Tag: government overreach

The 5th Circuit Rejects Qualified Immunity for Cops Who Searched a Driver After a Bogus Traffic Stop

Around 5 p.m. on a Wednesday in June 2022, Mario Rosales was driving his red Mustang on Jackson Street in Alexandria, Louisiana, waiting to turn left onto Dorchester Drive, when a police SUV pulled up behind him. After the traffic light turned green and Rosales made his turn, Officers Samuel Terrell and Jim Lewis activated their lights and pulled him over.

The officers later claimed Rosales had “failed to signal” his turn. But as dashcam video showed, that was not true: The Mustang’s left-turn signal was blinking as Rosales waited at the intersection. And after stopping Rosales and his girlfriend, Gracie Lasyone, who was sitting in the front passenger seat, Terrell and Lewis detained them for 21 minutes, during which the cops asked if there was anything illegal in the car, grilled them about drug use, frisked Rosales, instructed him to empty his pockets, and gave him and Lasyone the Miranda warning that typically accompanies an arrest.

Rosales and Lasyone sued Terrell and Lewis in federal court that November, arguing that the officers had violated their Fourth Amendment rights under color of law. Terrell and Lewis claimed they were protected by qualified immunity, a doctrine that bars such lawsuits unless they allege violations of “clearly established” law. A federal judge disagreed, and last week the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit upheld that decision, concluding that Rosales and Lasyone’s allegations were sufficient to defeat qualified immunity at this stage of the case.

That ruling by a unanimous three-judge panel is striking for two reasons. It illustrates the limits of the broad leeway that the Supreme Court has given police officers to stop and interrogate motorists. It also illustrates the limits of qualified immunity, which in many cases has prevented victims of outrageous police misconduct from pursuing constitutional claims because they were unable to cite sufficiently specific precedents.

In the 1968 case Terry v. Ohio, the Supreme Court ruled that police may stop someone when they reasonably suspect he is involved in criminal activity and may frisk him if they reasonably suspect he is “armed and dangerous.” Three decades later in Whren v. United States, the Court said reasonable suspicion of a traffic violation is enough to justify stopping a car, even when that allegation is a pretext for an unrelated criminal investigation. And when a traffic stop is legally justified, the Court has held in other cases, police may question the driver about unrelated matters and may order both the driver and any passengers out of the car in the interest of officer safety.

The impact of those rulings was clear when Terrell and Lewis pulled over Rosales and Lasyone. The cops ordered both of them to exit the car, and they interrogated them about their places of residence, itineraries, criminal histories, and personal habits.

Keep reading

Another Federal Judge Strikes Down New York’s $75 Billion Climate Superfund Law as Unconstitutional — Second Court Torpedoes Hochul’s Climate Cash Grab

New York Democrats just lost again.

A second federal judge has now struck down Gov. Kathy Hochul’s Climate Change Superfund Act, the Albany scheme that tried to shake down American and foreign energy companies for $75 billion over alleged “local effects” of climate change.

According to a Department of Justice press release issued Monday, U.S. District Judge P. Kevin Castel of the Southern District of New York granted the United States’ motion for summary judgment last week, declared the statute unconstitutional, and permanently enjoined the state from enforcing it.

Castel, a George W. Bush appointee, found that New York’s law is preempted on two independent grounds: the federal Clean Air Act and the foreign affairs doctrine. The court also held that the United States has standing to defend its sovereign authority over interstate emissions and foreign policy.

That is the second knockout in a month.

As The Gateway Pundit reported earlier this month, Chief Judge Brenda K. Sannes, an Obama appointee in the Northern District of New York, already shredded the same statute, calling it an “unusual and sweeping” law that was “simply beyond the limits of state law.”

Keep reading

Cops Fingerprint an 11-Year-Old Boy, Tow His Electric Dirt Bike With a City Wrecker, and Threaten a WARRANT After He Rode 300 Feet From Home to Go Fishing

An 11-year-old’s ride to a fishing spot in Oviedo, Florida, ended with police stopping him, fingerprinting him, towing his electric dirt bike, and ordering him to appear in court.

Cade Kirchner, a sixth grader, was riding toward a nearby pond with his fishing pole on Labor Day, September 7.

His father, Chris Kirchner, said Cade was about 300 feet from home and traveling on the road’s shoulder.

The family says the bike was limited to 20 miles per hour. FOX 35 Orlando reported that police classified it as a motorcycle under Florida law.

They say the 4,500-watt machine has pegs instead of pedals, so Florida law classifies it as a motorcycle, not an e-bike, meaning it needs registration, insurance, a motorcycle endorsement, and a licensed adult rider.

The citation was issued under Florida Statute 320.02 for an unregistered vehicle, which requires a court appearance.

Because Cade had no driver’s license, they put his fingerprint on the ticket to satisfy ID rules. The bike was towed because it “is not legally allowed on the roadway.”

Oviedo Mayor Megan Sladek called Cade a “good kid” but said officers’ hands were tied by state definitions. Police added they could have piled on more citations and chose only one.

“The State of Florida regulates motorcycle use, and the definition of what counts as a motorcycle and what counts as an e-bike,” Mayor Sladek said.

“Even if it has two wheels, if it doesn’t have pedals, the State of Florida will classify that as a motorcycle and not as an e-bike.”

Body-camera footage shows an officer warning Cade that he had to appear in court or “they’re going to put out a warrant.”

The hearing is scheduled for a school day, meaning the sixth grader will have to miss class. ClickOrlando reported that his father plans to ask prosecutors to dismiss the case.

According to the news outlet, Cade got his e-bike after raising $900 through his summer business selling squirrel tables.

Keep reading

Alberta woman hauled before human rights tribunal for opposing rainbow crosswalk

George Orwell wrote Nineteen Eighty-Four nearly 80 years ago as a warning about totalitarianism. The novel’s true horror isn’t censorship — it’s compelled speech. In the book’s climax, the rebellious Winston Smith is sent to the Ministry of Love, where torture is used to force him to agree that an obvious falsehood is the truth. Asked how many fingers his tormentor is holding up, the correct answer isn’t four or five — it’s whatever the party says it is.

Nineteen Eighty-Four was fiction. But in 2026, examples of compelled speech in Canada are not hard to find.

Take the claim that a mass grave of Indigenous children sits at a former residential school in Kamloops, B.C. — a claim unsupported by any forensic evidence to date. Simply asking questions about it, or declining to wear an orange shirt on September 30, is enough to be branded a denier and an enemy of reconciliation. Merely questioning the official Kamloops narrative could one day be treated as a criminal matter.

Then there’s gender identity, where a person born with a penis is a man and a person born with a vagina is a woman — a statement now considered controversial enough to invite official sanction. A U.S. Supreme Court justice, asked to define the word “woman,” could not do it. And in Canadian institutions, a man who says he identifies as a woman is now entitled to compete against women in sports, shower in women’s changerooms, and be housed in women’s prisons. Object, and expect to be labelled a hater, a bigot, and a transphobe.

Canada has no Ministry of Love, and no torture chambers. But there is more than one way to enforce conformity, and a case headed to the Alberta Human Rights Tribunal on September 14 shows how it’s done.

Westlock, Alberta, resident Benita Pedersen — a DJ, children’s entertainer, and event coordinator — is facing a human rights complaint over a flyer she handed out three years ago opposing a proposed rainbow crosswalk incorporating the colours of the transgender pride flag. According to the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedom, Pedersen’s flyer stated facts, including the potential for infertility following gender transition, and encouraged residents to contact their elected representatives if they shared her concerns.

On June 19, 2023, local resident Laurie Hodge filed a complaint against Pedersen under the Alberta Human Rights Act, alleging the flyer constituted discrimination based on gender, gender expression, and gender identity. Hodge was not on Westlock town council at the time. Both women ran in a January 2024 by-election; Pedersen finished second, Hodge third — though Hodge was later elected to council in a subsequent vote. Whether the complaint was ever really about a crosswalk, or about eliminating a political rival, is a fair question.

The Director of the Alberta Human Rights Commission has since taken carriage of the complaint on Hodge’s behalf and referred it to the Tribunal under Section 3 of the Act, which bars publications likely to expose people to hatred based on protected characteristics. The Director is expected to call an expert witness to testify that failing to paint the crosswalk could cause physical and mental harm to transgender and marginalized youth. Pedersen, in turn, must rely on evidence from an endocrinologist and a psychiatrist specializing in gender dysphoria simply to defend a flyer about a paint scheme. In May, the Director moved to exclude most of Pedersen’s witnesses as irrelevant; the Tribunal denied that motion in July.

“Albertans should be free to express their opinions on controversial topics without being accused of hatred and discrimination,” said constitutional lawyer Allison Pejovic of the Justice Centre.

Pedersen’s case is not isolated. The Supreme Court of British Columbia has granted four organizations intervenor status in nurse Amy Hamm’s appeal of a March 2025 disciplinary ruling by the British Columbia College of Nurses and Midwives, which found her guilty of unprofessional conduct over online statements she made about sex, gender, and sex-based rights between 2018 and 2021. In a decision released September 8, Justice J. Hughes granted standing to the College of Physicians and Surgeons of B.C., West Coast LEAF, Egale Canada, and the Association for Reformed Political Action Canada (ARPA), while dismissing an application from the Vancouver Lesbian Collective. ARPA is expected to argue that criticizing gender identity theory does not amount to discrimination or hatred. Hamm’s appeal is scheduled to be heard in Vancouver this November.

The reach of compelled speech isn’t limited to tribunals and regulators. In 2024, David was covering a story on Ash Davis, a biological male competing on the Fergus Highlanders women’s rugby team, when Ontario Provincial Police officers threatened him with arrest simply for asking questions on a public sports field. Later that same day, while conducting consensual interviews with spectators in the stands — not on the field, not interfering with play — police made good on the threat and arrested him. 

All of this unfolds while southern Ontario endures a record crime wave, raising the obvious question of what, exactly, police resources are being prioritized for.

Keep reading

A Secretive DHS ‘Predictive Policing’ Unit is Analyzing Americans’ Financial Habits and Pulling Them Over

Border Patrol is running secretive predictive policing units that analyze Americans’ financial activity and other data, then feed that intelligence to local police who pull people over who are not suspected of any specific crime, but which the government thinks may be worth searching, 404 Media has found.

The units, the name of which 404 Media is revealing here for the first time, are called Predictive Intelligence Targeting Teams (PITT). In one case, a PITT analyzed the financial activity of a man who was driving across Montana, and local authorities stopped him under the pretense of an obstructed license plate and charged him with a DUI.

404 Media identified one PITT in the Spokane Sector, Washington, which polices the U.S. border with Canada, and another in the Laredo Sector, Texas, which polices the border with Mexico. The findings add to an Associated Press investigation from last year which found Border Patrol was using automatic license plate readers (ALPRs) as part of the same wide-spanning predictive policing program.

“The bottom line is genuine probable cause cannot be synthetically generated,” Jake Laperruque, deputy director of the Security and Surveillance Project at the Center For Democracy & Technology, told 404 Media in an email. Here Border Patrol seems to be “using parallel construction to cloak the reason behind its car stops in secrecy. If we can’t meaningfully review and evaluate these systems, we can’t trust them,” he added.

Predictive policing is a highly controversial practice that police departments and federal agencies are increasingly turning to. The practice is designed to find people who may have committed crimes, but at the moment, no evidence of them doing so exists. Broadly, law enforcement may analyze data — such as a person’s movements, where they are at a certain time, or the roads they drive — then create or find another pretense to pull them over.

At around 9:30pm one night in May, Kyle William Olson was driving his black Chevy SUV on Interstate 90, with his dog Ducky in the backseat, according to police reports and an interview Olson gave to 404 Media. In Olson’s vehicle were marijuana edibles, marijuana cuttings, and butane hash oil. He works on a licensed cannabis farm in California, where he had picked up the weed, and was transporting it home to Wisconsin, he told 404 Media.

Olson drove past Sergeant James Beck of the Montana Highway Patrol who was sitting in his police car along with a colleague. When Olson passed, Beck noticed the vehicle’s license plate was obstructed by what he described as a tinted cover and the luggage holder, according to a police report. Beck pulled out, caught up to Olson, and pulled him over.

“Nothing major,” Beck said once he approached the passenger side window and exchanged pleasantries with Olson, according to bodycam footage. Beck said Olson’s license plate was “a little bit obstructed.”

“Just so you know, that’s our reason for stopping you,” Beck said. In the end, the officers demanded Olson step out of the vehicle, they tested his blood and charged him with a DUI. Authorities later charged Olson with possession with intent to distribute because of the marijuana in his vehicle, Olson told 404 Media.

But that wasn’t the real reason for stopping Olson.

During discovery in his case, Olson was provided a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) document that explained how Border Patrol instigated his traffic stop. Written by Border Patrol Agent Matthew Phelps, the document said Phelps was assigned to the “Spokane Sector Border Patrol Targeting & Intelligence Division (TID) — Predictive Intelligence Targeting Team (PITT).” Olson shared the document with 404 Media.

Keep reading

Mom Rages After Pennsylvania Borough Criminally Charges Her 10- and 12-Year-Old Daughters Over a Broken Playground Swing — Then Threatens to SUE After the Judge Throws the Case Out

The girls were hauled into court after their mother refused to pay a repair bill without first seeing evidence that her daughters intentionally damaged the swing.

This is bureaucratic insanity.

Two young sisters, ages 10 and 12, were criminally charged after a playground swing broke while they were playing with other children in Springdale, Pennsylvania.

The ordeal began on May 21 at Veterans Memorial Park, northeast of Pittsburgh, when a group of children decided to twist the swing’s chains tightly and release them so the riders would spin around and become dizzy, according to WTAE.

It was the kind of playground stunt children have performed for generations.

But this time, one of the chains snapped.

According to their mother, Katie Huss, her daughters immediately told her what had happened when she arrived to pick them up.

Approximately two weeks later, a Springdale police officer reportedly arrived at the family’s home carrying surveillance photographs and seeking payment for the damaged swing.

Huss said the photographs showed numerous children participating, prompting her to question why police were approaching her family alone. The borough later maintained that five juveniles were identified and that the approximately $295 repair bill was divided equally, about $59 per child.

Three families reportedly paid their shares.

Huss refused, saying she wanted evidence that her daughters had intentionally broken the swing and information showing when the playground equipment had last been inspected or repaired.

Then the situation escalated dramatically.

The borough pursued criminal-mischief charges against her 10- and 12-year-old daughters.

“They were super scared,” Huss told WTAE. “They’re good little girls. They go out, and they play.”

Springdale officials denied giving the family a direct “pay or your children will be charged” ultimatum. Officials argued that restitution had been offered as a way to resolve the matter without continuing juvenile proceedings.

But when Huss declined to pay, her daughters still ended up as defendants in court, Triblive reported.

At the hearing, a Springdale police officer testified that the children had violated a posted playground rule instructing visitors not to twist the swing chains.

Borough Solicitor Craig Alexander reportedly argued that people sometimes break rules for the thrill of it.

There was just one enormous problem with the borough’s case: Criminal mischief requires evidence of criminal intent.

The judge determined that the children’s conduct caused the swing to break but found insufficient evidence that the girls intended to damage it. They were consequently found not responsible.

In other words, the children were playing recklessly, not carrying out a calculated attack against municipal playground equipment.

Common sense finally prevailed in the courtroom, but only after two little girls were subjected to criminal proceedings over a broken swing and a $59 repair dispute.

Huss said she would have understood a warning or a conversation explaining how the equipment should be used. What she never expected was for ordinary childhood misbehavior to result in actual criminal charges.

That should have been the end of it.

It wasn’t. Now they want to sue the mom over pocket change

Even after the acquittal, borough officials have vowed to file a civil complaint to recover repair costs. Huss says she is “still waiting to find out if they’re going to escalate it further as they promised.” Her answer: “I’m not going to give in.”

Keep reading

The End EPA Abuse Act targets regulatory overreach and the climate hysteria baked into onerous regulations

The conflict between the EPA and congressional conservatives is not a recent development, but rather the culmination of decades of increasingly aggressive interpretations of the Clean Air Act. Originally enacted in 1970 to address visible air pollution, the statute has been used by successive administrations, particularly under Presidents Obama and Biden, to pursue broader climate policy objectives that many legal scholars argue were never intended by Congress.

The Obama administration’s Clean Power Plan, which sought to shift the nation’s electricity generation away from coal, was struck down by the Supreme Court in 2022 under the major questions doctrine, which holds that agencies cannot make decisions of vast economic and political significance without clear congressional authorization. The Biden regime continued this approach by pushing electric vehicle mandates and greenhouse gas standards that functioned as indirect bans on traditional combustion engines, according to the bill’s supporters.

Senator Lee did not mince words when describing the EPA’s actions, stating, “They’ve exploited any power they can grab to push Biden and Obama’s climate psychosis at the expense of our energy security.” The senator’s language reflects a growing frustration among conservatives with what they perceive as a regulatory assault on American industry.

Senator Lummis echoed this sentiment, emphasizing the importance of restoring power to elected officials, noting, “The End EPA Abuse Act puts Congress back in the driver’s seat where we belong.” Representative Clyde, who introduced the House companion bill, specifically called out the Biden administration’s approach, saying the EPA “increasingly treated the Clean Air Act as a blank check to push de facto electric vehicle mandates, jeopardize reliable energy sources, and impose costly regulations on American consumers and businesses.”

One of the most contentious aspects of the bill is its prohibition on waivers granted to California, which has historically received special permission under the Clean Air Act to set stricter emissions standards than the federal government. Due to California’s enormous market size, its regulations effectively dictate vehicle production decisions for the entire nation, as automakers cannot afford to produce separate vehicle lines for different states. The bill would eliminate this waiver authority, which supporters argue would return market forces to the automobile industry and bring down costs for all Americans. Democrats contend that California’s leadership has driven innovation in vehicle emissions technology for decades, and removing the waiver could weaken environmental protections in states that choose to adopt stricter standards.

Keep reading

Maryland Court Strikes Down Nation’s First State Tax On Digital Advertising

A state tax court in Maryland invalidated the nation’s first state tax on digital advertising and directed state officials to refund tax payments already collected from major tech companies.

The legal dispute had been closely watched by other states that are considering taxing online advertisements.

The Annapolis-based Maryland Tax Court ruled on Aug. 14 that the digital advertising gross revenues tax was unconstitutional after it was challenged in three separate lawsuits by Google, Apple, and Peacock TV. Refunds are expected to run into the hundreds of millions of dollars.

The state imposes the levies based on the businesses’ global revenue. Lawmakers previously said the tax could raise $250 million per year. The money raised from the tax was earmarked for a state education program.

The 2021 tax statute specifically targets the revenue large companies earn from digital advertisements shown in Maryland. Companies that take in more than $100 million in annual global gross revenue were taxed at 2.5 percent.

A sliding scale applies to companies with larger revenues, maxing out at 10 percent for those earning more than $15 billion in global gross annual revenues.

The law’s backers argued that Maryland needed to overhaul its tax system to deal with major changes in how businesses advertise. Lawyers representing the affected companies said their clients were targeted unfairly.

The state court said the tax runs afoul of the federal Internet Tax Freedom Act, the First Amendment, and the due process and commerce clauses of the U.S. Constitution.

The court held that regulating interstate commerce was the business of Congress – not the Maryland General Assembly – and that it was inappropriate that the tax law was premised on global revenue rather than revenue that comes from in-state advertising.

The Internet Tax Freedom Act forbids taxation of electronic commerce if similar services are not taxed. The court held that there is no meaningful distinction between digital advertising and print or billboard ads, meaning the federal bar applies.

Keep reading

Video Shows Fort Worth Cop Ticketing a Preacher for ‘Offensive’ Speech at Pride Event

A Fort Worth Police officer ticketed a preacher in late June, claiming the content of his speech was offensive. This week the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division launched an inquiry into the incident to determine if the officer violated the First Amendment.

The widely circulated video of the confrontation shows an officer and a protester during the Trinity Pride Fest on June 27. “If someone is offended by your talking, then we have a problem,” said Officer Sara Stogner.

“That’s a constitutional violation of our rights,” responds David Grisham, a street preacher and retired federal law enforcement officer. The two continue to argue when Stogner asserts, “OK, then I’ll write you the ticket, and we’ll go from there.”

“Wait, you’re going to ticket us for offensive speech?” the cameraman asks incredulously. To which the officer confidently responds, “Yes, absolutely.”

Stogner continues to claim she can ticket the two men for disorderly conduct “if someone complains that your language or what you’re saying is offensive.”  

But that’s not how the First Amendment works, according to legal experts. “The First Amendment does not allow government officials to shut down speech simply on account of it being ‘offensive,'” said Brennan VanderVeen, program counsel at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression. “The government can restrict certain types of conduct or restrict noise above a certain volume level,” he continued, but citing someone because people are offended by the content of protected speech is “precisely what the First Amendment does not allow.” 

Grisham was ultimately cited for misuse of a bullhorn during a protest, a citation he argues isn’t supported by the city’s noise ordinance, reports WFAA, an ABC News affiliate. Grisham’s civil rights attorneys announced on July 3 their intent to challenge the citation, arguing Stogner failed to issue a decibel check in accordance with the city’s noise ordinance and Texas code, which presumes an unreasonable noise to be in excess of 85, and instead cited Grisham for “engaging in peaceful and protected speech.” 

In response to growing online backlash, Fort Worth Police Chief Eddie Garcia told WFAA on Monday that his department takes responsibility and is currently instituting department-wide First Amendment training. “We just trained up our command staff again with refresher courses. We’re going to be training our sergeants. We’re going to be training our officers,” said Garcia. “We are not a perfect profession,” he continued, “and officers will make mistakes from time to time.” Garcia did not mention any ways in which Stogner would be held personally accountable or liable. 

“Actively training police officers around First Amendment standards would be a positive step,” said VanderVeen, who added that “government officials being unaware of basic First Amendment standards is a persistent problem.” 

So much so, it seems, the Justice Department is also looking into the incident and has asked the Fort Worth city attorney for information to help the agency determine if an investigation is necessary, reports Fox News. “The Civil Rights Division is committed to ensuring all Americans—regardless of the content or viewpoint of their speech—are protected from unlawful restrictions on expressive activity,” wrote Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division Harmeet Dhillon.

The City of Fort Worth, Texas, has 30 days to provide the DOJ with further information.

The Justice Department is right to ensure Grisham’s freedom of speech has not been infringed, and doing so is consistent with the agency’s core mission to protect civil rights. But the move stands out against a backdrop of the agency’s alleged First Amendment violations since President Donald Trump took office, including subpoenaing journalists, coercing social media companies to remove immigration officer tracking apps, and attempting to unmask anonymous online critics. 

But for now, Americans can rest assured that the Justice Department can still do the right thing every once in a while.

Keep reading

What a Landmark Case in Britain Could Mean for Mother Charged in Idaho Twins’ Deaths

When Angela Cannings’ child died in 1989, doctors concluded the 13-week-old baby girl tragically succumbed to sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS).

By the time two more infants — one in 1991, the other in 1999 — died, suspicion replaced sympathy.

Prosecutors alleged the English mother had suffocated her two sons. To make their case, they relied on prominent pediatric experts who testified that multiple unexplained infant deaths in one family were extraordinarily unlikely to occur naturally.

In 2002, a jury convicted Cannings of murder, and she was sentenced to life in prison.

Less than two years later, the England and Wales Court of Appeal overturned the convictions in a decision that fundamentally changed how British courts view expert medical testimony in unexplained child death cases.

Ruling continues to influence legal discussion decades later

The ruling in Cannings’ case continues to influence legal discussions more than two decades later because it established an enduring principle. Namely, when respected medical experts fundamentally disagree about the cause of a child’s death, and there is no compelling independent evidence of homicide, criminal convictions should not rest on disputed scientific opinion alone.

The Court of Appeal had ruled prosecutors should not proceed when reputable experts disagree about the cause of death and there is no other compelling evidence.

That principle has resurfaced in legal commentary as prosecutors in Idaho pursue murder charges against Andrea Shaw, accused of killing her 18-month-old twin toddlers.

The 23-year-old mother was arrested more than a year after her fraternal twins, Dallas and Tyson, were found dead in their home on May 1, 2025, eight days after receiving their 18-month vaccines.

Shaw spoke with CHD.TV days after the tragic 2025 incident, saying at the 18-month mark, the twins received their hepatitis A, DTaP and flu shots. Shaw said she told the pediatrician she was concerned about the flu shot because there was a history of adverse reactions to the vaccine on the father’s side of the family. However, the doctor assured her it was safe for the twins.

Within 24 hours, Shaw took the twins to the emergency room after they both became lethargic, their lips turned blue and they experienced digestive issues. Medical records confirm they were diagnosed with “post-immunization reaction.”

After administering Tylenol and observing the twins as they ate popsicles, doctors sent them home. Shaw told CHD.TV that days later, she discovered both children dead in their beds. “They looked as if they had gone in their sleep,” she said.

Shaw pleaded not guilty, and her attorney said the children died from medical complications rather than homicide. Prosecutors contend the twins were intentionally suffocated. On Tuesday, a district judge in Payette County revoked Shaw’s $2 million bail.

Shaw’s next court date is scheduled for August 18.

Keep reading