Susan Poupart, who disappeared and whose remains were found in 1990, is now the subject of a reward for information relating to her death. (Wisconsin Examiner photo illustration)

The Lac du Flambeau (LDF) Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians is offering a reward of $25,000 for information leading to the arrest and conviction of the person or persons responsible for the 1990 murder of Susan “Susie” Poupart, a LDF tribal member.

The tribe has also offered a $25,000 reward for information concerning a tribal member, Melissa Beson, 37, missing since March 17. 

“Poupart was last seen on May 20, 1990, in Lac du Flambeau in Vilas County,” the band stated in a press release issued May 16. “She had left a house party at approximately 4 a.m. on that date and was walking home alone when two men in a car pulled up next to her. Witnesses saw her enter the car but never arrived at her home, and her family reported her missing two days later.”

There was no LDF Tribal Police Department at the time of Poupart’s disappearance, so the Vilas County Sheriff’s Department investigated the case and is still the lead investigative organization.

“Deputies and fire department personnel conducted ground searches for four or five days, hoping to find her alive and return her to her two young children,” said the press release. “Eventually, specially trained tracking dogs were brought in from Minnesota to assist in search efforts, to no avail.”

The release said deer hunters found her remains, along with her purse and tribal ID card six months later, on Nov. 22, 1990. They were found in the Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest, about 12 miles from her home. 

“Poupart’s death was determined to be a homicide, and in the decades since her murder, continuous improvements in DNA technology have kept her family’s hopes alive that her murderers will be brought to justice,” the press release states. “Investigators share that hope, as even now they await the results of DNA testing on evidence that was recently sent to sophisticated, high-tech crime laboratories for DNA analysis.”

The release also states that “police believe there are persons who have information that could result in the arrest and conviction of the persons responsible for Susan Poupart’s murder.”.

The tribe’s governing board said it was offering the $25,000 to “incentivize anyone with information relating to Poupart’s murder to come forward.”

The Wisconsin Examiner reached out to LDF Tribal Governing Board Chairman John Johnson to ask why the tribe was now offering a reward after over 35 years, but Johnson did not return phone calls.

Detective Cody Remick of the Vilas County Sheriff’s Department, who was assigned to the case two years ago, said he had heard from Poupart’s daughter that at one time there had been a $10,000 reward for information.

While the cold case is 35 years old, Remick said, his office only recently began working with the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) Office of Justice Services (OJS) Missing and Murdered Unit.

The only other Wisconsin case the BIA OJS is presently working on is the 1989 murder of Rhys Pocan, a Menomonie tribal member living in Milwaukee. Pocan went missing in August 1989, and her headless body was discovered in September 1989 in Sheboygan County. Later, her head and hands were found in Waukesha County.

Though the press release says DNA is being analyzed, Remick said his office has items it is “preparing for DNA examination” that may lead to a break in the Poupart case.

“It goes without saying that Poupart’s children, now grown, deserve answers in the death of their mother, who was so cruelly taken from them,” said the May 16 press release. “The Lac du Flambeau Tribal Community, too, deserves to know what happened to one of their own. Most important, Poupart deserves justice. She was only 29 years old when she was murdered. She had her whole life in front of her, and her two beloved children to raise. Her killers must answer for their crime, so that Susie can finally rest in peace, and her family and community can begin to heal.”

Anyone with any information regarding the disappearance and murder of Susan Poupart is asked to call the Vilas County Sheriff’s Office at (715) 479-4441 or the Wisconsin Department of Justice at (608) 266-1221 or the Lac du Flambeau Tribal Police Department at (715) 588-7717.

The tribe said the reward will be apportioned as deemed just by the governing board in the event, for example, multiple credible tips are received. Employees of law enforcement and correctional agencies are not eligible to collect the reward.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

The Milwaukee County Jail. (Photo by Isiah Holmes/Wisconsin Examiner)

A man who died at the Milwaukee County Jail earlier this week has been identified as Gabriel Muniz-Jimenez, 33. Records from the Milwaukee County Medical Examiner’s Office, obtained by Wisconsin Examiner, show that Muniz-Jimenez was pronounced dead Wednesday at 10:56 p.m. He is the second person to die in the jail so far this year. 

On Thursday, the Milwaukee County Sheriff’s Office (MCSO) reported that an unidentified 33-year-old man had died after his cellmate reported to correctional officers that the man “appeared to be unconscious and in medical distress,” Urban Milwaukee reported.

The sheriff’s office said that the deceased man had been booked into the jail in November on felony methamphetamine possession. Online court records show that Muniz-Jimenez was charged with methamphetamine possession in April 2024 and the court case was filed in July. 

Booking information online shows that Muniz-Jimenez was booked into the jail in late November on methamphetamine charges. Court records showed that Muniz-Jimenez required a Spanish interpreter in court. 

The sheriff’s office announcement this week said officers attempted lifesaving measures including the use of Narcan, which can reverse an opioid overdose. A demographic report from the Medical Examiner’s Office on Muniz-Jimenez labels the cause as undetermined. MCSO has not responded to a request for comment, and the Waukesha County Sheriffs Department, which is investigating the death, declined to identify who died in the jail. The MCSO is a member of the Milwaukee Area Investigative Team (MAIT), which handles officer-involved deaths such as shootings and in-custody deaths. 

The Milwaukee County Jail has garnered controversy for deaths in recent years. The 2022 suicide of 21-year-old Brieon Green was the first of six in a 14-month period, and families of people who died have allied with activists to call attention to the deaths. In March, 48-year-old Joseph Boivin died at Froedtert Hospital after being found by a nurse in the middle of a health emergency at the jail. A jail audit detected numerous issues, including use of force and what the auditors called “dangerous suicide watch practices.”  

A recent review by the Texas-based auditor Creative Corrections found that the jail has come into full compliance with 71.2% of the proposed corrective actions, with another 28.8% being in partial compliance. The jail still needs to fund two new suicide watch cells. Jail officials are renovating housing areas and have said they are updating suicide watch policies.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

The leader of a Wisconsin community where a troubled maximum security prison resides is “cautiously optimistic” that lawmakers will be able to close the facility in this year’s state budget. 

The post Wisconsin village leader is ‘cautiously optimistic’ about closing Green Bay prison appeared first on WPR.

The two deaths at UW-Platteville are being investigated as a murder-suicide, campus officials said. 

The post UW-Platteville deaths being investigated as murder-suicide appeared first on WPR.

Protesters gather to march in Wauwatosa alongside the families of Antonio Gonzales, Jay Anderson Jr., and Alvin Cole in 2020. (Photo by Isiah Holmes/Wisconsin Examiner)

Update: Rep. Shae Sortwell issued a statement Wednesday morning disputing claims from Democratic Reps Ryan Clancy and Andrew Hysell that the riot bill was taken off the Assembly’s executive agenda. Sortwell accused Clancy and Hysell of “spreading misinformation” regarding the bill.

“To be clear, the chair never pulled the bill because he has not officially scheduled a vote on it yet after receiving a hearing two weeks ago. I am in discussions with colleagues on the committee, which is standard practice for bill authors after a public hearing. I ask both Democrat representatives to brush up on legislative policy on how bills actually move.”

Wednesday afternoon Rep. Ron Tusler, who chairs the assembly committee, which held public hearings on the riot bill, wrote in an email statement to Wisconsin Examiner that the riot bill needs work before it can be scheduled.

Tusler wrote that the bill “is not on the agenda because, in its current form, it fails to be good legislation. I wanted to give the bill author a chance to explain the bill out of respect for Representative Sortwell and the victims of riots. But in its current form, this bill has constitutional, common-sense, and enforcement issues. Assembly Bill 88, as it exists now, was never going to be scheduled for an executive session until those problems were/are addressed.”

 

A Republican-sponsored bill that would have defined a riot as a gathering of at least three people that could pose a threat of property damage or injury has been removed from the Assembly Judiciary Committee’s executive session agenda. The bill has been criticized for being overly broad, and potentially chilling First Amendment protections of protest and free speech. Besides defining a riot, the bill also exposed accused rioters and riot organizers to felony charges and civil liability including restitution for attorneys’ fees and property damage, and carried a prohibition on government officials with authority over law enforcement from limiting an agency’s response to quell unrest. 

Rep. Andrew Hysell (D- Sun Prairie), a member of the Assembly Committee on Judiciary, said that he criticized the bill because it “actually weakens existing law for the very people it was supposed to help.” The committee held a public hearing on the bill on May 7, at which  a large number of Wisconsinites voiced opposition to the bill. Rep. Shae Sortwell (R- Two Rivers), one of the bill’s authors, testified in favor of the bill, saying that it’s needed to prevent protests from spinning out of control into riots, property destruction, and injury. Sortwell and other republican supporters of the bill referenced protests and unrest in 2020 in Kenosha and  Madison. 

Among those who testified against the bill was Rep. Ryan Clancy (D-Milwaukee). Like other critics, Clancy said the bill was written vaguely in order to be applied broadly to crack down on protest movements. “While myself and many of my Democratic colleagues are tired of wasting our time and our constituents’ resources on badly written, unconstitutional bills like AB-88, I’m ecstatic that Republicans have abandoned this one for now,” Clancy said in a statement after the bill was shelved by the Assembly committee. “It’s clear that passionate, thoughtful testimony from the public, free speech advocates and civil rights experts – along with excellent technical critiques from Rep. Andrew Hysell – has stopped this so-called ‘anti-riot’ bill dead in its tracks.”

Clancy added that “in reality, however, this isn’t an ‘anti-riot’ bill: it’s a threat to free speech, expression and assembly disguised as a public safety measure. Thankfully, it’s now unlikely to move forward this session.” 

During the May 7 committee hearing where people spoke either in favor of or against the bill, one person wore a hat which used an expletive to denounce President Donald Trump. Committee Chair Ron Tusler (R- Harrison) demanded that the man remove the hat because it was offensive. Tusler threatened to have law enforcement remove the man, and called the hearing into recess. Later, when the hearing continued, the man was allowed to continue wearing the hat. Clancy told  Tusler his emotional reaction to the hat and his impulse to call for police was an example of how a broad, penalty-heavy bill for protests like AB-88 is a bad idea.

In his statement, Clancy urged his colleagues to spend “less time trying to dismantle our rights and getting angry at rude hats” and more time “addressing the actual needs of Wisconsin residents. Until that changes, we must all remain vigilant to fight back their next, terrible idea.” 

This article has been updated to add a statement from Rep. Shae Sortwell accusing Reps Ryan Clancy and Andrew Hysell of spreading misinformation about why the bill was taken off the executive session agenda. The article was updated again Wednesday afternoon with Committee Chair Rep. Ron Tusler’s statement regarding the riot bill. It has also been edited to correct Rep. Ron Tusler’s last name. 

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Protesters gather in Kenosha the second night of protests on August 24th, 2020. This was before the clashes with police later that night. (Photo by Isiah Holmes/Wisconsin Examiner)

Imagine you hear about a protest in your community and,  curious, you join your neighbors who are marching in the street. Although the protest is loud and slows down  traffic, it appears peaceful and non-violent. Then suddenly, someone throws a rock or spray-paints a building, and now you find yourself among those apprehended for felony rioting, regardless of whether you committed an act of vandalism or  know who did.

Civil rights advocates fear such a scenario if under a Republican bill that defines a riot as a public disturbance, an act of violence or a “clear and present danger” of property destruction or personal injury involving at least three people. A similar bill was introduced in 2017 by Rep. John Spiros (R-Marshfield). A new version is  (AB-88), authored by Rep. Shae Sortwell (R-Two Rivers) and Sen. Dan Feyen (R- Fond du Lac). 

People who say their property was damaged or vandalized during what the bill defines as a “riot” would also be able to seek civil damages from people or organizations that “provided material support or resources with the intent that such support or resources would be used to perpetrate the offense,” under the bill. It also prohibits government officials with direct authority over law enforcement agencies from limiting or restricting those agencies’ ability to quell vandalism or rioting, as defined by the bill.

Jon McCray Jones, a policy analyst at the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Wisconsin is concerned that the bill’s definition of a “riot” is too vague. “Using that definition, a riot could be three teenagers driving around in a car knocking off mail boxes,” McCray Jones told Wisconsin Examiner. “Technically, with this definition, a riot could be a food fight.” The bill’s language concerning people who “urge, promote, organize, encourage, or instigate others to commit a riot” is also vague according to McCray Jones, who says this aspect of the bill would open protest leaders and organizers up to criminal and civil liability, regardless of their involvement in rioting.

Sortwell and Feyen did not respond to requests for comment for this story. In written testimony before the Assembly Committee on Judiciary on May 7, both lawmakers said that riots have become more common in recent years. “We saw the destructive riots a few years ago in several metropolitan areas, including right here in Madison and Kenosha,” said Sortwell, referring to George Floyd-inspired protests and unrest in 2020. “Taking a walk down State Street, one would see busted doors and windows of businesses, products stolen, and a smashed statue of a Civil War hero. Several business owners, employees, and citizens had their lives upended.”

Feyen said that “peaceful protests are a cornerstone of our public discourse and will always be protected under the First Amendment, but a line needs to be drawn when those protests go from being peaceful to being destructive and violent.” Although the bill does not  mention specific protests, Feyen wrote, “stricter penalties are needed to deter protesters from crossing that line from protest to property destruction, vandalism, arson, and physical violence.” 

Although scenes of burning buildings and looted stores received a lot of news coverage in 2020, studies suggest that at least 96% of Black Lives Matter protests during the movement’s peak in May and June of 2020 were peaceful. Reports by TMJ4 found that 74.3% of the nearly 200 people who’d been placed on an intelligence list by police in Milwaukee county that year had never been charged with a misdemeanor or felony. Some reports, however, using data derived from insurance claims, estimate that as much as $2 billion in damage nationally occurred due to protests in 2020. 

Some residents of Kenosha – a city referenced by the bill’s authors – recall how months of non-violent protest in Kenosha after Floyd’s death were overshadowed by the unrest that  occurred in August 2020. The shooting of Jacob Blake by Kenosha officer Rusten Sheskey, which paralyzed Blake, led to days of protest and unrest, millions of dollars worth of property destruction, and ended when  then-17-year-old Kyle Rittenhouse fatally shot two people and wounded another, in what a jury later ruled was an act of self-defense. 

During committee hearings on May 7, Sortwell said that the bill seeks to punish not only people who commit vandalism but also “those people who put together the riot.”

Several groups have either lobbied or spoken out against the bill. The Wisconsin Civil Justice Council submitted written testimony opposing the bill on the behalf of “16 business associations working together on civil liability matters.” The council said that the bill would allow for civil compensation for emotional distress stemming from property destruction, noting that emotional damages are generally limited. AB-88 would also allow for any civil compensation to include attorneys’ fees, which would be another departure from current law, the council wrote. Others spoke against the bill in person on May 7, pointing to the bill’s broad language and the chilling effect it could have on political movements. 

“This bill is just a blatant attempt to stop people from protesting,” said McCray Jones. “This is a way to silence organizers from fighting for political change and threatening the status quo in power.” Organizers could potentially be sued for anything that happens at a protest, or even just for transporting someone to a protest that later turns into a riot, as defined under the bill. 

What counts as urging or promoting a riot is broad enough to include common protest chants, like “no justice, no peace,” McCray Jones said. “And if you have ambitious or politically motivated district attorneys…politically motivated prosecutors, the vagueness of this bill could be weaponized … free speech now gets criminally turned into inciting a riot.” 

McCray Jones added that he wonders what a police figure like former Milwaukee PD Chief Harold Breier — notorious for targeting and surveilling Black, brown and LGBTQ communities — would have been able to accomplish had such a law been at his disposal. 

As police departments develop their social media surveillance capabilities, it’s possible under the bill that making posts encouraging people to attend a protest could be seen as an attempt to “urge, promote, organize, encourage, or instigate” a riot under the bill. After the protests of 2020, some agencies that monitored protesters enacted new intelligence-gathering policies to help prevent broad, ideology-based surveillance.  

“I think that right now this moment gives us a very opportune chance to highlight the importance of protecting the privacy of protesters here in Wisconsin,” McCray Jones told Wisconsin Examiner. McCray Jones said he hopes debate about the bill  will become “a jumping off point to talk about not just data privacy for protesters, not just privacy from law enforcement for marginalized communities, but what does it look like to re-think our position on surveillance in the midst of this regime in D.C. that is blatantly ignoring due process, the rule of law, and civil rights.” 

 

Maryland Democratic U.S. Rep. Glenn Ivey, who represents the district where Kilmar Abrego Garcia and his wife live, led the chant “bring him home” outside the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland shortly before a hearing in Abrego Garcia’s case on Friday, May 16, 2025. (Photo by Ariana Figueroa/States Newsroom)

GREENBELT, MARYLAND — A federal judge said Friday the Trump administration has “pretty broadly” invoked the state secrets privilege to withhold information on its efforts — or, the judge indicated, a possible lack of effort — to return a wrongly deported Maryland man from a prison in El Salvador.

President Donald Trump’s administration moved last month to invoke the so-called state secrets privilege to shield information about its process to facilitate the return of Kilmar Abrego Garcia to the United States after a top immigration official admitted his removal to a prison in El Salvador was an “administrative error.”

The judge handling the case, U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis, granted an expedited discovery process after she found last month that “nothing has been done” by the administration to return Abrego Garcia.

She did not make a public order regarding the state secrets privilege Friday afternoon before closing her courtroom to the public to discuss sensitive matters with attorneys for Abrego Garcia and the Department of Justice.

The state secrets privilege is a common-law doctrine that protects sensitive national security information from being released. The Trump administration has argued the need to invoke it in this case to protect diplomatic relationships.

‘He’ll never walk free in the United States’

During the public portion of Friday’s hearing, Xinis pressed the Department of Justice attorneys about Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem’s comment that Abrego Garcia “will not return” to the U.S.

“That sounds to me like an admission that your client will not take steps to facilitate the return,” Xinis said. “That’s about as clear as it can get.”

DOJ attorney Jonathan D. Guynn disagreed and said the Trump administration is complying with court orders. He said Noem’s comment meant that if Abrego Garcia was back in U.S. custody he would be removed either to another third country or back to El Salvador.

“He’ll never walk free in the United States,” Guynn said.

He added that the Trump administration is “currently complying and we plan to comply.”

Xinis said she disagreed, and then she clashed with Guynn over the legality of Abrego Garcia’s removal.

Guynn said that he was lawfully deported.

Xinis answered that she found months ago that Abrego Garcia was unlawfully detained and removed from the U.S.

Few documents produced

One of the attorneys for Abrego Garcia, Andrew J. Rossman, said the Trump administration has invoked the state secrets privilege for 1,140 documents relating to the case. From that request, Rossman said his team received 168 documents, but 132 were copies of court filings and requests made by him and his team.

Xinis seemed visibly stunned by Rossman’s report and had to clarify that his team had only received 36 new documents, which Rossman confirmed.

Rossman said that none of the documents for which the government is invoking the state secrets privilege are classified.

“There’s ways to do this right, and they haven’t done it,” he said, noting that he has attorneys on his team who have security clearances and can review classified and sensitive information.

Rossman said that he and his team are seeking answers to three questions: the status of Abrego Garcia, what steps the Trump administration has taken, if any, to facilitate his return, and the steps the federal government will take, if any, to comply with court orders.

Guynn said the Trump administration received an update from El Salvador on Thursday that Abrego Garcia was in “good health” and had “even gained weight.”

The U.S. Supreme Court ordered that the Trump administration must “facilitate” the return of Abrego Garcia.

Rossman, said that it’s “deeply disturbing” that administration officials, including the president, have made public statements that contradict court orders directing the government to return Abrego Garcia to the U.S.

President Donald Trump has said he could easily pick up the phone and order El Salvador to return him but won’t because he believes Abrego Garcia is a member of the MS-13 gang.

Noem was pressed at a May 14 congressional hearing about a photo that appears altered to add letters across Abrego Garcia’s knuckles to indicate his inclusion in the gang. She said she was unaware of it.

A federal judge in the District of Columbia, in a separate case regarding Trump’s use of an archaic wartime law for deportations, questioned Department of Justice attorneys on the president’s claim that he could order Abrego Garcia to be returned. The attorney admitted that the president sometimes overstates his influence abroad.

El Salvador prison

Abrego Garcia has had protections from deportation since 2019, but he was one of nearly 300 men on three mid-March removal flights to a notorious prison in El Salvador known as CECOT.

Abrego Garcia has been moved to a lower security prison, according to Maryland Democratic Sen. Chris Van Hollen, who traveled to the country last month to meet with Abrego Garcia and inquire with Salvadoran officials about why he is being held there.

Those officials said Abrego Garcia was being held because of the agreement between the United States and El Salvador.

The U.S. has a $15 million agreement with El Salvador’s government to house immigrants removed from the U.S., mostly Venezuelans removed under the wartime law, the Alien Enemies Act of 1798.

The Trump administration has argued that Abrego Garcia is a national of El Salvador and in that country’s custody and the U.S. cannot force another government to return him. 

Hours before Friday’s hearing, dozens of protestors gathered outside the court, calling for Abrego Garcia to be returned to the U.S., as well as criticizing the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown. 

U.S. Rep. Glenn Ivey, who represents the area in Maryland where Abrego Garcia and his family live, appeared outside the court and led chants calling for the release of Abrego Garcia from El Salvador.

“The president has to obey the orders of the Supreme Court,” Ivey said. “The Supreme Court has spoken here, and it’s time for him to follow it and bring him home.”

Protesters gather to support Judge Hannah Dugan. (Photo by Isiah Holmes/Wisconsin Examiner)

Judge Hannah Dugan appeared at her arraignment Thursday in Milwaukee’s federal court and pleaded not guilty to charges that she helped a man elude federal agents in the Milwaukee County courthouse earlier this year. 

Dugan was arrested in April and was indicted Tuesday by a grand jury on two counts, concealing a person from arrest and obstruction of proceedings. The charges could carry penalties of six years of prison, years of supervision, and at least $350,000 in fines. 

Dugan appeared with three attorneys, and did not comment to reporters after the hearing was over. Attorneys mentioned in court that a small number of video excerpts have been shared with the defense, but discovery is still ongoing. 

Judge Lynn Adelman has been assigned to preside over Dugan’s jury trial, which was set to start on July 21, with a pretrial hearing July 9. Jury selection is expected to be lengthy and complicated. A motions hearing was set in Judge Nancy Joseph’s court on May 30.

Dugan is accused of escorting a man into a public hallway with access to elevators after federal agents arrived outside her courtroom, where the man, a Mexican immigrant, was having a routine hearing in a misdemeanor battery case.

The agents had an administrative warrant for his arrest, which was not signed by a judge and did not give agents the authority to enter the courtroom. While the agents waited in the hallway outside, Dugan directed the man and his attorney out a side door that exited into the same hallway. The agents saw him leave the room and one rode down the elevator with him before he was arrested later on the street. 

Outside the Milwaukee federal courthouse on Thursday, a crowd of about 200 people gathered, including elected officials, activists and local residents showed up early in the morning to support the circuit court judge. Speakers led chants through a microphone on the courthouse steps.

One person at the rally, Erik Fanning, said that the charges against Dugan feel “preposterous,” and argued that a judge would be knowledgeable about what the law would and would not allow her to do in courtroom situations. 

“As many people in this country have found out, the law can be manipulated in order to serve an interest that’s sometimes more powerful than the law, as we’re seeing right now in this country,” Fanning told Wisconsin Examiner. “And so that’s the fear here with me.”

After her arrest, Dugan was suspended by the Wisconsin Supreme Court, and protests erupted in Milwaukee County calling for the charges against her to be dropped.

If the case against Dugan succeeds, “That’s a powerful statement,” Fanning said. “That’s a powerful move in this game that they’re playing with our justice system.”

Shortly after Dugan’s arrest, FBI Director Kash Patel posted on social media praising her detention, then deleted the post. 

For Fanning, Dugan’s arrest felt like a “made-for-TV” moment created by the Trump administration. More press attention on Dugan’s arrest and trial validates his own instincts that “this is a watershed moment,” he said.  

“The media should be interested, because it’s a frightening, very important moment,” Fanning said. “Remember who this administration’s leader is. It’s a TV guy. It’s a manipulating the press, and propaganda guy…So everything they do is a TV show.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Reading Time: 5 minutes

When he leaves the office at the end of the week, James Hutchinson, captain of the Milwaukee Police Department’s Homicide Unit, can’t wait for Monday so he can get back to work solving murders.

“I could have retired six months ago,” he said. “But I know that the work we do really makes an impact on people’s lives.”

That work doesn’t always go as planned. Last year Milwaukee homicide detectives cleared 78% of the 132 murder cases they investigated — the highest rate in years. From 2020 to 2023, when murder rates soared during the pandemic, clearance rates fluctuated between 50% and 59%, leaving many families without closure.

For those awaiting justice, Hutchinson said he wants them to know that his team of 33 investigators remains committed to solving their case.

“From the first two weeks to a month, or months or years down the line, we’re equally as committed to solving a murder as we were today.”

That work begins as soon as a homicide is reported, he said.

Homicide investigations in Milwaukee

Typically, said Hutchinson, uniformed officers are the first to arrive on the scene. They work to establish an incident command area, set parameters using police tape, control crowds and prevent any disruption of evidence.

Patrol officers are also the first to seek out witnesses and spot cameras.

Detectives are not far behind. As soon as a homicide is reported, Hutchinson said, a team of detectives and supervisors will immediately head to the scene and start their investigation.

Once they arrive, they assemble the information that’s already been collected, gather more clues, find additional witnesses and hopefully identify suspects. Investigations take place in homes, city streets and hospitals or even at the medical examiner’s office.

Critical, Hutchinson said, is the early stages of that investigation.

“Those first moments, those first hours, those first minutes are very important. Evidence starts to disappear. People go to different places. It could be as simple as video evidence being recorded over. We focus and attack an investigation very fast, very intensively,” he said.

When homicides happen in bunches, as was often the case during the pandemic, resources are pulled from other units to help.

The team approach

Hutchinson said MPD investigates homicides differently from any other large city in America, using a team approach rather than dedicating detectives to specific cases. Homicide investigators working that shift will begin the investigation and then debrief the next shift before handing off the case.

“They brief the incoming shift on what occurred, what was accomplished and what still needs to be done,” Hutchinson said. “That cycle continues until we run out of things we need to do right now.”

Utilizing this method allows for a continuous investigation, but it also creates some problems, acknowledges Hutchinson.

“Because there is this team concept, you have a potential for having not as much accountability per person,” he said. 

He said his division works to alleviate that problem by relying on sergeants and others, including himself, to oversee investigations and follow-ups.

Communication challenges

Another issue with not dedicating specific investigators to specific cases is communication.

“We love to get information, but we are not good at checking back in with the family and letting them know we haven’t forgotten,” he said. “We acknowledge that we have room for improvement.”

Not receiving regular updates from homicide investigators is a common complaint among family members of victims, especially those whose cases remain unsolved.

Brenda Hines, whose son Donovan was murdered in 2017, tracked down officers in person when they wouldn’t respond to her calls. 

“It’s a bad process,” she said. 

She founded the Donovan Hines Foundation in honor of her son and to help other families by providing grief support, mental health and other resources to residents. 

Hines said she believes police can still solve her son’s murder if anything should come up.

“They just don’t have enough evidence yet,” she said.

Janice Gorden, who created Victims of Milwaukee Violence to help families access funeral support and other services, said she believes police are doing what they can to solve homicides and work with families.

But families, she said, will not be satisfied until they have answers. Often it gets to the point where they become focused on investigating the case themselves.

“They have way more information than sometimes the detectives do,” Gorden said. “They drive themselves crazy trying to find answers to who killed their loved one.”

Both Hines and Gorden have worked with mothers to arrange meetings with police and the district attorney’s office to get information about homicide cases.

Hutchinson said two new victim support positions were created recently to help improve communication with families.

Notifying the family

Hutchinson worked his way up the ranks of MPD, first as a patrol officer, then gang squad, detective, robbery and vice squad, and as a homicide detective from 2008 to 2020.

Before becoming captain, he has often taken on the grim task of letting a family member know a loved one was killed.

“Making a death notification is one of the hardest parts of this job. It’s incredibly heartbreaking,” he said. “The range of reactions, you can’t even anticipate. There are completely stoic people that accept what you’re telling them, to some incredibly violent reactions.”

A much better feeling, he said, is when they are able to notify a family that an arrest has been made. But even that’s a struggle.

From investigation to charges

Although police might make an arrest in a homicide case, that doesn’t mean that charges will be filed.

Police, Hutchinson said, only need probable cause to make an arrest. The burden of proof at the district attorney’s office, which files homicide charges, is higher.

“The DA’s office has to be able to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt,” he said. “Many times we will make an arrest for probable cause, but we can’t get to that level.”

What often happens, Hutchinson said, is that officers will bring a case to the DA’s office or discuss what evidence they have and then talk about whether more is needed to file charges.

While that does bring some frustration, admits Hutchinson, it’s better than arresting the wrong person.

“My worst nightmare I would have in the world is to have the wrong person held accountable for a crime,” he said.

Milwaukee County District Attorney Kent Lovern acknowledges that the work to hold someone accountable for murder can be burdensome on families seeking justice.

“Obviously, there is a significant gap between the evidence needed to make an arrest versus the evidence needed to successfully prosecute a case,” Lovern said.

The reason for caution and continued dialogue with officers in hopes of building a strong case is because there’s no room for error.

“We really have one opportunity with a particular suspect to bring forward charges and we want to get it right. Not only for the person charged, but the victim’s family and the integrity of the system,” he said.

‘We never forget about the victims’

Depending on the time of year and other circumstances, homicide investigation units can get extremely busy, Hutchinson said. Even when pulling resources from other units, it can still impact the amount of time investigators have for each case.

On the flip side, he said, sometimes they’ve hit the point where they don’t have anything left to do at the moment. But, he said, he wants families to know that victims are more than just a name to them.

“They are someone’s family member or friend, and the day they died is probably the worst day of many people’s lives,” he said.

Whether it’s been days, months or years, he wants family members to know his unit remains committed to solving their murder.

“Everyone can be assured that we never forget about the victims,” he said. “There is no replacement for their loved one, but it feels great to be able to notify the family that we have made an arrest.”

How you can help

Anyone with information on homicides is asked to contact Milwaukee police at 414-935-7360, or to remain anonymous, contact Crime Stoppers at 414- 224-TIPS.

What happens when someone is murdered in Milwaukee? An inside look at homicide investigations is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.

The Milwaukee judge indicted for allegedly helping a man evade immigration agents has filed a motion to dismiss her case. Attorneys for the judge argue Circuit Court Judge Hannah Dugan has judicial immunity for official acts, and her arrest and prosecution violate Wisconsin's sovereignty.

The post Milwaukee County Judge Hannah Dugan files motion to dismiss federal charges in immigration case appeared first on WPR.

The Milwaukee County Courthouse (Photo by Isiah Holmes/Wisconsin Examiner)

Attorneys for Milwaukee County Judge Hannah Dugan filed a motion to dismiss the federal charges against her on Wednesday, arguing the government can’t charge her because she has judicial immunity. 

“This is no ordinary criminal case, and Dugan is no ordinary criminal defendant,” the motion states. “Dugan is a Milwaukee County Circuit Court judge. She was arrested and indicted for actions allegedly taken in and in the immediate vicinity of her courtroom, involving a person appearing before her as a party. The government’s prosecution of Judge Dugan is virtually unprecedented and entirely unconstitutional — it violates the Tenth Amendment and fundamental principles of federalism and comity reflected in that amendment and in the very structure of the United States Constitution.” 

The motion states that the problems with the prosecution “are legion,” and begin with her judicial immunity, which prevents judges from being charged with crimes for their official acts. Immunity is not a defense to be used at trial but “is an absolute bar to the prosecution at the outset,” the motion states, citing the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Trump v. United States that found the president can’t be charged with crimes for official acts. 

Dugan has been accused by federal officials of helping an immigrant without legal status in the U.S. escape from federal agents waiting to arrest him outside her courtroom last month. The criminal complaint alleges she directed the man, Eduardo Flores-Ruiz, who came to her court for a routine hearing in a misdemeanor case, out a side door to avoid federal agents waiting to arrest him with an administrative warrant. Flores-Ruiz and his lawyer exited the courtroom into the same hallway where the agents were waiting and a DEA agent rode down the elevator with him before he was arrested on the street. 

Trump administration officials have touted the case as an example of a stern federal response to “deranged” judges across the country working to stymie the president’s efforts to increase immigration enforcement. 

Dugan’s motion states the facts alleged in the indictment and criminal complaint against her would be disproven at trial, but that the case should never get that far. 

“Even if (contrary to what the trial evidence would show) Judge Dugan took the actions the complaint alleges, these plainly were judicial acts for which she has absolute immunity from criminal prosecution,” the motion states. “Judges are empowered to maintain control over their courtrooms specifically and the courthouse generally.” 

Dugan’s attorneys also argue that the prosecution violates the Tenth Amendment, which clarifies the balance of power between states and the federal government. The motion states that federal agents going into a state courthouse to arrest a sitting judge is a violation of the Constitution. 

“The government’s prosecution here reaches directly into a state courthouse, disrupting active proceedings, and interferes with the official duties of an elected judge,” the motion states. “The federal government violated Wisconsin’s sovereignty on April 18 when it disrupted Judge Dugan’s courtroom, and it is violating Wisconsin’s sovereignty now with this prosecution. The Court should end the violation of Wisconsin’s sovereignty and dismiss the indictment.” 

Dugan is scheduled to appear in court for her arraignment Thursday morning.

gov.uscourts.wied.111896.15.0

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Tuesday's indictment means members of that grand jury concluded there was enough evidence to file charges against Judge Hannah Dugan.

The post Grand jury indicts Milwaukee County judge after prosecutors allege she helped a man evade ICE appeared first on WPR.

The Milwaukee Police Administration Building downtown. (Photo by Isiah Holmes/Wisconsin Examiner)

A $6.96 million settlement — the second largest in Milwaukee’s history — stems from a federal civil lawsuit which accused Milwaukee Police Department (MPD) detectives of fabricating evidence against Danny Wilber, framing him for a 2004 homicide. Wilber spent 18 years in prison for a crime he always asserted he didn’t commit. 

Wilber’s homicide conviction was ultimately overturned after he was found to have had an unfair trial in a federal appeals court. On May 8, the city’s Judiciary and Legislation Committee recommended approving the settlement. Yet before it was approved, elected leaders expressed discontent that taxpayers in Milwaukee would be footing the bill. 

Further approvals will be needed from the Common Council and Mayor Cavalier Johnson. In a statement, Wilber said that the settlement “clearly establishes what I have truthfully maintained at all times — that I was completely innocent and that it was physically impossible that I committed this murder.” 

Ald. Mark Chambers Jr. called the judge in Wilber’s case “incompetent”, while Ald. Robert Bauman said the judge made “some pretty bad decisions,” the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported. Council President Jose Perez said the city was “paying the price for some bad judgement and it’s inexcusable.” Yet it was city of Milwaukee police detectives, not a judge, who manipulated evidence in the case, and laid the groundwork for the settlement nearly 20 years after they arrested Wilber. 

In January 2004, Wilber was at an after-hours party when, according to a federal complaint, he got into an argument with another party guest. As more people got involved the argument became a physical altercation which was being watched by another guest, David Diaz. At some point during the fight, someone standing behind Diaz shot him in the back of the head at close range. Diaz died instantly, and everyone who’d been in the kitchen panicked and left. 

The complaint states that physical evidence from the scene showed that Diaz had been shot from behind. One of the named defendants in the civil action, Milwaukee police detective Thomas Casper, collected measurements from the scene and recovered bullet fragments that showed that Diaz had been shot from behind. Diaz’s autopsy corroborated those findings. “It was and is undisputed that, at the time of the shooting, Plaintiff Wilber was inside the kitchen and in front of David Diaz,” the complaint reads. 

Despite the ballistic evidence, MPD detectives honed in on Wilber as the main murder suspect. Detectives didn’t look into multiple other plausible suspects, and went as far as to fabricate witness statements, the complaint states. Two other detectives, Randolph Olson and Louis Johnson, interrogated a witness to the shooting, Richard Torres, who was wanted for probation violations and turned himself in for questioning. Olson and Johnson used “threats and intimidation” to compel Torres to give a false statement by threatening to charge him with murder, and making clear that they were interested in Wilber as the shooter. Around the same time, another detective, Gregory Schuler, interrogated another witness, Jeranek Diaz. The complaint accuses Schuler of fabricating “substantial parts of a statement” from Diaz, including that at the time of the shooting, David Diaz had just turned around and was about to leave the kitchen when he was shot. Jeranek Diaz never said those statements, and was not allowed to review the typewritten version of his statement. Notes that Schuler allegedly took during the interview were never presented either to the prosecution or to Wilber’s attorneys. 

Other detectives interviewed witnesses who had a learning disability and said after the shooting that she saw her brother pat himself down to check if he’d been shot. The detectives, Timothy Duffy and Joseph Erwin, wrote that the witness ducked her head and when she looked back up, everyone was running out the door and she hadn’t seen her brother. Duffy and Erwin did not read the witness’s statement back to her, and she signed the statement without knowing what it said. 

One witness who was detained overnight without food, water or access to showers was told after interviews by detectives that he was “not telling us what we need to hear”, before being returned to a cell. Eventually, the exhausted witnesses agreed to make false statements if he was allowed to go home. Detectives also manipulated scene diagrams, and Wilber was charged with first-degree intentional homicide with a dangerous weapon in February 2004. Prosecutors heavily relied on evidence compiled by detectives, as well as false witness statements. 

Wilber spent 18 years in prison, with the Milwaukee County District Attorney’s Office formally dismissing his case in May 2022. In order to carry out what the complaint describes as a “conspiracy,” the detectives would have needed to act alongside other MPD investigative, supervisory and command personnel, as well as “other unknown co-conspirators.” Casper would eventually go on to become one of the first commanders for the Milwaukee Area Investigative Team (MAIT), a network of detectives that focuses on civilian deaths by police, and which has been criticized for conducting problematic death reviews. MAIT selected a different commander in 2020, and Casper died by the time Wilber’s lawsuit reached its conclusion.

“The evidence that came out in this case showed that this was not a series of mistakes by a squad of incompetent detectives,” Wilber said in a statement. “No, it was a conscious plan to construct a false case against me with manufactured witness statements in order to put me behind bars. It was a plan that they have used again and again against Black, Indigenous and other poor people of color. In this case, like in many others, the prosecutors and the Court system were, from beginning to end, vindictively complicit in my wrongful conviction and incarceration. This settlement delivers a measure of justice against the police who framed me, but what about the prosecutor who presented the false evidence at trial? What about the Judge who allowed it and violated my constitutional rights? What about the Assistant Attorney General who fought for years to keep me in a cage after my conviction was overturned and took the case all the way up to the Supreme Court of the United States? They’re all complicit and because of the corrupt system, they get to walk away, free to repeat the egregious misconduct under the guise of due processes.”

Attorneys Ben Elson and Flint Taylor of the People’s Law Office in Chicago, who represented Wilber, said that the city would be paying him nearly $7 million because its detectives framed an innocent man. The attorneys addressed statements made by local elected officials, who were quick to blame the judge and other non-city government figures in the case. “Instead of passing the blame onto others, the City should publicly acknowledge its role in Danny Wilber’s wrongful conviction and make a sincere apology.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers, some of them masked, work alongside Harrison County, Miss., sheriff’s deputies to make arrests in an investigation into illegal immigration and cockfighting in early May. States are increasingly setting policy for sheriffs on how much they can cooperate with ICE at local jails. (Photo by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement)

Local sheriffs are on the front lines in deciding whether to participate in the Trump administration’s mass deportation plans. But states increasingly are making the choice for them.

More and more, sheriffs’ hands are tied no matter whether they do — or don’t — want to help with deportations, though they often get the blame when conservatives draw up lists of sanctuary cities.

“‘Naughty lists,’ as we call them, are not super helpful here,” said Patrick Royal, a spokesperson for the National Sheriffs’ Association. “We all know there are places like Colorado where you can’t [help with deportations], and places like North Carolina where you have to.”

Cooperation between sheriffs and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement lies at the heart of the Trump administration’s immigration detention policy. The administration plans to punish noncooperative jurisdictions with funding cuts — though many legal experts agree that cooperation is voluntary unless state or local laws say otherwise.

Sheriffs, who typically run local jails, must decide what to do when faced with immigration detainers — requests from ICE to hold onto incarcerated people up to two extra days so ICE officers can show up and arrest them. ICE issues those detainers when the agency reviews fingerprints sent electronically for background checks as part of the jail booking process.

Otherwise, arrested suspects who post bond or are otherwise released by a judge might go free despite their immigration status, prompting ICE in some cases to pursue them in the community.

In North Carolina, Sheriff Garry McFadden ran on a platform of limiting cooperation with ICE  when he was elected in Mecklenburg County, home to Charlotte, in 2018. But today, McFadden must comply with detainers because of a state law passed last year.

In a now-retracted Facebook post, U.S. Sen. Thom Tillis in late April accused Mecklenburg and several other North Carolina counties of “shielding criminal illegal immigrants” as sanctuary jurisdictions. Tillis, a North Carolina Republican, said in the post he was writing federal legislation to prosecute sanctuary jurisdictions.

“You can’t say we’re a sanctuary county and have state laws that say we have to work with ICE. You can’t have both,” McFadden said. He added that he’d like more choice about whether to comply with detainers. A federal funding cutoff would endanger important jail programs such as rape counseling, he said.

“Everybody’s focused on immigration like that’s the biggest fire, and nobody wants to address the other things. The losers will be the prisoners who need all these services we provide,” McFadden said.

Conservative sheriffs in Democratic-controlled states also can be frustrated by state policy on detainers. Sheriff Lew Evangelidis of Worcester County, Massachusetts, said he’s been criticized for releasing prisoners wanted by ICE but sometimes has no choice: A 2017 state Supreme Court ruling prohibits holding prisoners based on detainers.

“If they [ICE] want this person and consider them a threat to public safety, then I want that person out of my community. I want to keep my community safe,” said Evangelidis. He supported a Republican-sponsored effort in the state legislature to allow 12-hour holds for ICE if a judge determines the prisoner is a threat to public safety, but the amendment was voted down in April.

States act on detainers

Many experts agree that ICE detainers can be legally ignored if states allow sheriffs to do that.

“That detainer request is just that, a request, it’s not a requirement,” said Cassandra Charles, a staff attorney at the National Immigration Law Center, which is opposing Louisiana’s lawsuit to reverse a court-ordered ban on cooperation between Orleans Parish and ICE.

The general counsel for the North Carolina Sheriffs’ Association, Eddie Caldwell, agreed that the detainers are voluntary under federal law.

The association supports a state bill now under consideration that would require not only the 48-hour detention but also a notice sent 48 hours before release to let ICE know the clock is running. The proposal has passed the House.

The notification matters, Caldwell said, because there can be criminal proceedings that take weeks or months, so ICE in many cases doesn’t realize the 48-hour window has started.

Tillis’ office said the senator’s disagreement with McFadden, a Democrat, and other sheriffs is about that notification.

“It’s not necessarily that [sheriffs] are breaking the law, but rather making it as difficult as possible for ICE to take prisoners into custody by refusing to do some basic things. Notification is important,” said Daniel Keylin, a senior adviser to Tillis.

States including California, Colorado and Massachusetts ban compliance with the ICE detainers, on the general principle that it’s not enough reason to hold people in jails when they’re otherwise free to go because of bail or an end to their criminal cases. Those three states have made recent moves to defend or fine-tune their rules.

California’s attorney general also has issued guidance to local jurisdictions based on a 2017 state law limiting cooperation with immigration authorities. That law withstood a court challenge under the first Trump administration.

Colorado has a law against holding prisoners more than six hours longer than required, and a new bill sent to Democratic Gov. Jared Polis last week would specify that even those six hours can’t be for the purpose of an immigration detainer.

Iowa, Tennessee and Texas are among the states requiring cooperation with detainers.

And Florida has gone further, requiring sheriffs to actively help ICE write detainers though official agreements in which local agencies sign up to help enforce immigration laws.

Cooperation boosts arrests

Such cooperation makes a big difference, experts say — jails are the easiest place to pick up immigrants for deportation, and when local sheriffs and police help out, there are more arrests.

“A larger share of ICE arrests and deportations are happening in places where local law enforcement is cooperative with ICE,” said Julia Gelatt, associate director for the Migration Policy Institute’s U.S. Immigration Policy Program, speaking at a recent webinar.

“A declining share of arrests and deportations are happening from places like California, where there are really strict limitations on local law enforcement’s cooperation with ICE,” she added.

ICE is making about 600 immigration arrests daily, twice the rate as during the last year of the Biden administration, said Muzaffar Chishti, an attorney and policy expert at the Migration Policy Institute, speaking at the same event.

Reports on deportations are incomplete, Chishti said, but he estimated the current administration is on track to deport half a million people this year and is trying to get that number higher.

“The Trump administration has not been able to change the laws that are on the books, because only Congress can do that,” Chishti said. “It’s going to take congressional action for the Trump administration to achieve its aim of higher [arrest and deportation] numbers.”

President Donald Trump has added more pressure, last month requesting a list from Attorney General Pam Bondi and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem of sanctuary cities, which he says would face funding cuts. The administration also has sued some states, including Colorado, Illinois and New York, over their policies.

Asked for comment on the legality of funding cutoffs for sanctuary policies, Bondi’s office referred to a February memo in which she promised to “end funding to state and local jurisdictions that unlawfully interfere with federal law enforcement operations.” The memo cites a federal law saying local officials “may not prohibit, or in any way restrict” communication about immigration status.

Local jurisdictions in Connecticut, Minnesota, New Mexico, Oregon and Washington joined a February lawsuit led by the city and county of San Francisco and Santa Clara County in California against a Trump administration executive order calling for defunding cities with sanctuary policies, calling the order “illegal and authoritarian.”

In April, a U.S. district court in California issued a preliminary injunction in that case preventing any funding cutoff over sanctuary policies to the cities and counties in the lawsuit. And on Friday, the federal judge, William Orrick, ruled that the injunction applies to any list of sanctuary jurisdictions the administration may target for funding cuts.

Trump’s new executive order seeking the list cannot be used as “an end run” around Orrick’s injunction, the judge wrote, while he decides the legality of detainer policies and other issues.

“The litigation may not proceed with the coercive threat to end all federal funding hanging over the Cities and Counties’ heads like the sword of Damocles,” Orrick wrote.

Stateline reporter Tim Henderson can be reached at thenderson@stateline.org.

Stateline is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Stateline maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Scott S. Greenberger for questions: info@stateline.org.

Newark Mayor Ras Baraka being released from a federal building hours after his arrest on May 9, 2025.

NEWARK — Newark Mayor Ras Baraka, who was arrested Friday and accused of trespassing at an immigration detention center, was released from custody hours after his detainment to cheers from hundreds of supporters.

Baraka, a Democrat, walked out of the federal building where he was being held just before 8 p.m. to the strains of “Ain’t No Stoppin’ Us Now” by McFadden & Whitehead blaring through speakers that had been set up by protestors.

The mayor, one of six Democrats running for governor in the June 10 primary, said he “didn’t do anything wrong.”

“I didn’t know this morning when I woke up that I would be in this facility here, that I would end up incarcerated for something that I believe is my democratic right to show up and speak out against what I think was happening here, a violation of city and state laws,” he said.

He was ordered to be released by U.S. District Court Judge Andre M. Espinosa at roughly 7:30 p.m. Baraka said he was charged with trespassing and will have to appear in court May 15. He said Department of Homeland Security agents treated him “very nicely.”

https://x.com/amandaleetv/status/1920995570405040155?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1920995570405040155%7Ctwgr%5Ef3f7eb1d5a2e197815e2fbc1eb0ed07f6c3e6334%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fnewjerseymonitor.com%2F2025%2F05%2F09%2Fthis-shouldnt-have-happened-newark-mayor-says-hours-after-his-arrest-during-ice-protest%2F

Baraka’s release capped off a wild day in Newark that started with him and three members of Congress — Democratic Reps. Bonnie Watson Coleman, LaMonica McIver, and Rob Menendez — appearing in Newark to visit Delaney Hall, a 1,100-bed immigration detention center that Baraka has tried to prevent from opening, saying the jail’s owner has not obtained necessary city permits.

Baraka said he was with fire officials Friday attempting to gain entrance to the facility, and videos show he was warned by federal agents that he would be placed under arrest.

After immigration agents arrested Baraka, acting U.S. Attorney Alina Habba claimed the mayor was trespassing. McIver and Menendez said Baraka was invited onto the jail’s property before he was arrested.

A scuffle broke out after protestors locked arms to protect Baraka, with Watson Coleman and McIver being pushed by immigration agents, videos show. Menendez was also seen yelling at officers not to arrest the mayor.

Baraka was walked away by masked agents and plainclothes officers.

The Department of Homeland Security characterized the incident as a “bizarre political stunt.” It claims the House members were “holed up in a guard shack” with protestors while a bus of detainees entered the security gate. It also denied claims that Delaney Hall does not have the proper permitting — allegations at the center of a lawsuit Newark filed against the jail’s owner, Geo Group — and said inspections and fire codes have been cleared.

Once protestors and officials found out Baraka was being held at an ICE facility on Frelinghuysen Avenue about 10 minutes away from Delaney Hall, the protest moved there — and grew. Hundreds of supporters and immigration activists stood in the pouring rain, relentlessly chanting for hours for federal officials to free the mayor.

State senators, county commissioners, local council members, and politicos from nearby New York also joined the protest. Meanwhile, statements of support poured in from other Democrats who are also running for governor, while Republicans used it as an opportunity to attack Baraka. Baraka’s campaign also sent out a fundraising text while he was detained.

During the protest, ICE agents peered through windows of the brick building where Baraka was being held, and a group of six agents stood in the parking lot, keeping watch on the crowd.

Watson Coleman told reporters that she had been “manhandled” during Baraka’s arrest. And Menendez called it an “act of intimidation” to keep the public from speaking about the Trump administration’s increasing immigration enforcement.

“The fact that they pushed, physically assaulted two female members of Congress, ask yourself if this is the beginning or if they’re going to change course,” Menendez said. “I have no faith that they’re going to change course, but we will continue to speak out against it.”

Gov. Phil Murphy, a Democrat, said on social media that while he was happy to see Baraka released, “the bottom line is he never should have been detained in the first place.”

While walking with police officers down Frelinghuysen Avenue after his release, Baraka was asked what his next steps would be.

“See my children,” he said.

New Jersey Monitor is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. New Jersey Monitor maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Terrence T. McDonald for questions: info@newjerseymonitor.com.

Bail has been set for Jeffrey Rupnow at $20,000 cash after he was charged criminally in connection with the shooting carried out by his daughter at Madison's Abundant Life Christian School.

The post Bail set for father of Abundant Life Christian School shooter who’s charged with giving guns to daughter appeared first on WPR.

Newark Mayor Ras Baraka, one of six Democrats vying to become New Jersey's next governor, has been a vocal critic of a new migrant jail in the city he runs. (Dana DiFilippo | New Jersey Monitor)

Ras Baraka, the mayor of Newark and one of six Democrats running to be New Jersey’s next governor, was arrested and detained by federal immigration agents Friday, according to his campaign.

This comes just over a week after the migrant jail, Delaney Hall, opened its doors as the largest detention center on the east coast. Baraka, whose city filed a lawsuit challenging whether the facility’s owner secured proper city permits before opening, has spent the week protesting outside the jail and attempting to gain entry, to no avail.

A photo taken by Rep. Bonnie Watson Coleman (D-12), who was also at Delaney Hall Friday, shows a handcuffed Baraka being led away from the facility in handcuffs. It’s unclear whether he has been charged with any crime and where he is being held.

Acting U.S. Attorney of New Jersey Alina Habba said on social media that Baraka “committed trespass and ignored multiple warnings from Homeland Security Investigations to remove himself from the ICE detention center.”

“He has willingly chosen to disregard the law. That will not stand in this state. He has been taken into custody,” said Habba.

Habba, a personal lawyer for President Donald Trump, said in April that she is investigating Gov. Phil Murphy and state Attorney General Matt Platkin over the state ban on local law enforcement assisting in civil immigration enforcement. Under a 2018 attorney general directive, state, county, and local cops are barred from aiding federal agencies in civil immigration arrests or providing access to state or local resources and databases.

In February, private prison firm Geo Group announced it had secured a 15-year contract with ICE to use Delaney Hall as a 1,100-bed detention center amid ramped-up immigration enforcement. Trump has made mass detention and deportation of immigrants — including some here legally — a pillar of his second term in office.

Delaney Hall, which held immigrant detainees from 2011 to 2017, reopened May 1, despite Newark officials’ attempts to block the opening through the lawsuit. ICE officials have confirmed that detainees are being held there, but have not said how many.

The Attorney General’s Office and the governor’s office did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

New Jersey Monitor is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. New Jersey Monitor maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Terrence T. McDonald for questions: info@newjerseymonitor.com.

A Wauwatosa police squad on the scene of a non-fatal officer-involved shooting. (Photo by Isiah Holmes/Wisconsin Examiner)

The State Assembly’s Committee on Judiciary held a public hearing Wednesday to discuss a bill which, if passed, would restrict the use of John Doe hearings in cases where prosecutors decline to charge police officers after deadly force incidents. Republicans and law enforcement supporters of the bill (AB-34) said officers need to be protected from repeated investigations, and that anti-police groups have abused Wisconsin’s John Doe law to harass innocent officers who’ve been involved in civilian deaths. A long line of attorneys, legislators, social workers and others spoke in opposition to  the bill, arguing that it adds to an array of legal privileges and protections police already enjoy.

Wisconsin’s John Doe law allows for a judge to be petitioned to review a case where prosecutors have already decided not to file charges. Once a John Doe hearing has been called, the judge may hear arguments from the petitioner as to why probable cause should be found that a crime was committed. If the judge agrees that probable cause does indeed exist, then special prosecutors may be appointed by the judge to review the case. Those prosecutors, however, ultimately decide whether charges will be pursued, regardless of whether a judge finds probable cause of a crime. 

Rep. Clint Moses (R-Menomonie), an author of the bill, said the law had been used to “unfairly target” two officers who’ve been involved in deadly incidents. Former Wauwatosa officer Joseph Mensah killed Jay Anderson Jr. in 2016, claiming that Anderson lunged for a gun on the passenger seat of his vehicle. Anderson was the second person Mensah had killed in a year. He was involved in a total of three fatal shootings over his five year career at Wauwatosa PD. Mensah left Wauwatosa PD in late 2020 and was hired by the Waukesha County Sheriffs Department, where he is a detective. 

In 2021, a John Doe hearing was called to review Anderson’s shooting, after which Milwaukee County Circuit Court Judge Glenn Yamahiro found probable cause existed to charge Mensah with homicide by negligent use of a dangerous weapon. The second John Doe hearing, started in 2023, focused on Madison police officer Matthew Kenney for the 2019 killing of 19-year-old Toney Robinson. A judge declined to allow the hearing to go forward. 

“After the investigations, the court confirmed that he had acted in self-defense,” Moses said of the John Doe hearing in Anderson’s case. Mensah’s John Doe hearing “mirrored” reviews done by the Milwaukee County District Attorney’s Office, U.S. Attorney’s Office, FBI, and Wauwatosa PD, he said. “It’s concerning that such investigations, which echo previous exhaustions, can be perpetuated, consuming significant time and resources,” said Moses. 

While speaking Wednesday, Moses incorrectly referenced Mensah’s 2015 shooting as being the reason for the John Doe hearing in 2021. “Officer Mensah used self-defense to protect himself while on the job in a situation in 2015,” Moses testified on Wednesday. In 2015, Mensah killed 29-year-old Antonio Gonzales while still in his probationary period at Wauwatosa PD. Neither Gonzales, nor Mensah’s third fatal shooting of Alvin Cole in 2020, were the subjects of John Doe hearings.

Last year, when the bill was first introduced, Moses joined Sen. Rob Hutton (R-Brookfield) in claiming that families of people killed by police were seeking vengeance against officers. Moses confused details of Mensah’s shootings during those hearings as well. When asked about the mix up, Moses admitted to Wisconsin Examiner that he had not closely followed the Mensah cases. 

As Moses testified on Wednesday, Hutton joined him in the committee room. Hutton, who has brought forward Senate versions of the bill, has said that although he’s taken extensive feedback from law enforcement about the bill, he has not reached out to the families of people killed by police. During a hearing in February, Mensah testified in favor of the bill.

Mark Sette, vice president of the Wisconsin Fraternal Order of Police, said the bill is “crucial” and that law enforcement “have both the duty and right” to use deadly force to protect themselves or others. Sette said that police must make split second decisions in high-stress circumstances, and that deadly use of force incidents “are rare”. Sette praised Wisconsin’s process of conducting reviews of deadly force incidents led by an outside agency, saying that the investigations are thorough. Sette said that repeated investigations prevent officers from moving on with their lives, and trap them in a cycle of psychological trauma and financial stress. 

West Allis Police Chief Patrick Mitchell, a former president and current legislative chair of the Wisconsin Chiefs of Police Association, also praised the investigative process. Mitchell pointed to the Milwaukee Area Investigative Team (MAIT) as an example of how thorough reviews of deadly force incidents by police can be. 

Not everyone was sold on the bill, however. Rep. Andrew Hysell questioned Sette and Mitchell about whether or not it’s possible for a district attorney to make a mistake in clearing an officer of wrongdoing. Sette said although it’s possible, that it’s “incredibly unlikely” because of the thoroughness of deadly force investigations. Hysell said that district attorneys aren’t infallible, and that the bill — if passed — would set in stone a prosecutor’s decision, and deny one legal avenue for families of people killed by police.

After Moses, Sette, and Mitchell came numerous people from a variety of backgrounds voicing opposition to the bill. Gregory Jones, vice president of the Wisconsin NAACP and president of the organization’s Dane County branch, urged lawmakers to dig deep, ask tough questions, and consider all aspects of how the bill could negatively impact civil rights and the pursuit of  justice. 

Amanda Merkwae, advocacy director at the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Wisconsin, stressed that the bill takes away judicial discretion and elevates law enforcement as a privileged class above all other citizens. Merkwae noted that prosecutors and law enforcement have close working relationships, and that district attorneys often rely on the very officers whose actions they’d need to review when citizens are killed. 

The advocacy director also cited investigations by MAIT, citing an investigation by Wisconsin Examiner in partnership with Type Investigations, which reviewed 17 MAIT investigations from 2019-2022, all of which resulted in no charges against officers. Merkwae listed the article’s findings including that officers who kill citizens are interviewed as witnesses or victims only, can refuse to have their interviews recorded, and may amend their statements after viewing video evidence. In several MAIT investigations, officers were not separated from one another to prevent statement contamination despite this being a required policy. 

Mensah and other officers provided contradictory statements and were not separated from one another after his third shooting. These facts were raised during a federal civil trial into Alvin Cole’s death earlier this year. The trial ended in a hung jury, with jurors unable to unanimously agree on whether Mensah’s killing of Cole was excessive. 

Merkwae said that last year, Wisconsin had 24 fatal police encounters, up from 14 incidents the prior year. “So by creating a separate standard for police officers, this bill sends the message that they are above the law,” said Merkwae. “Which, I think, is a dangerous precedent that erodes trust and makes community engagement with law enforcement more fraught and less effective.” 

Rep. Ryan Clancy (D-Milwaukee) also spoke in opposition. Clancy said that he hadn’t planned to speak on the bill, but decided to when he heard Mensah’s name being used. “The idea that an officer who killed three people in three different incidents is a poster boy for why this is good legislation rather than bad is mindblowing to me,” said Clancy. “Joseph Mensah serves as an example of how our current system is failing the people that it is designed to protect. Had Joseph Mensah been held accountable after the first time he shot and killed somebody, he wouldn’t have shot and killed a second and a third person, in three different incidents. And it is sickening to me that he was brought up as an example of how this is necessary because he feels that some folks are mean to him in trying to find some measure of accountability.”

More people rose to speak against the bill after Clancy. Some were social workers and medical staff, who recounted being spat on, punched, kicked, scratched, and hurt yet never once considering criminally charging the person who hurt them. It’s a privilege that police officers have which they do not, the speakers argued. At one point, a Wisconsinite who wished to be identified only as G. Lee attempted to testify while wearing a hat that used an obscenity to criticize President Donald Trump. Committee Chair Ron Tusler (R-Harrison) called the hat offensive and got into an argument with Lee, after which he called for the assistance of the  Capitol Police and called the committee into recess. 

When the hearing re-started, G. Lee was allowed to testify on AB-34 while wearing the hat, though he was warned any breaches of decorum would result in him being removed. Lee apologized that the hat “threatened or offended” Tusler, and stated that Tusler reacted from a position of power. Comparing that to the powers police have, Lee said “what scares me about the decorum set in this room, and the measure tied to this bill, is about power.” 

Lee, speaking directly to Tusler, said that when the hearing was stopped because of Tusler’s feelings, “One of my concerns here is that we are privileging the feelings of law enforcement over the feelings of families who’ve actually lost loved ones to bullets. That’s an important thing to consider here. The whole system is set up to protect a particular part of the state power, and you’ve used your state power to make a message.”

This article has been edited to correct a misspelling of Menomonie, represented by Rep. Clint Moses.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Madison Police Acting Chief John Patterson speaks at a press conference Thursday about the arrest of Jeffrey Rupnow on charges that he illegally gave his daughter two handguns, including one that she used in the school shooting Dec. 16 at a Madison private school. (Photo by Erik Gunn/Wisconsin Examiner)

The father of the teenager who shot and killed two people at a Madison private school and took her own life five months ago was arrested Thursday and charged with three felony counts in connection with the December shootings.

Jeffrey Rupnow, 42, was charged with two counts of intentionally giving a dangerous weapon to a person under the age of 18 and one count of contributing to the delinquency of a minor. All are Class H felonies under Wisconsin law, subject to a fine of up to $10,000 or a prison sentence of up to six years, or both.

Rupnow was booked into the Dane County jail just before 5:30 a.m. Thursday, according to the jail’s online records.

He is the father of Natalie Rupnow, the 15-year-old student at Abundant Life Christian School on Madison’s east side who entered the school in the middle of the morning on Dec. 16, 2024, shot and killed a teacher and a student, wounded six other people and then took her own life, all within a matter of minutes.

According to the criminal complaint, which was unsealed Thursday after Rupnow’s early morning arrest, Rupnow purchased two guns for his daughter: a 22-caliber handgun and later a Glock 9 mm pistol — the weapon that was used in the shooting. He said Natalie helped pay for the Glock and he purchased it for her from a gun store, the complaint states.

“All of these weapons, including [a third] one that was about to be gifted to the same teen, were purchased legally,” Madison Police Department Acting Chief John Patterson said at a Thursday afternoon press conference.

“There was a gun safe in the home. Based on our investigation, it did not stop the teenager from having regular access” to the contents,  he said.

Madison Mayor Satya Rhodes-Conway said the case “is a call and an action to hold parents accountable … if their children can access their firearms.”

Rhodes-Conway said she wanted to see the Legislature take up “a number of really common sense proposals that have been around for years” to reduce gun violence. Those include measures such as universal background checks before people can purchase a gun as well as “red flag” laws that empower the courts to remove guns from owners who may represent a credible threat to others.

“The other piece of this is really making sure that responsible gun owners are doing everything they can to make sure that those guns do not fall into the hands of people who should not have them,” she said.

Patterson said Rupnow has been cooperative with police throughout the investigation.

In interviews with police, Natalie’s parents as well as two friends described her behavior as depressed and sometimes angry at her parents, who are divorced.

“Why would a 15-year-old open fire in her school and murder a teacher, classmates, and injure six others? We may never fully understand that horror,” Patterson said. “We do know the teenager had a fascination with weapons and school shootings.”

The complaint states that in June 2022 Madison police officers told Jeffrey Rupnow “of high-risk behavior that [Natalie] was engaging in via the internet.” The complaint does not elaborate further on that report. “I can’t speak further to the follow-up that was done” at that time, Patterson said.

Patterson said the investigation remains open in the case. He declined to comment about reports that people in other states were in touch with Natalie Rupnow online.

According to the complaint, Jeffrey Rupnow told police he had 11 guns, including two that were considered Natalie’s. He told police his daughter became interested in guns after he took her to a friend’s farm to shoot guns about two years ago and that they would occasionally go to a shooting range.

Because of her interest, Rupnow told police he bought her a 22-caliber handgun and later the Glock, according to the complaint.

The complaint states that Rupnow described occasional comments by his daughter about wanting to kill herself, but that he generally viewed those remarks as attention-seeking behavior.

Rupnow told police he had a gun safe where he kept all of the guns, including those he had purchased for his daughter. The safe was locked with a security code. He told police he had not told his daughter the code itself, but that he had told her that it was his Social Security number backwards, in case she needed to get into it.

The complaint states that police found maps of the school and a cardboard mockup that appeared to be of the school building among Natalie Rupnow’s things at home.

Police also found notebooks and what Patterson called a “manifesto” — a six-page document titled “War Against Humanity.” That and other documents suggested a fascination with other mass shootings, including one in 2007 by an 18-year-old in Finland, which she noted in one of her writings took place two years after she was born.

In addition, police found and reviewed 30 sets of camcorder videos, some of them with Natalie handling weapons and some depicting what appeared to be animal mutilation, according to the complaint.

According to the complaint, Natalie took both of her handguns to the school on Dec. 16, the day of the shooting, but apparently used only the Glock.

The complaint states she arrived at the school just before 10:40 a.m. and entered a classroom just before 10:50 a.m.

A student in the classroom, a study hall, told police that once in the classroom,  Natalie held the gun with both hands and aimed it at the teacher who was sitting at her desk in the front of the room. The student said he heard gunshots and ran to the back of the room, where he hid behind a beanbag chair.

After the shooting stopped, the student, who was wounded in the leg, saw Natalie Rupnow lying on the floor on her back, with the gun in her hand. The student told police he removed the gun from her hand and put it in a drawer “because he wanted to make sure that no one else got a hold of it,” the complaint states. The police later retrieved the gun from the drawer.

The teacher, Erin Michelle West, and one student, Rubi Bergara, were both killed, according to the Dane County Medical Examiner’s office. Six other students were wounded. One remains hospitalized, Patterson said.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

The Milwaukee County Courthouse (Photo by Isiah Holmes/Wisconsin Examiner)

Update: ICE spokespeople directed Wisconsin Examiner to a post made on X (formerly known as Twitter) announcing the arrest of Kevin Lopez, 36, a Mexican citizen, who the post said is facing state charges of sexual assault of a minor, and sexual assault of an unconscious victim. The post states that Lopez had been previously arrested by local authorities for cannabis possession. Online court records confirm the charges against Lopez.

Another Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) arrest was made at the Milwaukee County Courthouse on May 7. Chief Judge Carl Ashley said he was told the arrest occurred after a court hearing. Since March, at least four people have been arrested for immigration enforcement in or near the courthouse. Circuit Court Judge Hannah Dugan was charged with obstruction after escorting a man sought by ICE into a public hallway outside her courtroom. 

The identity of the person arrested Wednesday has not been released. ICE officials have been unable to provide information at this time to Wisconsin Examiner.

In late March, Marco Cruz-Garcia, 24, a Mexican citizen, was arrested in the courthouse as he appeared in family court on a domestic violence restraining order. In a statement, ICE accused Cruz-Garcia of being a known member of the “Sureños transnational criminal street gang,” and cited his 2020 deportation order by a judge.  

Edwin Bustamante-Sierre, 27, a Nicaraguan citizen, was arrested days after Cruz-Garcia on April 3. ICE said in a statement that Bustamante-Sierre had been charged with reckless driving, endangering safety, reckless use of a firearm, use of a dangerous weapon and cocaine possession in Fond du Lac County and Milwaukee County.

On April 18, agents arrested Eduardo Flores-Ruiz, 30, a Mexican immigrant lacking permanent legal status, who faced three misdemeanor domestic battery charges. 

The arrest of Flores-Ruiz led to Judge Dugan’s arrest. On April 25, Dugan was arrested outside the courthouse, with agents leading the judge to an unmarked squad car in handcuffs. Protests erupted that day and over the weekend at the FBI Milwaukee office, which conducted a speedy investigation into Dugan, after right-wing media outlets claimed to have broken a story about Dugan helping the man evade ICE by leading him out a side door in  her courtroom.

A bipartisan letter from judges around the country objected to the unusual, high-profile arrest and “perp walk” of Dugan. 

Local officials in Milwaukee have spoken out against the ICE arrests at the courthouse, saying they are disrupting proceedings as community members seek crucial services and are discouraging people from coming to court.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE