Tag: judges

A Federal Judge Says New Mexico Cops Reasonably Killed an Innocent Man at the Wrong House

Around 11:30 on a Wednesday night in April 2023, three police officers repeatedly knocked on the door of Robert Dotson’s house at 5305 Valley View Avenue in Farmington, New Mexico. They were responding to a report of “a possible
domestic violence situation,” but they were in the wrong place: They were supposed to be at 5308 Valley View Avenue, which was on the opposite side of the street. When Dotson, a 52-year-old father of two, came to the door with a gun in his hand, the cops shot and killed him.

That response, a federal judge in New Mexico ruled last week, was reasonable in the circumstances and therefore did not violate Dotson’s Fourth Amendment rights. The officers “reasonably believed that Dotson posed a severe risk of imminent harm” to them, U.S. District Judge Matthew Garcia writes in response to a federal civil rights lawsuit that Dotson’s family filed in September 2023. Garcia rejected the plaintiffs’ argument that the officers—Daniel Estrada, Dylan Goodluck, and Waylon Wasson—”recklessly created the need to apply deadly force by going to the wrong address.”

Garcia concedes that the defendants’ conduct prior to the shooting was “not a paragon of careful policework,” which is quite an understatement. When the cops were dispatched to 5308 Valley View Avenue, he notes, Wasson “utilized his service vehicle’s mobile data terminal” to “locate the address, incorrectly placing the [house] on the right (south) side of the street.” Meanwhile, Goodluck, who was in a separate vehicle, “searched Google Maps to locate the property,” and that search correctly located the house as “being situated on the left (north) side of Valley View Avenue.”

When the officers arrived at the scene, Goodluck “continued to question whether [they] were headed to the correct residence,” Garcia says, but “he deferred to Officer Wasson’s seniority and said nothing.” After Wasson knocked on the front door of Dotson’s house three times without getting a response, Goodluck “finally voiced his concern that the Defendant officers went to the wrong address.” Pointing across the street, he said, “It might have been 5308. Right there.” Wasson was puzzled: “Is this not 5308? That’s what it said right there, right?” No, Goodluck replied: “This is 5305, isn’t it?”

Wasson then asked the dispatcher to confirm the correct address. After the dispatcher said “5308 Valley View Avenue,” Wasson jokingly said, “Don’t tell me I’m wrong, Dylan.” By this point, the plaintiffs say, the cops “were realizing they were at the wrong residence and were laughing about it.”

According to the lawsuit, Dotson and his wife, Kimberly, were upstairs in their bedroom when Wasson knocked on the front door. “The knock was not loud, and his announcement ‘Farmington Police’ could not be heard” on the second story, the complaint says. “The police vehicles were parked down the street and did not have their lights on.” But the couple “believed that they heard a knock,” so Dotson “put on his robe and went downstairs.” For “personal protection,” he “picked up the handgun which was kept on top of the refrigerator in the Dotson residence, not knowing what he might encounter at that late hour.”

When Dotson “opened his front door,” the lawsuit says, he “was blinded by police flashlights.” At that point, “the police did not announce themselves,” and Dotson “had no idea who was in his yard shining bright lights at him.” According to the lawsuit, Wasson, upon seeing Dotson’s gun, “opened fire instantly,” and “the other officers, Estrada and Goodluck, immediately followed by firing their guns.” Dotson was struck by 12 rounds.

Hearing the shots, Kimberly Dotson rushed downstairs and “saw her husband lying in his blood in the doorway,” the lawsuit says. She “still did not know what had happened [or] that police officers were in her front yard.” She “fired outside at whoever had shot her husband,” and the officers “each fired at Mrs. Dotson—another 19 rounds. Fortunately, she was not hit.”

At that point, according to the complaint, the officers “finally announced themselves, and Kimberly Dotson told them that someone had shot her husband and requested their help.” She “did not realize even at that moment that the three police officers had killed her husband,” which she did not learn “until she was finally told eight hours later at the police station where she was detained.”

After the shooting, the lawsuit says, “the officers involved did not disclose to investigators that they were at the wrong address, which was the error leading to the tragic result and without which it would not have occurred.” The mistake “was discovered by other officers who arrived at the scene.”

Keep reading

A Judge Of Her Peers? Judge Dugan Assigned A Judge Previously Rebuked For Political Comments

Five years ago, I wrote about a federal judge who, in my view, had discarded any resemblance of judicial restraint and judgment in a public screed against Republicans, Donald Trump, and the Supreme Court. The Wisconsin judge represented the final death of irony: a jurist who failed to see the conflict in lashing out at what he called judicial bias in a political diatribe that would have made MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell blush.

His name is Lynn Adelman.

I was wrong in 2020. Irony is very much alive.

This week, a judge was randomly selected to preside at the trial of Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Hannah Dugan. A critic of Trump’s immigration policies, Dugan is accused of obstructing federal law enforcement and facilitating the escape of an unlawful immigrant.

The judge assigned to the Dugan case? You guessed it. Lynn Adelman, 85.

A judge is expected to come to a case like this one without the burden of his own baggage.

Judge Adelman is carrying more baggage than Amtrak in Wisconsin.

The selection of Adelman shows how political commentary by judges undermines the legitimacy of the court system. Now, in a case that has divided the nation, the public will have to rely on a judge who discarded his own obligations as a judge to lash out at conservatives, Trump, and conservative jurists.

Adelman was a long-standing Democratic politician who tried repeatedly and unsuccessfully to run for Congress during his 20-year tenure in the Wisconsin Senate. For critics, Adelman never set aside his political agenda after President Bill Clinton nominated him for the federal bench.

Adelman was sharply rebuked for ignoring controlling Supreme Court precedent to rule in favor of a Democratic challenge over voting identification rules just before a critical election.  Adelman blocked the law before the election despite a Supreme Court case issued years earlier in Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, 553 U.S. 181 (2008), rejecting a similar challenge.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit issued a stinging reversal, explaining to Adelman that in “our hierarchical judicial system, a district court cannot declare a statute unconstitutional just because he thinks (with or without the support of a political scientist) that the dissent was right and the majority wrong.”

Adelman, however, was apparently undeterred. In 2020, he wrote a law review article for Harvard Law & Policy Review, titled “The Roberts Court’s Assault on Democracy.”

Adelman attacked what he described as a “hard-right majority” that is “actively participating in undermining American democracy.” He also struck out at Trump as “an autocrat… disinclined to buck the wealthy individuals and corporations who control his party.”

Keep reading

Michigan Judge Fights Lipreader Evidence which might prove she Lied to Cops after Assaulting Shopkeeper, Alleging Hate Hoax

In a misconduct saga that’s dragged on longer than most felonies, a Michigan judge accused of faking an assault allegation and charge of racism against a small businessman, wants key evidence thrown out, including silent surveillance footage and expert lip readers that might prove she lied to police.

Judge Demetria Brue of Detroit’s 36th District Court is fighting misconduct charges from the state’s Judicial Tenure Commission over a 2019 dispute with a Mackinac Island bike shop owner that she accused of being a racist. The Commission has said they are upset about two things: 1) that the judges lied about the encounter, and 2) that they attempted to use their status as judges to evade prosecution, both of which are against the rules for judges.

Documents reveal that the significant delay has been caused by repeated motions filed by the two judges challenging the process and power of the commission to censure them.

The shop owner, Ira Green, operates a bike rental business on Michigan’s Mackinac Island, and rented to two judges who were sightseeing during a judicial conference being held on the island.

The JTC says Brue falsely claimed the shop owner assaulted her during what was supposed to be a $23 sightseeing trip along with another Michigan judge, Judge Debra Nance of Southfield, Michigan. The Detroit Judge Brue wanted half off the price of the bike rental because of a complaint about how the bike handled, and then grabbed the receipt after, allegedly, calling the shop owner racist.

Keep reading

White House Responds to Massachusetts Judge for “Protecting Criminal Illegal Immigrant Monsters” – Shows List of Murderers, Child Sex Offenders, and Drug Traffickers Judge is Protecting

The White House called out “far-left activist” Massachusetts Judge Brian Murphy in a press release Wednesday after he ruled the administration cannot deport violent criminal aliens. 

As The Gateway Pundit reported, Biden-appointed US District Judge Brian Murphy said the Trump Administration violated his court order when it deported seven illegal aliens to South Sudan. He said they failed to provide the aliens with “meaningful” due process since they were being sent to “third-party” countries.

Murphy even suggested Trump Admin officials may have committed contempt for enforcing immigration policy.

The individuals were sent to South Sudan because they’re so bad that even their home countries “would not take them back,” said Acting ICE Director Todd Lyons.

The seven illegal aliens from several different countries have been convicted of murder, sexual assault with children or incapacitated individuals, drug trafficking and other drug charges, and robbery. Most of them have convictions for multiple crimes.

In response to Murphy’s ruling, the White House issued the following news release on Wednesday, featuring the mugshots and rap sheets of the aliens:

It’s another attempt by a far-left activist judge to dictate the foreign policy of the United States — and protect the violent criminal illegal immigrants President Donald J. Trump and his administration have removed from our streets.

“We conducted a deportation flight from Texas to remove some of the most barbaric, violent individuals illegally in the United States. No country on earth wanted to accept them because their crimes are so uniquely monstrous and barbaric … Thanks to the courageous work of the State Department and ICE and the President’s national security team, we found a nation that was willing to accept custody of these vicious illegal aliens,” said Assistant DHS Secretary Tricia McLaughlin.

“As a career law enforcement officer and a career officer with ICE, I’ve been dealing with these recalcitrant countries for years — having to see repeated murders, sex offenders, violent criminals re-released back into the United States because their home countries would not take them back,” said Acting ICE Director Todd Lyons. “Under President Trump and under the leadership of Secretary Noem, we are now able to remove these public safety threats so they won’t prey on the community anymore.”

Keep reading

Federal Judge Blocks Voter-Approved Oregon Law Requiring Marijuana Businesses To Have Labor Peace Agreements With Workers

A federal judge has struck down a voter-approved Oregon law that required licensed marijuana businesses enter into labor peace agreements with workers and mandated that employers remain neutral in discussions around unionization.

About three months after two marijuana businesses—Bubble’s Hash and Ascend Dispensary—filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon challenging the implementation of Measure 119, Judge Michael Simon on Tuesday ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, agreeing that the law unconstitutionally restricts free speech and violates the federal National Labor Relations Act (NLRA).

Under the now defunct law, a marijuana businesses that was unable to provide proof of a labor peace agreement could have been subject a denial or revocation of their license.

The lawsuit named Gov. Tina Kotek (D), Attorney General Dan Rayfield (D) and Oregon Liquor and Cannabis Commission’s (OLCC) Dennis Doherty and Craig Prins as defendants.

In the order on Tuesday, the judge walked through various components of the legal arguments from both sides and ultimately agreed that the Oregon law is preempted by the NLRA, which is meant to provide protections for workers who want to unionize—but specifically preserves the right for “uninhibited, robust, and wide-open debate in labor disputes.”

By mandating neutrality from employers in labor discussions, that constitutes a violation of the NLRA, the judge ruled.

“Measure 119 does not distinguish between permissible employer speech and threatening or coercive speech,” Simon said. “Measure 119 is not limited to restricting only threatening, coercive, false, or misleading speech, but instead prohibits all speech by employers that is not ‘neutral’ toward unionization.”

On the question of whether the law violates First Amendment protections under the U.S. Constitution, the cannabis companies argued that “Measure 119 is a content-based restriction on speech that is subject to strict scrutiny, and that Defendants fail to provide a compelling government interest requiring this restriction.”

Keep reading

Obama Judge Says to Hell with the Supreme Court, Orders Trump DOJ to Turn Over Docs Related to Decision to Revoke ‘Protected Status’ for Hundreds of Thousands of Migrants

US District Court Judge Edward Chen, an Obama appointee, said to hell with the Supreme Court and still ordered the Trump DOJ to turn over documents related to its decision to revoke protected status for hundreds of thousands of Venezuelan migrants.

Judge Chen said the Supreme Court’s ruling today is not a factor and insisted on a deadline tonight for the Trump DOJ to turn over the documents.

The US Supreme Court on Monday lifted a lower court’s block on President Trump’s order to revoke ‘protected status’ for hundreds of thousands of migrants living in the US.

The high court allowed the Trump Administration to strip approximately 350,000 Venezuelans currently in the US of their ‘protected status.’

Ketanji Brown Jackson was the lone Supreme Court justice to dissent.

In March, San Francisco-based Judge Edward Chen issued a stay on Trump’s order to revoke Temporary Restricted Status (TPS) for Venezuelans who arrived to the US on Biden’s parole program.

Judge Chen, temporarily paused Trump’s plans to end Biden’s TPS program.

The DOJ argued that the parole programs were discretionary and it is up to the government to decide when it can cut the program.

It was previously reported that President Trump was set to strip the status of 532,000 migrants living in the United States who were flown in on Joe Biden’s parole program.

Recall that Joe Biden brought in more than half a million migrants from Haiti, Cuba, Nicaragua, and Venezuela on his CHNV program.

Keep reading

SCOTUS Oral Argument In Nationwide Injunction Case Illustrates Courts’ Coup Against Trump

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments on Thursday in three cases concerning challenges to President Trump’s birthright citizenship executive order. The question before the high court was not, however, the constitutionality of the EO, but rather whether the lower courts had authority to issue injunctions on a nationwide basis to bar implementation of an EO. You would be hard pressed to know that, though, from the justices’ questions — the overwhelming number of which focused instead on how to stop Trump.

“So, as far as I see it, this order violates four Supreme Court precedents,” Justice Sotomayor declared early in the argument, referring to the Trump Administration’s EO on birthright citizenship. “And you are claiming that not just the Supreme Court — that both the Supreme Court and no lower court can stop an executive from — universally from violating that holding — those holdings by this Court,” Justice Sotomayor further charged. “[W]hy should we permit those countless others to be subject to what we think is an unlawful executive action,” the justice pushed, when a nationwide injunction could immediately remedy the executive branch’s unlawful action.

Justice Kagan likewise framed the question for the Court as how to promptly halt the implementation of a president’s EO which is “dead wrong” on the law. “[E]very court has ruled against you” on the birthright citizenship question, she intoned to Solicitor General D. John Sauer. 

“If one thinks — and, you know, look, there are all kinds of abuses of nationwide injunctions, but I think that the question that this case presents is that if one thinks that it’s quite clear that the EO is illegal, how does one get to that result in what time frame on your set of rules without the possibility of a nationwide injunction?” Justice Kagan further questioned the Trump Administration.

Those excerpts were but a few exchanges during the nearly three-hour hearing, with Justices Sotomayor and Kagan monopolizing much of last week’s oral argument with their questions focused solely on a solution: In effect, how do the courts expeditiously stop Trump, other than with a nationwide injunction? In positing this question, Justice Kagan even acknowledged “there are all kinds of abuses of nationwide injunctions . . . ”

From a legal perspective, the two liberal justices have it entirely backwards: The legal question for the justices was not how do courts accomplish their goal of stopping Trump without nationwide injunctions, but rather, do courts have the authority to issue nationwide injunctions?

Keep reading

Milwaukee Judge Hannah Dugan Launches Fundraiser After Being Charged With Aiding Illegal Alien Evade Arrest

The left-wing Milwaukee judge charged with helping an illegal alien evade arrest has launched a fundraising site as she tries to push back against the charges.

Earlier this week, a federal grand jury indicted Dugan for obstructing an ICE arrest last month.

Seemingly unable to fund her own legal costs, Dugan has set up a website asking supporters for donations to help fund a “full and aggressive defense.”

Her website states:

The Hannah Dugan Legal Defense Fund has been launched, and is aimed at raising resources to help Milwaukee County Circuit Court Judge Hannah Dugan mount a vigorous defense against  the unprecedented attack on the independent judiciary by the federal government.

The fund, established consistent with Wisconsin’  Code of Judicial Conduct and Code of Ethics for Public Officials and Employees, will help raise the significant resources needed to present an appropriate defense to this extraordinary attack on Wisconsin’s  judicial branch of government.

Judge Dugan intends to return to the bench to which she was elected.  Therefore, the fund’s structure provides for stringent restrictions on contributions and strives for  consistency with state law regarding  permissible gifts.

Because the criminal charges are  unique to a member of the judiciary, and the prosecution poses a host of new questions of law, it will be critical for Judge Dugan to have the significant resources needed to defend herself and the integrity of an independent judiciary.

According to the FBI, Dugan became angry when she learned that ICE agents were waiting outside of her courtroom last week to arrest Eduardo Flores-Ruiz, an illegal alien involved in a domestic abuse case she was overseeing.

She allegedly directed Flores-Ruiz to leave the courthouse through a private jury door to evade arrest.

FBI Director Kash Patel said she had “intentionally misdirected federal agents away from the subject to be arrested at her courthouse.”

Keep reading

Report: Judge Allows Iowa to Keep Restricting Gender Identity Teaching in Schools

A federal judge said Thursday that Iowa can continue to restrict teaching on gender identity and sexual orientation in elementary schools, per a report.

The restrictions affect children through sixth grade but the state must permit non-mandatory programs related to those issues, according to the Associated Press (AP). The outlet said it was a split decision by U.S. District Judge Stephen Locher.

He recently temporarily blocked part of the law that would bar school libraries from keeping books on their shelves that depict sexual acts. In response, the state requested the decision be overturned.

The AP article continued:

Republican majorities in the Iowa House and Senate passed the law in 2023, intending to reinforce what they consider to be age-appropriate education in kindergarten through 12th grades. It’s been a back-and-forth battle in the courts in the two years since. The provisions of the law that are being challenged were temporarily blocked by Locher in December 2023, just before they became enforceable. That decision was overturned in August by the U.S. Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, meaning the law has been enforceable for most of the current school year.

Locher’s recent split decision partially sided with an LGBTQ advocacy group who, along with some educators and students, sued Iowa over the issue.

Keep reading

Fugitive Capital Murder Suspect Released by Judge Spotlights Need for Texas Bond Reform

Texas Governor Greg Abbott announced a total reward of $30,000 for information leading to the arrest of a fugitive capital murder suspect. The suspect was released by a judge in Kaufman County on bond. Abbott says the case highlights the need for passage of the bond reform bill currently before the Texas Legislature.

“​Trevor McEuen is exactly why Texas must fix its broken and deadly bail system,” said Governor Abbott. “A violent criminal like McEuen charged with capital murder should never be released on our streets.”

Abbott posted the $30,000 reward for information leading to the arrest of Trevor McEuen, a capital murder suspect who fled after being released on bond by 422nd District Court Judge Shelton TW Gibbs IV (Republican) after he allegedly shot and killed Aaron Martinez, 35, in 2023. On May 5, McEuen failed to show up for court, cut off his ankle monitor, and absoncded from justice.

In addition to the capital murder charge, McEuen also faces four counts of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon.

The governor added $10,000 to the previously offered $20,000 rewards offered by the Kaufman County Crime Stoppers and Sheriff’s Office, Abbott’s office reported. This brings the total reward to $30,000.

Abbott stressed that cases like this hightly the reason why “I made bail reform an emergency item that must pass this legislative session.

In a bipartisan vote, the Texas Senate passed SJR 5 by a tally of 28-2. The bill is spearheaded by State Senator Joan Huffman (R-TX). The bill would put a constitutional amendment on the ballot to allow judges to deny bail to defendants charged with serious violent crimes, including murder, aggravated kidnapping, robbery or assault with a weapon.

In a highly partisan political stunt, Texas House Democrats vowed to block the bill’s passage following the passage of school vouchers in April, Fox 26 journalist Greg Groogan reported.

Keep reading