Parents are raising serous concerns after two underage girls wanted for armed robbery boarded a Rio Grande High Shool bus in Albuquerque’s South Valley and entered the campus, resulting in a lockdown, reported KOAT 7.
The incident occurred May 15, when the unidentified girls managed to board the school bus, entered the high school campus, and hid in a second-floor bathroom stall before being discovered by staff and escorted out.
According to the news report, the girls fled on foot but were quickly apprehended by Bernalillo County Sheriff’s deputies, who confirmed that both girls had outstanding warrants for armed robbery and were facing additional charges from Albuquerque Public Schools (APS) police.
A letter sent to parents explained the timeline of events and how students had reported seeing to “suspicious females” on campus. This report prompted staff to initiate a “shelter in place” protocol, securing classrooms while searching the building.
Parents told local news reporters that they wondered how the girls managed to get on the school undetected. APS told reporters that the incident should not have happened. Additionally, the school districtc stated that school bus drivers are required to contact dispatch via radio when hey encounter an unfamiliar student, to verify the child’s name, address, school and other relevant details. It is unclear if the driver of the bus involved in the incident is facing any consequences for not following protocol.
The Bernalillo County Sheriff’s Office said suspects are expected to face new charges in addition to their other warrants. As questions are left unanswered, parents demand more transparency from APS and its transportation providers.
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.
A former Susquenita School District bus driver in Pennsylvania is facing charges after being accused of allegedly inappropriately touching elementary age students on the school bus for over six months, reported ABC 27.
John Joseph Straining, 50, was reportedly arrested by State Police at New Port and is facing 25 felony charges, including three counts each of felony institutional sexual assault, indecent assault of a minor under 13 and unlawful contact with a minor, among others.
According to the news report, two Susquenita Elementary School students reported that Straining, known to them as “Mr. John,” would tickle juvenile girls on the school bus despite being told to stop.
Upon investigation, police learned that Straining tickled multiple male and female third and fourth grade students, including tickling girls’ chests and thighs.
Police said surveillance video on the school bus showed these interactions occurring between last October and April of this year.
Rohrer Bus Company, the contractor Suquenita uses for transportation, reportedly fired Straining April 14.
A group of ten Fiat 500e models has joined the Greek police force in Athens..
The electric hatch sports a police livery, strobe lights, and a 117 hp motor.
The small EV has a rear suicide door on one side for easier access to the backseat.
Over the years, police forces have adopted vehicles from nearly every segment imaginable. While some divisions require fast pursuit cars, others need smaller, more nimble vehicles to maneuver through busy urban areas. The Greek police recently received 10 fully electric Fiat 500e units, now patrolling the narrow streets of Athens.
These EVs were gifted to the Greek police by DEI (Public Electric Power Corporation), which, despite sharing its name with the buzzword-heavy acronym for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion, is actually just about ensuring your car stays charged, not that it’s inclusive of all power sources. Along with the cars, DEI also threw in 36 charging stations, proving they’re really invested in making sure the only thing running low in this partnership is the battery.
Naturally, the Fiat 500e now sports the classic Greek police livery, complete with iridescent blue decals on its white body and strobe lights atop the roof. The headlight graphics and hubcaps hint that this is the base-spec model, not the fully-loaded La Prima trim.
What is interesting, is that the procurement department chose the Fiat 500e 3+1 bodystyle, which features an additional rear-hinged door on the passenger side. While Fiat initially designed this asymmetrical layout for easier access to the backseat for young families, in this case, it may prove more useful for transporting suspects, provided they can squeeze into the tiny Fiat, of course.
Not Exactly a Pursuit Car
The 500e police cars are equipped with the standard electric motor, delivering 117 horsepower (87 kW / 118 PS) and 220 Nm (162 lb-ft) of torque. This setup allows the 0-100 km/h (0-62 mph) sprint in 9 seconds, which should be more than adequate for urban patrols. If performance were the top priority, however, the fleet might have included at least one Abarth 500e.
More importantly, the 42 kWh battery pack offers a WLTP range of 321 km (199 miles) between charges, or up to 460 km (286 miles) in urban environments. In our review of the 500e, we noticed that real-life range is closer to 260 km (162 miles), but even this will be more than enough for patrolling the city center of the Greek capital.
Not the Slowest Greek Police Car
Surprisingly, the Fiat 500e isn’t the smallest or slowest vehicle in the Greek police fleet. That dubious honor goes to the Citroen Ami, a heavy quadricycle that’s been cycling patrolling the streets of Chalki Island since late 2021, as part of a sustainable mobility initiative.
Beyond the electric vehicles, Greek police officers have access to a broad range of cars, from the Seat Leon and Hyundai i30 to the Nissan Qashqai, Kia Sportage, and Peugeot 308. They also have a variety of larger vehicles, including the Nissan Navara and Skoda Octavia.
Recent additions to the police fleet with a performance-focused character include the Hyundai i30 N and Cupra Leon VZ hot hatches, designed for performing highway pursuits and tackling illegal street racing.
Despite its role as the electric flagship for Fiat, the 500e has not been the sales success that Stellantis had hoped for. As a result, Fiat has shifted focus, moving away from an all-EV lineup and introducing a mild-hybrid version, the 500 Ibrida, which is expected to debut later this year. Additionally, Fiat has confirmed that a new generation of the 500 will arrive in 2032, with production set to take place at their Mirafiori plant in Italy.
A Hyundai Ioniq 5 sat unrepaired for weeks due to ICCU failure and parts shortage.
Thieves stole the EV from the dealer, fled police, and crashed it into a church.
Insurance declared vehicle totaled leaving the owner concerned about financial losses.
Sometimes your car just breaks. Other times, it breaks, sits for two months, gets stolen, wrecked, and leaves you holding the bag. This is the story of how one Hyundai Ioniq 5 owner’s unlucky repair turned into a cautionary tale about EV parts, dealership security, and what happens when everything goes wrong at once.
On March 16, nearly two months ago, Massachusetts resident Ethan Blount’s Hyundai Ioniq 5 abruptly stopped working. The culprit was the ICCU, a part already known for causing problems in the Ioniq 5 lineup. It failed, leaving Blount stranded, and he had the car towed to his local dealership.
At the time, he had no idea it would be the last time he’d see the vehicle in one piece. On May 2, the car was stolen from the dealership. When police eventually located it and gave chase, the situation ended with the Hyundai totaled and Blount left underwater.
A Part With a Pattern of Failure
But let’s rewind. The ICCU (Integrated Charging Control Unit) plays a central role in the Ioniq 5’s electrical system. It manages the bi-directional charging between the 12V battery and the main high-voltage battery, which is responsible for powering essential systems, external devices, and even other EVs.
When it fails, the result is a completely immobilized vehicle. Dozens of Ioniq 5 owners have reported similar failures. In Blount’s case, the delay in repair came down to a parts shortage, with replacements on back order. So his EV sat, unusable and unguarded, for almost two months.
He tells The Autopian that he knew about the ICCU and suspected it immediately when he heard a loud pop. “I got only a mile or so before power started dropping precipitously, and pulled off the main road just in time. I contacted Hyundai and they dispatched a tow truck, taking my car to the nearest dealer,” says Ethan.
A Strange Notification, Then Silence
Then, on May 1, he received a notification via his Hyundai mobile app that the car was left on and idling. Good news, he thought, since it couldn’t do that without being fixed. The next day, everything fell apart. The dealer called and confirmed that the car was fixed but, strangely, they couldn’t find it.
Ethan whipped out his phone and tracked the car. It was in Boston, nowhere near the dealership. He called the police who tried to move in and secure the car, but clearly that didn’t work. The occupants sped off in it, ultimately lost control a short time later, hit a fire hydrant, and then smashed into a church. The impact was such that the Ioniq 5 was seriously damaged. The airbags all deployed, and the front is completely smashed in.
Boston police arrested three people at the scene, but they’ve left Blount in a tough spot. “Due to the rapid depreciation of the car I’m worried about what I will be offered by my insurance company since they declared it totaled today,” he said. “I fear I could end up still owing money and not even owning a car.”
In a positive turn though, Hyundai reached out to him two days ago, promising to help. Perhaps this entire saga will end up with the happy ending Blount clearly wants.
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.
The Wisconsin Examiner’s Criminal Justice Reporting Project shines a light on incarceration, law enforcement and criminal justice issues with support from the Public Welfare Foundation.
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.
Rep. Clint Moses (Wisconsin Legislature)
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.
Detective Joseph Mensah (right) testifies before the Senate Committee on Judiciary and Public Safety. (Photo by Isiah Holmes/Wisconsin Examiner)
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.
Jay Anderson Sr. (left) and Linda Anderson (right), the parents of Jay Anderson Jr. in 2020. (Photo by Isiah Holmes/Wisconsin Examiner)
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.
Wauwatosa Police Department squad cars responding during a standoff with protesters on July 7, 2020. (Photo by Isiah Holmes/Wisconsin Examiner)
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.
A Wilmington teen diagnosed with autism was found safe after a New Hanover County school bus driver helped police locate the boy, reported WRAL News.
According to the article, bus driver Marie Murphy and her monitor Valeria Davis were picking up students April 25 during their normal route when Davis received a notification on her cell phone.
Davis told local news reporters that the WECT app, which provides local news alerts, notified her that a teenager was missing around the Wilmington area.
Davis showed the update to Murphy, and they realized the 14-year-old often rode their school bus. The teen was reported missing at midnight, and the Wilmington Police officers had spent five hours looking for him that morning.
After seeing the boy’s picture, Murphy and Davis were on the lookout as well. Murphy told local news reporters that it made her think of her own kids.
During their last school bus stop, the women reportedly saw the teen standing with a friend on the side of a street. They tried talking to the teen about the incident but all he said was that he wanted to go to school.
Davis and Murphyc contacted their supervisors, Laura Sebert and Stacy Greene, who called 911. Murphy drove the teen to New Hanover High School, where police met them. The reasons for the teen’s disappearance remain unclear.
Reading Time: 7minutesClick here to read highlights from the story
The city and county of Eau Claire recently asked Attorney General Josh Kaul to weigh in on the legality of police officers dropping off homeless people outside their jurisdiction.
Their request for an opinion cited several examples, including the Durand Police Department, which transported a woman in handcuffs to a city homeless shelter that has been over capacity and at risk of reducing beds.
The story includes interviews with the Durand police chief and the mayor of Santa Cruz, California, which recently outlawed the dropping off of homeless people without prior communication and a plan for helping the person find a housing solution.
On Oct. 27, a Durand police officer responded to a suspicious person call. He made contact with a woman who had committed no crimes but had nowhere to stay on a cold night.
She told the officer she was from Fargo, North Dakota, and waiting for a ride, but couldn’t explain how she arrived in Durand.
When that ride didn’t show, the officer asked if she had a credit card, which local hotels require homeless individuals to put down when using a motel voucher to stay overnight. She said she didn’t and didn’t know what to do.
There are no homeless shelters in Durand or Pepin County.
The officer then suggested she go to Sojourner House, a shelter in Eau Claire about 40 minutes away. She agreed to be transported in handcuffs, in accordance with what the officer said was department policy. He called several other shelters in communities outside of Durand, all of which were full for the night. Sojourner House didn’t answer, but he offered the woman a ride there anyway. She asked if the shelter was open.
“It’s hard to say. Once I get you up there, they might not even have a bed for you to go,” the officer told her, according to body cam footage obtained by Wisconsin Watch. “Once you get up there, ask them for resources — see what else is available to you up there.”
The officer dropped her off and left without contacting the shelter staff or Eau Claire city officials.
According to Eau Claire County Corporation Counsel Sharon McIlquham and City Attorney Stephen Nick, the shelter was full, and Eau Claire city police later took the woman to a hospital. She then had a run-in with UW-Eau Claire police for indecent exposure.
“They still found themselves homeless in an unfamiliar community and committed crimes — had to get medical attention,” Nick told Wisconsin Watch, referring to multiple people who have been dropped off in Eau Claire. “So not a good outcome for them or our community.”
But what started as a conflict between local agencies is now a legal question being posed to Wisconsin Attorney General Josh Kaul: Should police departments in Wisconsin be allowed to transport someone experiencing homelessness out of their jurisdiction?
Body cam footage obtained by Wisconsin Watch shows a rural police officer trying — and failing — to connect a homeless woman with support services. Reporters Hallie Claflin and Trisha Young discuss what’s happening in the footage and what it illustrates about the specific challenges of addressing rural homelessness.
Nick said the problem has persisted for years in Eau Claire and extends far beyond the three examples cited in his January letter to the attorney general, asking his office to weigh in on the legality of these drop-offs.
“This is the first time we’ve received a communication along these lines, certainly since I’ve been attorney general,” Kaul told reporters at WQOW. “But I can say more broadly, some of the issues raised are ones that I think are true around the state.”
Democratic Gov. Tony Evers said the drop-offs display a need for more rural resources.
The letter pointed to instances of homeless individuals from neighboring counties being dropped off in Eau Claire by other agencies including the Menomonie Police Department and the St. Croix County Sheriff’s Office. McIlquham and Nick called it “a practice driven by a lack of good options,” but said the drop-offs are “unlawful at worst and unprofessional at best.”
“None of the individuals we referenced actually received care, and that is the most common outcome from these sort of transports,” Nick said.
Durand Police Chief Stanley Ridgeway said if his department is barred from carrying out these kinds of transports, the city’s human services department would have to pay other agencies or organizations to transport those in need of shelter. He added that rural communities like Durand lack rideshare services, public transportation or homeless shelters.
“In the end, it will increase our cost,” Ridgeway said. “Our hands will be tied.”
A statewide problem
The situation is not unique to Eau Claire. Police chiefs in Waukesha, Green Bay and Appleton told Wisconsin Watch they have dealt with a similar problem.
“For as long as I can remember, we have struggled with people from outside the Fox Valley coming to this area to utilize this invaluable resource,” Appleton Police Chief Polly Olson said. “We know they … may be given rides by other, outside law enforcement, or they find out through word of mouth about the shelters and resources in this area.”
Green Bay Police Chief Chris Davis told Wisconsin Watch these drop-offs happen occasionally, but he has asked agencies outside the county not to transport people because it strains local resources and makes it difficult for the homeless to return to their city of origin.
Drop-offs are also prevalent in Waukesha, with unhoused individuals coming from surrounding areas like Delafield, Hartland, Chenequa, Pewaukee and New Berlin. But Chief Daniel Thompson said the issue is complicated because the city is a hub for resources such as hospitals, mental health clinics, trauma centers, charitable organizations and shelters.
He said it makes sense that people experiencing homelessness in smaller, rural jurisdictions would come to Waukesha for services because their own communities often don’t have any.
But it’s a problem when other municipalities drop their homeless off in Waukesha simply because they don’t want to deal with them. This is particularly a problem at Waukesha Memorial Hospital, Thompson said.
In December, Wisconsin Watch reported that the state’s estimated homeless population has been rising since 2021, following national trends. It rose from 4,861 on a single night in 2023 to 5,037 in 2024. In rural Wisconsin, the increase was 9%, according to the annual homeless count.
Despite accounting for over 60% of the state’s homeless population in 2023, every Wisconsin county besides Milwaukee, Dane and Racine collectively contained just 23% of the state’s long-term housing with on-site supportive services, which experts say is the best way to address chronic homelessness.
‘Only because we have such poor options’
Police departments in Durand and Menomonie quickly responded to the letter sent to the attorney general, emphasizing the transports were voluntary. Police footage from both departments confirms the officers didn’t coerce the individuals, but did suggest the destination. Neither individual knew where Eau Claire was.
“They’re not looking to come here, they’re being asked if they want to come here,” Nick said. “When that’s being done by a uniformed police officer — that changes the circumstances quite a bit in terms of how voluntary that is.”
In the letter, McIlquham and Nick cited another example in which they say a woman who was a frequent source of contact for St. Croix County sheriff’s officers was dropped off at a gas station in Eau Claire without receiving any services. Eau Claire EMS, the county sheriff’s office and the city police department later responded to multiple complaints regarding the individual, who did not have ties to Eau Claire.
St. Croix County Sheriff Scott Knudson described the incident to WEAU as a “courtesy ride.” He did not respond to Wisconsin Watch’s interview request.
“I feel bad for Eau Claire that the facilities that we have available to us are in their jurisdiction, so sometimes they have to deal with the aftermath,” said Ridgeway, the Durand police chief. “But it happens a lot. That’s where the services are.”
Ridgeway told Wisconsin Watch the Durand Police Department will continue this practice as long as the attorney general allows it, adding that his department is not responsible for crimes these individuals may commit in Eau Claire. Asked how those individuals get back to where they came from, Ridgeway said that’s “out of our control.”
“These facilities receive funding from the federal government, state government, grants, donations — they’re not just receiving funding from Eau Claire County residents or city of Eau Claire residents,” Ridgeway said. “This is a service for all of western Wisconsin, and we’re going to take advantage of that service whenever we can.”
He defended the decision to drop a woman off in front of a shelter that was either full or not open.
“You might not tonight have a place, but they can tell you what time they open tomorrow so you can be in line to get services,” Ridgeway said. “We’ll continue to call and try to get a bed verified as being available, but if a person wants to be dropped off there, we’ll do so.”
In a March 11 press release, Catholic Charities of the Diocese of La Crosse said it is facing a potential decision to reduce Sojourner House’s operations from year-round to just six months, citing a loss of funding and a shortage of volunteers.
On one night in January, Dale Karls of the Western Dairyland Economic Opportunity Council told WEAU, Sojourner House, which has a normal capacity of 53, opened overflow spaces and housed 77 people.
Nick said he doesn’t doubt the officers were trying to help these people, “but the message needs to get out that they weren’t helped.” There’s been a growing need for homeless services since the pandemic as temporary services and funding have been rolled back, he said.
In the state’s 2023-25 biennial budget, the Republican-controlled Legislature rejected Evers’ recommendations to spend $24 million on emergency shelter and housing grants, as well as homeless case management services and rental assistance for unhoused veterans.
The Legislature also nixed $250 million Evers proposed for affordable workforce housing and home rehabilitation grants.
This year, Evers recommended another $24 million for homeless prevention programs in the 2025-27 state budget. Republican lawmakers who control the powerful budget committee vowed to throw out the governor’s budget and start from scratch this spring.
“The issue here is the disinvestment by the state and needed resources regionally,” Nick said. “It’s a law enforcement issue, but only because we have such poor options.”
A California city has outlawed the practice
In 2024, the city of Santa Cruz, California, outlawed the practice of transporting homeless people into the city without authorization. Mayor Fred Keeley told Wisconsin Watch the local ordinance has pressured surrounding communities to ramp up their own resources for the homeless.
The drop-off ban was sparked by an incident last summer when Hanford police drove a homeless woman with a disability nearly 200 miles to Santa Cruz — a city similar in size to Eau Claire — and left her outside a local shelter.
“I know that for decades, other cities in our county bring people and dump them in the city of Santa Cruz,” Keeley said. “Nobody should do this to us because we would never do it to you without a prior conversation.”
Keeley said these drop-offs almost never solve someone’s housing problem and instead shift the responsibility to another city. Santa Cruz is sympathetic to smaller municipalities with limited resources that are willing to coordinate with the city to arrange a transport, Keeley said, but that person should have some community ties.
Keeley said the city’s investments in permanent supportive housing and other programs have reduced the city’s street homelessness by more than 50% in the last two years.
Now, a bill has been introduced in the California Legislature that would ban local law enforcement agencies from transporting homeless individuals to another jurisdiction without first coordinating shelter or long-term housing for them. Keeley said he’s glad the issue is being taken up at the state level.
Wisconsin Watch is a nonprofit, nonpartisan newsroom. Subscribe to our newsletters for original stories and our Friday news roundup.
A man who vandalized several Teslas avoided charges through a legal diversion program.
Law enforcement and state officials voiced frustration over the lack of felony prosecution.
Prosecutors defended the decision, stating the suspect is still held fully accountable.
In an age where public frustration takes increasingly bizarre forms, even parked Teslas aren’t safe. Last month, a 33-year-old man was caught vandalizing several of the vehicles in downtown Minneapolis, yet he won’t face any criminal charges. Despite a formal recommendation from police, the Hennepin County Attorney’s Office has opted for a diversion program. This approach allows the suspect to avoid prosecution as long as he fully reimburses the car owners.
Security footage captured the man keying several Teslas in broad daylight, an act that authorities say caused around $20,000 in total damage to six different vehicles. Though spared a felony conviction, he’s still on the hook for the full cost of the repairs.
A Legal Decision With Mixed Reactions
According to Fox News, the man is a state employee working at the Minnesota Department of Human Services. The Hennepin County Attorney’s Office explained that diversion was chosen to allow the individual to maintain his job while still being held accountable. A spokesperson for the office shared the following statement:
“Our main priorities are to secure restitution for the victims and hold Mr. Adams accountable. As a result, we will file for pre-charge diversion to best facilitate both of those goals. This is an approach taken in many property crime cases and helps to ensure the individual keeps their job and can pay restitution, as well as reducing the likelihood of repeat offenses. Criminal prosecution remains a possibility should unlawful behavior continue.”
Hennepin County District Attorney Mary Moriarty stood by her decision, stating that it serves public safety and was not influenced by politics. She argued that felony convictions often make things worse in the long run.
“If they go through the traditional system, and they have a felony conviction on their record, they are much more likely to come back and commit a new crime. That is because a felony conviction destabilizes their lives, they may lose their job, lose their housing, and it can just lead to future criminal activity. What does work, and the recidivism rates are much, much lower, is diversion. And that’s been proven over and over here and throughout the country.”
Police and Public Officials Push Back
Not everyone agreed with the move. Minneapolis Police Chief Brian O’Hara expressed disappointment on behalf of investigators who worked the case:
“The Minneapolis Police Department did its job. It identified and investigated a crime trend, identified, and arrested a suspect, and presented a case file to the Hennepin County Attorney’s Office for consideration of charges. This case impacted at least six different victims and totaled over $20,000 in damages. Any frustration related to the charging decision of the Hennepin County Attorney should be directed solely at her office. Our investigators are always frustrated when the cases they poured their hearts into are declined. In my experience, the victims in these cases often feel the same.”
Minnesota State Representative Kristin Robbins also voiced concern, calling the decision “troubling and unacceptable.”
In recent months, Tesla vehicles have increasingly become targets of vandalism, a trend seemingly tied to rising public backlash against Elon Musk’s politics. Some owners have responded by selling their cars in unusually high numbers, while others have resorted to putting stickers on their Teslas in hopes of deflecting potential attacks.
Regardless of one’s opinion of Musk, damaging private property should not serve as a form of protest. As for the punishment for those who cross the line and break the law, we should probably leave that to the judges.
A 6-year-old boy died from his injuries after he was hit by a school bus in New Orleans, Louisiana, reported 4WWL News.
The incident reportedly occurred the morning of April 10 when the student, identified as Mayson Richards, exited his mother’s car in attempt to board a school bus. However, he was struck by the bus that was transporting 27 passengers at the time of the incident. Richards was taken to the hospital, where he died from his injuries not long after. None of the passengers had any reported injuries.
According to the news report, family members at the scene were the ones who identified Richards. He was a student at KIPP Leadership charter school, and his death left his family and community devasted.
Police told local news reporters that the school bus driver, who was not identified in this writing, opened the door to pick up passengers, once everyone had boarded the doors closed and the driver began to drive forward while checking the side view mirrors. When the driver saw Richards’ mother run from her car and pick up Richards who was lying in the street, that’s when the driver realized the child had been hit by the bus.
Authorities say via the news report that the bus driver, who remained at the scene and showed no signs of impairment, did not see Richards running to the front of the bus due to his short height.
A representative of JJ Julien Transportation, the company that owns the school bus, told local news reporters that the driver was a “great driver” and has been with the company “for a while.” However, the driver has not been working since the crash.
Richard’s family opened a GoFundMe account to help alleviate the cost of the funeral.
A man in Greenville, South Carolina was arrested and charged with arson after allegedly damaging several school buses.
The Greenville Police Department released a statement Monday confirming the arrest of a man who set fire to and vandalized some Legacy Charter School buses early Saturday morning.
Authorities say Greenville police officers and firefighters responded to a 911 call. Upon arrival, the first responders discovered two school buses fully engulfed in flames and numerous others damaged, totaling approximately $400,000 in losses.
According to police, the fire was quickly determined to be arson, and detectives immediately began searching the premises for surveillance footage. With the help of the school resource officer, a suspect image was obtained, which led officers to a nearby gas station, where a clearer photo of the suspect was discovered.
Authorities were reportedly able to identify and locate the suspect, who was not named at this writing, and a search warrant was executed at his residence. It is unclear what the suspect’s motives were.
He was taken into custody and charged with four counts of arson and four counts of auto-breaking.
A Handy Middle School student was found dead not long after he exited his school bus, reported The Star News.
The incident reportedly occurred Tuesday after an unidentified 14-year-old student was dropped off at a bus stop near MacGregor Elementary School. The boy was found dead shortly after.
According to the article, a neighbor discovered the body on the sidewalk and called 911. The boy was pronounced dead at the scene.
It is assumed that the boy was walking toward his home before being found.
It is unclear what caused the death, but police stated via the article that foul play is not suspected. The investigation is ongoing.
A Calhoun County Schools bus driver who was accused of DUI after being involved in a rollover crash accepted a guilty plea agreement, reported WSAZ 3.
The incident reportedly occurred March 4 at approximately 6 p.m., when 54-year-old Jeffrey Brannon was transporting 19 students on Route 16. He ran off the road and struck a culvert, causing the school bus to tip over.
The article states that students on board the bus ranged in ages from 11 to 18. Three students suffered serious injuries. Two of the victims were air lifted from the scene, but their injuries were not considered to be life-threatening. Their current condition is unclear at this time. All other students were taken to local hospitals, where they were treated and released.
Brannon was arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol and child neglect. A preliminary breath test at the scene showed he had .161 percent blood alcohol level, which is four times the legal limit for a commercial driver. Brannon’s bond was set at $250,000 and the first preliminary hearing was held March 14.
Calhoun County Schools Superintendent Michael Fitzwater told local media that all applicable laws will be followed and that Brannon will never operate another school bus.
In the Citrus Court of Calhoun County, Brannon entered a guilty plea April 10 to three counts of DUI causing serious bodily injury and 16 counts of child neglect, creating risk of serious bodily injury.
A Ridgeview School District bus driver in McLean County, Illinois, is facing charges for allegedly grabbing an 11-year-old student and leaving red marks on the back of his neck and arms, reported 25 News.
The bus driver, identified as 64-year-old Joseph C. Zimmerman, is facing one felony count of aggravated battery to a child than 13 and two misdemeanor battery counts.
According to the news report, police saw a video showing Zimmerman grabbing the boy by the back of the neck. Zimmerman admitted grabbing the boy’s arm but said he does not remember grabbing the child’s neck.
Zimmerman reportedly grabbed the boy for kicking a ball out of the bus. He told police that students are not allowed to have balls in the bus and this particular ball did not belong to the boy.
The article states that a judge released Zimmerman on the condition that he does not have contact outside his house with anyone under 18-years-old. It was unclear if he was fired from his job or suspended pending investigation.
A fourth grader in Maize, Kansas, drove his parent’s pickup truck to school after he missed his school bus, reported KSN News.
According to the article, someone saw the child driving the truck around 8:10 a.m. Wednesday and called the police. Responding officers could not immediately locate the pickup, until someone waved them down and pointed them to Pray-Wood Elementary School.
Police said the child drove the pickup about three miles from his home to the school. Officers added the child parked better than many adults.
Police reportedly did not ticket anyone and allowed the boy’s parents to handle the situation.
When a journalism nonprofit asked the Wisconsin Department of Justice in 2020 for the names and work histories of all law enforcement officers in the state, the agency initially appeared ready to grant the request.
But the department received pushback from law enforcement groups, and the records were not released.
This new information came to light in documents recently obtained by The Badger Project in its lawsuit against the state DOJ. The suit is seeking the names and work histories of most law enforcement officers in Wisconsin. The Badger Project’s co-plaintiff in the suit is the Invisible Institute, the journalism nonprofit that made the 2020 request.
Other news organizations, including the Washington Post, had seen similar requests rejected by the Wisconsin DOJ in preceding years.
In 2024, after the state DOJ denied another request for police names and work histories, this time from both the Invisible Institute and The Badger Project, the organizations sued for access.
In March, as part of the regular evidence exchange in the case, called discovery, the state DOJ released hundreds of documents to the two journalism nonprofits.
Among the documents was a letter sent by Assistant Attorney General Paul Ferguson, who heads the state DOJ’s Office of Open Government, to every police chief in the state. The letter indicated that the state DOJ intended to fulfill the request and release a list of all law enforcement officers in the state, but asked the individual agencies to identify any undercover officers who should not be included in that list.
The Wisconsin Chiefs of Police Association responded with a letter to Wisconsin Attorney General Josh Kaul the next day and urged the department to reverse itself, according to the documents obtained by The Badger Project.
Kenneth Pilegge, the association’s vice president, wrote that he had “significant concerns” in the letter.
“We have had contacts with members within our membership that have very serious concerns with this release and adamantly oppose this release without a court review,” he continued.
Neither the state DOJ nor the Wisconsin Chiefs of Police Association gave a comment for this story when offered the opportunity to do so.
Kaul assumed the position of attorney general, the head of the Wisconsin Department of Justice, in 2019. The department previously rejected the request for a full list of law enforcement officers’ names and work histories several times before he became AG, according to the released documents.
Dozens of states — including Minnesota, Illinois and Iowa — have released a full list of their law enforcement officers to a nationwide reporting project, which includes the Invisible Institute and The Badger Project.
The Wisconsin DOJ has, in response to repeated requests, released a list of “flagged officers,” those who lost their jobs due to termination, resignation in lieu of termination, or resignation prior to completion of an internal investigation.
This list, however, does not include officers who were fired or forced out of law enforcement jobs in a different state before taking a position in Wisconsin.
In previous denials, Ferguson has cited concerns that a complete list could “endanger” undercover officers and pose a general risk to officers and their families in a “volatile environment.”
The state DOJ says it isn’t able to identify undercover officers and redact their names.
Wandering officers
In Wisconsin, police and jailers who were fired or forced out of a previous job in law enforcement only to get hired at another one, called wandering officers, increased by 50% from 2021 to 2024.
The total number of law enforcement officers in Wisconsin is sitting near record lows, according to investigations by The Badger Project. So the pressure to hire previously fired or forced-out officers can be high, experts say. Chiefs and sheriffs need to fill positions, and officers fired or forced out from previous jobs already have their certification, which costs law enforcement agencies and new recruits time and money to obtain. Wandering officers are more likely to again commit misconduct on the job, studies have suggested.
A full list of names of law enforcement officers, including those separated from jobs outside of Wisconsin who now hold positions in the state, would alleviate a considerable information gap, the Invisible Institute and The Badger Project argue in their lawsuit.
The records requested would not include home addresses or family information.
The lawsuit
The Badger Project’s lawsuit is being funded by The National Freedom of Information Coalition, through grants from the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation and the Society of Professional Journalists’ Legal Defense Fund.
The Wisconsin Transparency Project, a law firm dedicated to enforcement of the state’s open records laws, along with the University of Illinois First Amendment Clinic, filed the suit on behalf of the plaintiffs.
The parties are submitting written arguments, called briefs, to Dane County Circuit Court, and then the judge will likely rule on the case, said Tom Kamenick, lead attorney for the Wisconsin Transparency Project.
This article first appeared on The Badger Project and is republished here under a Creative Commons license.
The Badger Project is a nonpartisan, citizen-supported journalism nonprofit in Wisconsin.
Reading Time: 7minutesClick here to read highlights from the story
Prosecutors nationwide must provide the defense with information that could call into question the credibility of police officers or anyone else who might testify — whether that’s a history of criminal activity, dishonesty or some other integrity violation.
In many cases, prosecutors track such information through what’s called a “Brady list” of officers. No clear Wisconsin or federal standards exist for when officers should be listed for disclosure.
The consequences for failing to disclose Brady material can be dire, even leading people to be incarcerated for crimes they didn’t commit.
Brady list policies elsewhere range widely, with some jurisdictions more meticulous than others. Such policies should consider the rights of police and citizens, experts say.
Arizona and Colorado have developed statewide disclosure systems.
When someone is charged with a crime, law enforcement testimony can play a crucial role in court, even determining whether the defendant lands in prison.
That’s why prosecutors nationwide must provide the defense with information that could call into question the credibility of officers or anyone else who might testify — whether that’s a history of criminal activity, dishonesty or some other integrity violation.
But how do prosecutors determine what to disclose about whom?
That’s where it gets complicated, and it’s the subject of an ongoing investigation by Wisconsin Watch, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel and TMJ4 News called Duty to Disclose.
Many district attorneys maintain lists of officers accused of acting in ways that erode their credibility. These are often called Brady or Giglio lists, named for two U.S. Supreme Court rulings related to disclosure.
How do prosecutors across the rest of the state and country disclose such information and what best practices do experts recommend?
Here’s what to know.
What are the standards for Brady lists in Wisconsin?
No clear state or federal standards exist for when officers should be listed for disclosure.
It’s up to district attorney’s offices, which are responsible for prosecuting crimes, to maintain such records.
The district attorney should know when an officer is referred for potential criminal charges. But when officers face non-criminal internal violations, prosecutors rely on law enforcement to share that information for consideration. That’s the case in Milwaukee County, according to District Attorney Kent Lovern. If such sharing doesn’t happen, his office may be left unaware.
Milwaukee County District Attorney Kent Lovern makes decisions about which officers to put on — or take off — his Brady list. He is shown being interviewed by reporters for Wisconsin Watch, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel and TMJ4 News in January 2025. (TMJ4 News)
The accuracy of a Brady list hinges on clear communication between law enforcement departments and prosecutors, said Rachel Moran, an associate law professor at University of St. Thomas School of Law in Minneapolis who has researched Brady systems nationwide.
“That is where a lot of the sloppiness happens is that prosecutors don’t set up a good system with the police for even learning about the information,” Moran said.
In Duty to Disclose, reporters asked 23 law enforcement agencies in Milwaukee County for policies governing how to handle Brady material.
Only seven provided a written policy. The Milwaukee Police Department and eight other agencies said they lacked a written policy, while the remaining seven did not respond.
What do Brady lists look like in Wisconsin?
A 2024 Wisconsin Watch investigation found some of Wisconsin’s counties keeping spotty Brady records. Records requests to 72 counties turned up more than 360 names of officers on Brady lists. The tally was incomplete since 17 counties either denied a records request or said they didn’t keep track.
Another 23 district attorneys said they had no names on file, although some said they would reach out to local agencies to update their list.
Milwaukee County disclosed incomplete information at the time. But after TMJ4 News made its own request and threatened to sue, the county released a full list of 192 officers listed for a wide range of conduct — from a recruit who cheated on a test to officers sentenced to federal prison for civil rights violations. Some officers were listed multiple times.
Of more than 200 entries on the Milwaukee County list released in September, nearly half related to an integrity or misconduct issue, such as officers lying on or off duty. About 14% related to domestic or intimate partner violence, and nearly 10% related to sex crimes, including sexual assault or possessing child pornography. Another 14% involved alcohol-related offenses.
What can go wrong if Brady disclosure doesn’t happen?
The consequences for failing to disclose Brady material can be dire, even leading people to be incarcerated for crimes they didn’t commit.
In one extreme case in 1990, an Arizona woman was convicted of kidnapping and murdering her 4-year-old son based largely on the testimony of a Phoenix police detective who had a history of lying under oath — details prosecutors did not disclose. As a result, Debra Milke sat on death row for 22 years before a judge vacated her conviction in 2014.
What are other benefits of consistent Brady list disclosure?
The lack of consistent disclosure has prompted some defense attorneys to maintain their own internal Brady systems based on information they learn, said Alissa Heydari, director of the Vanderbilt Project on Prosecution Policy and a former prosecutor.
That extra scrutiny makes it even more important for prosecutors to be aware of witness credibility issues.
“From a strategic point, you want to know the weaknesses in your own case and in your own witnesses,” Heydari said.
Consistent, transparent tracking of Brady information could also improve trust in police, Moran said.
“I don’t think this is an attack on police,” she said. “If anything, I think it could help the credibility of law enforcement to be more transparent about the officers with histories of misconduct.”
Some police unions have sought to influence how Brady lists are created or maintained — including in Los Angeles, Brooklyn and Philadelphia, according to Moran’s research.
Little federal enforcement and a lack of political incentive to challenge police power often prevent state or local tightening of Brady standards.
“Police misconduct disproportionately impacts communities that are often not heard and not represented in media investigations and not represented as well in politics and in places of power,” Moran said.
Following publication of the first Duty to Disclose installments, the Wisconsin Fraternal Order of Police criticized Milwaukee County’s Brady list release, saying officers could face “significant career and reputational damage.”
“We appeal to the legislature to establish a standardized, transparent process that ensures the protection of officers’ due process rights, while maintaining the public’s trust in the integrity of our law enforcement agencies,” the police group said in a March 4 statement.
What are best practices for maintaining Brady lists?
Brady list policies elsewhere range widely, with some jurisdictions more meticulous than others. Such policies should consider the rights of police and citizens, Heydari said.
Prosecutors are increasingly recognizing the importance of crafting such policies, but “my guess is that it’s a pretty small minority of offices that are doing it,” Heydari added.
John Jay University’s Institute for Innovation in Prosecution in 2021 highlighted 11 jurisdictions nationwide —from San Francisco to Philadelphia — that clearly spell out their policies.
The institute offers a variety of recommendations, including collecting as much information as possible from police departments about misconduct, providing staff with training, designating a group of people responsible for deciding when to list officers and crafting clear criteria for additions.
The lack of consistent disclosure by prosecutors has prompted some defense attorneys to maintain their own internal Brady systems based on information they learn about law enforcement officers’ histories. (Andrew Mulhearn for Wisconsin Watch)
“You don’t want to be frivolously adding police officers who, for instance, have unsubstantiated allegations against them,” Heydari said.
Moran cautions against making that criteria too narrow.
The Milwaukee County District Attorney’s Office uses strict criteria, listing officers only when they have a pending criminal charge, a past conviction or an internal investigation “that brings into question the officer’s integrity.”
That has left off, for instance, some officers who a judge found to lack credibility.
Last year, the Hennepin County Attorney’s Office in Minneapolis expanded the type of conduct
that may qualify as Brady material, announced specialized training for attorneys, created a new tracking system for judicial orders related to witness credibility and hired staff to exclusively focus on Brady compliance.
Are there any statewide Brady disclosure systems?
Arizona and Colorado have developed statewide disclosure systems, although government watchdogs have called them imperfect.
Colorado became the first state to mandate standards for tracking dishonesty in law enforcement in 2019. But a Denver Post investigation later found inconsistencies in the tracking system.
A bipartisan bill in 2021 expanded disclosure requirements, making Brady list policies and mechanisms transparent to the public. The legislation requires minimum disclosure standards for counties, with options to disclose more than is required.
Colorado maintains a searchable Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) database that includes decertifications and disciplinary files including untruthfulness. The 2021 law required dishonesty flags be made public. However, the POST website emphasizes that the database itself is not a Brady list.
Arizona lacks state mandates for tracking and disclosing Brady lists. The Arizona Prosecuting Attorneys’ Advisory Council does, however, publish a statewide database of listed officers — an effort that followed a 2020 investigation by ABC15 that found some prosecutors failed to keep accurate Brady lists. The council also publishes best practices for such disclosure.
Milwaukee County Supervisor Justin Bielinski said a statewide Brady standard and database could help the county manage liability in hiring. As Milwaukee County police departments aggressively recruit officers from other jurisdictions, those with a history of questionable policing may slip under the radar, he said. The problem of “wandering officers” is well documented.
“A state law change that would centralize this kind of record keeping or at least standardize the process for how the locals go about doing it could be helpful,” Bielinski said, adding that the county board lacks power to craft such standards for the sheriff’s department.
But Bielinski, who also serves as the communications director for state Sen. Chris Larson, D-Milwaukee, doubts legislation to create Brady list standards would advance in a Legislature controlled by Republicans who more often back police groups and “tough on crime” platforms.
Larson has a different view, saying that legislation for consistency standards across law enforcement agencies and a statewide database housed at the Wisconsin Department of Justice could garner bipartisan support.
“Even Republicans would want to have consistency with their law enforcement so that they’re held to the highest standards,” Larson said.
Wisconsin state Sen. Chris Larson, D-Milwaukee, is photographed during a state Senate session on June 7, 2023, in the Wisconsin State Capitol building in Madison, Wis. (Drake White-Bergey / Wisconsin Watch)
Asked if he supports statewide Brady standards, Wisconsin Attorney General Josh Kaul said district attorneys should retain their discretion, which depends on a range of factors and the circumstances of the cases.
“It’s not as simple as whether somebody is on a list or not,” the Democrat told the Journal Sentinel. “There’s more analysis that needs to go into it.”
Still, Kaul said any Brady lists should be accessible and include “as much consistency as possible.”
Ashley Luthern of the Journal Sentinel and Ben Jordan of TMJ4 News contributed reporting.
This story is part of Duty to Disclose, an investigation by the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, TMJ4 News and Wisconsin Watch. The Fund for Investigative Journalism provided financial support for this project.
Authorities in Washington are investigating a badly damaged Tesla Supercharger.
They believe that an arsonist might have planted a bomb to destroy the station.
FBI joins local investigators to determine if Tesla station was deliberately targeted.
Just a few years ago, the idea of someone targeting a Tesla charging station in a bombing attack would’ve seemed unthinkable. Today, it’s just the latest sign of growing anger aimed directly at Elon Musk. Authorities in Washington State believe an explosive device might have been planted at a Supercharger station, destroying part of the site and taking the entire location offline. Now, Tesla, the FBI, and local law enforcement are all trying to figure out what happened.
According to Lacey Police, a call came in around 1:30 a.m. reporting a “loud noise in the Sleater Kinney area.” When officers showed up at the local Target on 655 Sleater Kinney Rd, they found a severely damaged Supercharger station. Photos from the scene show one of the main cabinets of the charging station in several pieces. A Supercharger stall also has a piece missing.
The Lacey Police Department is calling the incident “malicious mischief” and said that it’s working with the FBI to sort out exactly what happened. In response to news of the event, Tesla itself responded on X to say that it’s working with the LPD and FBI to provide security camera footage. “Don’t mess with critical infrastructure,” it concluded.
Restoring Power—and a Bit of Normalcy
Notably, Tesla says it’s also working with Puget Sound Energy to get the Supercharger station back to full functionality so hopefully, those who rely on it won’t be without power for too long. This is, sadly, far from the first example of this sort of damage in recent months.
Protests span across not just the USA, but the world at this point. While most have been peaceful, a growing handful of incidents in the States and abroad are violent and or dangerous. Elon Musk has blamed the surge in Tesla-related vandalism on backlash to his leadership of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), which has become a lightning rod thanks to deep federal budget cuts and significant government job losses. He has also claimed that criticism from Democratic leaders has fueled hostility toward Tesla and its supporters.
It’s becoming clear that some protesters see Tesla as a proxy for Elon Musk himself—an easy, visible target to vent frustration. Unfortunately, that means owners, many of whom have no connection to Musk’s politics or public persona, are getting caught in the crossfire. In response to the uptick in vandalism, the FBI has launched a task force to investigate attacks on Tesla property. Even so, the broader wave of unrest shows no signs of slowing down.
We're on-site with @LaceyPolice and @FBI, and reviewing camera footage. Also coordinating with @PSETalk to get the Superchargers back online asap. Don't mess with critical infrastructure.
A school bus aid in Howard County, Maryland, was accused of sexual assault against students, reported WBAL TV 11.
According to the news report, 80-year-old Albert Rice, Jr. was charged with sexual assault and a fourth-degree sex offense after he was accused of hurting two students.
Police said detectives received reports that Rice allegedly hit a non-verbal student on a school bus. Surveillance video was pulled and police found evidence of Rice hitting a 13-year-old non-verbal student and inappropriately touching another 13-year-old student.
According to charging documents obtained by local news reporters, video of the incident showed the teen first struck Rice, who responded by hitting the teen in the face while she was secured in a seatbelt. The charging documents also state that Rice admitted to investigators that he was frustrated with the victim when he hit her.
Detectives stated via the article that Rice is an aide for a school bus that transports students to to the Linwood Center, a non-public special education program in Ellicott City. He is reportedly not employed by the school but by transportation company Bowen Bus Services. Rice has been an aide for two and a half years. The school declined to comment further.
It is unclear when the incident occurred. However, back in February, Rice was reportedly suspended over an unspecified incident. Police say via the article there are no indications of other victims but anyone with information can contact the department. The investigation is ongoing.
Reading Time: 11minutesClick here to read highlights from the story
The Milwaukee County District Attorney’s Office has strict criteria to place officers on its Brady list, meant to help prosecutors fulfill their legal duty to share evidence that could help prove someone’s innocence.
The list omits officers whose testimony has been found not credible by judges and who have cost taxpayers millions in misconduct lawsuits. That includes two Milwaukee police detectives who were found to have falsified reports that led to an innocent man’s homicide conviction.
Experts call the criteria improperly narrow, depriving defendants of crucial information for a fair trial.
After two days of testimony about a traffic stop that ended in a drug arrest, a Milwaukee County judge had heard enough.
“You can stop,” Judge Paul R. Van Grunsven said last fall, interrupting the defense attorney who was still cross-examining a West Allis police officer.
The judge recounted inconsistencies in the officer’s testimony and body camera footage shown during an evidence suppression hearing.
“This witness has lost any credibility with this court,” Van Grunsven said. “I find none of his testimony to therefore be truthful.”
The Milwaukee County District Attorney’s Office has strict criteria to place officers on the list and only does so if officers have a pending criminal charge, a past conviction or an internal investigation “that brings into question the officer’s integrity.”
Legal experts who reviewed the policy suggest it is improperly narrow, depriving defendants of crucial information for a fair trial.
The list omits officers whose testimony has been found not credible by judges and who have cost taxpayers millions in misconduct lawsuits, an investigation by the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, TMJ4 News and Wisconsin Watch found.
Experts said any one of those officers could be included on a “Brady/Giglio” list, so named for two landmark U.S. Supreme Court rulings. Such lists are maintained to help prosecutors fulfill their legal obligations to share information favorable to the defense.
In practice, the decision about who gets on — and taken off — the list often comes down to one person: Milwaukee County District Attorney Kent Lovern.
Lovern has maintained his office is fulfilling its legal obligations while striking “the appropriate balance” with adding officers to the list.
Lovern took office in January. Prior to that, he served for 16 years as the top deputy to his predecessor, John Chisholm, and was responsible for maintaining what is formally known as the “officer status list.”
“I respect that other jurisdictions may apply different parameters to their respective Brady lists,” Lovern said. “At the same time, we know many jurisdictions do not even maintain a list.”
It’s dishonesty, he said in an interview, that gets officers on the list. He has drawn a distinction between overt deception and credibility rulings, when a judge determines an officer’s testimony does not match the evidence.
Those rulings most often occur in suppression hearings with judges finding officers did not meet their legal burden for obtaining evidence, he said.
Milwaukee County District Attorney Kent Lovern, far right, often makes the decision about who gets on — and taken off — the Brady list. With him from left are Milwaukee County Sheriff Denita R. Ball, Milwaukee Police Chief Jeffrey Norman and Chief Judge Carl Ashley. (TMJ4 News)
Veteran defense attorneys say judges can and do throw out evidence when an officer cannot articulate reasonable suspicion or probable cause, but that it is different — and rare — for a judge to plainly call an officer’s testimony not credible.
“It’s the reason the judge found them not credible: It’s testimony that didn’t line up with physical evidence or what the evidence was in the case,” said Jeremy Perri, deputy trial division director for the State Public Defender’s Office.
An officer’s placement on the Brady list does not guarantee his or her past will come up in court. It’s up to the prosecutor to disclose it, the defense attorney to raise it and a judge to find it relevant to a specific case.
“Brady is not designed to punish the officers,” said Laurie Levenson, a professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles and a former federal prosecutor.
“Brady is designed to ensure people get fair trials,” she said.
A wrongful homicide conviction
William Avery’s homicide conviction hinged on the word of other people.
Jailhouse informants and two Milwaukee police detectives said he had admitted to killing 39-year-old Maryetta Griffin.
Avery always maintained his innocence. In 2010, he was exonerated after DNA evidence linked Griffin’s homicide to serial killer Walter Ellis. Avery had served six years of a 40-year sentence and was one of three people charged in homicides later attributed to Ellis.
Avery filed a federal civil rights lawsuit against the city and seven Milwaukee police detectives. This time, a jury believed Avery’s word and awarded him $1 million in damages.
Jurors considered reams of evidence, including a handwritten report from then-detective Gilbert Hernandez. Hernandez and Daniel Phillips, another detective, interviewed Avery soon after Griffin’s homicide in 1998.
Hernandez wrote that Avery admitted selling drugs to Griffin and later fighting with her after he woke up to her going through his pockets.
Hernandez asked Avery how he had killed Griffin.
“Subject states, ‘I’m responsible, I just don’t remember,’” according to the report, which Avery had refused to sign.
The next day, Hernandez filed another report that said during further questioning, Avery had denied killing Griffin.
Avery was not charged with homicide then but was convicted of a drug offense. Years later, after the jailhouse informants came forward, Avery was charged with Griffin’s homicide. At the criminal trial, Hernandez and Phillips testified that Avery implicated himself, and Hernandez’s report was admitted into evidence.
The federal civil jury not only found in Avery’s favor but concluded Hernandez and Phillips had falsified reports saying Avery admitted to the homicide. The jury found the other detectives named in the lawsuit had not engaged in improper conduct.
At the time of the federal verdict, Phillips was retired, but Hernandez was still working as an investigator at the Wisconsin Department of Justice.
Lovern, the district attorney, said the state agency never referred the well-publicized jury finding to his office for potential inclusion on the Brady list.
“Our office has determined not to add him to our database,” Lovern said in an email, responding to follow-up questions from the Journal Sentinel.
“They sent an innocent man to prison based on a fabricated confession,” Elson said. “If they don’t belong on a Brady list, who does?”
The state Department of Justice said Hernandez resigned as a sworn special agent for the Division of Criminal Investigation in February 2016, after the civil jury finding. He continued working in a series of non-sworn office roles at the department until his retirement in December, an agency spokesman said.
The state would share any Brady/Giglio information about Hernandez with district attorneys or other law enforcement agencies “upon request,” Riley Vetterkind, the spokesman, said in an email.
Hernandez declined to comment recently when reached by a Journal Sentinel reporter. In the federal civil trial, he denied any wrongdoing, as did Phillips.
Hernandez remains on a witness list for prosecutors, identified as a “DCI investigator,” in at least one pending homicide case: Maxwell Anderson, who is charged with killing and dismembering Sade Robinson.
A traffic stop ends in a search without cause
Lewis Moore went to prison, accused of a crime never proven in court.
On March 2, 2019, Moore got pulled over while driving. A Milwaukee officer, Chad Boyack, told Moore he had been “flying” and asked him to step out of the car.
Moore, then 22, did so and raised his arms.
He was sure he had not been speeding. His license was valid. The car was not stolen or wanted. It was his girlfriend’s car, he told the other officer, Anthony Milone, as he sat in the back of the police squad.
She has her concealed-carry permit, he said, and her gun might be in the car.
Lewis Moore spent two years in prison accused of a crime never proven in court. (TMJ4 News)
Boyack did find a gun in the center console. Moore maintained he did not know it was there. He was on probation for a low-level felony and legally barred from having a gun.
Boyack and Milone arrested him. A prosecutor charged him with being a felon in possession of a firearm. As a result, Moore was revoked from probation and put behind bars — his first experience in prison.
“I don’t deserve this,” Moore said he remembered thinking at the time. “I didn’t do nothing wrong.”
His case got stuck in the court system during the COVID-19 pandemic. He even considered pleading guilty just to get it over with.
But his public defender, Caitlin Hazard Firer, had reviewed the reports and officers’ body camera footage. She believed the officers had conducted an illegal search. So she filed a motion to try to get the evidence from the search thrown out.
Moore finally had his day in court in 2021. Inconsistencies piled up from the officers.
Boyack and Milone gave different estimates of his speed that day, the highest being 60 mph. Video footage showed the officers turning on their squad’s lights and driving 32 mph to pull him over.
The officers said Moore took a while to stop, which factored into their decision to get him out of the car. Video showed Moore stopped within 30 seconds, spending much of that time navigating the busy intersection of North 27th Street and West Capitol Drive.
The officers differed on whether they smelled burnt marijuana from the car. Boyack testified that he did, though he did not mention the smell when he first spoke with Moore during the stop. Milone testified he did not smell it.
Boyack also testified he did not see marijuana until he searched the car, turning up the equivalent of a few grains of rice. Milone testified he did not see or smell it when he approached the car.
Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Glenn Yamahiro heard the testimony, reviewed the video footage and determined the evidence had been unlawfully seized. He also noted there was no independent evidence of speeding, like a radar gun.
“So bottom line here is I don’t find these officers credible in this case,” Yamahiro said, according to a transcript.
“I do not find the reasoning here for why he got put in the squad car legitimate,” the judge said later in the hearing, adding: “I do not find the actions of the officers here lawful.”
Moore’s attorney had been practicing law for decades. It was the first adverse credibility ruling against an officer in any of her cases.
“This is incredibly rare,” Firer said. “In my experience, judges will find another reason to suppress the evidence.”
“A judge has found them not credible, and that is Brady material,” she said.
Lovern, the district attorney, disagreed. He said the prosecutor on the case did not tell him about the judge’s finding and did not need to do so.
Lovern said the judge’s decision related to a specific set of circumstances at a suppression hearing and did not find the officers had been dishonest.
Chief Judge Carl Ashley echoed his comments, saying: “The judge didn’t say they were lying.”
Yamahiro declined to comment to the Journal Sentinel.
Police Chief Jeffrey Norman, left, alongside Mayor Cavalier Johnson, speaks on June 10, 2022, at the Milwaukee Police Administration Building in Milwaukee. (Jovanny Hernandez / Milwaukee Journal Sentinel)
Milwaukee Police Chief Jeffrey Norman said he was unaware of the judicial ruling. The department did not investigate the circumstances of Moore’s arrest because no one made a complaint, he said.
Norman praised the two officers, saying they had earned many meritorious awardsfor their service. In a follow-up email, the department said the chief agreed with the district attorney and chief judge that the judge’s credibility finding was only for testimony at a suppression hearing, “which is different than the integrity or credibility of an individual.”
Boyack and Milone did not respond to interview requests from TMJ4 News. The Milwaukee Police Department declined to make them available for an interview.
Years later, Moore still finds it difficult to capture how that traffic stop upended his life.
“You guys took time away from me and my family and my business,” he said in an interview with TMJ4 News.
These judicial rulings do not mean an officer purposefully lied or committed perjury.
Last year, the Hennepin County Attorney’s Office in Minneapolis expanded the type of conduct that may qualify as Brady material and created a new tracking system for judicial orders related to witness credibility.
In Milwaukee County, there is no comprehensive tracking of such decisions. Asked if such a system should exist, the county’s chief judge said, “there’s always a transcript of the proceedings.”
Attorneys cannot ask for a transcript if they do not know a ruling was made in the first place. Legal experts say such rulings should be disclosed and underscored that Brady protections help prevent wrongful convictions.
Official misconduct has played a significant role in about 54% of wrongful convictions, according to a 2020 study from the National Registry of Exonerations.
“It is a staggering number that runs the gamut of witness tampering, misconduct in interrogations, fabricating evidence, concealing exculpatory evidence and perjury at trial,” said Rachel Burg, director of the Wisconsin Innocence Project.
Most cases involving misdemeanors and lower felony offenses are rarely reviewed after conviction.
Rachel Moran, a professor at the University of St. Thomas School of Law in Minneapolis, has extensively studied Brady lists.
She reviewed Milwaukee County’s policy and said it appears to have an “improperly narrow reading of what types of misconduct could count as Brady evidence.”
The district attorney’s Brady list included 191 officers, as of late February. Thousands of officers have worked in the county since the list was started 25 years ago.
“The fact that the list dates back so many years and has relatively few officers suggests that it is probably missing a lot of Brady material,” Moran said.
Levenson, the Loyola Law School professor, said when a system fails to track officers with credibility problems, patterns get missed.
“The real concern is it’s not an isolated mistake, it becomes part of the culture,” she said.
A drug charge dismissed after officer found not credible by judge
The 22-year-old man stopped by Lazaris, the West Allis police officer later scolded by a judge, faced a felony drug charge.
The man’s attorney, Justin Padway, looked at the body camera footage.
In the video, Padway saw his client being polite and cooperative with the officer who had pulled him over. Lazaris peppered the driver with questions, including if he had guns or marijuana in the car. The man said no and kept his hands visible during the encounter. Lazaris got him out of the car and frisked him anyway.
Padway believed the officer had unlawfully searched his client and extended the traffic stop. He filed a motion to suppress the seized evidence, which included cocaine.
At the suppression hearing, Lazaris contradicted himself and the body camera footage, according to a transcript.
In court, Lazaris said he pulled the man over for window tint. He said he believed he had thwarted a drug transaction and that the driver was involved in drug trafficking. In response to Padway’s questions, he admitted he saw no evidence of drug trafficking or a drug transaction.
Padway asked him to confirm his earlier testimony in the hearing, that he saw cocaine in the car. The officer said yes.
Padway played body camera footage in court. Lazaris could be heard telling another officer there may or may not be “shake” in the car. “Shake” typically refers to leftover, loose marijuana.
Lazaris, on the witness stand, said the term could be used for either marijuana or cocaine. Soon after, the judge, Van Grunsven, interrupted the questioning and said he was ready to rule.
“This guy testifies under oath he saw ‘shake’ in the vehicle,” the judge said. “That’s what he tells the K9 officer. That’s what’s truthful. That’s what’s honest. That’s what’s credible. The fact that he tries now to say that it was cocaine shake is incredible.”
The judge cited the other inconsistencies and ruled the search was unlawful, meaning the seized evidence could not be used. Prosecutors dismissed the charge against Padway’s client, who had no prior criminal convictions and has not been charged with any other offense.
The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel requested an interview with Lazaris or a West Allis Police Department official. In an email response, West Allis Deputy Chief Chris Marks defended the officer and said the department does not believe the judge’s finding should be considered Brady material.
“An officer losing a motion hearing can occur during the course of an officer’s career but is not indicative of deceit,” Marks said in an email. “The officer is a highly valued member of our department. We support the officer’s actions.”
Milwaukee County District Attorney Kent Lovern in his office on Jan. 15, 2025. Lovern maintains his office is fulfilling its Brady list obligations. (Mike De Sisti / Milwaukee Journal Sentinel)
Lovern, the district attorney, said the case illustrates why his office generally will not add officers to the Brady list for credibility determinations made in court hearings.
The judge’s finding stemmed from what he thought the term “shake” meant, Lovern said.
“In fact, the term ‘shake’ has long been used to refer to both particles of marijuana and cocaine, particularly by law enforcement investigators,” Lovern said in an email.
Lovern did not address other inconsistencies cited by the judge. The Journal Sentinel left several messages for the judge but did not hear back.
To Padway, placing such an officer on the Brady list is “essential for maintaining the integrity of the justice system.”
“It ensures that both defense attorneys and prosecutors have access to crucial information about an officer’s credibility, protecting the defendant’s right to a fair trial and upholding public trust in law enforcement,” he said.
This story is part of Duty to Disclose, an investigation by the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, TMJ4 and Wisconsin Watch. The Fund for Investigative Journalism provided financial support for this project.
Login
to Meet with School Bus Industry Leaders at STN EXPO East, March 20-25 in Charlotte, NC
