Colorado Department of Corrections officials forced inmates to work prison jobs through coercion that ultimately amounted to involuntary servitude, a Denver judge ruled Friday.
The state’s prisons unconstitutionally coerced labor by levying severe punishments — including solitary confinement — against prisoners who refused to work, Denver District Court Judge Sarah Wallace found in the 61-page ruling.
“By creating a framework where failure to work triggers a sequence of restrictions that culminate in a more restrictive ‘custody level’ and physical isolation, CDOC has established a system of compulsion that overrides the voluntariness of the (prisoners’) labor,” Wallace wrote.
The ruling comes out of a 2022 lawsuit in which state prisoners claimed the Department of Corrections’ approach to prison labor amounted to involuntary servitude or slavery, which Colorado voters outlawed in 2018 via Amendment A.
Prisoners in Colorado are expected to work prison jobs, which include food preparation, janitorial services and other positions within their facilities. They are paid well below minimum wage for the work. They can choose not to work, but doing so is a disciplinary infraction for which prisoners are punished, according to court filings.
State attorneys argued during the October trial that prisoners’ labor was voluntary, and that punishments for failing to work, while “uncomfortable,” did not rise to the level of coercion legally required to constitute involuntary servitude.
Wallace found that the punishments for failing to work included the “threat and use of segregation and isolation,” and that officials kept prisoners isolated in cells for more than 22 hours a day.
The judge ordered the Department of Corrections to stop using solitary confinement that lasts longer than three days to punish prisoners for failing to work, and to stop stacking disciplinary infractions related to failure to work to increase the severity of possible punishments. The order will take effect in 28 days to allow state officials time to appeal.
“The machinery of coercion is not isolated, but is a pervasive and actively operationalized feature of CDOC’s labor management,” Wallace wrote. “By consistently applying these policies, CDOC ensures the threat of punishment remains a credible and ever-present driver of inmate labor.”
Lawrence Pacheco, a spokesman for Attorney General Phil Weiser, said Weiser was reviewing the court’s ruling. He declined to comment further.
Representatives for the Department of Corrections did not immediately return a request for comment Monday.
Jennifer Jones was sitting in Montrose Municipal Court in early January when she noticed something that didn’t seem right.
She witnessed a man in his 60s with multiple trespassing and camping charges receive a 10-day jail sentence. This individual, though, did not have an attorney — a right afforded under the Constitution to anyone facing jail time.
If Jones, a volunteer court-watcher, hadn’t been observing proceedings that day, nobody outside of the people involved with the case would have known what happened.
That’s because Montrose Municipal Court is not a “court of record” — meaning it keeps no written, audio or visual recording of court proceedings. The public, civil rights organizations and members of the media cannot watch court hearings virtually, or access video after the fact, and cannot request any transcripts or audio of the day’s docket.
It’s not clear how many municipal courts in Colorado are not courts of record. But court watchers say they believe Montrose to be the only court in the state that sentences people to jail and isn’t a court of record.
It’s examples like these that spurred Colorado lawmakers this month to introduce a bill that would bar municipal courts that are not courts of record from sending people to jail. House Bill 26-1134, titled “Fairness and Transparency in Municipal Court,” also clarifies that municipal court defendants have a right to counsel and that in-custody proceedings must be livestreamed for the public to view.
The legislation marks a second stab at codifying protections for municipal defendants after Gov. Jared Polis vetoed a similar bill last year. The governor, though, took issue with the part of the bill that sought to address sentencing disparities between municipal and state courts. A Colorado Supreme Court ruling settled that issue in December, leading bill sponsors this year to focus on the transparency elements from last year’s legislation.
“Justice dies in the dark,” said Rebecca Wallace, policy director for the Colorado Freedom Fund, an organization that helps people pay bail. “Montrose Municipal Court needs a light on it — this bill provides some of that light.”
If municipal courts have the same power to put people in jail as state courts, they must provide the same due process protections, said Rep. Javier Mabrey, a Denver Democrat and one of the bill’s sponsors.
Access to counsel is already a right for municipal defendants facing jail time — but that doesn’t mean it always happens.
In October 2024, The Denver Post reported that poor and unhoused individuals in custody in Grand Junction Municipal Court were frequently appearing in court without attorneys. This came to light because the Colorado Freedom Fund obtained hours of recordings of court proceedings. If Grand Junction hadn’t been a court of record, that would not have been possible.
Alida Soileau, a defense attorney who practices in Montrose, said she’s never heard the municipal court say that someone’s case qualifies for court-appointed counsel. She said she’s witnessed one occasion in which a defendant facing jail did not have an attorney.
“It’s the wild west,” she said in an interview.
Without recordings or transcripts, Wallace said it’s impossible for watchdog organizations like hers — or members of the media — to confirm such accounts and investigate further.
Chris Dowsey, Montrose’s city attorney, said the municipal court directs people to a written advisement on the right to an attorney when a case involves a possible jail sentence, and follows that up with an oral advisement.
“For each case, the judge confirms that the defendant has received one of those advisements of rights,” he said in a statement. “If they have not received such an advisement, the judge would give another oral advisement to that individual.”
Montrose city officials say they’re working on becoming a court of record.
Municipal Judge Thomas LeClaire told the City Council during a January meeting that he recommended the court make the change. Councilmembers supported the idea, saying the pending state legislation made it a good time to get ahead of the curve. Officials estimated it could happen as soon as this spring.
Montrose Municipal Court needs only minimal investment to make itself a court of record, including some staff time and equipment modifications, Dowsey said in a statement.
As to why the city waited so long to make this happen?
“At the time, there was no business reason to do so, there was no mandate to do so, and there was no push by the state legislature or the courts to do so,” Dowsey said.
The Post, over the past two years, has detailed numerous examples of municipal courts around the state not following the law. The reporting showcased how Colorado’s more than 200 municipal courts operate with little oversight and scrutiny, since they run independently from the state judicial department.
Meanwhile, municipal courts around the state are adjusting to a new normal after the Colorado Supreme Court ruled in December that cities cannot punish lawbreakers beyond what state statute would allow for the same offenses. This decision has led city councils to adopt new ordinances, judges to adjust their advisements for defendants and prosecutors and defense attorneys to negotiate plea deals under new guidelines.
Is this real life or the most extra episode of courtroom couture we’ve ever witnessed?!
Blake Lively apparently decided that if she was going to spend her morning in mediation over her explosive legal battle with Justin Baldoni, she was going to do it her way. And by her way, we mean with a luxury mahjong set delivered straight to the courthouse door. Seriously. You cannot make this stuff up.
According to Page Six, the former Gossip Girl star arrived bright and early around 8:30 a.m. for a mediation session tied to her sexual harassment lawsuit against Baldoni. The talks reportedly kicked off around 10 a.m., with both sides attempting to hammer out a pre-trial settlement. Tense? Surely. Dramatic? Obviously. Slow-moving? Uh, apparently so.
By around 11 a.m., as the legal back-and-forth dragged on, Lively allegedly decided she needed a little distraction. Enter: her chauffeur. According to insiders speaking to the news outlet on Thursday, her driver pulled up to the Daniel Patrick Moynihan Courthouse carrying a full mahjong set for the actress. Yes, a centuries-old Chinese tile game became the unexpected star of this already headline-grabbing showdown.
Lively has been open about her love for mahjong in the past. In fact, she previously gushed to Vogue about teaching her friends how to play. And apparently she doesn’t just dabble. She invests! Word is she favors sets from Oh My Mahjong, which can cost up to $500. That’s not exactly drugstore board game pricing. And now that set (or another one) is in court, apparently!
Meanwhile, the stakes in this case are anything but playful. Lively has accused Baldoni not only of sexual harassment but also of attempting to damage her reputation during their time filming It Ends With Us. Meanwhile, he has denied any wrongdoing.
Still, the image of a Hollywood A-lister passing time with ornate tiles while lawyers work is almost too on-brand. It’s giving bored board queen energy! LOLz!
And TBH, we’ll be watching every tile that falls from here on out. How about U??
Federal officials unveiled a slew of charges Tuesday against two Coloradans accused of ripping off a program that provides free rides to Medicaid patients, the first criminal charges filed in response to a sprawling fraud bonanza identified by state officials more than two years ago.
The indictments allege that Ashley Marie Stevens and Wesam Yassin separately participated in the transportation program and fraudulently collected seven-figure payouts — more than $3.3 million for Yassin alone, according to a statement from the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Colorado. The two drivers, who ran separate companies, allegedly fabricated rides for appointments that didn’t exist. Stevens is accused of billing for rides for her husband while he was incarcerated, and Yassin allegedly billed $165,000 for driving a patient who was dead.
Both Stevens, of Mesa County, and Yassin, of Douglas County, were charged with multiple counts of wire fraud, money laundering and health care fraud for their participation in the driving service.
The program pays drivers to ferry Medicaid patients to and from doctor’s appointments, but it became a haven for fraud in 2022 and 2023, after state officials increased the service’s reimbursement rates. State officials told The Denver Post last month that an estimated $25 million was lost in the broader fraud.
Yassin’s indictment was still sealed Tuesday evening. In a statement, federal officials alleged that Yassin billed Medicaid for hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of rides that never occurred between March 2022 and October 2023. She raked in $283,000 from rides for just one patient, most of which was paid to Yassin after the patient had already died.
Yassin allegedly used the proceeds to buy a home and furnishings, along with luxury vehicles, jewelry and cosmetic surgery. She was released on bond earlier this week, according to court records.
Stevens billed the state for more than $1 million between July 2022 and February 2023, according to the indictment. More than $400,000 came from rides she provided to herself or to her family members, for which there were “very few” actual medical appointments, federal authorities allege.
The trips included rides for her husband, who was incarcerated during some of the time when Stevens claimed she was driving him to the doctor. Another $150,000 was billed for rides that either never took place or were for trips that didn’t involve Medicaid services.
She was also paid more than $450,000 for rides that were at least 400 miles long, authorities allege. From east to west, Colorado is roughly 380 miles wide. Stevens allegedly used the proceeds from the scheme for travel and to buy a luxury car.
Stevens was already in Mesa County jail when she was indicted in December, according to court records. She remains in custody.
Yassin and Stevens are the first drivers to face any criminal repercussions for allegedly bilking the program. The fraud was in its heyday in 2023, state officials previously told The Post: A rash of new drivers entered the program then, shortly after the state increased the rate paid to transportation companies. Unscrupulous drivers, who were paid on a per member, per mile basis, allegedly packed their cars with patients and drove them across the state.
Some targeted homeless people in Pueblo and Colorado Springs, driving them to methadone clinics in metro Denver. Some patients were bribed with cash or drugs, state officials have said. Kim Bimestefer, the executive director of the state Department of Health Care Policy and Financing, told lawmakers last month that the fraud scheme was “international.”
In recent weeks, Marin County Registrar Natalie Adona has been largely focused on the many mundane tasks of local elections administrators in the months before a midterm: finalizing voting locations, ordering supplies, facilitating candidate filings.
But in the wake of unprecedented efforts by the Trump administration to intervene in state-run elections, Adona said she has also been preparing her staff for far less ordinary scenarios — such as federal officials showing up and demanding ballots, as they recently did in Georgia, or immigration agents staging around polling stations on election day, as some in President Trump’s orbit have suggested.
“Part of my job is making sure that the plans are developed and then tested and then socialized with the staff so if those situations were to ever come up, we would not be figuring it out right then and there. We would know what to do,” Adona said. “Doing those sort of exercises and that level of planning in a way is kind of grounding, and makes things feel less chaotic.”
Natalie Adona faced harassment from election deniers and COVID anti-maskers when she served as the registrar of voters in Nevada County. She now serves Marin County and is preparing her staff for potential scenarios this upcoming election, including what to do if immigration agents are present.
(Jess Lynn Goss / For The Times)
Across California, local elections administrators say they have been running similar exercises to prepare for once unthinkable threats — not from local rabble-rousers, remote cyberattackers or foreign adversaries, but their own federal government.
State officials, too, are writing new contingency plans for unprecedented intrusions by Trump and other administration officials, who in recent days have repeated baseless 2020 election conspiracies, raided and taken ballots from a local election center in Fulton County, Ga., pushed both litigation and legislation that would radically alter local voting rules, and called for Republicans to seize control of elections nationwide.
California’s local and state officials — many of whom are Democrats — are walking a fine line, telling their constituents that elections remain fair and safe, but also that Trump’s talk of federal intervention must be taken seriously.
Their concerns are vastly different than the concerns voiced by Trump and other Republicans, who for years have alleged without evidence that U.S. elections are compromised by widespread fraud involving noncitizen voters, including in California.
But they have nonetheless added to a long-simmering sense of fear and doubt among voters — who this year have the potential to radically alter the nation’s political trajectory by flipping control of Congress to Democrats.
An election worker moves ballots to be sorted at the Orange County Registrar of Voters in Santa Ana on Nov. 5, 2024.
(Allen J. Schaben / Los Angeles Times)
Trump has said he will accept Republican losses only if the elections are “honest.” A White House spokesperson said Trump is pushing for stricter rules for voting and voter registration because he “cares deeply about the safety and security of our elections.”
Rick Hasen, an election law expert and director of the Safeguarding Democracy Project at UCLA Law, said some of what Trump says about elections “is nonsensical and some is bluster,” but recent actions — especially the election center raid in Georgia — have brought home the reality of his threats.
“Some worry that this is a test run for trying to seize ballot boxes in 2026 and prevent a fair count of the votes, and given Trump’s track record, I don’t think that is something we can dismiss out of hand,” Hasen said. “States need to be making contingency plans to make sure that those kinds of things don’t happen.”
The White House dismissed such concerns, pointing to isolated incidents of noncitizens being charged with illegally voting, and to examples of duplicate registrations, voters remaining on rolls after death and people stealing ballots to vote multiple times.
“These so-called experts are ignoring the plentiful examples of noncitizens charged with voter fraud and of ineligible voters on voter rolls,” said Abigail Jackson, the White House spokesperson.
Experts said fraudulent votes are rare, most registration and roll issues do not translate into fraudulent votes being cast, and there is no evidence such issues swing elections.
A swirl of activity
Early in his term, Trump issued an executive order calling for voters nationwide to be required to show proof of U.S. citizenship, and for states to be required to disregard mail ballots received after election day. California and other states sued, and courts have so far blocked the order.
President Trump walks behind former chairperson of the Republican National Committee Michael Whatley as he prepares to speak during a political rally in Rocky Mount, N.C., on Dec. 19.
(Andrew Caballero-Reynolds / AFP via Getty Images)
Longtime Trump advisor and ally Stephen K. Bannon suggested U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents will be dispatched to polling locations in November, reprising old fears about voter intimidation. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said she couldn’t rule that out, despite it being illegal.
Democrats have raised concerns about the U.S. Postal Service mishandling mail ballots in the upcoming elections, following rule changes for how such mail is processed. Republicans have continued pushing the SAVE America Act, which would create new proof of citizenship requirements for voters. The U.S. Supreme Court is considering multiple voting rights cases, including one out of Louisiana that challenges Voting Rights Act protections for Black representation.
Charles H. Stewart, director of the MIT Election Data + Science Lab, said the series of events has created an “environment where chaos is being threatened,” and where “people who are concerned about the state of democracy are alarmed and very concerned,” and rightfully so.
But he said there are also “a number of guardrails” in place — what he called “the kind of mundane mechanics that are involved in running elections” — that will help prevent harm.
California prepares
California leaders have been vociferous in their defense of state elections, and said they’re prepared to fight any attempted takeover.
“The President regularly spews outright lies when it comes to elections in this country, particularly ones he and his party lose,” Gov. Gavin Newsom said in a statement. “We will continue to correct those lies, rebuild much-needed trust in our democratic institutions and civic duties, and defend the U.S. Constitution’s grant to the states authority over elections.”
California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta and Secretary of State Shirley Weber take questions after announcing a lawsuit to protect voter rights in 2024.
(Damian Dovarganes / Associated Press)
California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta said in an interview that his office “would go into court and we would get a restraining order within hours” if the Trump administration tries to intervene in California elections, “because the U.S. Constitution says that states predominantly determine the time, place and manner of elections, not the president.”
Weber told The Times that the state has “a cadre of attorneys” standing by to defend its election system, but also “absolutely amazing” county elections officials who “take their job very seriously” and serve as the first line of defense against any disruptions, from the Trump administration or otherwise.
Dean Logan, Los Angeles County’s chief elections official, said his office has been doing “contingency planning and tabletop exercises” for traditional disruptions, such as wildfires and earthquakes, and novel ones, such as federal immigration agents massing near voting locations and last-minute policy changes by the U.S. Postal Service or the courts.
“Those are the things that keep us up at night,” he said.
Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder Dean Logan said the county no longer has ballots from the 2020 election.
(Irfan Khan / Los Angeles Times)
Logan said he is not currently concerned about the FBI raiding L.A. County elections offices because, while Fulton County still had its 2020 ballots on hand due to ongoing litigation, that is not the case for L.A. County, which is “beyond the retention period” for holding, and no longer has, its 2020 ballots.
However, Logan said he does consider what happened in Georgia a warning that the Trump administration “will utilize the federal government to go in and be disruptive in an elections operation.”
“What we don’t know is, would they do that during the conduct of an election, before an election is certified?” Logan said.
Kristin Connelly, chief elections officer for Contra Costa County, said she’s been working hard to make sure voters have confidence in the election process, including by giving speeches to concerned voters, expanding the county’s certified election observer program, and, in the lead-up to the 2024 election, running a grant-funded awareness campaign around election security.
Connelly — who joined local elections officials nationwide in challenging Trump’s executive order on elections in court — said she also has been running tabletop exercises and coordinating with local law enforcement, all with the goal of ensuring her constituents can vote.
“How the federal government is behaving is different from how it used to behave, but at the end of the day, what we have to do is run a mistake-free, perfect election, and to open our offices and operation to everybody — especially the people who ask hard questions,” she said.
Lessons from the past
Several officials in California said that as they prepare, they have been buoyed by lessons from the past.
Before being hired by the deep-blue county of Marin in May, Adona was the elected voting chief in rural Nevada County in the Sierra foothills.
In 2022, Adona affirmed that Trump’s 2020 election loss to Democrat Joe Biden was legitimate and enforced a pandemic mask mandate in her office. That enraged a coalition of anti-mask, anti-vaccine, pro-Trump protesters, who pushed their way into the locked election office.
Protesters confronted Adona and her staffers, with one worker getting pushed down. They stationed themselves in the hallway, leaving Adona’s staff too terrified to leave their office to use the hallway bathroom, as local, state and federal authorities declined to step in.
“At this point, and for months afterwards, I felt isolated and depressed. I had panic attacks every few days. I felt that no one had our back. I focused all my attention on my staff’s safety, because they were clearly nervous about the unknown,” Adona said during subsequent testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee.
In part because she knows what can go wrong, Adona said her focus now is on preparing her new staff for whatever may come, while following the news out of Georgia and trying to maintain a cool head.
“I would rather have a plan and not use it than need a plan and not have one,” she said.
Clint Curtis, the clerk and registrar of voters in Shasta County — which ditched its voting machines in 2023 amid unfounded fraud allegations by Trump — said his biggest task ahead of the midterms is to increase both ballot security and transparency.
Since being appointed to lead the county office last spring, the conservative Republican from Florida has added more cameras and more space for election observers — which, during the recent special election on Proposition 50, California’s redistricting measure, included observers from Bonta’s and Weber’s offices.
He has also reduced the number of ballot drop boxes in the vast county from more than a dozen to four. Curtis told The Times he did not trust the security of ballots in the hands of “these little old ladies running all over the county” to pick them up, and noted there are dozens of other county locations where they can be dropped off. He said he invited Justice Department officials to observe voting on Proposition 50, though they didn’t show, and welcomes them again for the midterms.
“If they can make voting safer for everybody, I’m perfectly fine with that,” he said. “It always makes me nervous when people don’t want to cooperate. Whatcha hiding? It should be: ‘Come on in.’”
Election workers inspect ballots after extracting them from envelopes on election night at the Los Angeles County Ballot Processing Center on Nov. 5, 2024, in the City of Industry.
(Gina Ferazzi / Los Angeles Times)
Weber, 77 and the daughter of an Arkansas sharecropper whose family fled Southern racism and threats of violence to reach California, said that while many people in the U.S. are confronting intense fear and doubt about the election for the first time, and understandably so, that is simply not the case for her or many other Black people.
“African Americans have always been under attack for voting, and not allowed to vote, and had new rules created for them about literacy and poll taxes and all those other kinds of things, and many folks lost their lives just trying to register to vote,” Weber said.
Weber said she still recalls her mother, who had never voted in Arkansas, setting up a polling location in their home in South L.A. each election when Weber was young, and today draws courage from those memories.
“I tell folks there’s no alternative to it. You have to fight for this right to vote. And you have to be aware of the fact that all these strategies that people are trying to use [to suppress voting] are not new strategies. They’re old strategies,” Weber said. “And we just have to be smarter and fight harder.”
The Oregon Supreme Court ruled this week that criminal cases must be dismissed if the state fails to provide a court-appointed attorney within set time limits, a decision that will immediately result in the dismissal of more than 1,400 cases across Oregon.
In its opinion in State v. Roberts, issued Tuesday, the court held that misdemeanor cases must be dismissed if a defendant is not appointed an attorney within 60 days, and felony cases must be dismissed if no attorney is provided within 90 days. The court said the remedy is required to protect defendants’ constitutional right to counsel.
State officials say the ruling will have an immediate and widespread impact. According to prosecutors, 1,465 cases statewide are subject to dismissal under the decision, including 915 cases in Multnomah County and 263 in Washington County.
The cases affected include charges such as drug trafficking, aggravated theft, firearms and weapons offenses, felony driving under the influence of intoxicants, and strangulation, prosecutors said. They warned that the dismissals will affect crime victims and public safety.
In a joint statement, prosecutors said they respect the court’s ruling and agree that access to legal representation is a fundamental right. However, they argued that the decision fails to account for the rights of victims and the public, and highlights what they describe as a long-standing breakdown in Oregon’s public defense system.
“Oregon’s public defense system is broken,” the statement said, adding that the state has struggled for years to ensure that defendants are appointed lawyers in a timely manner.
The ruling comes amid an ongoing shortage of public defenders in Oregon, which has left hundreds of defendants without legal representation at various points in the criminal process. State officials and lawmakers have convened work groups and emergency task forces in recent years to address the issue.
Prosecutors disputed claims that the crisis is driven by a lack of funding or an overwhelming number of cases. They pointed to state spending of more than $300 million per year on public defense, which they said is nearly four times the national per-capita average. They also noted that hourly rates for public defenders in Oregon rank among the highest in the country, and that statewide criminal case filings are about 15% lower than they were before the crisis began.
Despite those figures, the problem has persisted, they said.
Prosecutors said their offices have taken steps to reduce the strain on the system, including modifying charging practices, creating special resolution dockets, and implementing efficiency measures. They also said they have participated in legislative hearings and advisory groups and supported proposals they believed would help address the shortage.
After four years of what they described as a continuing crisis, prosecutors said they believe a long-term solution must come from state leadership. They welcomed Gov. Tina Kotek’s appointment of Jessica Sanchagrin as permanent director of the Office of Public Defense Services, but said immediate action is needed to prevent further case dismissals.
They called on the governor and the agency’s leadership to implement short-term solutions quickly, warning that the consequences of inaction are already being felt in courts across the state.
A correctional officer forced Ashaheed to shave during the intake process, even though Ashaheed told the officer he was a Muslim and that shaving his beard would violate a core tenet of his faith, according to the lawsuit.
The officer told Ashaheed that if he did not shave his beard, he would be disciplined and placed in solitary confinement, according to the lawsuit. Ashaheed shaved when faced with that threat.
His lawsuit kicked off a years-long legal battle. The two sides reached an agreement for a settlement in September and finalized it in mid-January, court records show.
David Lane, Ashaheed’s attorney, said in a news release Wednesday that the case highlights the importance of constitutional protections.
“As this country slides into fascism, it is critically important that the public takes every civil rights violation seriously, and never gives up the fight to protect our Constitution,” he said in the news release.
A spokeswoman for the Colorado Department of Corrections did not immediately return a request for comment.
Two Front Range cities are eyeing more oversight for their police departments.
Lakewood’s City Council voted last week to “work toward the establishment” of an independent civilian oversight board for the city’s police department. And in Aurora, the city set aside about $330,000 this year to fund an Office of Police Accountability — even as city officials say they are still considering how oversight should be structured.
The creation of an independent oversight board in Lakewood would put the city into the company of just a handful of Front Range cities with such boards, including Denver and Boulder. The push for more oversight came to a head in Lakewood after the death of Jax Gratton, a 34-year-old transgender woman who disappeared in April and was found dead in June.
Lakewood police faced criticism for their handling of the case, including for announcing Gratton’s death by using her deadname and, later, for a lack of transparency about the investigation. Gratton’s case spurred the move toward an oversight committee, but the push is also rooted in wider issues around trust between police and community, Lakewood Councilwoman Isabel Cruz said.
“Although this specific incident really brought this to the fore, and the demands of community activists really pushed us, it is rooted in a lot of different conversations,” she said.
City Council members overwhelmingly voted Jan. 26 to create a 12-month committee to work toward the creation of a permanent oversight board. The temporary committee will have access to police records, completed internal affairs investigations and body-worn camera footage, and will be able to review complaints submitted to the police department.
At the end of the 12-month period, the committee will report to the City Council about how a permanent police oversight committee would be staffed and structured, among other recommendations.
Council members will then have the power to move forward with the permanent board or end the oversight effort.
Lakewood Police Department spokesman John Romero declined to comment on the push for oversight. About three dozen police officers packed last week’s council meeting, where Lakewood police Agent Quinn Pratt-Cordova, an executive board member of the Fraternal Order of Police Lodge 21, spoke against independent oversight.
An oversight board would be redundant, he said, and could damage officers’ trust in the city. Such oversight might “deter top talent,” from the police department, Pratt-Cordova said.
“Civilian oversight boards are rare and often follow severe systemic issues like those in other cities, issues that the majority of you don’t agree exist in the local police department,” Pratt-Cordova told council members. “The unnecessary creation of an oversight board attempts to apply an unwarranted national narrative to Lakewood PD.”
Lakewood Mayor Wendi Strom said she hopes any permanent effort will be aimed at improving police-community relations in ways that go beyond traditional independent oversight.
“The oversight word, I think, it is a big sticking point and one that — especially for folks within the public safety realm — has a very specific meaning,” she said in an interview. “So what we end up with, it is hard to tell. But for me, and I think City Council has been pretty clear on this in multiple conversations over the last month, the end goal is ultimately to help our community members feel more comfortable reaching out when there is a need.”
In Aurora, the police department entered into a consent decree — court-ordered reforms overseen by an independent monitor — after the 2019 killing of Elijah McClain, a 23-year-old Black man who died after Aurora police officers violently restrained him and paramedics injected him with a too-large dose of a powerful sedative.
McClain’s death was part of a pattern of racial bias and excessive force within the Aurora Police Department, state officials later found.
Aurora City Manager Jason Batchelor hopes the city’s two-person Office of Police Accountability will serve as an independent monitor for the police department when police exit the consent decree and are no longer under the supervision of the court-ordered monitor. The creation of such a position is a requirement of the consent decree.
The new office would report to the city manager, Batchelor said, but would be created with built-in protections aimed at ensuring its independence, including putting into city ordinance the office’s right to have free and unfettered access to information and budgetary safeguards to ensure it could not be defunded by the city manager. The protections would mirror Aurora’s approach to its internal auditor, which operates independently and would work in tandem with the new office, Batchelor said.
“I don’t get to tell the internal auditor, ‘That might make me look bad, don’t publish that,’” Batchelor said. “That can’t happen.”
The Office of Police Accountability, which Batchelor hopes to be ready to hire for in a few months, would have “contemporaneous oversight” of any city investigation, he said. The office would not oversee police discipline and would not conduct its own investigations into police misconduct. Instead, the employees would be able to flag problems or concerns about such investigations to Batchelor, the City Council or to the public.
Aurora Councilwoman Amy Wiles, who has helped to organize community meetings to discuss police oversight as recently as this week, said residents need a neutral place to report police misconduct.
“Right now, if you want to report something — you had a poor interaction with a police officer or you feel something wasn’t right — to call and report that is a bit invasive. You have to call the police department,” she said. “…So we are hoping this provides that level of security to community to say, ‘Hey if something went wrong, here is this neutral person you can reach out to.’”
The Office of Police Accountability could receive complaints of police misconduct directly from the public, Batchelor said, and then would “partner with the (police) department to make sure that any complaints are fully investigated.”
That approach concerns Omar Montgomery, Rocky Mountain state conference president for the NAACP.
“If you are going to have true transparency and true accountability, it can’t be that organization doing the investigation,” he said. “It has to be an independent organization. …If it goes back to the police department, I would have concerns (about whether) that is an independent department that is investigating abuse allegations.”
But he added that the Office of Police Accountability is “a good start,” and noted that it is already funded in a tough budget year.
Batchelor pointed out that some critical incidents, including police shootings, are already investigated by outside agencies. Colorado lawmakers banned police departments from investigating their own police shootings in 2015. Other types of complaints are handled solely by the police department’s internal affairs unit.
The city is still considering what the ultimate structure of the office and oversight will look like, Wiles said. The end design may include an advisory board of residents who work with the Office of Police Accountability in some fashion, though their role is limited by the city’s charter.
Judge says she won’t halt Minnesota immigration enforcement surge as a lawsuit proceeds
The lawsuit sought a quick order to halt the enforcement action or limit its scope
This 13 page document lays out DHS policy for use of force. Now these rules apply to Customs and Border Protection, ICE, and Secret Service and make it clear what protocols agents should follow before any use of force is applied. And while it’s easy to look back and replay video over and over after the fact, experts we talked to told us agents need to rely on these policies and training, especially in critical moments. Unfortunately, It, it’s for me as *** field office director, this all of this is very um upsetting. Darius Reeves, *** former ICE field office director, spent nearly 20 years with ICE and Homeland Security, *** time when he says their operations were not drawing public attention. No one had any idea about ICE. We were very professional, we were very clean, and this is. There are far too many US citizens being involved. What troubles Reeves now isn’t just the outcome of recent encounters, but whether ICE and Border Patrol are following their own use of force and de-escalation policies. When is use of force an option? If it’s an immediate Imminent threat. The National Investigative Unit reviewed the Department of Homeland Security’s use of force policy alongside video from the two recent killings of Alex Preddy and Renee Good and talked with experts including Reeves. DHS policy is clear officers should attempt de-escalation, issue verbal commands, reassess when resistance stops, and discontinue force once an incident is under control. Video from the encounter involving 30 seven-year-old Alex Preddy shows in the minute before the shooting, Preddy is recording from *** distance. Agents push *** woman who grabs onto Preddy. He’s then pushed. An agent pushes another woman near Preddy, who then steps in with an open hand up, then turns away from the agent as he’s sprayed with *** chemical. They continually sprayed him even when his back was to them, and then everybody piles on. Based on the video we’ve seen, in your opinion. Was deadly force used correctly on Alex Peretti? Absolutely not. The second case involving Renee Good raises *** different policy question. DHS rules place strict limits on the use of deadly force in and around vehicles. Mark Brown used to train ICE agents and explains the strict rules. The general practice was that They went away from shooting in the moving vehicles. Reeves and Brown add that incidents need to be carefully examined afterward to prevent future violations. Are we debriefing every day after, you know, to see, OK, what are we doing for our own accountability? This is *** major travesty, um. And you, you’re going to have to stick to the policy. The DHS policy states that every agent must be trained in use of force and de-escalation policies at least once *** year, and every 2 years they must conduct less than lethal force training. The policy we reviewed was last updated in 2023. Reporting in Washington, I’m national investigative correspondent John Cardinelli.
Judge says she won’t halt Minnesota immigration enforcement surge as a lawsuit proceeds
The lawsuit sought a quick order to halt the enforcement action or limit its scope
A federal judge says she won’t halt the immigration enforcement surge in Minnesota and the Twin Cities as a lawsuit over it proceeds.Video above: Examining DHS use-of-force policiesA federal judge says she won’t halt the immigration enforcement surge in Minnesota and the Twin Cities as a lawsuit over it proceeds.Judge Katherine M. Menendez on Saturday denied a preliminary injunction sought in a lawsuit filed this month by state Attorney General Keith Ellison and the mayors of Minneapolis and St. Paul.It argued that the Department of Homeland Security is violating constitutional protections. The lawsuit sought a quick order to halt the enforcement action or limit its scope. Lawyers with the U.S. Department of Justice have called the lawsuit “legally frivolous.”The ruling on the injunction focused on the argument by Minnesota officials that the federal government is violating the Constitution’s 10th Amendment, which limits the federal government’s powers to infringe on the sovereignty of states. In her ruling, the judge relied heavily on whether that argument was likely to ultimately succeed in court.The federal government argued that the surge, dubbed Operation Metro Surge, is necessary in its effort to take criminal immigrants off the streets and because federal efforts have been hindered by state and local “sanctuary laws and policies.” State and local officials argued that the surge is retaliation after the federal government’s initial attempts to withhold federal funding to try to force immigration cooperation failed.”Because there is evidence supporting both sides’ arguments as to motivation and the relative merits of each side’s competing positions are unclear, the Court is reluctant to find that the likelihood-of-success factor weighs sufficiently in favor of granting a preliminary injunction,” the judge said in the ruling.U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi took to social media Saturday to laud the ruling, calling it “another HUGE” legal win for the Justice Department on X.Federal officers have fatally shot two people on the streets of Minneapolis: Renee Good on Jan. 7 and Alex Pretti on Jan. 24.
MINNEAPOLIS (AP) —
A federal judge says she won’t halt the immigration enforcement surge in Minnesota and the Twin Cities as a lawsuit over it proceeds.
Video above: Examining DHS use-of-force policies
A federal judge says she won’t halt the immigration enforcement surge in Minnesota and the Twin Cities as a lawsuit over it proceeds.
Judge Katherine M. Menendez on Saturday denied a preliminary injunction sought in a lawsuit filed this month by state Attorney General Keith Ellison and the mayors of Minneapolis and St. Paul.
It argued that the Department of Homeland Security is violating constitutional protections. The lawsuit sought a quick order to halt the enforcement action or limit its scope. Lawyers with the U.S. Department of Justice have called the lawsuit “legally frivolous.”
The ruling on the injunction focused on the argument by Minnesota officials that the federal government is violating the Constitution’s 10th Amendment, which limits the federal government’s powers to infringe on the sovereignty of states. In her ruling, the judge relied heavily on whether that argument was likely to ultimately succeed in court.
The federal government argued that the surge, dubbed Operation Metro Surge, is necessary in its effort to take criminal immigrants off the streets and because federal efforts have been hindered by state and local “sanctuary laws and policies.” State and local officials argued that the surge is retaliation after the federal government’s initial attempts to withhold federal funding to try to force immigration cooperation failed.
“Because there is evidence supporting both sides’ arguments as to motivation and the relative merits of each side’s competing positions are unclear, the Court is reluctant to find that the likelihood-of-success factor weighs sufficiently in favor of granting a preliminary injunction,” the judge said in the ruling.
U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi took to social media Saturday to laud the ruling, calling it “another HUGE” legal win for the Justice Department on X.
Federal officers have fatally shot two people on the streets of Minneapolis: Renee Good on Jan. 7 and Alex Pretti on Jan. 24.
Judge says she won’t halt Minnesota immigration enforcement surge as a lawsuit proceeds
The lawsuit sought a quick order to halt the enforcement action or limit its scope
This 13 page document lays out DHS policy for use of force. Now these rules apply to Customs and Border Protection, ICE, and Secret Service and make it clear what protocols agents should follow before any use of force is applied. And while it’s easy to look back and replay video over and over after the fact, experts we talked to told us agents need to rely on these policies and training, especially in critical moments. Unfortunately, It, it’s for me as *** field office director, this all of this is very um upsetting. Darius Reeves, *** former ICE field office director, spent nearly 20 years with ICE and Homeland Security, *** time when he says their operations were not drawing public attention. No one had any idea about ICE. We were very professional, we were very clean, and this is. There are far too many US citizens being involved. What troubles Reeves now isn’t just the outcome of recent encounters, but whether ICE and Border Patrol are following their own use of force and de-escalation policies. When is use of force an option? If it’s an immediate Imminent threat. The National Investigative Unit reviewed the Department of Homeland Security’s use of force policy alongside video from the two recent killings of Alex Preddy and Renee Good and talked with experts including Reeves. DHS policy is clear officers should attempt de-escalation, issue verbal commands, reassess when resistance stops, and discontinue force once an incident is under control. Video from the encounter involving 30 seven-year-old Alex Preddy shows in the minute before the shooting, Preddy is recording from *** distance. Agents push *** woman who grabs onto Preddy. He’s then pushed. An agent pushes another woman near Preddy, who then steps in with an open hand up, then turns away from the agent as he’s sprayed with *** chemical. They continually sprayed him even when his back was to them, and then everybody piles on. Based on the video we’ve seen, in your opinion. Was deadly force used correctly on Alex Peretti? Absolutely not. The second case involving Renee Good raises *** different policy question. DHS rules place strict limits on the use of deadly force in and around vehicles. Mark Brown used to train ICE agents and explains the strict rules. The general practice was that They went away from shooting in the moving vehicles. Reeves and Brown add that incidents need to be carefully examined afterward to prevent future violations. Are we debriefing every day after, you know, to see, OK, what are we doing for our own accountability? This is *** major travesty, um. And you, you’re going to have to stick to the policy. The DHS policy states that every agent must be trained in use of force and de-escalation policies at least once *** year, and every 2 years they must conduct less than lethal force training. The policy we reviewed was last updated in 2023. Reporting in Washington, I’m national investigative correspondent John Cardinelli.
Judge says she won’t halt Minnesota immigration enforcement surge as a lawsuit proceeds
The lawsuit sought a quick order to halt the enforcement action or limit its scope
A federal judge says she won’t halt the immigration enforcement surge in Minnesota and the Twin Cities as a lawsuit over it proceeds.Video above: Examining DHS use-of-force policiesA federal judge says she won’t halt the immigration enforcement surge in Minnesota and the Twin Cities as a lawsuit over it proceeds.Judge Katherine M. Menendez on Saturday denied a preliminary injunction sought in a lawsuit filed this month by state Attorney General Keith Ellison and the mayors of Minneapolis and St. Paul.It argued that the Department of Homeland Security is violating constitutional protections. The lawsuit sought a quick order to halt the enforcement action or limit its scope. Lawyers with the U.S. Department of Justice have called the lawsuit “legally frivolous.”The ruling on the injunction focused on the argument by Minnesota officials that the federal government is violating the Constitution’s 10th Amendment, which limits the federal government’s powers to infringe on the sovereignty of states. In her ruling, the judge relied heavily on whether that argument was likely to ultimately succeed in court.The federal government argued that the surge, dubbed Operation Metro Surge, is necessary in its effort to take criminal immigrants off the streets and because federal efforts have been hindered by state and local “sanctuary laws and policies.” State and local officials argued that the surge is retaliation after the federal government’s initial attempts to withhold federal funding to try to force immigration cooperation failed.”Because there is evidence supporting both sides’ arguments as to motivation and the relative merits of each side’s competing positions are unclear, the Court is reluctant to find that the likelihood-of-success factor weighs sufficiently in favor of granting a preliminary injunction,” the judge said in the ruling.U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi took to social media Saturday to laud the ruling, calling it “another HUGE” legal win for the Justice Department on X.Federal officers have fatally shot two people on the streets of Minneapolis: Renee Good on Jan. 7 and Alex Pretti on Jan. 24.
MINNEAPOLIS (AP) —
A federal judge says she won’t halt the immigration enforcement surge in Minnesota and the Twin Cities as a lawsuit over it proceeds.
Video above: Examining DHS use-of-force policies
A federal judge says she won’t halt the immigration enforcement surge in Minnesota and the Twin Cities as a lawsuit over it proceeds.
Judge Katherine M. Menendez on Saturday denied a preliminary injunction sought in a lawsuit filed this month by state Attorney General Keith Ellison and the mayors of Minneapolis and St. Paul.
It argued that the Department of Homeland Security is violating constitutional protections. The lawsuit sought a quick order to halt the enforcement action or limit its scope. Lawyers with the U.S. Department of Justice have called the lawsuit “legally frivolous.”
The ruling on the injunction focused on the argument by Minnesota officials that the federal government is violating the Constitution’s 10th Amendment, which limits the federal government’s powers to infringe on the sovereignty of states. In her ruling, the judge relied heavily on whether that argument was likely to ultimately succeed in court.
The federal government argued that the surge, dubbed Operation Metro Surge, is necessary in its effort to take criminal immigrants off the streets and because federal efforts have been hindered by state and local “sanctuary laws and policies.” State and local officials argued that the surge is retaliation after the federal government’s initial attempts to withhold federal funding to try to force immigration cooperation failed.
“Because there is evidence supporting both sides’ arguments as to motivation and the relative merits of each side’s competing positions are unclear, the Court is reluctant to find that the likelihood-of-success factor weighs sufficiently in favor of granting a preliminary injunction,” the judge said in the ruling.
U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi took to social media Saturday to laud the ruling, calling it “another HUGE” legal win for the Justice Department on X.
Federal officers have fatally shot two people on the streets of Minneapolis: Renee Good on Jan. 7 and Alex Pretti on Jan. 24.
Just a few hours after Border Patrol agents shot and killed Alex Pretti in Minneapolis, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security issued a statement that said, without evidence, that the 37-year-old registered nurse “wanted to do maximum damage and massacre law enforcement.”
Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem would later imply Pretti had been “asked to show up and to continue to resist” by Minnesota’s governor.
Multiple videos from the scene immediately undercut those claims, and there has been no indication in the days since that Pretti threatened or planned to hurt law enforcement.
Several high-profile use-of-force incidents and arrests involving federal immigration agents have involved a similar cycle: Strident statements by Trump administration officials, soon contradicted by video footage or other evidence. Some law enforcement experts believe the repeated falsehoods are harming federal authorities both in the public eye and in the courtroom.
The top federal prosecutor in Los Angeles, Bill Essayli, has taken five defendants to trial on charges of assaulting officers — and his office has lost each case. Court records and a Times investigation show grand juries in Chicago, Washington, D.C., and Los Angeles have repeatedly rejected criminal filings from prosecutors in similar cases.
“When top federal law enforcement leaders in the country push false narratives like this, it leads the public to question everything the government says going forward,” said Peter Carr, a former Justice Department spokesman in Washington who served in Democratic and Republican administrations. “You see that in how judges are reacting. You’re seeing that in how grand juries are reacting. You’re seeing that in how juries are reacting. That trust that has been built up over generations is gone.”
The credibility concerns played out in a downtown L.A. courtroom in September, when Border Patrol Cmdr. Greg Bovino served as the key witness in the assault trial of Brayan Ramos-Brito, who was accused of striking a Border Patrol agent during protests against immigration raids last summer. Video from the scene did not clearly capture the alleged attack, and Bovino was the only Border Patrol official who testified as an eyewitness.
Under questioning from federal public defender Cuauhtémoc Ortega, Bovino initially denied he had been disciplined by Border Patrol for calling undocumented immigrants “scum, filth and trash,” but later admitted he had received a reprimand. The jury came back with an acquittal after deliberating for about an hour. A juror who spoke to The Times outside court said Bovino’s testimony detailing his account of the alleged assault had “no impact” on their decision.
Last year, a Chicago judge ruled Bovino had “lied” in a deposition in a lawsuit over the way agents used force against protesters and journalists.
Spokespersons for Essayli and the Department of Homeland Security did not respond to requests for comment.
Essayli’s prosecutors have seen four additional cases involving allegations of assault on a federal officer end in acquittals, a nearly unheard of losing streak. A Pew study found fewer than 1% of federal criminal defendants were acquitted throughout the U.S. in 2022.
“The credibility of the prosecutor’s office and the credibility of the law enforcement officers testifying is key,” said Carley Palmer, a former federal prosecutor in L.A. who is now a partner at Halpern May Ybarra Gelberg. “That is especially true when the only witness to an event is a law enforcement officer.”
Jon Fleischman, a veteran Republican strategist and former spokesman for the Orange County Sheriff’s Department, said federal law enforcement officials have a responsibility to be the “mature, responsible player in the room” and remain as apolitical as possible. While he is a firm supporter of President Trump’s immigration agenda and said the Biden administration shares some blame for politicizing federal law enforcement, Noem’s handling of Pretti’s killing was problematic.
“What she said really doesn’t bear out in terms of what the facts that are available tell us,” Fleischman said. “I think it undermines the credibility of the justice system.”
Fleischman added that he feared some of the government’s recent missteps could dull approval of the platform that twice carried Trump to the White House.
“One of the main reasons I’ve been so enthusiastic about this president has been his stance on immigration issues,” he said. “When you see unforced errors by the home team that reduce public support for the president’s immigration agenda, it’s demoralizing.”
Another top Trump aide, White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller, also spoke out after the Minnesota shooting, calling Pretti an “assassin.”
Responding to a Times reporter on X, Miller said recent legal defeats in Los Angeles were the result of “mass judge and jury nullification, deep in blue territory, of slam-dunk assault cases.”
Accounts from inside L.A. courtrooms paint a different picture.
Carol Williams, a jury foreperson in the most recent assault trial which federal prosecutors lost in L.A., said the people she served with steered clear of conversations about the news or ICE raids.
“We didn’t talk about the protests in L.A. and we didn’t talk about the protests that were in Minnesota or anything,” Williams said. “People, I’m sure, probably keep up with the news, but in terms of bringing that into the jury room, we did not.”
Last year, Essayli and Tricia McLaughlin, the chief Homeland Security spokesperson, accused Carlitos Ricardo Parias of ramming immigration agents with his vehicle in South L.A., causing an agent to open fire. Video made public after the assault charges were dismissed last year, however, do not show the vehicle moving when the ICE agent opens fire, injuring Parias and a deputy U.S. marshal.
After being presented with the body-camera footage, McLaughlin reiterated the claim that Parias weaponized his vehicle and said officers “followed their training and fired defensive shots.”
Los Angeles police said nobody else was injured at the scene and have not used the “active shooter” wording in statements about the case.
Porter’s family and advocates have argued that force was not warranted. They said Porter was firing a gun in the air to celebrate the new year, behavior that is illegal and discouraged as dangerous by public officials.
A lawyer for the agent, Brian Palacios, has said there is evidence Porter shot at the agent.
Carr, the former Justice Department spokesman, said the Trump administration has broken with years of cautious norms around press statements that were designed to protect the credibility of federal law enforcement.
“That trust is eroded when they rush to push narratives before any real investigations take place,” he said.
In one case, the refusal of Homeland Security officials to back down may cause video footage that further undercuts their narrative to become public.
Last October, Marimar Martinez was shot five times by a Border Patrol agent in Chicago who alleged she was following him in a car and interfering with an operation. In a statement, McLaughlin accused Martinez of ramming a law enforcement vehicle while armed with a “semiautomatic weapon.”
Federal prosecutors in Chicago dropped the charges, but McLaughlin and others continued to describe Martinez as a “domestic terrorist.” As a result, Martinez filed a motion to revoke a protective order that has kept hidden video of the incident and other evidence.
“While the United States voluntarily dismissed its formal prosecution of her with prejudice … government officials continue to prosecute Ms. Martinez’s character in the court of public opinion,” the motion read.
In less than two weeks, Marius Borg Høiby, the son of Norway’s Crown Princess Mette-Marit, will head to court to face charges including the alleged sexual assault of four different women. Initially indicted in August by the Norwegian Public Prosecutor’s Office for 32 offenses, this week that agency has added has added six new charges to the case. [Editor’s Note: In Norway, the crime of rape also includes incomplete sexual acts committed against a victim who is unable to resist.]
The most serious of the new charges allegedly occurred in July 2020, when Marius was said to have received and transported at least 3.5 kilos of marijuana from Lørenskog to Tønsberg (locations located an hour and a half away by car), where he delivered it to a person. The 29-year-old, once seen as a symbol of the openness of the monarchy, has acknowledged those allegations as true, with his attorney noting that he was not paid in the incident.
Other new charges are related to two alleged violations of a restraining order, and three offenses against the Traffic Act. They follow his arrest in August of 2024, when he was accused of assaulting his then girlfriend while in his apartment in Frogner, Oslo.
He acknowledged then that he had suffered from “several mental disorders” since adolescence and had “struggled with substance abuse,” saying then that “I will now resume this treatment and take it very seriously. Drug use and my diagnoses do not excuse what happened.” He was arrested again in November, this time on allegations of rape. “Our client denies all allegations of sexual abuse, as well as most allegations of violence,” attorney Petar Sekulik told the New York Post of the claims last year.
Marius Borg Høiby
HAKON MOSVOLD LARSEN/Getty Images
Though born to Princess Mette-Marit, Marius Borg Høiby does not have a royal title: his father is businessman Morten Borg, with whom the princess had a relationship before meeting Haakon, Crown Prince of Norway, the heir to the Norwegian throne. When the royal couple married in 2001, Marius was 4 years old. Since then, he has grown up as part of the royal family, but does not have a claim to the throne.
The case is but one of the challenges presently faced by Norway’s royals. King Harald, Borg Høiby’s grandfather by marriage, is now 88 years old, and in delicate health. Meanwhile, Princess Mette-Marit is awaiting a possible lung transplant after years of chronic illness that has forced her to withdraw from the official agenda with no date for her return. And just over a year ago, in 2024, Princess Märtha Louise of Norwayresigned from her royal duties to marry the shamanDurek Verret, a union that has caused a break within the family.
Julius Bernstein, who was convicted of three counts of vehicular manslaughter in a fiery crash that killed a mother and her two daughters, is sentenced before Miami-Dade Circuit Court Judge Zachary James at the Richard E. Gerstein Justice Building in Miami, Florida, on Friday, January 23, 2026. The crash occurred on the 79th Street Causeway on June 27, 2022.
PHOTO BY AL DIAZ
adiaz@miamiherald.com
Samir Saidi, the husband of the woman and two girls who were killed in a fiery crash in 2022, detailed how he struggles to sleep at night because thoughts about his family’s final moments run in his mind.
“There is not one single day that I haven’t cried for my loss,” Saidi said on the stand, adding that he wishes he could have done something to save the lives of his wife, Cynthia Orsatelliz, and daughters Sofia, 15, and Maria, 12.
On June 27, 2022, Julius Bernstein, 27, was speeding at nearly 100 mph on the 79th Street Causeway in North Bay Village when he rammed his Dodge Charger into a car turning left from the eastbound lanes at Harbor Island Drive. After the crash, Bernstein jumped out of his car and ran. He hadn’t had a driver’s license since 2016.
Julius Bernstein, left, received a 45-year sentence on Friday, January 23, 2026. PHOTO BY AL DIAZ adiaz@miamiherald.com
Bernstein sat quietly as he was sentenced on Friday afternoon to 45 years in state prison followed by 10 years of probation by Miami-Dade County Circuit Court Judge Zachary James. In September, a Miami jury found Bernstein guilty of three counts of vehicular homicide as well as other charges linked to the fatal collision. The sentence is 15 years per count of vehicular homicide.
“What a beautiful family. So full of life, so full of promise… torn away by a vehicle that this defendant turned into a bullet,” James said before announcing the sentence.
Bernstein will get credit for the three years that he has served behind bars in Miami-Dade. A month after the wreck, he was taken into custody by federal agents in North Carolina.
Bernstein was stoic as the family recounted their suffering, wiping their tears. After their impact statements, he stood up and spoke briefly, the rattle of chains echoing in the courtroom.
He apologized.
Bernstein’s attorney, Dustin Tischler, had requested a 25-year sentence, citing a history of mental-health and substance-abuse issues. Prosecutor Laura Adams, however, sought a life sentence under a sentencing enhancement because Bernstein is a “habitual violent felony” offender. At the time of the crash, Bernstein was serving three years of probation for a slew of convictions, including for aggravated assault on a law enforcement officer and fleeing law enforcement, Florida prison records show.
Bernstein, Adams argued, annihilated a family when he got behind the wheel.
A never-ending grief
Saidi said he met Cynthia in 1995 when they were studying together — and quickly became inseparable.
“She was my rock, my support,” he said, sniffling. “God blessed us with a … very comfortable life.”
The couple were also blessed with two daughters, he said: Sofia, who was passionate about writing and often embarrassed him by saying words he wouldn’t know, and Maria, who loved cooking shows and told him she wanted to become a chef.
“I thought that there would come a day that there is a book that had Sofia’s name on it or a restaurant that Maria would be so proud of being the main chef,” Saidi said.
Samir Saidi testifies about his suffering since his wife, Cynthia Orsatelliz, and daughters Sofia, 15, and Maria, 12, were killed in a fiery crash in 2022. WTVJ-NBC 6
The girls, Saidi said, were the “most beautiful souls, angels,” and he can’t forgive Bernstein because they, along with their mother, were casualties of Bernstein’s sheer recklessness.
Omar Orsatelliz, Cynthia’s brother, said his sister — who was the oldest daughter of their five siblings — was like a mother to him. She guided, protected and shaped him into who he became.
“As a brother, I grieve for her every day,” Orsatelliz said. “As an uncle to Maria and Sofia, I grieve for the lives that never got to unfold. I’m not the same person I was before that day and neither is our family.”
Orsatelliz said his father — the girls’ grandfather — suffered a stroke around the anniversary of the crash last year and now requires constant care. Orsatelliz said he believes the stroke was brought on by his father’s heartache.
“This tragedy did not end on the day of the crash,” he said. “Its consequences continue to uphold. Family gatherings are quieter. Holidays and birthdays feel incomplete. Ordinary days are filled with reminders of who was missing and what has been taken from us.”
Family attorney Omar Saleh said outside the courtroom: “This is just a small piece of closure to this horrific family tragedy.”
Now-retired Miami-Dade Det. Wanda Milian, who investigated the wreck, said the emotional impact of the scene was “unlike anything I had previously encountered.”
Milian broke down as she testified about how Bernstein launched a barrage of obscenities at her. Bernstein’s erratic behavior, the officer said, was something that she had encountered only two other times in her 17 years as a detective.
“It is said that law enforcement will always remember their first case and their last,” the detective said. “This case, my last, will always remain [with me.]”
An Illinois doctor indicted on murder charges in the December shooting deaths of his ex-wife and her dentist husband in their Columbus home pleaded not guilty to the killings in an Ohio courtroom on Friday.Michael David McKee, 39, appeared remotely on camera from jail for his arraignment in Franklin County, where he faced four aggravated murder counts and one count of aggravated burglary while using a firearm suppressor in connection with the Dec. 30 double homicide of Monique Tepe, 39, and Dr. Spencer Tepe, 37. He was garbed in prison attire and did not speak during the brief hearing. Defense attorney Diane Menashe waived a request for bond, at least for now.The mystery that first surrounded the case — which featured no forced entry, no weapon and no obvious signs of theft, additional violence or a motive — drew national attention. McKee, of Chicago, was arrested 11 days later near his workplace in Rockford, Illinois. He was returned to Ohio on Tuesday to face the charges against him.Who is Michael David McKee?McKee attended Catholic high school in Zanesville, a historic Ohio city about 55 miles (89 kilometers) east of the capital, according to the Diocese of Columbus. He enrolled at Ohio State University in September 2005 — the same semester that his future wife, then Monique Sabaturski, enrolled, university records show. Both graduated with bachelor’s degrees in June 2009. Sabaturski earned a master of education degree from Ohio State in 2011, and McKee earned his medical degree there in 2014.Sabaturski and McKee married in Columbus in August 2015 but were living apart by the time Monique filed to end in the marriage in May 2017, court records show. Their divorce was granted that June. McKee was living in Virginia at the time, court and address records show. He completed a two-year fellowship in vascular surgery at the University of Maryland Medical Center in October 2022, according to the school.McKee also lived in and was licensed to practice medicine in both California and in Nevada, where he was among doctors named in a personal injury lawsuit in a Las Vegas court in 2023. OSF Saint Anthony Medical Center in Rockford, Illinois, where McKee was working at the time of his arrest, declined to provide specific information on the dates of his employment. His Illinois medical license became active in October 2024.What is McKee accused of?An Ohio grand jury indicted McKee in the double homicide last week.McKee is accused of illegally entering the Tepes’ home with a firearm equipped with a silencer, shooting the Tepes — whose bodies were found in a second-floor bedroom — and leaving the property along a dark alley alongside the house.Columbus Police Chief Elaine Bryant has said that McKee was the person seen walking down that alley in video footage captured the night of the killings. She also said a gun found in his Chicago apartment was a ballistic match to evidence at the scene and that his vehicle’s movements were tracked from Columbus back to Illinois.A message seeking comment was left with McKee’s attorney.McKee is charged with two aggravated murder counts for each homicide, one for prior calculation and design and one for committing the crime, as well as facing the aggravated burglary count. If convicted, he faces a minimum of life in prison with parole eligibility after 32 years and a maximum term of life in prison without parole.How were the killings discovered?Columbus police conducted a wellness check on Spencer Tepe at around 10 a.m. on Dec. 30, after his manager at a dental practice in Athens, Ohio, reported that he had not shown up to work on that day, saying tardiness was very worrying and “out of character” for Tepe, according to a 911 call.Someone else called to request a wellness check before a distraught man who described himself as a friend of Spencer Tepe called police and said, “Oh, there’s a body. There’s a body. Oh my God.” He said he could see Spencer Tepe’s body was off the side of a bed in a pool of blood.The Franklin County Coroner’s Office deemed the killings an “apparent homicide by gunshot wounds.”Who were the Tepes?Family members said the Tepes were “extraordinary people whose lives were filled with love, joy and deep connection to others.”They have described Monique as a “joyful mother,” avid baker and “thoughtful planner.” According to their obituaries, which were issued jointly, the pair were married in 2020.Spencer Tepe got his bachelor’s degree from Ohio State University in 2012 and earned his doctor of dental surgery degree in 2017, according to school records. He was a member of the American Dental Association and had been involved with the Big Brothers Big Sisters organization.They had two young children. Both were home at the time of the killings and left unharmed, as was the family dog.
COLUMBUS, Ohio —
An Illinois doctor indicted on murder charges in the December shooting deaths of his ex-wife and her dentist husband in their Columbus home pleaded not guilty to the killings in an Ohio courtroom on Friday.
Michael David McKee, 39, appeared remotely on camera from jail for his arraignment in Franklin County, where he faced four aggravated murder counts and one count of aggravated burglary while using a firearm suppressor in connection with the Dec. 30 double homicide of Monique Tepe, 39, and Dr. Spencer Tepe, 37. He was garbed in prison attire and did not speak during the brief hearing. Defense attorney Diane Menashe waived a request for bond, at least for now.
The mystery that first surrounded the case — which featured no forced entry, no weapon and no obvious signs of theft, additional violence or a motive — drew national attention. McKee, of Chicago, was arrested 11 days later near his workplace in Rockford, Illinois. He was returned to Ohio on Tuesday to face the charges against him.
Who is Michael David McKee?
McKee attended Catholic high school in Zanesville, a historic Ohio city about 55 miles (89 kilometers) east of the capital, according to the Diocese of Columbus. He enrolled at Ohio State University in September 2005 — the same semester that his future wife, then Monique Sabaturski, enrolled, university records show. Both graduated with bachelor’s degrees in June 2009. Sabaturski earned a master of education degree from Ohio State in 2011, and McKee earned his medical degree there in 2014.
Sabaturski and McKee married in Columbus in August 2015 but were living apart by the time Monique filed to end in the marriage in May 2017, court records show. Their divorce was granted that June. McKee was living in Virginia at the time, court and address records show. He completed a two-year fellowship in vascular surgery at the University of Maryland Medical Center in October 2022, according to the school.
McKee also lived in and was licensed to practice medicine in both California and in Nevada, where he was among doctors named in a personal injury lawsuit in a Las Vegas court in 2023. OSF Saint Anthony Medical Center in Rockford, Illinois, where McKee was working at the time of his arrest, declined to provide specific information on the dates of his employment. His Illinois medical license became active in October 2024.
What is McKee accused of?
An Ohio grand jury indicted McKee in the double homicide last week.
McKee is accused of illegally entering the Tepes’ home with a firearm equipped with a silencer, shooting the Tepes — whose bodies were found in a second-floor bedroom — and leaving the property along a dark alley alongside the house.
Columbus Police Chief Elaine Bryant has said that McKee was the person seen walking down that alley in video footage captured the night of the killings. She also said a gun found in his Chicago apartment was a ballistic match to evidence at the scene and that his vehicle’s movements were tracked from Columbus back to Illinois.
A message seeking comment was left with McKee’s attorney.
McKee is charged with two aggravated murder counts for each homicide, one for prior calculation and design and one for committing the crime, as well as facing the aggravated burglary count. If convicted, he faces a minimum of life in prison with parole eligibility after 32 years and a maximum term of life in prison without parole.
How were the killings discovered?
Columbus police conducted a wellness check on Spencer Tepe at around 10 a.m. on Dec. 30, after his manager at a dental practice in Athens, Ohio, reported that he had not shown up to work on that day, saying tardiness was very worrying and “out of character” for Tepe, according to a 911 call.
Someone else called to request a wellness check before a distraught man who described himself as a friend of Spencer Tepe called police and said, “Oh, there’s a body. There’s a body. Oh my God.” He said he could see Spencer Tepe’s body was off the side of a bed in a pool of blood.
The Franklin County Coroner’s Office deemed the killings an “apparent homicide by gunshot wounds.”
Who were the Tepes?
Family members said the Tepes were “extraordinary people whose lives were filled with love, joy and deep connection to others.”
They have described Monique as a “joyful mother,” avid baker and “thoughtful planner.” According to their obituaries, which were issued jointly, the pair were married in 2020.
Spencer Tepe got his bachelor’s degree from Ohio State University in 2012 and earned his doctor of dental surgery degree in 2017, according to school records. He was a member of the American Dental Association and had been involved with the Big Brothers Big Sisters organization.
They had two young children. Both were home at the time of the killings and left unharmed, as was the family dog.
Gov. Jared Polis unilaterally stalled a specialized prison program aimed at rehabilitating and releasing people who have served decades behind bars for crimes they committed as juveniles and young adults, The Denver Post found.
Polis has not approved any of the program’s graduates for early release since 2023 — an about-face from the prior three years, during which the governor approved releases for all 17 such prisoners, according to records kept by the Colorado Department of Corrections.
The governor’s inaction has created a backlog of 11 prisoners who have completed the three-year program and have gone before the Colorado State Parole Board but are nevertheless still incarcerated, waiting for Polis to sign off on their freedom.
“The uncertainty of the situation is one of the scariest things I have ever gone through, because it pertains to the emotion of hope,” said prisoner Rory Atkins, 55, who was sentenced to life in prison with the possibility of parole for a murder he committed in 1988, when he was 18. “Many of us with long sentences in prison kind of accept that hope is painful. You learn to be fearful of having high hopes.”
Colorado lawmakers created the Juveniles and Young Adults Convicted as Adults Program, or JYACAP, in 2016 after the U.S. Supreme Court found that children are constitutionally different from adults and should not be automatically sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. Lawmakers that year also changed Colorado law to prohibit such punishment.
Initially limited to juveniles, the program was expanded in 2021 to include prisoners who committed a crime when they were 20 or younger and who have served at least 20 years of their sentence. The prisoners must also meet a variety of other conditions to enter the three-year program, which focuses on building life skills and preparing for life outside of prison.
After prisoners finish the program, the governor — after receiving a recommendation from the parole board — must give the final approval for them to be released on early parole.
“For whatever reason, there was this dollop of mercy that was required (in the law),” said Ann Roan, a retired attorney who represented a program participant. “And for years it has worked well. … So to have the brakes put on it so suddenly, with no explanation whatsoever, has really upended everyone’s justified expectations.”
Shelby Wieman, a spokeswoman for Polis, said in a statement that the prisoners’ applications are still under review, that the governor “takes these decisions very seriously” and that the serious nature of prisoners’ crimes requires “careful deliberation.”
“The governor’s office has also previously expressed discomfort with the governor’s role in the process, and proposed legislative changes to this program in the past, which the legislature declined to address,” Wieman said, apparently referring to a failed 2024 bill that would have cut the governor out of the process and shifted full authority for early releases to the parole board.
“We look forward to continuing to explore potential improvements with legislators and stakeholders,” Wieman said.
She did not answer questions about what changed from the program’s first few years, when Polis routinely approved graduates’ releases.
“We feel like we are being just dropped,” said Rose Martinez, who is waiting for the release of her cousin, Daniel Reyes, 56. He is serving a life sentence with the possibility of parole for a 1987 homicide he committed during a robbery when he was 18.
Martinez has, over the last decade, watched her cousin yearn for release as his 2027 parole eligibility date has drawn closer.
“I’ll never forget the day he told me, ‘I can’t wait until I can be outside of these walls and I can actually lean up against a tree,’” she said. “That was probably five years ago.”
Reyes has been waiting for the governor’s sign-off since April, he said. Atkins’ wait began in July, when the parole board recommended his release, he said. Others in the program, like Raymond Gone, who killed a Denver police officer in 1995 when he was 16, have been waiting on the governor for more than a year, he said.
“What would I say to the critics who say the crime I was convicted of was so serious that I should finish my entire sentence? Honestly, I would agree with them, if all I knew was that I was convicted of such a horrible crime,” said Gone, now 47. “…I know I am responsible, I am the cause, for an unfathomable amount of trauma in so many people’s lives. There isn’t any amount of time I could spend in this place to make up for what I did.
“But the opportunity I have been given through JYACAP was only made available to me because of a Supreme Court ruling… someone way above me decided that my life was worth saving and should be given a second chance.”
Since 2017, 112 prisoners have applied to participate in the JYACAP program; 44 were accepted, according to the Department of Corrections. Prisoners were denied for poor behavior in prison, the nature of the crimes they committed, and for not meeting the program’s basic eligibility requirements.
Last year, 40-year-old Raul Gomez-Garcia, who killed a Denver police officer in 2005 when he was 19, was denied entry to the program after his application stirred outrage within the slain officer’s family and the police department.
None of the 17 people released after completing the program have had their parole revoked, said Alondra Gonzalez, a spokeswoman for the Department of Corrections. One participant had “subsequent involvement with the criminal justice system,” she said, but it did not prompt parole revocation. She did not answer follow-up questions about that participant.
“Nobody reoffends, because they’ve grown up,” said Roan, who previously represented Gone. “…Every one of us at some point has been 16, and a lot of us who have children have watched what it is to be 16 from that perspective, and I don’t think anyone would say that is who you are for the rest of your life.”
‘A program that he signed into law’
Phillip “Mike” Montoya went into the JYACAP program after he’d spent 26 years behind bars. He was convicted of murder and sentenced to life in prison after he participated in a 1993 gang shooting as a 16-year-old, although he did not actually fire the fatal shot.
He found the program to be too basic at times, with tedious instruction on very basic tasks like how to brush your teeth or how to use a spatula. The curriculum wasn’t tailored to each individual, he noted.
“If you go inside the prison at 16 years old and maybe you never done anything in your life prior, like cook for yourself, do your own laundry, go to a grocery store and buy your own food, then maybe you are going to need a lot more assistance,” he said. “But for someone like me, I pretty much had to raise myself. I had to raise my brother and sisters. So going into prison, even though I went in at such a young age, I had a lot of knowledge of the world.”
Still, he is quick to praise the program’s pathway to release and the second chance it gives people who have been imprisoned since they were teenagers. Montoya has been working as a barber since he got out in August 2023, about three years before his parole eligibility date. He ultimately served 30 years and two days.
He’s tried to advocate for the program’s other participants, he said, seeking out meetings with officials and stakeholders.
“The response has always been the same, that (Polis) doesn’t want to deal with it for political reasons,” he said. “…We’re talking about a program that he signed into law that he doesn’t believe in now.”
Gone, Atkins and Reyes will each become eligible for parole in the coming years, prison records show. Reyes will be eligible in 2027, while Gone and Atkins will be eligible in 2030. Once they hit that mark, the parole board can release them without the governor’s sign-off.
Already, the parole board released two prisoners in 2024 and 2025 who completed the JYACAP program and reached their regular parole eligibility dates while waiting for Polis’ approval for early release, Gonzalez said.
For T’Naus Nieto, whose father is about to finish the program and join the small number of prisoners waiting for Polis’ final approval, the difference between an early release through JYACAP and a regular release when his father reaches parole eligibility in 2032 is significant.
Nieto wants his own children to grow up with their grandfather.
“My youngest is 5 and I have my daughter who is 8,” Nieto said. “So you are talking about a difference of six years. Six years to an 8-year-old. Do the math, and you miss out on their entire childhood. So just the fact that he could be in their lives for just a few short years makes a huge difference for a child.”
Across Colorado, in bustling municipal courtrooms and council chambers, in city attorneys’ offices and public defender headquarters, legal professionals and elected officials are scrambling to make sense of a new normal.
The world of city courts was upended in late December, when the Colorado Supreme Court unanimously ruled that municipalities cannot impose harsher punishments on lawbreakers than state statute would allow for the same offense.
Now, weeks after the court’s decision, cities are reexamining their local ordinances, judges are altering their courtroom advisements of defendants, and defense attorneys and prosecutors are negotiating plea agreements in an entirely different landscape.
“These are uncharted waters,” said Colette Tvedt, Denver’s chief municipal public defender.
Her office on Monday gave a presentation to the Denver City Council, outlining the implications of the state Supreme Court’s ruling while expressing urgency that the legislative body act quickly to bring the city’s code into compliance.
“Without council action, applying this rule to our sentencing ordinances will lead to endless litigation, confusion and additional violations of Denverites’ constitutional rights,” the public defender’s office wrote in its presentation.
Until Denver’s code is amended, Tvedt’s office argued, there are legal questions about whether the city’s criminal laws are enforceable because the sentences for many offenses are unclear. There is also a risk that defendants will receive illegal sentences because municipal court judges might come to conclusions that higher courts later overturn, the public defenders said, warning that the entire process could represent a “huge expense and uncertainty for years to come.”
Councilmembers, for their part, have expressed their desire to change the city’s code so it aligns with state penalties. The question will be determining which offenses have comparable state counterparts.
Sarah Parady, one of the councilwomen spearheading the changes, said she hoped to have language outlining proposed alterations by the end of the month.
“This is cuckoo bananas if we don’t do our job,” she said.
Other cities are also taking action.
The Littleton City Council on Jan. 6 passed an emergency ordinance amending its general penalty provision in order to “comply with state law and to avoid confusion.” The updated language states that penalties for non-felony criminal violations where the prohibited conduct is identical to a corresponding state charge will be capped at the state law’s maximum sentence.
Reid Betzing, the city attorney, acknowledged during the council meeting that the city is aware of what it needs to do to comply with the Supreme Court’s decision, but that it upends 120 years of home-rule doctrine in Colorado.
“We’re not necessarily super excited about it,” he said.
The city councils in Westminster and Aurora on Monday held executive sessions with their attorneys to review the Supreme Court decision and how it impacts their cities’ codes.
“Obviously, this decision bolsters the need to look at our sentencing practices,” Alison Coombs, an Aurora councilmember, said in an interview.
Kevin Bommer, executive director of the Colorado Municipal League, said his organization was “exceptionally disappointed” in the ruling, adding that it will mean “a complete revisiting of what we thought municipal courts were constitutionally allowed to do.”
There are broader implications, he said. “It’s not a threat, it’s just facts: If municipal courts are essentially de facto arms of the state, why on earth would municipalities go through the time and expense of going through those cases?”
‘This will make our jobs a lot easier’
Local judges, prosecutors and defense attorneys, meanwhile, are already seeing the decision’s impact in municipal courtrooms around the state.
Aurora Municipal Court Judge Brian Whitney issued an order last year pausing more than 300 cases in which attorneys challenged issues under the same pretenses as those before the Supreme Court. This month, Whitney ordered that those cases can now move forward, but must adhere to the new guidelines set by the high court.
“Any sentence imposed… must not exceed the applicable state statutory maximum for the corresponding identical offense,” he wrote in a Jan. 2 order.
Arvada Municipal Court Presiding Judge Kathryn Kurtz said the ruling doesn’t change too much in her courtroom, since she already generally stuck to state guidelines. There will be some small, technical updates, such as changing the advisement sheet that informs defendants about possible penalties for their infractions.
“It’s good to have finality on it,” she said in an interview. “We now know this is the law and we can move forward. Judges work very well with rules. When you give us clarity, it provides guidance. When there’s gray, that gives us issues. This will make our jobs a lot easier.”
Defense attorneys say they anticipate the ruling will also have a significant impact on plea negotiations with their clients.
Consider Denver’s municipal code: Retail theft or trespassing are each punishable by up to 300 days in jail. In state court, those offenses carry up to 10 days in jail. In Aurora, those same offenses could mean up to 364 days in jail — more than 36 times the potential sentence in state court.
If a defendant in Denver faced 300 days in jail and had multiple prior convictions, plea negotiations might start with 30 days and go up to 120 days, said Tvedt, the Denver municipal defender chief. But if the maximum penalty for a minor offense is just 10 days, their client might take a plea that would involve just a couple of days behind bars.
Individuals might also be more willing to take their cases to trial, knowing that they don’t risk up to a year in jail, defense attorneys said.
“This is really gonna be transformative to municipal courts,” Tvedt said.
‘Effects of this are wide and varied’
Then there’s the question of what to do with people who have been sentenced since March 1, 2022, when the new state guidelines took effect. Multiple attorneys said they believed anyone with a sentence that conflicts with the Supreme Court ruling has a legal argument that it should be negated.
“Right now, the priority has to be on individuals already sentenced and still serving illegal sentences,” said Elizabeth Cadiz, Aurora’s chief public defender.
There’s still plenty of confusion surrounding the new rules.
In Denver’s municipal court last week, a judge advised a defendant charged with trespassing that they faced up to 300 days in jail — an offense that would only involve up to 10 days in jail under the state guidelines.
Those involved in municipal court operations say it will take time to figure everything out, but the wheels are in motion all over the state.
“Most of us, our heads are spinning,” Cadiz said. “The effects of this are wide and varied.”
WASHINGTON — Twelve House Democrats who last year sued the Trump administration over a policy limiting congressional oversight of immigrant detention facilities returned to federal court Monday to challenge a second, new policy imposing further limits on such unannounced visits.
In December, those members of Congress won their lawsuit challenging a Department of Homeland Security policy from June that required a week’s notice from lawmakers before an oversight visit. Now they’re accusing Homeland Security of having “secretly reimposed” the requirement last week.
In a Jan. 8 memorandum, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem wrote that “Facility visit requests must be made a minimum of seven (7) calendar days in advance. Any requests to shorten that time must be approved by me.”
The lawmakers who challenged the policies are led by Rep. Joe Neguse (D-Colo.) and include five members from California: Reps. Robert Garcia (D-Long Beach), Lou Correa (D-Santa Ana), Jimmy Gomez (D-Los Angeles), Raul Ruiz (D-Indio) and Norma Torres (D-Pomona).
Last summer, as immigration raids spread through Los Angeles and other parts of Southern California, many Democrats including those named in the lawsuit were denied entry to local detention facilities. Before then, unannounced inspections had been a common, long-standing practice under congressional oversight powers.
“The duplicate notice policy is a transparent attempt by DHS to again subvert Congress’s will…and this Court’s stay of DHS’s oversight visit policy,” the plaintiffs wrote in a federal court motion Monday requesting an emergency hearing.
On Saturday, three days after Renee Nicole Good was shot and killed by an Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent, three members of Congress from Minnesota attempted to conduct an oversight visit of an ICE facility near Minneapolis. They were denied access.
Afterward, lawyers for Homeland Security notified the lawmakers and the court of the new policy, according to the court filing.
In a joint statement, the plaintiffs wrote that “rather than complying with the law, the Department of Homeland Security is attempting to get around this order by re-imposing the same unlawful policy.”
“This is unacceptable,” they said. “Oversight is a core responsibility of Members of Congress, and a constitutional duty we do not take lightly. It is not something the executive branch can turn on or off at will.”
Congress has stipulated in yearly appropriations packages since 2020 that funds may not be used to prevent a member of Congress “from entering, for the purpose of conducting oversight, any facility operated by or for the Department of Homeland Security used to detain or otherwise house aliens.”
That language formed the basis of the decision last month by U.S. District Court Judge Jia Cobb in Washington, who found that lawmakers cannot be denied entry for visits “unless and until” the government could show that no appropriations money was being used to operate detention facilities.
In her policy memorandum, Noem wrote that funds from the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which supplied roughly $170 billion toward immigration and border enforcement, are not subject to the limitations of the yearly appropriations law.
“ICE must ensure that this policy is implemented and enforced exclusively with money appropriated by OBBBA,” Noem said.
Noem said the new policy is justified because unannounced visits pull ICE officers away from their normal duties. “Moreover, there is an increasing trend of replacing legitimate oversight activities with circus-like publicity stunts, all of which creates a chaotic environment with heightened emotions,” she wrote.
The lawmakers, in the court filing, argued it’s clear that the new policy violates the law.
“It is practically impossible that the development, promulgation, communication, and implementation of this policy has been, and will be, accomplished — as required — without using a single dollar of annually appropriated funds,” they wrote.
In a decision that could complicate Gov. Gavin Newsom’s push to build a giant water tunnel and remake California’s water system, a state appeals court has rejected the state’s plan for financing the project.
The 3rd District Court of Appeal ruled against the state Department of Water Resources’ plan to issue billions of dollars in bonds to build the 45-mile tunnel beneath the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta.
The decision is a win for California ratepayers and taxpayers, said Roger Moore, a lawyer representing six counties in Northern California and two water agencies in the Delta region.
He said it underlines that state agencies “have to take real steps to make sure that there is transparency and accountability.”
Upholding a 2024 decision by a Sacramento County Superior Court judge, the court ruled the water agency does not have the authority under a 1959 law to issue bonds for a new “unit” of the State Water Project, which delivers water from the Delta to farms and cities, and “exceeded its delegated authority” in planning to finance the tunnel through bonds.
Kirsten Macintyre, a spokesperson for the department, said the court didn’t say the Department of Water Resources lacks the authority to build the project or borrow funds to pay for it, but rather that the description the state presented in the case was “overly broad.”
“While DWR respectfully disagrees with that conclusion, we have taken additional steps to resolve the issue,” she said in an email.
Last year, the agency opened a second court case in an effort to confirm its bond-issuing authority, a step that Macintyre said was taken to “address the court’s concerns.”
If the appeals court decision stands and the ongoing case doesn’t bring a different conclusion, it might lead the Newsom administration to revise its plan for financing the project. Officials could also petition for the California Supreme Court to hear the case.
State officials have said that the tunnel, called the Delta Conveyance Project, ultimately would be paid for by participating water agencies that agree to repay the bonds.
The tunnel would create a second route to transport water from new intakes on the Sacramento River to the south side of the Delta, where pumps send water into the aqueducts of the State Water Project.
The system of aqueducts and pipelines transports water from the Delta to 27 million people in cities from the Bay Area to San Diego, and to 750,000 acres of farmland.
In 1960, California voters approved bonds for the construction of the State Water Project. Legislation in 1959 had given DWR the authority to build the Feather River Project, an initial component of the State Water Project.
But in the ruling last week, the court said DWR officials were wrong to rely on that provision. The three judges said it doesn’t allow the agency to issue bonds “under the guise of a ‘further modification’” of that original water system.
Newsom has said the project is essential for the state’s future and has made it a central priority of his administration.
State officials and supporters of the project have said the tunnel would modernize the state’s water system for more severe droughts and deluges with climate change, and would withstand sea level rise and the risks of a major earthquake in the region.
Opponents, including environmental advocates, fishing groups and tribal leaders, argue the project would harm the Delta’s communities and ecosystem, and further threaten native fish that are already in decline.
On Saturday night, the White House posted to social media footage of Maduro’s perp walk in New York. In Donald Trump’s own account, the extraction of the Venezuelan leader had all the elements of a cinematic thriller. “I watched it, literally, like I was watching a television show,” he told Fox News. Afterward, Trump posted an image of Maduro blindfolded and handcuffed.
By Monday, Maduro and Flores were sitting in navy and orange prison garb in a courtroom, their legs shackled as they were flanked by their attorneys. If it seemed to Maduro like an occasion to publicly reflect on the remarkable circumstances of the occasion—to engage in the stakes at the same level of theater that Trump had—the 92-year-old judge in the case, Alvin Hellerstein, reminded him that the 30-minute hearing amounted to something more procedural. As Maduro stood and began to speak in Spanish about his capture, Hellerstein interrupted and said, “There will be time and place to get into all of this.” For now, he was asking for only the basic details: a confirmation of identity and an entry of a plea.
“I’m innocent. I’m not guilty,” Maduro said through an interpreter. “I am a decent man,” he added. “I am still president of my country.”
“Not guilty,” Flores said. “Completely innocent.”
Outside the courthouse, Shawn Michael, a content creator among the throng of Venezuelan protesters cheering Maduro’s arrest, stood in Tom Ford aviators, a denim jacket from a collaboration between Supreme and Louis Vuitton, and a baseball hat reading “We the People” on the front and “The Constitution” on the back. Michael was livestreaming in between chants and gleefully sparred with a passerby who objected to his support for Trump.
“I think it’s sad,” Michael said, unable to contain a grin. “Even though I’m combative against the people across the way, my heart really is open for them because they really are lost. They have so much hatred for the president of the United States of America that they put that as a precedent over the safety and security of their own families.”
In his view, the celebrations surrounding him were proof of Trump’s greatness. He had his objections to the president—“Sometimes I shut my ears too—Oh my God, Donald, stop”—but as he surveyed the spectacle, a new round of chants broke out. He thought the compromise was worth it.
Investigators declined to reveal the suspected motive in the shooting death of a prominent California farmer’s estranged wife in eastern Arizona, but they said the couple’s prolonged divorce case arose in nearly all interviews with family and friends.Michael Abatti, 63, was arrested last week in El Centro, California, in the shooting death of Kerri Ann Abatti, 59, at her family’s vacation home in Pinetop, Arizona, where she moved after splitting with her husband.Investigators, who discussed the case at a news conference Monday, say Michael Abatti traveled from El Centro to Pinetop on Nov. 20, carried out the killing and returned to California early the next morning. They declined to say what occurred at the Pinetop house in the last days of Kerri Abatti’s life.“Different theories will come up,” Navajo County Sheriff David Clouse said of the motive. “The only thing that’s glaring that I think everybody already knows is there’s a divorce in place and they weren’t able to come to a resolution. But I can’t speak exactly to what the motive would be.”Owen Roth, one of Michael Abatti’s attorneys, said his client surrendered to law enforcement, agreed to be extradited to Arizona and remains innocent under the law. “Our client is in his mid-60s and has significant health issues, and we continue to worry about his well-being,” Roth said. “We ask the public to respect his privacy and constitutional rights and reiterate that this case will be decided based on the evidence by a jury.” An autopsy report released Monday said Kerri Abatti’s cause of death was a gunshot wound to the head.The report said she was found unconscious on the floor near her kitchen by her nephew, who told investigators he heard a loud sound before finding her. When investigators searched the home they found a “circular defect” on a window and determined “a gunshot likely originated from the yard outside the home,” the autopsy report said.The Associated Press left a message for the Navajo County Sheriff’s Office for further explanation. The medical examiner’s office in Coconino County, which conducted the autopsy, directed questions about the report to a Navajo County official, and the AP also left a message for the official. A descendant of early Latter-day Saints settlers who helped found Pinetop in the 1880s, Kerri had filed for divorce, with proceedings pending in California at the time of her death.Authorities searched his home in far Southern California on Dec. 2 as part of the investigation into his wife’s death.Michael Abatti comes from a long line of farmers in the crop-rich Imperial Valley, which is the biggest user of Colorado River water and known for growing leafy greens, melons and forage crops. His grandfather, an Italian immigrant, was among the region’s early settlers and his father helped start the Imperial Valley Vegetable Growers Association.Michael Abatti served on the board of the powerful Imperial Irrigation District from 2006 to 2010.The Abattis, who married in 1992 and had three children, were sparring over finances. Kerri told the court the couple had lived an affluent lifestyle during more than three decades of marriage. They owned property in three states, vacationed internationally and sent their children to private school.Kerri initially received $5,000 monthly temporary spousal support. She later sought an increase, citing struggles to maintain her standard of living as well as keep up the Arizona property. She also asked for an additional $100,000 in attorney’s fees, court filings showed.Michael Abatti eventually agreed to raise support to $6,400 monthly, despite having countered in a court filing that poor farming years had reduced his income. He blamed market shifts favoring Ukrainian crops, rising shipping costs and harsh weather.See more coverage of top California stories here | Download our app | Subscribe to our morning newsletter | Find us on YouTube here and subscribe to our channel
HOLBROOK, Ariz. —
Investigators declined to reveal the suspected motive in the shooting death of a prominent California farmer’s estranged wife in eastern Arizona, but they said the couple’s prolonged divorce case arose in nearly all interviews with family and friends.
Michael Abatti, 63, was arrested last week in El Centro, California, in the shooting death of Kerri Ann Abatti, 59, at her family’s vacation home in Pinetop, Arizona, where she moved after splitting with her husband.
Investigators, who discussed the case at a news conference Monday, say Michael Abatti traveled from El Centro to Pinetop on Nov. 20, carried out the killing and returned to California early the next morning. They declined to say what occurred at the Pinetop house in the last days of Kerri Abatti’s life.
“Different theories will come up,” Navajo County Sheriff David Clouse said of the motive. “The only thing that’s glaring that I think everybody already knows is there’s a divorce in place and they weren’t able to come to a resolution. But I can’t speak exactly to what the motive would be.”
Owen Roth, one of Michael Abatti’s attorneys, said his client surrendered to law enforcement, agreed to be extradited to Arizona and remains innocent under the law. “Our client is in his mid-60s and has significant health issues, and we continue to worry about his well-being,” Roth said. “We ask the public to respect his privacy and constitutional rights and reiterate that this case will be decided based on the evidence by a jury.” An autopsy report released Monday said Kerri Abatti’s cause of death was a gunshot wound to the head.
The report said she was found unconscious on the floor near her kitchen by her nephew, who told investigators he heard a loud sound before finding her. When investigators searched the home they found a “circular defect” on a window and determined “a gunshot likely originated from the yard outside the home,” the autopsy report said.
The Associated Press left a message for the Navajo County Sheriff’s Office for further explanation. The medical examiner’s office in Coconino County, which conducted the autopsy, directed questions about the report to a Navajo County official, and the AP also left a message for the official. A descendant of early Latter-day Saints settlers who helped found Pinetop in the 1880s, Kerri had filed for divorce, with proceedings pending in California at the time of her death.
Authorities searched his home in far Southern California on Dec. 2 as part of the investigation into his wife’s death.
Michael Abatti comes from a long line of farmers in the crop-rich Imperial Valley, which is the biggest user of Colorado River water and known for growing leafy greens, melons and forage crops. His grandfather, an Italian immigrant, was among the region’s early settlers and his father helped start the Imperial Valley Vegetable Growers Association.
Michael Abatti served on the board of the powerful Imperial Irrigation District from 2006 to 2010.
The Abattis, who married in 1992 and had three children, were sparring over finances. Kerri told the court the couple had lived an affluent lifestyle during more than three decades of marriage. They owned property in three states, vacationed internationally and sent their children to private school.
Kerri initially received $5,000 monthly temporary spousal support. She later sought an increase, citing struggles to maintain her standard of living as well as keep up the Arizona property. She also asked for an additional $100,000 in attorney’s fees, court filings showed.
Michael Abatti eventually agreed to raise support to $6,400 monthly, despite having countered in a court filing that poor farming years had reduced his income. He blamed market shifts favoring Ukrainian crops, rising shipping costs and harsh weather.