ReportWire

Tag: Federal lawsuit

  • Judge expands reach of lawsuit accusing NC of holding youth in solitary confinement

    A photograph of a juvenile detention room provided by the North Carolina Division of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

    A photograph of a juvenile detention room provided by the North Carolina Division of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

    NC Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention division

    A lawsuit filed by a handful of teens could reshape life for hundreds locked in North Carolina’s largest juvenile detention center.

    A federal judge last week granted teens who filed the lawsuit last year the right to seek changes on behalf of all current and future youth detained at the Cabarrus Regional Juvenile Detention Center in the ongoing legal battle.

    The civil case doesn’t seek any money. It aims to prohibit the state from putting children and teens awaiting trial in what lawyers and others say is clearly solitary confinement: being locked in small rooms for about 23 hours a day.

    Such conditions at Cabarrus and other state-run youth detention sites leave those locked inside little to no access to school, therapy or recreation, the lawsuit states. That violates their constitutional rights to due process and protection from cruel and unusual punishment, the civil complaint argues.

    State attorneys deny that state officials are keeping youth in their rooms and not providing them access to education.

    Recent court filings in the 2024 lawsuit also include descriptions of “shocking physical conditions,” such as visible mold and walls covered with graffiti and excrement, the reports said.

    The judge’s Oct. 22 decision means that if a judge or jury orders the state to make changes, they would apply to what happens now and in the future at the facility. .

    The judge’s ruling fell short of the teens’ and their attorneys’ request to include all youth held at the state’s nine facilities before they have a trial for their charges.

    A teen who says he spent nearly 50 days in his room at a North Carolina juvenile detention center, except for showers and phone calls, photographed in January 2024.
    A teen who says he spent nearly 50 days in his room at a North Carolina juvenile detention center, except for showers and phone calls, photographed in January 2024. Kaitlin McKeown kmckeown@newsobserver.com

    Concerns surfaced in 2023

    The Cabarrus detention center, a two-building facility in Concord, opened in 200 for kids waiting for their cases to go before a judge.

    Since early 2023, officials from the Charlotte-based Council for Children’s Rights, which filed the lawsuit along with attorneys in private practice, voiced concern to state officials about “alarming” conditions, the lack of educational services and too much time spent locked in rooms at the Cabarrus facility.

    “Defense attorneys for children detained and jailed in the Cabarrus Juvenile Jail have repeatedly put on the record in these children’s court cases that the children are not being allowed out of their cells, are not receiving educational services, and are not receiving therapeutic services,” the lawsuit states.

    The council represented youth in court in Mecklenburg County until it was recently disbanded amid funding cuts.

    In December 2023, The News & Observer first revealed concerns about youth in temporary detention facilities being held in solitary confinement-like conditions — in rooms with only a bed, toilet, sink and small window for about 23 hours a day in facilities across the state.

    In 2023 interviews, William Lassiter, deputy secretary of North Carolina’s Division of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, said the state turned to isolating youth in their rooms more frequently after a severe staffing shortage and other challenges created safety concerns for youth and staff.

    North Carolina banned the use of solitary confinement years ago, Lassiter said at the time.

    He didn’t consider the practice drawing criticism to be solitary confinement, he said, since it wasn’t used as a punishment and youth weren’t being held in a special isolated unit.

    State juvenile justice officials declined to comment on the expanded lawsuit.

    William Lassiter, deputy secretary for juvenile justice with the NC Department of Public Safety, speaks during a meeting of the House Judiciary Committee in Raleigh in June 2021.
    William Lassiter, deputy secretary for juvenile justice with the NC Department of Public Safety, speaks during a meeting of the House Judiciary Committee in Raleigh in June 2021. Ethan Hyman ehyman@newsobserver.com

    Denied statewide class action status

    Initially, the lawsuit sought class-action status to include all youth in the nine state facilities, meaning any changes ordered would affect all youth in state custody awaiting trial.

    But in her Oct. 22 order granting class-action status, Chief District Judge Catherine C. Eagles described evidence of all detention facilities implementing written policies in the same way as “thin.”

    Pulling in juveniles from all facilities across the state into the lawsuit would be challenging and less likely to result in “meaningful injunctive relief,” Eagles’ order states.

    So the judge limited it to the Cabarrus facility, a 62-bed juvenile detention facility that housed three of the youth who brought the lawsuit.

    Inspection reports

    New filings in the lawsuit include inspection reports from Disability Rights North Carolina, this state’s protection and advocacy agency, showing that youth remained in their cells even in facilities that weren’t experiencing severe staffing shortages.

    Officials from Disability Rights in July 2024 observed young people in Pitt Regional Detention Center in Greenville held in windowless rooms for all but one to three hours a day, says an inspection report filed as evidence in the case. But the facility had 30 of its 32 staff positions filled, a court filing states.

    “All narrow windows to the outside had been obscured or spray-painted black such that young people are unable to see outside, and young people’s windows to the day room areas were kept covered with opaque black flaps,” the report said.

    Youth detained at New Hanover Regional Detention Center reported being allowed out of their small rooms for only 1.5 to six hours on weekdays. The Perquimans Juvenile Detention Center in Hertford reported variations in time out of rooms, from two to six hours on weekdays.

    The 18-bed Pitt regional facility had visible mold and walls covered in graffiti, dried excrement, according to the court filing.

    In their filings, attorneys representing the state objected to the Disability Rights reports being presented as evidence in the case, saying they are ”hearsay and unreliable.”

    “They consist of unsworn summaries of statements made by unidentified juveniles and staff, compiled by unidentified DRNC monitors,” the lawsuit says.

    Virginia Bridges covers criminal justice in the Triangle and across North Carolina for The News & Observer. Her work is produced with financial support from the nonprofit The Just Trust. The N&O maintains full editorial control of its journalism.

    Related Stories from Charlotte Observer

    Virginia Bridges

    The News & Observer

    Virginia Bridges covers what is and isn’t working in North Carolina’s criminal justice system for The News & Observer’s and The Charlotte Observer’s investigation team. She has worked for newspapers for more than 20 years. The N.C. State Bar Association awarded her the Media & Law Award for Best Series in 2018, 2020 and 2025.

    Virginia Bridges

    Source link

  • Dad with cancer in ICE custody is separated from doctors, suit says, & more cases

    Thousands of legal cases reach U.S. courts every year. Read on to learn about some of the latest cases, including a federal lawsuit filed by the ACLU of Michigan on behalf of a father, Jose Daniel Contreras-Cervantes, who is detained in ICE custody. This provided photo shows Contreras-Cervantes, his wife and their children.

    Thousands of legal cases reach U.S. courts every year. Read on to learn about some of the latest cases, including a federal lawsuit filed by the ACLU of Michigan on behalf of a father, Jose Daniel Contreras-Cervantes, who is detained in ICE custody. This provided photo shows Contreras-Cervantes, his wife and their children.

    ACLU of Michigan

    The summaries below were drafted with the help of AI tools and edited by journalists in our News division. All stories below were reported, written and edited by McClatchy journalists.

    Thousands of legal cases reach U.S. courts every year. From accusations of mistreatment in prisons to fraud to sexual abuse and beyond, here are some of the latest from across the country.

    Dad with leukemia in ICE custody is separated from his doctors in MI, suit says

    In Michigan, a federal lawsuit says Jose Daniel Contreras-Cervantes, a father of three with leukemia, is not receiving proper medical care while detained by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The ACLU of Michigan is advocating for his release, arguing that a new ICE directive is preventing bond hearings, which could allow for his conditional release. His family is concerned about his health and the time lost with him due to his detention, according to the ACLU. | Published Oct. 6 | Read More

    Deputy mayor faked bomb threat related to Israel at Los Angeles city hall, feds say

    In Los Angeles, former Deputy Mayor of Public Safety Brian K. Williams was sentenced to probation after pleading guilty to making a fake bomb threat, according to federal prosecutors Williams fabricated the threat due to stress and anxiety during a meeting, prosecutors say. Williams was not motivated by political reasons, but his actions diverted police resources and created a dangerous environment, prosecutors wrote in court documents. | Published Oct. 7 | Read More

    3 college students die trapped in burning Cybertruck, reports say. Lawsuits filed

    In California, the families of two college students have filed wrongful death lawsuits against Tesla after their children were trapped and died in a burning Cybertruck. The lawsuits say the vehicle’s design flaws, including inaccessible door handles and hidden emergency releases, left the occupants with no practical means of escape. The tragic incident has raised concerns about the safety of Tesla’s design, as the families seek justice and answers. | Published Oct. 7 | Read More

    Immigration lawyer critical of ICE has phone seized at MA airport, lawsuit says

    In Massachusetts, immigration attorney Andrew Lattarulo is suing the government after his phone was seized by federal agents at Boston Logan International Airport, according to his federal lawsuit. Lattarulo, who is critical of ICE, says the seizure was in retaliation for his public criticisms. A judge has temporarily prohibited the government from searching his phone, pending a hearing, court records show. | Published Oct. 10 | Read More

    Teacher fired over online Charlie Kirk posts wants her job back in TN, suit says

    In Tennessee, Susannah O’Brien is suing to get her job back after she says she was fired for Facebook posts about Charlie Kirk’s death. O’Brien argues her posts were shared as a private citizen and did not disrupt her school. She claims her termination violated her free speech rights and is seeking reinstatement and damages, according to her federal lawsuit. | Published Oct. 10 | Read More

    McClatchy News continues to follow lawsuits and legal cases from around the country. Check back for more legal stories.

    Stories by Real-Time News team, with AI summarization

    Source link

  • Newsom to seek court order stopping Trump’s deployment of California National Guard to Oregon

    Gov. Gavin Newsom said Sunday that he intends to seek a court order in an attempt to stop President Trump’s deployment of California National Guard troops to Oregon.

    Calling the president’s action a “breathtaking abuse of power,” Newsom said in a statement that 300 California National Guard personnel were being deployed to Portland, Ore., a city the president has called “war-ravaged.”

    “They are on their way there now,” Newsom said of the National Guard. “This is a breathtaking abuse of the law and power.”

    Trump’s move came a day after a federal judge in Oregon temporarily blocked the federalization of Oregon’s National Guard.

    The president, who mobilized the California National Guard amid immigration protests earlier this year, has pursued the use of the military to fight crime in cities including Chicago and Washington, sparking outrage among Democratic officials in those jurisdictions. Local leaders, including those in Portland, have said the actions are unnecessary and without legal justification.

    “The Trump Administration is unapologetically attacking the rule of law itself and putting into action their dangerous words — ignoring court orders and treating judges, even those appointed by the President himself, as political opponents,” Newsom said.

    In June, Newsom and California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta filed a federal lawsuit over Trump’s mobilization of the state’s National Guard during immigration protests in Los Angeles. California officials are expected to file the court order over Sunday’s deployment using that existing lawsuit.

    Newsom has ratcheted up his rhetoric about Trump in recent days: On Friday, the governor lashed out at universities that may sign the president’s higher education compact, which demands rightward campus policy shifts in exchange for priority federal funding.

    “I need to put pressure on this moment and pressure test where we are in U.S. history, not just California history,” Newsom said. “This is it. We are losing this country.”

    Daniel Miller, Melody Gutierrez

    Source link

  • District of Columbia sues over Trump’s deployment of the National Guard

    The District of Columbia on Thursday sued to stop President Donald Trump’s deployment of National Guard during his law enforcement intervention in Washington.The city’s attorney general, Brian Schwalb, said the surge of troops essentially amounts to an “involuntary military occupation.” He argued in the federal lawsuit that the deployment, coinciding with an executive order Aug. 11, that now involves more than 1,000 troops is an illegal use of the military for domestic law enforcement.A federal judge in California recently ruled that Trump’s deployment of National Guard troops to Los Angeles after days of protests over immigration raids in June was illegal.The Republican administration is appealing that decision and Trump has said he is ready to order federal intervention in Chicago and Baltimore, despite staunch opposition in those Democrat-led cities. That court ruling, however, does not directly apply to Washington, where the president has more control over the Guard than in states.The White House did not immediately respond to a message seeking comment to the new lawsuit.Members of the D.C. National Guard have had their orders extended through December, according to a Guard official. While that does not necessarily mean all those troops will serve that long, it is a strong indication that their role will not wind down soon.Several GOP-led states have added National Guard troops to the ranks of those patrolling the streets and neighborhoods of the nation’s capital.Schwalb’s filing contends the deployment also violates the Home Rule Act, signed by President Richard Nixon in 1973, because Trump acted without the mayor’s consent and is wrongly asserting federal control over units from other states.The city’s attorney general, an elected official, is its top legal officer and is separate from Washington’s federal U.S. attorney, who is appointed by the president.The lawsuit is the second from Schwalb against the Trump administration since the president asserted control over the city’s police department and sent in the Guard, actions that have been with protests from some residents.Trump has said the operation is necessary to combat crime in the district, and Mayor Muriel Bowser, a Democrat, has pointed to a steep drop in offenses such as carjackings since it began.Violent crime has been an issue in the capital for years, though data showed it was on the decline at the start of Trump’s intervention.

    The District of Columbia on Thursday sued to stop President Donald Trump’s deployment of National Guard during his law enforcement intervention in Washington.

    The city’s attorney general, Brian Schwalb, said the surge of troops essentially amounts to an “involuntary military occupation.” He argued in the federal lawsuit that the deployment, coinciding with an executive order Aug. 11, that now involves more than 1,000 troops is an illegal use of the military for domestic law enforcement.

    A federal judge in California recently ruled that Trump’s deployment of National Guard troops to Los Angeles after days of protests over immigration raids in June was illegal.

    The Republican administration is appealing that decision and Trump has said he is ready to order federal intervention in Chicago and Baltimore, despite staunch opposition in those Democrat-led cities. That court ruling, however, does not directly apply to Washington, where the president has more control over the Guard than in states.

    The White House did not immediately respond to a message seeking comment to the new lawsuit.

    Members of the D.C. National Guard have had their orders extended through December, according to a Guard official. While that does not necessarily mean all those troops will serve that long, it is a strong indication that their role will not wind down soon.

    Several GOP-led states have added National Guard troops to the ranks of those patrolling the streets and neighborhoods of the nation’s capital.

    Schwalb’s filing contends the deployment also violates the Home Rule Act, signed by President Richard Nixon in 1973, because Trump acted without the mayor’s consent and is wrongly asserting federal control over units from other states.

    The city’s attorney general, an elected official, is its top legal officer and is separate from Washington’s federal U.S. attorney, who is appointed by the president.

    The lawsuit is the second from Schwalb against the Trump administration since the president asserted control over the city’s police department and sent in the Guard, actions that have been with protests from some residents.

    Trump has said the operation is necessary to combat crime in the district, and Mayor Muriel Bowser, a Democrat, has pointed to a steep drop in offenses such as carjackings since it began.

    Violent crime has been an issue in the capital for years, though data showed it was on the decline at the start of Trump’s intervention.

    Source link

  • Town of Oyster Bay settlement over mosque in Bethpage collapses | Long Island Business News

    THE BLUEPRINT:

    • $3.95 million settlement between Town of Oyster Bay and MOLI collapsed

    • Town cited traffic safety, parking concerns for withdrawing approval

    • MOLI cited Anti-Muslim opposition and a petition influenced town’s decision

    • MOLI asks court to maintain trial original trial date, Oct. 27

    A proposed settlement between the Town of Oyster Bay and Muslims on Long Island (MOLI), over a federal lawsuit tied to plans for the Masjid Al-Baqi mosque expansion in Bethpage, has collapsed.

    Earlier this month, the town had reached a $3.95 million settlement with MOLI, agreeing to approve its plans for a new mosque on the site of an existing house of worship at Stewart and Central avenues in Bethpage and resolving a lawsuit over the project.

    Under the settlement agreement, MOLI could demolish the two current buildings on the property and build a single new structure with on-site parking and design elements that were aimed at mitigating the town’s traffic and safety concerns in the surrounding area. The $3.95 million settlement was to reimburse MOLI for legal fees and associated expenses. The town was also to repeal a 2022 law that required significantly more parking from new places of worship.

    Thursday marked the deadline for the town to approve the proposed settlement for it to move forward.

    Yet on Thursday, attorneys on behalf of MOLI, in a federal court filing, said that the town “repudiated its own agreement,” adding that the town was faced “with a fresh wave of anti-Muslim agitation from local residents.”

    “All we want is the chance to worship in peace, like every other faith community in this country,” Imran Makda, a plaintiff, said in a written statement. “We believed the town when it signed the settlement, and we are devastated that the town leaders gave in to hate instead of honoring their word.”

    A “Stop the Mosque” petition on change.org had garnered 1,878 verified signatures urging the town board to vote against the mosque, saying the location “is not a place to add congestion.” But statements on the petition brought “a flood of racist commentary online,” stripping away “any pretense that this dispute was about parking or traffic,” according to the court filing.

    “Upon further analysis and legal guidance, the town board has chosen to defend its zoning authority and withdraw from the proposed settlement agreement,” Frank Scalera, the town’s attorney, said in a written statement.

    “This case between the Town of Oyster Bay and MOLI centers on traffic safety and parking — not religion,” Scalera said. “The facts are clear: high accident rates at the intersection are concerning, and more than 4,775 red light violations are issued here annually.”

    The federal lawsuit was filed in January in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York by MOLI. In the lawsuit, MOLI claimed that the mosque project had been opposed by town officials and some community members. The town maintained it had planning concerns.

    In July, the mosque’s attorneys said that the town referenced testimony from a “grandmother” that they argued did not exist and was included solely to strengthen the planning board’s denial. The town later confirmed the grandmother is Nassau Legis. Rose Marie Walker.

    In January, Walker told LIBN that “Masjid Al-Baqi mosque has been a wonderful part of the community and excellent neighbors. The expansion plan, however, does not account for the significant need for additional parking and impacts to traffic on the surrounding roadways. I am hopeful that Masjid Al-Baqi will be amenable to working with the local municipality to reach a compromise or to identify an alternate location in the Bethpage community that would allow for continued growth.”

    Scalera said that the town board “will not compromise when it comes to protecting everyone in the public, nor will they accept development plans that fail to adequately address these serious concerns.”

    Now MOLI is requesting that the Oct. 27 trial date that was established before the settlement agreement would remain.

    “We have lived in Oyster Bay for decades as good neighbors,” Moeen Qureshi, a plaintiff, said in a written statement.  “This mosque is not just a building—it is a home for our children.  The Town’s refusal to keep its promise is painful, but it only strengthens our resolve to see this through at trial.”

    The trial, MOLI’s attorneys said in the court filing, is the “only path forward.”

    “The town signed an agreement that was filed in federal court, and then—under pressure from bigoted voices—refused even to bring it to a vote,” Muhammad Faridi, an attorney representing MOLI, said in a written statement.

    “By walking away from a signed settlement, town officials have all but guaranteed that their insurers will deny coverage,” Faridi said. “That means it won’t be the insurers paying for this discrimination—it will be the taxpayers of Oyster Bay, who now stand to pay millions more so that elected officials can protect their own political futures.”

     


    Adina Genn

    Source link

  • Upland company created the sparks that set off the raging 2021 South fire, federal suit alleges

    Upland company created the sparks that set off the raging 2021 South fire, federal suit alleges

    A San Bernardino County wildfire that spanned 680 acres and took 275 firefighting personnel eight days to contain began with a few sparks from an excavator.

    That’s what the federal government is claiming in a complaint filed Thursday in U.S. District Court in Los Angeles.

    The government is suing an Upland-based pipeline contracting company and its founder, Garrett John Gentry, for negligence and is seeking more than $2.2 million in damages in the fire, which chewed through 450 acres of the San Bernardino National Forest.

    “Defendants are liable for all damages to the United States resulting from the South Fire, including its fire suppression costs and the United States’ administrative, investigative, accounting, and collection costs,” the government says in the lawsuit.

    A call to Garrett J. Gentry Engineering was not immediately returned. The 14-year-old company serves California and Arizona and clears $35 million in revenue annually.

    The South fire commenced on Aug. 25, 2021, and was eventually contained on Sept. 2, according to the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection.

    The agency said nine structures — residential and commercial — were destroyed and 28 others were damaged. There were no injuries or fatalities.

    According to Cal Fire, the fire began north of Glen Helen Parkway and east of Sierra Avenue and Lytle Creek Road just west of the 15 Freeway. The lawsuit alleges the fire originated at a property at 4053 Lytle Creek Road in Fontana.

    There, the suit says, Gentry was operating an excavator, attempting to determine the viability of developing a commercial property at an underdeveloped site.

    The government said Gentry, the owner, realized he was on terrain that was too rocky and tried to leave the area. During his retreat, he noticed smoke behind him. He attempted but failed to suppress a fire that eventually kick-started the eight-day blaze, the lawsuit alleges.

    Government investigators said the steel treads of the excavator struck rock and caused ignition. Nearby dry vegetation then served as fuel to propel the fire.

    The government alleges that Gentry knew the area was rocky and “failed to exercise reasonable care,” according to the lawsuit.

    Gentry and his company also failed to take action to prevent the fire, the lawsuit alleges.

    The United States is asking for a jury trial.

    Andrew J. Campa

    Source link

  • Muslim group sues Washtenaw County township over mosque dispute

    Muslim group sues Washtenaw County township over mosque dispute

    click to enlarge

    Shutterstock

    A federal lawsuit alleges Lodi Township prevented the construction of a mosque.

    A Muslim advocacy group filed a federal lawsuit against a Washtenaw County township on Thursday, alleging local officials are making it impossible to open a mosque.

    The lawsuit, filed by the Michigan chapter of the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR-MI), claims Lodi Township has unconstitutional zoning laws and practices that violate the religious rights of Muslims.

    Masjid Al-Farook, a nonprofit, filed an application for rezoning to develop an Islamic place of worship on Ellesworth Road in 2021 in Lodi Township near Ann Arbor. In March 2024, the Lodi Township Planning Commission recommended that the Board of Trustees deny the application. Trustees said they have no plan to take any action on the recommendation, leaving the Muslim community with no recourse other than filing a lawsuit challenging the township’s zoning ordinance and master plan, the lawsuit states.

    The township has just one zoning district where places of worship are permitted to exist, yet there’s no land within that district to build a place of worship, the lawsuit alleges.

    “Lodi Township’s current zoning ordinance makes it impossible for any new place of worship to be developed within the township which is an abject violation of RLUIPA (Religious Land Use And Institutionalized Persons Act) and the U.S. Constitution,” CAIR-MI staff attorney Amy Doukoure said in a statement. “Despite being on notice since at least 2021 that their zoning scheme likely violated Masjid Al-Farook’s constitutional and legal rights, the Township has voted to deny their request for rezoning and took no action to review their zoning ordinance until Masjid Al-Farook demanded that they finally take action. Despite the time that has elapsed since the original request for rezoning has been filed, the Township has been unable to rectify their zoning ordinance and bring it in compliance with their obligations under the U.S. Constitution and federal law.”

    The lawsuit alleges the township violated RLUIPA and the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution.

    The Muslim community has no place of worship in the township.

    Under the township’s master plan, local officials only approved one application for a rezoning of a religious institution, and that was for the expansion of a preexisting Christian church.

    “Lodi Township, like the many other municipalities, has taken the route of restricting development and expansions of religious institutions for American Muslims,” CAIR-MI Executive Director Dawud Walid said. “After nearly three years of waiting and giving the Township time to fix their zoning scheme, CAIR-MI has no other choice than to assert the Muslim community’s rights through litigation.”

    This isn’t the first time CAIR-MI has sued a Michigan community for allegedly thwarting plans to build a mosque. In 2022, the advocacy group settled a similar lawsuit on behalf of Adam Community Center against the city of Troy after the municipality denied variances that would have allowed the development of the first mosque in the city. As part of the settlement, Troy paid undisclosed monetary damages and acknowledged that the property could be used for a place of worship.

    In 2o16, the Michigan Islamic Academy in Ann Arbor settled a lawsuit, filed by CAIR-MI, that alleged Pittsfield Township prevented the construction of a 70,000-square-foot Islamic school. The academy was awarded $1.7 million and granted the right to build the school.

    Steve Neavling

    Source link

  • Police pressured him to confess to a murder that never happened. Now, Fontana will pay him $900,000

    Police pressured him to confess to a murder that never happened. Now, Fontana will pay him $900,000

    The city of Fontana has agreed to pay nearly $900,000 to settle a federal lawsuit filed by a man who said police pressured him to falsely confess to a murder that never happened.

    During a 17-hour interrogation in August 2018, Fontana Police Department officers questioned Thomas Perez Jr. about the disappearance of his father, whom Perez had reported missing. Officers alleged Perez had murdered his father and, when Perez denied the accusation, officers tried to convince him that he had forgotten the crime, according to a federal lawsuit, court records and video of the interrogation.

    Throughout their lengthy questioning of Perez, officers used a variety of tactics aimed at goading him into confessing. They brought his dog into the interrogation room, told him the dog had walked through blood and would be sent away to be euthanized. They drove Perez to a dirt lot and asked him to walk around in search of his dad’s body. They told him that his father’s body was in a morgue.

    “You murdered your dad,” one of the officers said, according to video of the interrogation. “Daddy’s dead because of you.”

    The officers told Perez that he would have “closure” if he told them what happened. Perez repeatedly told them that he didn’t know.

    “Stop lying to yourself,” officers told Perez.

    Perez, who was distressed, visibly sleep-deprived and later testified that he had been denied medication for depression and other mental disorders, sobbed during the interview. At one point he tore out his hair and ripped open his shirt. When officers stepped out of the room, he tied his shoestrings around his neck in an attempt to hang himself, records and video show.

    At the 16-hour mark, Perez told police that he had gotten into an altercation with his father and had stabbed him.

    But a major problem with that confession soon emerged: Perez’s father was alive and safe. He had left the house he shared with his son and stayed overnight at a friend’s home near Union Station, according to court records. Later, he waited to catch a flight at Los Angeles International Airport to visit his daughter in Northern California. When police learned that Perez’s father was safe, they initially withheld the information and put Perez on a psychiatric hold.

    “In my 40 years of suing the police I have never seen that level of deliberate cruelty by the police,” said Perez’s attorney, Jerry L. Steering. “After what I saw on the video of what they did to him, I now know that the police can get [anyone] to confess to killing Abe Lincoln.”

    Fontana police were initially suspicious of Perez after observing that his house was in disarray, as if a “struggle” had taken place. Perez’s father’s phone was left inside the house and police said they found “visible bloodstains.” A police dog had picked up the scent of a corpse, court records show.

    After the ordeal, Perez filed a federal lawsuit against the city of Fontana, which also named Officers David Janusz, Jeremy Hale, Ronald Koval, Robert Miller and Joanna Piña as defendants. The Fontana Police Department did not respond to The Times’ request for comment about the $898,000 settlement, or the officers’ status within the department.

    U.S. District Judge Dolly Gee found that “a reasonable juror could conclude that the detectives inflicted unconstitutional psychological torture on Perez,” according to a court order last June.

    “He testified that the officers prevented him from sleeping and deprived him of his medication,” Gee said. “There is no legitimate government interest that would justify treating Perez in this manner while he was in medical distress.”

    Colleen Shalby

    Source link

  • DTE Energy added to federal lawsuit over excessive pollution emissions on Zug Island

    DTE Energy added to federal lawsuit over excessive pollution emissions on Zug Island

    DTE Energy is now entangled in a federal lawsuit that alleges its subsidiary, EES Coke Battery on Zug Island, violated the Clean Air Act by substantially increasing its sulfur dioxide emissions and jeopardizing the health of people who live in River Rouge and southwest Detroit.

    U.S. District Judge Gershwin A. Drain granted the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) request to add DTE Energy as a defendant in the lawsuit filed against EES Coke in June 2022.

    Environmentalists applauded the decision, saying the multibillion-dollar energy company must be held accountable for the actions of its subsidiaries. During the discovery phase of the case, depositions with EES Coke and DTE employees have revealed that DTE and two of its subsidiaries were behind the decision that led to increased pollution at the plant, activists say.

    “I am relieved that DTE will not be able to hide their illegal behavior from the court,” Ebony Elmore, a Sierra Club Executive Committee member who lives in River Rouge, said Wednesday. “It’s important for everyone to understand what the court found: The emissions may come from EES Coke, but the orders come from DTE Energy.”

    Over the past decade, the plant has emitted thousands of tons of sulfur dioxide, a dangerous air pollutant that can cause asthma, bronchitis, and emphysema, according to the EPA. Short-term exposure can cause difficulty breathing, stomach pain, headaches, nausea, vomiting, fever, and irritation of the nose, throat, and lungs. Asthma is a chronic lung disease that disproportionately affects Black Detroiters.

    The coal-powered plant manufactures coke, a key ingredient in steel production. During the process, it generates what the EPA refers to as “coke oven gas,” which can be used as fuel. When burned, this gas releases sulfur dioxide. The battery plant can utilize this fuel in other facilities, power its own operations, or burn it off in a flare.

    click to enlarge

    Shutterstock

    Zug Island is the site of pollution-spewing industrial plants in River Rouge, just south of Detroit.

    In 2014, state environmental regulators issued a new permit to the facility, lifting the limit on coke fire gas combustion, a process that emits sulfur dioxide. This decision was based on the company’s assurance that the change “would not result in a significant increase in emissions,” according to the EPA.

    However, the plant did significantly increase its emissions, and the company failed to obtain the necessary permits or implement required pollution controls, the EPA alleges.

    Activists say DTE has been especially problematic for lower-income, predominantly Black communities, where an abundance of pollution-spewing plants tends to be located.

    “In truth this is only one example in DTE’s long and ugly history of profiting at the expense of low-income people of color,” Sierra Club organizer Bryan Smigielski said. “This ruling is an important step in a long road towards environmental justice for southwest Detroit.”

    Zug Island is adjacent to Michigan’s most polluted ZIP code, 48217, located in Detroit. The community is inundated with a toxic stew of chemicals wafting from steel mills, coal-fired power plants, gas flares, billowing smokestacks, towering piles of coal and petroleum coke, a salt mine, wastewater treatment plant, and one of the nation’s largest oil refineries — all looming over schools, neighborhoods, parks, senior centers, and a recreation center.

    A nauseating stench of rotten eggs, burnt plastic, and gasoline permeates the air, and heavy-duty trucks spewing harmful emissions rumble to and from factories all day and night, often carrying toxic chemicals and debris.

    “We hope to move quickly and ensure that EES Coke and DTE end their illegal pollution and fix the damage they have caused,” Nick Leonard, director of the Great Lakes Environmental Law Center, said.

    Earthjustice attorney Mary Rock says DTE can’t hide from what it has done.

    “At DTE’s direction, EES Coke sought the removal of pollution limits that allowed the facility to burn more coke oven gas and emit sulfur dioxide pollution,” Rock said.

    Steve Neavling

    Source link

  • Trans man beaten and arrested by sheriff’s deputy asks judge to be declared innocent

    Trans man beaten and arrested by sheriff’s deputy asks judge to be declared innocent

    For more than two hours, Emmett Brock waited outside a Downey courtroom. He sat, he stood, he fidgeted, he paced in the emptying hallway. Finally, he heard his name and went inside.

    It was March 8, 2024, exactly 392 days after he’d been beaten by a Los Angeles County sheriff’s deputy in front of a 7-Eleven, then arrested and accused of biting the lawman who pummeled him. Afterward, he’d been sent to the Norwalk station lockup and booked for three felonies and a misdemeanor. By the time prosecutors dropped the case seven months later, he’d already lost his high school teaching job.

    It had been a painful year, and to put it behind him Brock wanted a judge to declare him innocent. His lawyer had filed the paperwork, and now Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Evan Kitahara was going to decide on the request.

    Twenty minutes after entering the courtroom, Brock walked out an innocent man.

    Just over a week later, he filed a federal lawsuit accusing the deputy of “felony crimes” and alleging the department had covered them up.

    “I can finally exhale,” Brock told The Times after learning of the judge’s decision. “It felt like I’d been holding my breath for over a year.”

    Even if the new developments bring some peace of mind for the Whittier man, they could signal trouble for the deputy who arrested him. When Deputy Joseph Benza made the February 2023 arrest, he signed a declaration under penalty of perjury saying Brock had bitten him.

    At this month’s hearing, Kitahara determined there was “no evidence” of that.

    Benza is “susceptible to being decertified,” said Brock’s attorney, Thomas Beck, suggesting the deputy could lose his California peace officer certification for alleged dishonesty and be banned from working in law enforcement. “And on the use-of-force issue, he could be prosecuted.”

    According to documents Beck filed in court, the FBI has been looking into the case since last year. The Los Angeles County district attorney’s office confirmed to The Times this week that local prosecutors are reviewing the matter as well.

    Attorney Tom Yu, who is representing Benza, has maintained for months that his client did not do anything wrong. And records show a Sheriff’s Department review last year cleared the deputy’s use of force.

    “I wholeheartedly disagree with Mr. Beck’s representation of what occurred,” Yu wrote to The Times in an email. “I am confident that the federal judge will throw all of the suspect’s claims out during this litigation.”

    The Sheriff’s Department said in a statement Monday that it had not been served with the lawsuit but confirmed the incident had been investigated and the findings are under review.

    “Our top priority is the safety of everyone involved in any encounter,” the statement said.

    On the morning of Feb. 10, 2023, Brock had just left work at Frontier High School when he spotted a deputy who appeared to be berating a woman on the side of the road. As he drove by, Brock casually threw up his middle finger, thinking the deputy wouldn’t see it.

    Emmett Brock was driving home from his job as a teacher when he was stopped and beaten by a deputy outside of a 7-Eleven.

    (Irfan Khan / Los Angeles Times)

    According to the lawsuit filed this week, the deputy abandoned the roadside confrontation, hopped in his cruiser and started tailing Brock. Each time Brock made a turn, the cruiser mirrored his move — but the deputy inside didn’t turn on the lights or sirens and didn’t try to pull him over, Brock said.

    Fearing he was being followed by someone impersonating a police officer, Brock called 911 and asked what to do.

    “If he hasn’t pulled you over, he hasn’t pulled you over,” the dispatcher said, according to a recording of the call shared with The Times.

    But a few minutes later, Brock pulled into a 7-Eleven parking lot on Mills Avenue in Whittier. As he stepped out to buy a drink, the deputy approached him.

    “I just stopped you,” Benza said, without explaining why.

    “No, you didn’t,” Brock replied, according to an audio recording captured by the deputy’s body camera.

    “Yeah, I did,” the deputy said, grabbing Brock’s arm. The deputy then “overwhelmed young Brock,” according to the lawsuit, and “without uttering another word, violently took Brock to the pavement.”

    For the next three minutes Brock struggled as the deputy held him down, all of it captured on the 7-Eleven’s surveillance camera.

    “You’re going to kill me! You’re going to f— kill me,” Brock shouted, screaming for the deputy to stop.

    “Instead Benza rained at least 10 closed fist punches at Brock’s head and face,” the suit says, “while Benza used his greater body weight to pin the plaintiff to the ground as he continued to angrily pummel Brock with both fists, scraping his knuckles in the process.”

    After Brock was in handcuffs, the deputy put him into the back seat of his cruiser. Brock was bloodied and his glasses were broken but, according to the lawsuit, the deputy still hadn’t explained why he’d stopped him.

    When a sergeant arrived on scene, Brock told him he’d been beaten in retaliation for giving a deputy the finger — an act that could have been a violation of the department’s policy explicitly banning the use of force in retaliation for disrespect.

    “Instead of immediately recognizing Benza had committed a felony crime of assault against Brock,” the suit said, the sergeant “purposefully ignored plaintiff’s complaints and took no action.”

    As other deputies arrived, Benza showed them his bruised knuckles and blamed Brock — but he didn’t say anything about being bitten, according to the lawsuit. When paramedics arrived, the suit says, he didn’t tell them anything about a bite, either.

    Before leaving to go back to the station, Benza and several sergeants walked into the 7-Eleven, according to a 32-page innocence petition Beck filed in court on Brock’s behalf. The lawmen went into the store’s camera room and stayed there for a little over 10 minutes, “presumably screening the audio-free 7-Eleven video recording of the assault,” Beck wrote in the petition.

    “With knowledge of this damaging evidence,” Beck continued, the deputy drove back to the station and “falsely reported” to a supervisor that he’d only thrown punches because Brock had bitten his hands.

    Then, the petition says, Benza went to urgent care and said he’d been bitten on his right hand — though the physician assistant who treated him wrote in his report that there was bruising but “no bite marks.”

    After he left urgent care, Benza filed his declaration under penalty of perjury saying he’d been bitten on his left hand. He said the incident started when he’d been on a routine patrol and decided to stop Brock after spotting an air freshener dangling from the rearview mirror. He left out any mention of stopping a woman on the side of the road and said nothing about Brock giving him the finger.

    In an interview with The Times last year, Benza’s attorney said that’s because the person Brock passed on the side of the road wasn’t his client, but another law enforcement officer probably from another agency.

    Now, Beck said, there’s evidence to disprove that.

    “I have been advised that the FBI has downloaded Benza’s cell phone GPS data and was able to corroborate Mr. Brock’s claim of being pursued along the route Benza claimed he never took,” Beck wrote in the innocence petition. (The FBI told The Times this week that it does not confirm or deny the existence of investigations.)

    When he was taken to the Norwalk station for booking — on offenses including mayhem and injuring an officer while resisting arrest — Brock was asked to give a statement, during which he explained he is transgender. One jailer asked if he was a girl, he said, and another asked to see his genitals before deciding to put him in a women’s holding cell.

    Though his family bailed him out, Brock said, he lost his job when state authorities notified the school of his arrest. County prosecutors initially charged him with two misdemeanors, but dropped the case in August.

    Last fall, Beck said, federal prosecutors reached out, handing over some of the materials he hadn’t been able to get from the Sheriff’s Department and asking to interview Brock. With the new materials, Beck filed a petition asking a court to declare his client innocent.

    Now in graduate school, Brock showed up to the hearing this month flanked by his mother, several classmates and a professor. Dressed in a black suit and a green tie, he stood in front of a judge as his lawyer explained the case, arguing for a declaration of “factual innocence.” The prosecutor agreed, and the judge entered a tentative ruling finalized last week.

    “Though I am happy that I am factually innocent, I don’t think it will ever be over for me in my heart,” Brock told The Times. “It’s something that I still think about every single day.”

    Keri Blakinger

    Source link

  • Lies, homicides, a getaway plan: Gripping details emerge in case of cop who catfished Riverside teen

    Lies, homicides, a getaway plan: Gripping details emerge in case of cop who catfished Riverside teen


    She was 15. He told her he was 17, just a few months shy of 18. They met on Instagram during the summer of 2022.

    The girl, who lived with her mother, younger sister and grandparents in Riverside, kept their “relationship” a secret from her family. They would send messages through Instagram and talk over Discord, an instant messaging platform that allows voice calls.

    He showered her with gifts, sending her jewelry, groceries, money and gift cards. He paid for her UberEats and DoorDash deliveries and helped her buy birthday gifts for her friends, telling her he had a good job that could pay for it.

    But then he got clingy — pushy, even. He was pressuring her to send nude photos, which made her uncomfortable. Right after Halloween, she broke up with him.

    She blocked him on Instagram, but he still found a way to send her a suicide letter.

    In reality, the “boy” she had been talking to was a 28-year-old sheriff’s deputy from Virginia named Austin Lee Edwards. And on Black Friday, a few weeks after the teen broke up with him, he drove to her home in Riverside and killed her mother, Brooke Winek, 38, and her grandparents, Mark Winek, 69, and Sharie Winek, 65. He set fire to their house before kidnapping the teen at gunpoint. After getting into a shootout with police, Edwards shot himself with his service weapon and died, according to police. The teen was physically unharmed.

    New, grisly details about the incident are now coming to light through a federal lawsuit that the now-16-year-old and her foster mother filed Friday against Edwards’ estate; the Washington County Sheriff’s Office in Virginia, which employed him at the time of the killings; Washington County Sheriff Blake Andis; and Det. William Smarr, the investigator who reviewed Edwards’ employment application at the agency.

    The lawsuit alleges violation of her 4th Amendment rights, false imprisonment, negligent hiring, assault and battery, among other charges. Scott Perry, the teen’s attorney, said the damages amount to at least $50 million.

    The filing is the second suit by a member of the Winek family against the Sheriff’s office — Mychelle Blandin, Mark and Sharie Winek’s surviving daughter, filed a lawsuit last year, alleging negligent hiring practices and seeking more than $100 million in damages. The lawsuits hinge in part on reporting by The Times that detailed how police hired Edwards despite his troubling mental health history.

    In February 2016, Edwards was detained by Abingdon police in Virginia after he cut himself and threatened to kill himself and his father, who told police the incident was spurred by Edwards’ problems with his girlfriend, The Times reported. The incident prompted two custody orders, Edwards’ stay at a psychiatric facility and a court’s revocation of his gun rights, which were never restored.

    Mychelle Blandin looks at photos of her mom, dad and sister, who were victims of a triple homicide in Riverside that authorities say began with a “catfishing” case involving Blandin’s niece.

    (Jason Armond / Los Angeles Times)

    Perry is arguing that Edwards should never have been hired and that the sheriff’s office failed to interview most of Edwards’ references or conduct a proper background check. If they had, they would have discovered the mental health orders, the lawsuit claims.

    “The Washington County’s Sheriff’s office gave Austin Lee Edwards a gun, a badge and cloaked him with the authority of the law,” Perry said in a statement. “He used these things to gain access to the Winek home and commit these atrocities. We will prove that an adequate investigation of Edwards’ background would have prevented this tragedy.”

    The teenager and her foster parent declined interviews for this story. The Washington County Sheriff’s office didn’t respond to requests for comment.

    According to The Times’ review of Edwards’ personnel file, which includes his employment application, Smarr chose not to interview Edwards’ father, who was listed as a reference, because of their “close familial relationship,” the detective wrote. Smarr spoke with Edwards’ previous employer at Lowe’s, but he couldn’t get hold of two of Edwards’ personal references or his two neighbors.

    Smarr also sought background information from the Virginia State Police, where Edwards had been employed for nine months before resigning and applying to Washington County. But Smarr was rebuffed by a sergeant there, who said he wasn’t comfortable answering whether Edwards had gotten in any trouble, been reprimanded or been subjected to an internal investigation.

    In addition to Smarr, the lieutenant and captain of the Washington County Sheriff’s criminal investigation division signed off on Edwards’ employment application, as did its personnel director and chief deputy, according to the file.

    “Edwards has no criminal history or civil issues, past and current employers speak positively of him, as well as his references,” Smarr wrote. “It is my belief that Edwards is hirable.”

    The most recent lawsuit also answers some lingering questions about the crime, including how Edwards met the teenager, why he decided to kill her family, and where he planned to take the teen after kidnapping her. Here is an account of what transpired during that fateful Thanksgiving holiday weekend, taken from the lawsuit and previous reporting by The Times.

    The teenager celebrated Thanksgiving 2022 with her mother, her younger sister and her mother’s boyfriend at Golden Corral. Afterward, they went to the Moreno Valley apartment where her mother’s boyfriend lived and stayed there overnight.

    The next day, Brooke Winek and her daughters went to Starbucks, planning to go Black Friday shopping with Brooke’s boyfriend. When they got back to the apartment, Brooke got a call from her mother, Sharie, who told her to take the call off speakerphone because they needed to speak about something serious.

    Undated handout photo of 28-year-old Austin Lee Edwards of North Chesterfield, Va.

    Undated handout photo of 28-year-old Austin Lee Edwards of North Chesterfield, Va.

    (Riverside Police Dept.)

    The Times reported last year that Edwards gained access to Sharie and Mark Winek’s home on Price Court by pretending he was a detective conducting an investigation involving the teenager. After getting into the Wineks’ home, Edwards told Sharie to call Brooke and tell her that she and the teenager needed to come to the house so he could ask them some questions.

    In order to keep the “investigation” from her daughters, Brooke told them there was something wrong with their phones and that they needed to go back to their home on Price Court to get them fixed. Brooke then dropped off her younger daughter with Brooke’s sister, Blandin, before heading over to Price Court.

    The teen recalled that, once they got to the house, Brooke put her keys in her purse and told her to wait in the car while she went inside. The teen noticed that she didn’t see her mother’s dog in the window, which was unusual because the dog always perched there whenever people visited the home.

    After waiting for a while, the teen decided to go into the house. As she opened the screen door, Edwards grabbed her by the hair and pulled her inside.

    In the moment, she thought the man grabbing her was the telephone repairman. She didn’t realize it was the man who had catfished her.

    Then she saw the bodies of her grandmother near the entryway, her grandfather next to the stairs and her mother lying on the hardwood floor. She saw the bags over their heads, taped to their necks. Their arms and legs were bound with duct tape.

    The teen started to scream.

    Edwards was wearing a gold police badge on his belt in the shape of a star. As she yelled, he pointed a handgun, which also had a star engraved on it, at her.

    “Stop screaming,” he said.

    She recognized his voice. It was the “boy” she had met online, whom she had been talking to for months.

    “Are you going to hurt me?” she asked.

    “I will if you keep screaming,” he replied.

    Edwards grabbed the teen and pulled her through the house, dousing everything with gasoline from a canister he brought with him and lighting the rooms on fire. He also opened the windows and doors so the flames would spread. Then he took the girl outside and forced her into the backseat of his red Kia Soul.

    Family photo of slain victims Brooke Winek, 38, and her parents Sharie Winek, 65, and Mark Winek, 69.

    Family photo of slain victims Brooke Winek, 38, and her parents Sharie Winek, 65, and Mark Winek, 69.

    (Winek Family Photos / Los Angeles Times)

    Meanwhile, the Wineks’ next-door neighbor saw the house on fire and called 911. Another neighbor, whose driveway Edwards had parked in, also called the police. She phoned the authorities again when she saw Edwards force the teen into his car.

    After speeding away, Edwards told the teen to pretend that she was his daughter if anyone asked. He said he was going to take her back to Virginia. When the girl asked why he killed her family, he said that if he didn’t, they would “report it” and he wouldn’t have enough time to escape.

    Edwards also said he was a police officer and that agencies “need to do better backgrounds” because he “lied” during the hiring process. As he continued to drive toward his eventual destination of Saltville, Va., where he had recently purchased a home and blacked out the windows, he kept his hand on his gun. In the car with them was also the large, bloody knife he used to stab Brooke.

    They made two pitstops during the drive to use the restroom, but Edwards never let go of the teen’s hand. They also made a stop so Edwards could clean the blood off himself. He told the girl that they wouldn’t stop for food until they left California and that they would drive to Virginia through Las Vegas, New Mexico and Texas. She would have to stay in the backseat, he said, until they got her a change of clothes.

    The Riverside Police Department identified Edwards through interviews with neighbors, who provided descriptions of his car and video footage from security cameras. Police determined that he was in the Mojave Desert and alerted San Bernardino County authorities, who chased after his Kia Soul.

    During the pursuit, Edwards fired his gun through the back window of the car, causing the Kia to fill with smoke. The fuel canister, which Edwards had placed in the backseat with the teen, splashed her with gasoline.

    Edwards’ Kia drifted off the road and got stuck on some rocks under a bridge, enabling the police cars to catch up.

    As law enforcement closed in, Edwards told the teen to get out of the car.

    With nowhere else left to go, he turned his service weapon on himself and pulled the trigger.



    Erin B. Logan, Summer Lin

    Source link

  • Massachusetts cannabis businesses challenge constitutionality of federal drug laws – Cannabis Business Executive – Cannabis and Marijuana industry news

    Massachusetts cannabis businesses challenge constitutionality of federal drug laws – Cannabis Business Executive – Cannabis and Marijuana industry news





    Massachusetts cannabis businesses challenge constitutionality of federal drug laws – Cannabis Business Executive – Cannabis and Marijuana industry news






























    skip to Main Content

    AggregatedNews

    Source link