A screenshot from a video released by the Wisconsin State Public Defender that shows a youth in detention being restrained and beaten by staff at the Jonathan Delagrave Youth Development and Care Center in Caledonia on May 27, 2025.
Racine County and two juvenile detention center staff members in Caledonia, Wisconsin have been sued for allegedly using excessive force on a teen. In a statement, the county says it has made changes since the incident.
The teen’s mother, Kianna Reed, brought the lawsuit against the county and Robert and Jordan Knight, described in the suit as former and current security coordinators. The facility, the Jonathan Delagrave Youth Development and Care Center, opened less than a month before the incident.
The lawsuit alleges that on May 27, 2025, the teen, who suffers from emotional and psychological disabilities, became emotionally dysregulated and the Knights egged him on and physically attacked him with excessive force that violated his Eighth Amendment rights. .
In December, the state public defender’s office released video footage of part of the incident, which appeared to show four staff members directing the then-15-year-old to move from a spot by a wall in a hallway, possibly to a nearby room, and the teen not moving, the Examiner reported.
After a staff member took a swing at the teen, the situation devolved into a struggle. The teen was struck repeatedly by staff before and after he was on the ground.
“I’m devastated. No mother should ever have to watch her child be beaten by the very people entrusted with his safety,” Reed said, according to the December release from the public defender’s office. “Seeing that video and knowing my son is still in that facility is terrifying.” According to the lawsuit, which was filed April 28, the teen is no longer at the facility as of April 9.
The lawsuit says his placement in the facility stemmed from being found guilty of a misdemeanor count of retail theft and a misdemeanor count of obstructing an officer.
On the evening of May 27, 2025, while the teen was in the facility dayroom, he “became dysregulated due to one or more of his disabilities, and he began arguing with another (facility) resident,” the lawsuit alleges. An employee requested assistance from safety and security coordinators.
The Knights responded to the dayroom, and the teen willingly walked with them to the intake area with no physical resistance, the lawsuit alleges. Two other coordinators accompanied them to the intake room.
In December, the county said that the teen made multiple threats of physical violence to other juveniles and staff. During the walk to the intake area, he was “mouthing off” to the Knights, who egged him on, the lawsuit alleges. The teen told Jordan Knight he would beat him up but “made no physical contact or aggressive moves toward Jordan Knight.”
In the intake area, Robert Knight pointed in the teen’s face and screamed at him to “stop making threats,” the lawsuit states.
The lawsuit says Knight told the teen to enter a holding room and repeatedly said “go ahead then.” It says that without physical provocation or physical resistance from the teen, he punched the teen in the face.
The lawsuit alleges that the teen did not punch, kick or otherwise try to injure the Knights during the incident. Robert and Jordan Knight hit him over 20 times with closed fists, knee strikes and elbow strikes, it says.
The teen experienced physical injury, pain and suffering, emotional distress and other damages, the lawsuit says.
According to the public defender’s office, the teen had bruises, swelling on his right eye, blurred vision and headaches, scrapes and cuts and dried blood in his ear, based on records from evaluations arranged by the facility.
The county executive’s office sent a statement to the Examiner, saying that after the incident, Racine County conducted an internal review of policies, procedures and operational practices at the center, with protocol updates receiving final approval from the Wisconsin Department of Corrections.
“Racine County Human Services is dedicated to continuous improvement. It is imbedded in our operations with the goal for the highest quality of services for those entrusted in our care,” the county asserted in a written statement.
The county stated that as part of that review, it implemented additional measures focused on supervisor practices, staff training and continued development on de-escalation, trauma-informed care and evidence-based responses for youth with complex behavioral and mental health needs.
The county said it also reviewed treatment-oriented models used in other facilities serving youth with significant behavioral or mental health challenges “to inform ongoing operational improvements.”
Racine County said in December that “the primarily involved staff member” was immediately placed on administrative leave after the incident and resigned within three days.
The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported in December that this was Robert Knight and that Knight said the teen was displaying signs of aggression at the time of the incident. He said his actions were justified based on the teen’s history at the center.
The Journal Sentinel reported that he said he intended to force the boy back and not actually strike him but that this is not apparent in the video.
Knight said he resigned because of a shift toward working with more youth with mental health issues, according to the Journal Sentinel.
The lawsuit alleges that he resigned to avoid investigation of his conduct and actions.
A different worker seen repeatedly striking Anthony was ordered to complete eight hours of remedial training, according to the public defender’s office release in December. The Journal Sentinel reported that this was Jordan Knight, who, according to the lawsuit, is still working at the facility.
In December, the county said that law enforcement and independent human services agencies fully investigated and reviewed the incident. It said the details of the investigation and relevant video were provided to the Racine County District Attorney’s Office, and that the office declined to pursue prosecution.
On Friday, the Examiner asked the district attorney’s office for a statement on why the office declined to pursue prosecution. District Attorney Tricia Hanson said in an email that the lawsuit does not change her decision. She said the burden of proof in a criminal case is significantly higher than in the civil lawsuit.
In December, the public defender’s office called for a “full-scale” investigation into conditions at the facility and the qualifications of staff members who interact with children. State Public Defender Jennifer Bias said that meaningful reforms to how children are treated in the juvenile justice system are needed.
In its statement on Friday, the county said it will respond to the allegations through the legal process and will not further discuss the pending lawsuit.
GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.
Voters hold signs saying "Hands Off Our Votes" and "Our Vote Our Voice Our Power" outside the Alabama Statehouse on May 4, 2026 at the Alabama Statehouse in Montgomery, Alabama. The Alabama Legislature began a special session Monday that could result in changes to primary elections and current congressional legislative district lines. (Brian Lyman/Alabama Reflector)
The Alabama Legislature on Friday passed two bills that would allow the state to set new primary elections in certain congressional and legislative district if federal courts allow the state to revert to maps it previously declared racially discriminatory.
The session came after the U.S. Supreme Court substantially weakened Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, preventing racial discrimination in voting laws, in Louisiana v. Callais, and as the Alabama Attorney General’s Office sought to overturn prior court rulings that led to the creation of a second congressional district with a substantial population of Black voters.
Republicans said the efforts were meant to allow state officials to draw maps. Gov. Kay Ivey, who called the special session on May 1, said it would take mapping power from “activist groups who think they know Alabama better than Alabama.”
Democrats through the session said Republicans were trying to reduce Black political representation, won through the suffering and deaths of civil rights activists.
“My aunt bludgeoned on the Edmund Pettus Bridge, tear gas, billy clubs, trampled over for the right to vote not a long time ago,” said Sen. Robert Stewart, D-Selma, during debate on Friday. “We didn’t even have the Voting Rights Act intact for 50 years. That is a sin and a shame.”
Protestors shadowed the session all week, from a Monday rally that drew at least 400 people to demonstrations in legislative committees on Thursday to a protest on Friday that led to the removal of one activist from the House galleries and drew Democratic state representatives attempting to intervene on her behalf.
Litigation over the new laws is likely if the federal courts reverse their previous rulings and allow the state to redistrict. Democrats throughout the week noted an amendment to the Alabama Constitution passed in 2022 forbids election law changes six months before an election. Republicans said the amendment did not apply to primaries.
Alabama Reflector staffers documented the session and took photos throughout the week.
This story was originally produced by Alabama Reflector, which is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network which includes Wisconsin Examiner, and is supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity.
Mike McClanahan, the NAACP Louisiana state conference president, is restrained by sergeants-at-arms as he tries to enter a state Senate committee room during a May 8, 2026, hearing. Republican state lawmakers are expected to advance proposals on congressional redistricting that would eliminate one of both of the state's majority-Black U.S. House seats. (Photo by Wes Muller/Louisiana Illuminator)
Tensions erupted Friday as Republican state lawmakers presented new election maps to eliminate one or both of Louisiana’s majority-Black congressional districts.
Hundreds of people came to the State Capitol, filling several overflow rooms, to watch the Senate and Governmental Affairs Committee, which met to consider new U.S. House district boundaries and give the public a chance to comment. Lawmakers don’t plan to start voting on the maps until at least next week.
Committee chairman Sen. Caleb Kleinpeter, R-Port Allen, called the hearing after Gov. Jeff Landry declared a state of emergency and suspended Louisiana’s upcoming U.S. House primary elections April 30, a day after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled the state’s existing congressional map was an unconstitutional racial gerrymander against white voters.
Within minutes of the meeting coming to order, Sen. Gary Carter Jr., D-New Orleans, began questioning Kleinpeter about how many absentee ballots had already been cast in the May 16 U.S. House primaries and whether the votes would be counted.
“Can you give the public certainty that those ballots will not be discarded?” Carter asked.
Kleinpeter said Louisiana Secretary of State Nancy Landry, no relation to the governor, was the appropriate official to answer his question, but she was not in attendance.
Carter continued his questioning, asking Kleinpeter if he was personally concerned about the status of his own ballot.
“Have you voted yet?” Carter asked.
“I don’t have to answer that,” Kleinpeter responded.
Surprised by the rapid-fire questions from the generally soft-spoken Carter, Kleinpeter called for a recess, which eased tensions enough for the meeting to resume after several minutes.
Kleinpeter told Carter he would make sure the secretary of state was made aware of his questions, and that she or someone from her office would attend the committee’s next meeting, which is scheduled for Wednesday.
Nancy Landry has declined to answer questions related to the U.S. Supreme Court ruling, explaining that the case, Callais v. Louisiana, is still in litigation after being returned to the federal district court where it originated. There are also ongoing legal challenges to the governor’s order to postpone the U.S. House primaries.
The rest of Friday’s hearing saw tempers flare among senators and protesters, with chants of “shut it down” heard from attendees watching from the Senate committee hall corridor and adjacent overflow rooms.
The discussion grew particularly heated when state Sen. Jay Morris, R-West Monroe, presented his congressional map that eliminates both majority-Black U.S. House districts. Morris, who is white, said his proposed boundaries don’t prevent a Black candidate from winning one of the state’s six seats.
“I didn’t draw it with the intention to draw it 6-0,” Morris said. “I left race out of it … It’s intended to comply with the Supreme Court in Callais.”
Carter began a fiery exchange with Morris about legislation the West Monroe senator sponsored this session to eliminate the Orleans Parish clerk of criminal court and eliminate several of its judgeships. Gov. Jeff Landry signed the clerk bill into law, preventing exonerated “prison lawyer” Calvin Duncan, who is now an actual attorney, from assuming office. Morris’ measure paring back the Orleans judges’ roster awaits House consideration.
“Let’s look at the totality of your work,” Carter told Morris. “Your work has eliminated the elected seat of an African American in the city of New Orleans. Your work has eliminated the political power of numerous elected officials in the city of New Orleans.”
Morris said his legislation is meant only to consolidate Orleans Parish’s dual court systems for civil and criminal cases, the only one of its kind in the state.
Carter and Morris began speaking over each other, prompting Kleinpeter to call another recess, which cut off the microphones and the Capitol’s live video feed.
“Put my microphone back on!” Carter yelled. “He’s suggesting he’s not racist. I suggest we look at his work.”
“You are out of line,” Kleinpeter said.
The sergeants-at-arms intervened, trying to calm the room as Carter and Morris both stood up to leave. As Morris walked away, he turned to the spectators seated behind him, all against his proposals, and said, “Y’all need to shut up.”
“I was frustrated when, as I was trying to answer questions from committee members, people in the audience directly behind me were continuing to comment and talk loudly enough so that it was hard for me to concentrate and answer questions,” Morris said in a statement issued after the hearing.
As Carter and Morris both left the committee room for another recess, the crowd in the hallway chanted “let him speak,” referring to Carter. Sergeants-at-arms stood guard on each side of the committee room’s two sets of double doors, refusing to let anyone enter or exit.
@wesleysmuller Protestors try to barge into Senate hearing on congressional redistricting #livehighlights #tiktoklive ♬ original sound – Wes Muller
One protester, Mike McClanahan, the NAACP’s state conference president, managed to open the door and try to enter, but guards physically forced him back into the hall and shut the doors.
McClanahan was eventually allowed into the room once the commotion had settled down. In a later interview, he said he just wanted to see what was going on because the live feed was cut off.
“This is the people’s house,” McClanahan said. “We have the right to hear every single thing, especially while the session’s going on in our house. So I was just trying to tell them, ‘Let the people speak. Let the people speak.’ Because we need to hear. We want to hear.”
Morris did not return to the hearing and did not respond to a phone call later Friday.
In a meeting that went on for about six hours, the committee heard from several voting rights advocates.
Before the second recess, all four of Louisiana’s Black congressmen, past and present, since the Reconstruction era spoke to the committee: current U.S. Reps. Troy Carter, D-New Orleans; Cleo Fields, D-Baton Rouge; and former Congressmen William Jefferson and Cedric Richmond.
Troy Carter’s 2nd District seat would be eliminated in the version of the map Kleinpeter has said lawmakers are most likely to advance. The congressman is the uncle of state Sen. Gary Carter.
“Today, here in Louisiana we’re being tested and the whole world is watching,” Troy Carter said. “The question before us is not merely about lines on a map. The question before us is whether we will honor the principle that every citizen deserves equal protection of the law.”
This story was originally produced by Louisiana Illuminator, which is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network which includes Wisconsin Examiner, and is supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity.
Mifepristone, one of two drugs approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to terminate a pregnancy before 10 weeks’ gestation, can be dispensed without an in-person visit to a healthcare provider under FDA regulations. Whether that provision will remain is the subject of a battle that may play out before the U.S. Supreme Court in the coming weeks. (Photo illustration by Natalie Behring/Getty Images)
Advocates and opponents of abortion access say they’re wondering what happens next in a critical telehealth medication case that created chaos and confusion over the past week after an appeals court blocked nationwide access to the drug and, days later, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito issued a temporary stay.
Alito’s stay preserves telehealth access until May 11. But it’s unclear what happens next for patients and providers.
The Supreme Court on Monday temporarily blocked the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals’ Friday ruling to suspend a federal rule allowing telehealth prescriptions of the drug mifepristone while the lawsuit Louisiana v. U.S. Food and Drug Administration unfolds. Abortion providers are determined to continue providing the service, though potentially without mifepristone, the drug at the center for the case, which has had a high record of safety and efficacy since 2000.
Anti-abortion advocates have pushed to reverse the 2023 policy, enacted under former Democratic President Joe Biden, that allowed the FDA to drop its requirement that a patient see a provider in person before the medication can be prescribed. One similar national case already failed unanimously before the Supreme Court, but anti-abortion advocates are hoping this time around, with a more tailored approach, they will be successful.
Abortion-rights advocates say they’re prepared for whatever might happen in the courts, with contingency plans and a message that abortion will still be available even if the particular medication — mifepristone — is not.
Has the abortion pill been banned?
No. Mifepristone is still a legally approved FDA drug commonly used to terminate a pregnancy before 10 weeks’ gestation and is used off-label to treat miscarriages.
Is telehealth abortion still legal?
Yes, for now. Under the U.S. Supreme Court’s administrative stay that expires on May 11, it is still legal to obtain abortion medication through telemedicine under the FDA’s regulations. Mifepristone is commonly used with a second drug, misoprostol, in medication abortions. The case doesn’t include misoprostol.
Who would be affected if telehealth access is struck down?
According to the Society of Family Planning’s #WeCount report, 27% of all abortions in the first six months of 2025 were obtained through telehealth, adding up to more than 162,000 cases.
Mifepristone is also used for patients experiencing a miscarriage; those patients also would have to visit a provider in person.
The ruling would apply nationwide, meaning that health providers couldn’t prescribe mifepristone without an in-person visit with the patient, even in states with abortion access.
What are the arguments on each side in Louisiana v. FDA?
Louisiana says the Biden-era policy undermines a state law banning abortion, and that the federal rulemaking process allowing telehealth prescriptions was flawed.
The Food and Drug Administration says the state doesn’t have standing to sue, but also notes that it’s taking more time to review the drug’s safety.
Two mifepristone drugmakers, meanwhile, have intervened on the FDA’s side.
What could happen next?
The Supreme Court has many options available moving forward, but a few options are most likely, said Katie Keith, founding director of the Center for Health Policy and the Law at the Georgetown University Law Center. The justices could extend the stay when it expires May 11, or the court could make a longer-term ruling.
That could mean sending it back to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, with or without upholding the initial ruling blocking the 2023 provision while the appeals case proceeds. Or justices could decide to take up the case and bypass the rest of the 5th Circuit appeal.
If it did that, the manufacturer defendants Danco Laboratories and GenBioPro have asked for an expedited process with a decision by June. That seems unlikely, Keith said, but the court has conducted expedited cases related to abortion before, such as the Moyle v. United States case in 2024 related to the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act.
What will providers do if they can’t use the combination of mifepristone and misoprostol?
Brittany Fonteno, president and CEO of the National Abortion Federation, said providers have been preparing since 2023 for the possibility of losing access to mifepristone. There have long been plans to switch to a misoprostol-only protocol, which is the main method of pregnancy termination across much of the world, she said.
“A lot of providers had created these policies and just needed to dust them off,” Fonteno said.
Dr. Angel Foster, co-founder of the Massachusetts Medication Abortion Access Project, which provides telehealth abortions to patients in all 50 states, said she and her team spent the weekend scrambling to contact patients waiting on medication abortion pills they had ordered before the ruling, and implementing a contingency plan that many abortion providers have been planning for since the lawsuits against mifepristone began in 2023.
That contingency involves pivoting from the FDA-approved mifepristone-misoprostol regimen to a misoprostol-only regimen.
Early Monday, Foster said her team was getting ready to ship misoprostol-only packages to patients at 2 p.m., but after the Supreme Court stayed the appeals court’s ruling on Monday morning, she said they were able to switch back to the mifepristone-misoprostol regimen.
Foster also said her organization was inundated with requests for pills that people could stockpile — people who didn’t need an abortion but were worried about losing access to the pills. Normally that’s a small fraction of the requests they receive, she said, but on Tuesday, they sent out more than had been sent in the entire month of April.
“Over the last two days, we’ve had a huge increase in the number of people from Louisiana requesting pills, especially pills for future use,” Foster said.
What are the pros and cons of the misoprostol-only regimen?
Dr. Maya Bass, a family physician in New Jersey who also provides abortions in Delaware, said misoprostol-only regimens are still safe and highly effective, but that the regimen has a lower efficacy rate than the combination of the two drugs and comes with potentially more side effects and risks.
Misoprostol-only regimens vary between 85% and 90% effective, while the combination is between 93% and 99% effective. The effective rates are lower as the gestational age increases.
The combination works well, Bass said, because mifepristone stops the hormone that allows the pregnancy to continue and signals to the body that the pregnancy is over. The misoprostol then helps soften the cervix and prompts the uterus to contract and expel the pregnancy tissue.
Without that hormonal signal, Bass said, a higher dose of misoprostol is needed to empty the uterus. The usual side effects of nausea, diarrhea, chills and sometimes fevers can be more severe because of the higher dosage. And it may lead to more people needing to seek in-person follow-up care to fully remove all of the pregnancy tissue, which can cause infection if it stays in the uterus.
“A lot of the people who are using telehealth for their medication abortion are not necessarily in places where they can safely access that care,” Bass said. “So it is concerning that we might be relying more on a regimen that means that many more people needing to seek care.”
What are the details of the legal arguments?
Louisiana officials, including Republican Attorney General Liz Murrill, argue that the state is harmed by the 2023 telehealth policy because it undermines a state law banning abortion at all stages of pregnancy, with few exceptions that don’t include rape or incest. The state also challenged the Food and Drug Administration’s process in deciding to eliminate the in-person dispensing requirement, saying it was based on flawed or nonexistent data.
The state also said the rule has resulted in $92,000 in Medicaid bills from two women who went to the emergency room because of complications related to mifepristone in 2025. And the state says the rule harmed the other plaintiff in the case, Louisiana resident Rosalie Markezich, who said her ex-boyfriend ordered the medication online and pressured her into taking it. That wouldn’t have been possible if the medication had to be dispensed through an in-person visit, the state argues.
“The priority of safety supersedes the priority of access, and that is what ultimately, I believe, needs to be looked at directly,” Sarah Zagorski, senior director of public relations at Americans United for Life, told Stateline on Wednesday. The anti-abortion organization submitted a brief supporting Louisiana’s case to the U.S. Supreme Court this week.
The FDA’s response has been to try to dismiss the claims in part on the grounds that Louisiana doesn’t have standing to sue, but agency officials have also said they are in the middle of conducting a safety review of mifepristone and need more time.
GenBioPro and Danco Laboratories, two of the manufacturers of mifepristone, intervened as defendants in the case, which can happen when the party that is sued may not be willing to fully defend the case for various reasons.
The two companies argue that Louisiana does not have proper standing to sue because the state does not prescribe or use mifepristone and is an “unregulated party” as it relates to the 2023 telehealth provision. They also noted that the FDA reviewed 15 studies evaluating medication abortion outcomes for more than 55,000 patients before approving the rule, “all of which supported the safety and effectiveness of dispensing mifepristone by mail, courier, or through pharmacies.”
How does this compare to the 2023 case Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine v. FDA?
Both lawsuits were designed to restrict access to mifepristone. The plaintiffs in the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine case included a group of anti-abortion doctors who said they would be harmed by having to care for people who took mifepristone. They also argued that the FDA’s approval of the drug was improper.
The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals was involved in that case as well, and determined that the FDA should roll back its decision to ease restrictions on the drug, including the 2023 telehealth rule. But the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously decided in June 2024 that the Alliance plaintiffs didn’t have proper standing and sent it back to the lower court.
After that ruling, the attorneys general of Missouri, Idaho and Kansas stepped in as plaintiffs, and the case was transferred to Missouri’s U.S. district court, where it’s still pending.
The Louisiana case is more limited because it would strike down one provision of mifepristone regulation, noted Jenna Hudson, senior counsel at the Center for Reproductive Rights. The Alliance plaintiffs sought to revoke the drug’s approval altogether.
Stateline reporters Kelcie Moseley-Morris can be reached at kmoseley@stateline.org and Sofia Resnick can be reached at sresnick@stateline.org.
This story was originally produced by Stateline, which is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network which includes Wisconsin Examiner, and is supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity.
Prices have finally been confirmed for AUDI’s all-electric E7X in China. As we’ve come to expect, it’s incredibly cheap given how large it is and all the technologies crammed into it. If only the car manufacturer could build and sell something like this in Western markets.
The base E7X has been priced from 289,900 yuan ($42,600) and is known as the Pioneer. It comes with a 100 kWh battery pack and a 900-volt electrical architecture, providing it with 705 km (438 miles) of driving range on the CLTC cycle. It can also hit 100 km/h (62 mph) in 5.82 seconds. Power comes from a rear-mounted electric motor with 402 hp (300 kW) and 369 lb-ft (500 Nm) of torque.
Read: China Gets The AUDI E7X With 671 HP And A 59-Inch Display, America Gets The Q7
Positioned above this model is the Pioneer Pro, which comes equipped with more features, including air suspension. It is priced from 319,800 yuan ($47,000) and has the same 5.82-second sprint time to 100 km/h, but a slightly longer range of 691 km (429 miles).
A longer-range version of the RWD model has also been confirmed, priced from 349,800 yuan ($51,400) and featuring a larger 109 kWh pack. This boosts the driving range to 751 km (476 miles), although the heavier battery means the 0-100 km/h time has swelled to 6.25 seconds.
Cheap And Big
Two all-wheel-drive versions of the AUDI E7X will also be offered. The first uses the 100 kWh pack and produces a combined 670 hp, slashing the 0-100 km/h to just 3.9 seconds. Priced from 349,800 yuan ($51,400), this model has a 636 km (395 miles) driving range. Sitting at the top of the range is a 670 hp version with the 109 kWh pack and a 660 km (410 miles) range, priced from 379,800 yuan ($55,800).
To put these prices into perspective, a new 2026 Audi Q3 in the United States starts at $43,700 and uses a 2.0-liter turbocharged four-cylinder engine with 255 hp and 273 lb-ft (370 Nm) of torque. The largest electric SUV that Audi sells in the US is the Q6 e-tron priced from $64,500, but it’s significantly smaller than the E7X.
Police departments across the U.S. are struggling to figure out what to do with the explosion of electric motorcycles, Sur-Rons, dirt bikes, and high-powered e-bikes flooding suburban streets and trails. Now, one Colorado town is taking a new approach. It’s asking residents to report riders directly to police through an anonymous online portal.
The Parker Police Department in south Denver recently launched its “E-Bike, Dirt Bike, & E-Motorcycle Safety Reporting” tool, allowing residents to submit locations, rider descriptions, and details about allegedly unsafe behavior. The form includes options like “stunt riding,” “unsafe lane changes,” “running stop signs,” and even “no dangerous actions/just riding.”
More: Colorado Police Lost Most Of The Dirt Bike Pack And Still Managed To Start A Bigger Fight
Importantly, police are making the important distinction between genuine e-bikes, the ones made for commuting, trail use, and recreation, and electric motorcycles that are often nearly inoperable with the pedals alone. According to the department, many riders are allegedly operating without licenses, insurance, or registration while also damaging parks, trails, and private property. States nationwide have seen an uptick in illegal electric motorcycle use and abuse.
Parker Police also pointed to a recent California case where a mother was charged with involuntary manslaughter after her 14-year-old son allegedly struck and killed an 81-year-old man while riding an electric motorcycle. Officials say the incident highlights the potential dangers associated with improperly used high-powered electric bikes.
That all said, the new system effectively creates a crowdsourced enforcement network where residents can anonymously report riders without any direct interaction with law enforcement. While supporters will likely argue it improves public safety, critics may see it as another example of expanding surveillance culture creeping into everyday transportation.
One local tells Carscoops, “This isn’t an e-bike or e-motorcycle issue. It’s a person issue. If kids are running from the police, it’s a parenting issue. Either way, it’s about the person riding and not the mode of transportation.”
Whether Parker’s new reporting system becomes a model for other cities or a flashpoint in the growing debate over surveillance and micromobility remains to be seen. What’s clear is that towns and police departments are rapidly losing patience with high-powered electric motorcycles operating in legally gray areas, especially as crashes, complaints, and viral social media videos continue piling up.
Credit: Parker Police Department
In the past, used EVs may have been considered a bit of a gamble, especially if they were packing a few years under their belt. But things are changing. A report from Cox Automotive says that used EV sales in March were up 27.7% compared with the previous year.
Even more telling was that the March figures were a whopping 53.9% higher than February’s. There are several reasons driving the change, but according to CNBC, experts warn that while cheap EVs may look attractive, there are a few hidden considerations buyers should still be wary of.
An Influx Of Used EVs
One reason is the simple fact that as more people buy new EVs, more used EVs end up at dealer lots as their leases end. According to Joseph Yoon, a Consumer Insights Analyst at Edmunds, “Where we had the highest concentration of leasing happen was between the tail end of 2022 and all the way through 2023, and since most leases are three years long, all those cars… are coming back to dealer lots in droves.”
Read: America’s Used EV Market Is Heating Up For One Simple Reason
This means that much of the depreciation has already occurred, translating into some attractive deals for those looking at the used market. In fact, 44% of those EVs sold in March of this year were priced below the $25,000 mark.
More Choices & Price Parity
Whereas previously electric vehicles were offered by only a handful of manufacturers, nowadays there’s a veritable smorgasbord of options coming into the used market. And with more options comes lower prices as well. The average price of a used EV in March was $34,653, according to Cox Automotive. Contrast that with the average price of a used gas car being $33,641, and price parity isn’t far off.
With used EVs no longer bearing price premiums over their gas-powered equivalents, they are now more accessible to buyers who have long aspired to jump on the EV bandwagon but were unable to in the past. But it’s not just lower purchase prices that are seen as appealing. Promises of cheap running costs are just as enticing.
Costs To Consider
Charging an EV, especially if you use a home charger, can be pretty cheap, according to a Kelley Blue Book report. Taking into account a 1,015-mile monthly average, home-charging an EV worked out to an average of $59.66. But not everyone has the ability to install one of those. If you’re forced to use public fast charging exclusively, then things are a little different. That cost rises to $169, which is higher (albeit not by much) than the $147.24 gas bill that an average gas-powered vehicle with a 30mpg fuel efficiency figure would cost you.
See Also: The Average New Car Costs $50K, So Americans Are Emptying Used Car Lots
Another of the biggest benefits that EV makers regularly promote is their relative lack of maintenance. It’s true that you don’t need to spend money on engine oil changes and filters because an EV doesn’t have a gasoline engine. Also, since EVs use regenerative braking to recover energy under deceleration, their brake pads also benefit from longer lifespans. However, there is one consumable component that EVs go through faster than gas cars, and that’s tires. According to Consumer Reports, this is primarily due to the higher curb weight of EVs contributing to accelerated tread wear.
Components’ Costs
EVs also have some pretty expensive components that can run you a pretty sum if they go wrong outside of warranty. Chief among these is the traction battery, where replacement costs can range from $5,000 to $15,000. That’s why the advice from experts is to seek out a used EV that still has warranty coverage remaining. Generally, EV batteries come with an eight- or ten-year warranty, and in most cases these are transferable to a subsequent owner.
Collision repairs are another area where EVs tend to cost more. In 2025, fully battery-powered cars cost an average of $6,395 to repair after a collision, compared with $5,105 for gas-powered vehicles, according to Mitchell International, which specializes in claims and collision technology.
Insurance is similarly pricier. The average annual cost of insuring an EV runs to $4,058, versus $2,732 for a comparable gas car, according to a 2025 report from insurance website Insurify. That said, the actual figure varies considerably by model, insurer, and location, and a used EV will generally cost less to insure than a new one.
Electric vehicles have plenty of advantages over combustion cars but all of them have an uncomfortable truth sitting under the sheet metal. Engines wear out over time, but the size of their gas tank doesn’t shrink. EVs will suffer battery and range degradation no matter what. The only question is how bad it’ll get before the battery fails. One seven-year-old Tesla still running on its original battery is providing some insight.
At over 380,000 miles (610,000 km), one Tesla Model 3 owned by the YouTube channel Drive Protected is going strong long after most vehicles (combustion or EV) are long dead. When new, it offered 240 miles of range. Today, a full charge shows 158 miles. That’s an 82-mile drop, or about 34.2 percent gone. There’s really no sugarcoating it. That’s substantial degradation and puts the battery well below 70 percent of its original capacity.
Read: Tesla’s Longest Range EV Is Here But Not For You
That said, it’s not quite the death sentence you might expect. The car was put through a real-world highway test at a steady 68 mph, returning 138.3 miles before hitting zero. That’s not impressive on paper, but it’s far from unusable. For shorter commutes or city duty, it’s still very much a functioning vehicle.
The numbers back that up. Over the test, it consumed 32.4 kWh. That’s well below the roughly 49 kWh it would have had when new. That aligns with the reduced range estimate and confirms the degradation isn’t just theoretical.
Still, despite losing over a third of its capacity, nothing else about the car appears fundamentally broken. No catastrophic failure, no sudden shutdowns. It’s just a steady erosion of range over time, and about double the miles of most cars when they head to the scrap yard.
In a way, this car is making a case for and against EVs. Yes, battery degradation is real, measurable, and significant. Making batteries cheaper and easier to replace in the near future is key to EV sustainability and longevity. But it also shows that even after mileage that would retire most vehicles, an EV can keep going, albeit with a shorter range.
Login