serve as a stark warning for how future missing person cases involving disabled individuals may be mishandled without immediate reform.

We call on local, state, and federal oversight bodies to investigate SCSO’s conduct and ensure full accountability.

These concerns reflect firsthand experiences and are shared in pursuit of transparency, justice, and public safety. We stand by the accuracy of these statements, which reflects both our direct experience and information provided by Jonathan’s family — all of which has been documented and shared with law enforcement and outside agencies. Our sole goal is to support a full, fair investigation and help bring Jonathan home. We remain committed to transparency and accountability, and welcome both from everyone involved.