News – Page 1840 – 105.7 WDNY

Ohio, Indiana primary elections: Live updates and results: Voters weigh in at polls

May 3, 2022 by WDNY Radio

(WASHINGTON) — The first multistate contest of the 2022 midterm season kicks off Tuesday with primary races in Ohio and Indiana.

Ohio’s Senate race marks the first major test of former President Donald Trump’s endorsement power at the polls.

Here’s how the races are developing today. All times Eastern. Check back for updates.

May 03, 5:30 pm
What to watch for in Ohio

Tuesday’s Ohio Senate primary is among the first litmus tests of many this midterm season to gauge how much influence former President Donald Trump holds over the Republican Party. Almost all of the candidates — except for Matt Dolan — align with the former president, so even if “Hillbilly Elegy” author J.D. Vance doesn’t win, the GOP nominee could well be a Trump-aligned Republican who endorses falsehoods about the 2020 election.

Another race seen as a test of Trump’s kingmaking power is in Ohio’s 7th Congressional District, where the former president endorsed challenger and former aide Max Miller.

President Joe Biden, meanwhile, chose to hand out only his second primary endorsement of the cycle in Ohio to Rep. Shontel Brown in her rematch against progressive powerhouse Nina Turner, a close ally of Sen. Bernie Sanders, in a race that has pit establishment Democrats against progressives.

Gov. Mike DeWine, who is seeking a second term, is expected to survive a Trump-inspired, though not endorsed, challenge to his COVID governance and establishment leanings.

-ABC News’ Political Director Rick Klein

May 03, 5:18 pm
What to watch for in Indiana

Some races in Indiana — such as the state’s 1st Congressional District where a slew of Republican challengers are vying to win the seat held by incumbent Democratic Rep. Frank Mrvan — are seen as possible bellwethers for whether Republicans manage can flip districts in Democratic strongholds.

Indiana’s 9th Congressional District — the only vacant congressional seat in the state — is also in play when it comes to which party will control the House of Representatives after the midterms.

Along with Ohio, the state is an early indicator of the power of former President Donald Trump’s endorsement, as Trump carried the state in 2020. Trump has backed six incumbent members of the House of Representatives in the state, including Rep. Greg Pence, former Vice President Mike Pence’s brother.

Polls close in Indiana at 7 p.m. ET, though there is some variation because the state falls within two time zones.

May 03, 4:28 pm
Supreme Court bombshell lands as Ohio tests Trump and Biden

Voters head to the polls in Ohio on Tuesday on the heels of a shocking leak of a Supreme Court draft opinion suggesting the court’s conservative majority may overturn nearly 50 years of abortion rights in America.

The endorsement power of former President Donald Trump — who promised to appoint Supreme Court justices who would overturn Roe — faces a major test in the race of retiring Republican Sen. Rob Portman in Ohio. While almost all the GOP candidates have centered their campaigns around being a Trump conservative, “never-Trumper” turned Trump ally J.D. Vance scored his coveted endorsement, upending the race.

On the Democratic side, the contest in Ohio’s 11th Congressional District between Rep. Shontel Brown and Nina Turner has pitted establishment Democrats against progressives. Biden endorsed Brown over Turner last week in his second primary endorsement of the election cycle, but progressives including Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders have backed Turner.

A new ABC News/Washington Post polling out Tuesday shows that 60% of Republicans and GOP-leaning independents want the GOP to follow Trump’s leadership — about where that’s been since he left office. By contrast, only about 53% of Democrats and independents who lean that way want to follow Biden’s leadership, with younger Democrats most solidly favoring a new direction.

-ABC News’ Political Director Rick Klein

At least 19 states to offer refuge to trans youth and families amid anti-LGBTQ legislation wave

May 3, 2022 by WDNY Radio

(NEW YORK) — At least 19 states plan to offer legal refuge to transgender youth and their families displaced by anti-LGBTQ legislation that criminalizes the families and physicians of trans children.

“When trans kids’ lives are on the line, playing defense doesn’t cut it. It’s time to play offense,” said Annise Parker, president and CEO of LGBTQ advocacy group Victory Institute.

She went on, “We are using the collective power of LGBTQ state legislators all across the nation to launch a counter-offensive that aims to protect trans kids and parents while also demonstrating that there is a positive agenda for trans people that lawmakers can support.”

Lawmakers in states like Texas, Louisiana, Arizona and Alabama have proposed bills criminalizing gender-affirming transgender care.

In a February opinion, Texas state attorney General Ken Paxton called gender-affirming care “abuse.”

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott followed Paxton’s opinion by directing the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services to investigate such care as child abuse.

These investigations have been halted after a family sued the state alongside the American Civil Liberties Union and Lambda Legal.

Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey has also issued several anti-LGBTQ policies, including a ban on transgender youth health care that physicians said was riddled with misinformation.

He signed SB 184, the Vulnerable Child Protection Act, which states that anyone who provides gender-affirming care — including puberty blockers, hormone therapy or physical gender-affirming surgeries — to an individual under age 18 could be convicted of a felony, face up to 10 years in prison and be fined $15,000.

To combat such efforts, a bill from California state Sen. Scott Wiener aims to make California a legal safe haven for parents who may have their transgender children taken away from them or be criminally prosecuted for providing care for their children.

“Starting with our legislation in California, we are building a coordinated national legislative campaign by LGBTQ lawmakers to provide refuge for trans kids and their families,” said Wiener. “We’re making it crystal clear: we will not let trans kids be belittled, used as political pawns and denied gender-affirming care.”

He has joined forces with LGBTQ advocacy groups from all over the country, including Victory Institute and Equality California.

“Parents should not live in fear of being hunted down by the government for loving and supporting their child,” said Tony Hoang, executive director of LGBTQ advocacy group Equality California.

He continued, “As a native Texan, I’m ashamed of Gov. Abbott’s hateful attacks against trans kids and their families. But as a Californian, I’m so proud of our state for serving as a beacon of hope and a place of refuge for those children and their parents.”

New York, Minnesota, Colorado, Connecticut, New Mexico and more have followed suit, introducing similar protections for trans people who come from out of state.

According to the Human Rights Campaign, there have been more than 300 bills targeting the LGBTQ community nationwide in 2022.

Why the cameras weren’t working during the NYC subway shooting

May 3, 2022 by WDNY Radio

(NEW YORK) — A faulty fan caused the glitch that prevented cameras at a Brooklyn subway station from transmitting during a mass shooting on a rush-hour train last month, according to the Metropolitan Transportation Authority.

The cameras were working until “less than 24 hours” before the April 12 shooting on the N train as it approached the 36th Street station in Brooklyn’s Sunset Park neighborhood, MTA Chair Janno Lieber wrote in a letter to congressional representatives obtained by ABC News.

In the days before the incident, technicians worked to replace the fan unit for an issue that initially wasn’t impacting the transmission of the cameras’ feed, according to Lieber.

“Technicians replaced the fan unit on the morning of April 8, but the network diagnostics still indicated a problem,” Lieber wrote in the letter, dated May 2. “MTA technicians made a series of repairs in an effort to correct the issue, and on the morning of Monday April 11, as technicians were installing new communication hardware, the camera failed.”

Lieber characterized the cause of the outage as a “failure of hardware and software” at the communications room that governs the station’s cameras that prevented them from transmitting their feed. The outage also impacted the cameras at the 25th Street and 45th Street subway stations.

“Technicians were working in the communications room on the next morning, April 12, when the attack took place,” the chair wrote. “NYPD directed them to leave the communications room as the investigation began.”

The cameras were back online by 12:30 p.m. on April 13, according to Lieber.

Dozens of people were injured, including 10 by gunfire, in the shooting. Police arrested a suspect more than 24 hours after the incident.

The NYPD, which had initially said the cameras were out at the three stations due to a “technical issue,” called claims that the lack of operating cameras delayed the manhunt “unfair and misleading.”

“The MTA cameras in other parts of the system were essential elements in determining his movements before and after the shootings,” John Miller, deputy commissioner of intelligence and counterterrorism for the NYPD, said in a statement in the wake of the attack.

In his letter, Lieber also said the MTA’s subway camera system played a “critical role in the manhunt.”

The alleged gunman, 62-year-old Frank James, faces a terror-related count. Last week, defense attorneys charged in a court filing that federal agents improperly questioned him. In response, the federal government said it was authorized and within its rights in its interactions with James.

What the Trump-appointed Supreme Court justices previously said about Roe’s precedent

May 3, 2022 by WDNY Radio

(WASHINGTON) — Comments on abortion rights made by the recent conservative additions to the Supreme Court during their Senate confirmation hearings are under fresh scrutiny after a leaked draft Supreme Court opinion appeared to indicate the panel’s conservative majority of justices is ready to overturn Roe v. Wade.

The Supreme Court confirmed that the draft, published Monday by Politico, is authentic. But it stressed that it is neither a decision by the court nor a final position of any justices in the case.

The case, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, involves Mississippi’s ban on abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy — well before the fetal viability standard established by Roe in 1973 and a subsequent 1992 decision, Planned Parenthood v. Casey, that legalized abortion across the U.S.

“Roe was egregiously wrong from the start,” Justice Samuel Alito, the opinion’s apparent author, wrote in the copy of the draft, dated Feb. 10.

An unnamed source familiar with the deliberations told Politico that Justices Alito, Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett — the latter three who are conservative justices added to the bench during the Trump administration — all initially supported a ruling siding with Mississippi and “that line-up remains unchanged as of this week.”

The document posted online suggests a majority of justices is likely to side with Mississippi — breaking with precedent — but how broad the ultimate ruling will be remains unclear. It also is unclear how the justices will ultimately vote on the case.

During their respective Senate confirmation hearings after being nominated to the Supreme Court by former President Donald Trump, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh acknowledged the precedent set by Roe, while Barrett told senators she believed the decision was not a “super-precedent.”

Justice Neil Gorsuch

During confirmation hearings in March 2017, Democrats pressed Gorsuch for his views on abortion using his writing in a book he authored on euthanasia, in which he wrote that “the intentional taking of human life by private persons is always wrong.”

“How could you square that statement with legal abortion?” Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., asked.

“The Supreme Court of the United States has held that Roe v. Wade, that a fetus is not a person for purposes of the 14th Amendment. And the book explains that,” Gorsuch replied.

“Do you accept that?” Durbin asked.

“That’s the law of the land, I accept the law of the land, senator. Yes,” Gorsuch replied.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh

During his Senate confirmation hearings in September 2018, Democrats pushed Kavanaugh on his position on Roe in light of a reported 2003 email he wrote as a lawyer in the Bush White House challenging that the landmark decision was the “settled law of the land.”

“As a general proposition I understand the importance of the precedent set forth in Roe v. Wade,” Kavanaugh told senators.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., asked Kavanaugh, “What would you say your position is today on a woman’s right to choose?”

“As a judge, it is an important precedent of the Supreme Court,” Kavanaugh replied. “By ‘it,’ I mean Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, been affirmed many times. Casey is precedent on precedent.”

Additionally, Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, has said Kavanaugh repeatedly suggested to her privately that he considered Roe to be “settled law.” She criticized both Kavanaugh and Gorsuch on Tuesday for the apparent flip-flop.

“If this leaked draft opinion is the final decision and this reporting is accurate, it would be completely inconsistent with what Justice Gorsuch and Justice Kavanaugh said in their hearings and in our meetings in my office,” Collins, R-Maine, said in a statement Tuesday morning. “Obviously, we won’t know each Justice’s decision and reasoning until the Supreme Court officially announces its opinion in this case.”

Justice Amy Coney Barrett

During her confirmation hearings in October 2020, Barrett was careful in her comments but told senators she believed the decision on Roe v. Wade was not a “super-precedent” when asked directly by Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn.

She said she did not find the case to be “so well-settled that no political actors and no people seriously push for their overruling.”

“I’m answering a lot of questions about Roe, which I think indicates that Roe doesn’t fall in that category,” she said. “And scholars across the spectrum say that doesn’t mean that Roe should be overruled. But descriptively, it does mean that it’s not a case that everyone has accepted and doesn’t call for its overruling.”

As a law school professor, Barrett signed a 2006 newspaper ad calling for the overturning of the law’s “barbaric legacy.” She was questioned about that as well during her confirmation hearings.

“I signed that almost 15 years ago in my personal capacity still as a private citizen, and now I am a public official,” Barrett told Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo.

“I signed it on the way out of church,” she told Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt. “It was consistent with the views of my church and simply said we support the right to life from conception to natural death.”

In response to Republicans’ questions about her faith and its influence on her work, Barrett — who has described herself as a “faithful Catholic” — told senators that her “personal, moral religious views” won’t impact her judicial decision-making.

“I have done that in my time on the 7th Circuit. If I stay there, I’ll continue to do that,” Barrett said. “If I’m confirmed to the Supreme Court, I will do that still.”

In prior comments, Barrett has said she didn’t think the right to abortion would change and it was unlikely Roe would be overturned by a conservative Supreme Court.

“I think some of the restrictions would change,” she said during a 2016 event at Jacksonville University’s Public Policy Institute.

“I think the question is how much freedom the court is willing to let states have in regulating abortion,” she continued.

ABC News’ Devin Dwyer and Benjamin Siegel contributed to this report.

Who leaked Supreme Court draft opinion on abortion?

May 3, 2022 by WDNY Radio

(WASHINGTON) — A draft of the SCOTUS decision on the Mississippi case that challenges Roe v. Wade was leaked Monday night, first reported by Politico. According to the copy of the draft opinion for the majority, a majority of justices appear to have voted to effectively overturn the 1973 landmark abortion precedent set in Roe v. Wade.

“Certainly, it’s not a totally leakproof institution, but there has never been a leak even remotely like this,” said ABC News Supreme Court contributor Kate Shaw on ABC News’ podcast “Start Here.” “I don’t think in the history of the Supreme Court, which is the history of the country – it is totally uncharted.”

The 98-page opinion leaked by Politico was written by Justice Samuel Alito, one of the most conservative members of the court.

In a statement on Tuesday, the Supreme Court and Chief Justice John Roberts addressed the leaked opinion. The statement confirms that the leaked document is “authentic,” but it goes on to say that it “does not represent a decision by the Court of the final position of any member on the issues in the case.”

He also stated that he has launched an official investigation into the source of the leak.

There are multiple theories circulating as to why the document was leaked. According to Shaw, one theory is that whoever leaked the draft may be trying to “lock” in a five-justice majority and the publicity from the leak will deter anyone from “jumping ship.”

“The publicity will deter them from doing so because they will be worried about sending a message that they were somehow cowed into changing their votes by the public blowback and or the public encouragement,” said Shaw.

Also, some believe that if it’s a conservative leak, the approach was used to soften the ground for the ultimate decision. Some conservatives have already pointed out how little attention Texas’ SB8 has gotten now that it’s been in place for months, ABC News’ Devin Dwyer reported.

Another theory is that the leak came from the liberal side of the court.

“I think the logic there would be something like the court is about to take a truly extraordinary step of rolling back this right upon which Americans have relied for a half century and an institution,” said Shaw. “And thus these long standing norms of secrecy and confidentiality actually don’t have to be respected and can be thrown out the window because extraordinary times call for extraordinary measures.”

Currently, the leaker has not been identified and the motive remains unknown.

Over the past several months, the Supreme Court has been considering the Mississippi case Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health after hearing arguments on December 1. The Mississippi law bans abortions after 15 weeks. The case asks the justices directly to reconsider the precedent set by Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey.

A handful of states have already set so-called “trigger laws,” which are prohibitions set on abortions that will immediately go into effect if Roe v. Wade is overruled.

“At least half the states in the country will severely curtail or totally outlaw access to abortion,” said Shaw. “Basically immediately.”

According to an updated report from The Guttmacher Institute, 26 states have these trigger laws, some of which include bans on abortion after six or eight weeks of pregnancy, effectively banning all abortions. Several other states without trigger laws would also be expected to move quickly to prohibit abortions if Roe is overruled.

But, echoing Justice Roberts, Shaw said that nothing is set in stone.

“This is not a final opinion. It is not the law. Roe v. Wade has not been overturned yet,” said Shaw. “This appears to be a legitimate document that does reflect where the court is at this moment… But we don’t know exactly what the final opinion in this case will look like.”

Trump will repay $750K to settle inauguration lawsuit over hotel payments

May 3, 2022 by WDNY Radio

Trump will repay 0K to settle inauguration lawsuit over hotel payments

(WASHINGTON) — The Trump Organization and Donald Trump’s presidential inaugural committee have agreed to settle a lawsuit brought by Washington, D.C., Attorney General Karl Racine over allegations that Trump and his family misused nonprofit inauguration funds to enrich themselves in early 2017.

The suit claimed that the nonprofit funds raised by the inaugural committee were improperly used for private benefit when the Trump campaign rented $1 million in ballroom space from Trump’s Washington, D.C., hotel during the four days of inaugural festivities.

Trump’s company will repay $750,000 to settle the suit, according to the terms of the settlement.

“After he was elected, one of the first actions Donald Trump took was illegally using his own inauguration to enrich his family,” Racine said in a statement. “We refused to let that corruption stand.”

“Nonprofit funds cannot be used to line the pockets of individuals, no matter how powerful they are,” said Racine. “Now any future presidential inaugural committees are on notice that they will not get away with such egregious actions.”

Trump, in a statement, denied any wrongdoing.

“Given the impending sale of The Trump International Hotel, Washington D.C., and with absolutely no admission of liability or guilt, we have reached a settlement to end all litigation with Democrat Attorney General Racine,” the former president said. “As crime rates are soaring in our Nation’s Capital, it is necessary that the Attorney General focus on those issues rather than a further leg of the greatest Witch-Hunt in political history.”

“This was yet another example of weaponizing Law Enforcement against the Republican Party and, in particular, the former President of the United States,” Trump said in the statement. “So bad for our Country!”

The $750,000 in repaid funds with be redirected to nonprofit organizations.

With Supreme Court poised to reverse Roe, most Americans support abortion rights: POLL

May 3, 2022 by WDNY Radio

(WASHINGTON) — Amid reports of a draft Supreme Court opinion that would overturn Roe v. Wade, an ABC News/Washington Post poll finds that majorities of Americans support upholding Roe, say abortion should be legal in all or most cases and — by a wide margin — see abortion as a decision to be made by a woman and her doctor, not by lawmakers.

The national survey was completed last week, in advance of a report by Politico Monday night that a proposed first draft of an opinion, apparently by Justice Samuel Alito, called for reversing Roe in a case challenging Mississippi’s ban on abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy.

See PDF for full results, charts and tables.

In this poll, by contrast, 57% of Americans oppose a ban after 15 weeks; 58% say abortion should be legal in all or most cases; and 54% say the court should uphold Roe, compared with 28% who say the ruling should be overturned.

Support for upholding Roe is 6 percentage points lower than it was in an ABC/Post poll last November. Preference for reversing it is essentially unchanged; instead, more in this survey express no opinion, 18%.

Moving the question outside a legal framework, 7 in 10 say the decision whether or not a woman can have an abortion should be left to the woman and her doctor; this also is down from November, by 5 points. Twenty-four percent instead say abortion should be regulated by law. Even among those who say abortion should be illegal in all or most cases, a substantial share, 41%, also say it should be left to the woman and her doctor.

Trends are not consistent. While support for abortion rights is down slightly in the two items noted above, it’s higher than previously (up 12 points from 2011) “when the woman cannot afford to have a child,” and unchanged in other measures.

Legal or illegal?

Basic views on whether or not abortion should be legal have been more or less stable in polling going back 27 years. The 58% who say it should be legal in all or most cases is very near the average, 56%, in nearly three dozen ABC/Post polls since mid-1995, ranging from 49% to 60%. This includes 26% who now say it should be legal in all cases, exceeding the average, 21%; and 33% who say it should be legal in most cases.

Thirty-seven percent in this poll, produced for ABC News by Langer Research Associates, instead say abortion should be illegal in most cases (21%) or all cases (16%). That’s less than the long-term average, 42%, with a range from 36% to 48%. (Five percent have no opinion on this question.)

Circumstances

Considering specific circumstances, substantial majorities say abortion should be legal when the woman’s physical health is endangered (82%), when the pregnancy was caused by rape or incest (79%) and when there’s evidence of serious birth defects (67%).

The public divides on another circumstance: When the woman cannot afford to have a child, 48% say abortion should be legal, 45% illegal. Support for legal abortion in this case is its highest in six polls dating back to 1996.

On another front, the poll finds most Americans are unaware of new abortion restrictions in their states. In the 22 states that have passed abortion restrictions since 2020, just 30% of residents are aware that this has occurred; more, 44%, think not, with 26% unsure. An open question is how people who favor legal abortion may react if and when they learn their state has taken a different tack.

State laws

Regarding state-level action, 36% say laws on access to abortion in their state should be left as they are now and 33% say access to abortion should be easier than it is now. Fewer, 25%, say abortion access should be harder than it is currently.

Support for greater restrictions is muted, 30%, even in the 26 states that are reported by the Guttmacher Institute as likely to ban legal abortion if Roe v. Wade were overturned. This shrinks to 21% in other states.

Testing two specific restrictions, almost identical numbers say they’d oppose a law in their state making abortions legal only in the first six weeks of pregnancy (58%) or, as mentioned, only in the first 15 weeks (57%); 36% alike support each prospect. At least 12 states have passed six-week bans (most of which have been struck down or blocked by the courts) and five states have passed 15-week bans, with partial passage in a sixth.

Groups

Sixty-two percent of women and 55% of men say abortion should be legal in all or most cases. The gap widens on the shares who say it should be legal in all cases — 33% of women, compared with 19% of men, a wider gap than typical.

Support for legal abortion is highest among liberals (82%), people with no religious preference (80%), Democrats (79%), those with post-graduate degrees (74%) and Northeasterners (72%). It’s lowest among strong conservatives (20%), evangelical Protestants (28%) and Republicans (33%).

As noted, Americans by 54-28% say the Supreme Court should uphold Roe; it’s a similar 51-32% in the states where abortion bans or severe restrictions are anticipated if the ruling were overturned. Among groups, support for overturning Roe reaches a slim majority only among conservatives, 52%. Perhaps surprisingly, support for overturning the precedent reaches only 44% among Republicans and 45% among evangelical Protestants, two of the groups most apt to say abortion should be illegal.

Methodology

This ABC News/Washington Post poll was conducted by landline and cellular telephone April 24-28, 2022, in English and Spanish, among a random national sample of 1,004 adults. Results have a margin of sampling error of 3.5 percentage points, including the design effect. Partisan divisions are 29-25-40%, Democrats-Republicans-independents.

The survey was produced for ABC News by Langer Research Associates, with sampling and data collection by Abt Associates. See details on the survey’s methodology here.

Missing Alabama inmate, corrections officer had ‘special relationship’: Sheriff

May 3, 2022 by WDNY Radio

(FLORENCE, Ala.) — The corrections officer and escaped murder suspect who have been missing for days had “a special relationship,” the local sheriff confirmed.

Inmate Casey White and Lauderdale County Assistant Director of Corrections Vicki White — who are not related — went missing from Florence, Alabama, on Friday.

“Investigators received information from inmates at the Lauderdale County Detention Center over the weekend that there was a special relationship between Director White and inmate Casey White,” Lauderdale County Sheriff Rick Singleton said in a statement Tuesday. “That relationship has now been confirmed through our investigation by independent sources and means.”

Vicki White “participated” in the escape with Casey White, Singleton said Monday, adding, “Whether she did that willingly or she was coerced, threatened … not really sure.”

Casey White was charged with two counts of capital murder in September 2020 for the stabbing of 58-year-old Connie Ridgeway, authorities said. He could face the death penalty if convicted, the sheriff said.

On Friday morning, Vicki White allegedly told her colleagues that she was taking Casey White to the Lauderdale County Courthouse for a “mental health evaluation,” though he didn’t have a court appearance scheduled, Singleton said. Vicki White violated policy by escorting Casey White alone, the sheriff said.

Vicki White also allegedly told her colleagues that she was going to seek medical attention after dropping the inmate off at court because she wasn’t feeling well, but Singleton said his office confirmed that no appointment was made.

Vicki White had been talking about retiring for the last few months and turned in her paperwork on Thursday, Singleton told ABC News. Friday — the day the two went missing — was set to be her last day at work, he said.

The U.S. Marshals Service is offering up to $10,000 reward for information leading to Casey White’s capture and a $5,000 reward for information leading to Vicky White.

Marty Keely, U.S. marshal for the Northern District of Alabama, noted that Casey White may stand out due to his height — he’s 6 feet, 9 inches tall. Anyone who sees them is urged to call 911, Keely said.

Singleton called Vicki White, a 17-year veteran of the sheriff’s office, “an exemplary employee.”

“The employees are just devastated,” the sheriff said. “Nobody saw this coming.”

Cops hold courthouse rally for state trooper arraigned in killing of alleged teen carjacker

May 3, 2022 by WDNY Radio

(MILFORD, Conn.) — Dozens of police officers from multiple states held a rally outside a Connecticut courthouse Tuesday as a white state trooper they contend was charged with manslaughter for doing his job was arraigned in the 2020 killing of a Black 19-year-old alleged carjacker.

Connecticut State Trooper Brian North, 31, appeared at a brief hearing in Superior Court in Milford, but did not enter a plea to a felony manslaughter charge stemming from the fatal shooting of Mubarak Soulemane.

North, who is free on $50,000 bail, did not speak at the hearing and a judge scheduled his next court date for June 2.

Soulemane’s mother, Omo Klusum Mohammed, attended the hearing and later said she and her family would not be intimidated from pursuing justice.

“I feel in my heart they were here to try to intimidate us,” Mohammed said at a post-hearing news conference outside the courthouse. “But there is no officer or any trooper who will intimidate us. We are here to stand for justice, and I’m here to stand for justice for my son, Mubarak Soulemane. And I hope and pray justice will be served and Brian North will go to jail.”

Mohammed vowed to attend every court hearing to ensure North is held accountable for her son’s death.

“We are here today for justice, justice for my son Mubarak Soulemane, who has been massacred by state Trooper Brian North,” Mohammed said.

Mohammed’s attorney, Stanford Rubenstein, added, “Ultimately, this case will be decided on the evidence. And I believe once pictures of the truth, video of what happened, is shown to a jury, they will come to the same conclusion I have: that this was an execution.”

North was arrested last month and charged in Soulemane’s death after the state inspector general released a lengthy report alleging North’s use of deadly force was not justified in the January 2020 shooting of Soulemane.

State Inspector General Robert Devlin Jr.’s investigation found that although Soulemane was allegedly armed with a steak knife, had stolen a Lyft rideshare vehicle and was apparently off his medication for schizophrenia, he was not a threat to North and other officers when he was shot multiple times.

Soulemane was killed when North allegedly fired seven times at him through the closed driver’s side window of a stolen Lyft vehicle after troopers stopped him and pinned him in on Interstate 95 in West Haven following a chase that reached speeds of 100 mph, according to the report.

Devlin’s investigation found that Soulemane was sitting behind the wheel of the car surrounded by troopers and officers from other agencies. He was trapped inside because North’s cruiser was blocking the driver’s side door.

An officer from the West Haven Police Department was bashing in the passenger-side window with a baton and another trooper was poised to deploy a stun gun on Soulemane when North opened fire as Soulemane reached into his pocket and pulled a knife, according to the report.

“Stated briefly, the investigation establishes that, at the time Trooper North fired his weapon, neither he nor any other person was in imminent danger of serious injury or death from a knife attack at the hands of Soulemane,” the inspector general concluded in his report. “Further, any belief that persons were in such danger was not reasonable. I therefore find that North’s use of deadly force was not justified under Connecticut law.”

But several dozen state police officers from Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Jersey and Pennsylvania who rallied in support of North outside the courthouse on Tuesday said they strongly disagree with Devlin’s findings.

Andrew Matthews, executive director of the Connecticut State Police Union, said he and other union members believe North should not have been charged.

“When our troopers are, what we believe, prosecuted for doing their job, we will defend them,” Matthews said at a news conference outside the courthouse prior to North’s hearing. “We will defend their actions when we believe that they are justified in doing and performing their duties to protect the public.”

Matthews said he and other members of the union felt “obligated” to rally around North, adding, “our troopers put their lives on the line every day to protect the public.”

“And when people make split-second decisions that others can review over and over again and form their own judgment of what they did or what they would have done, we have to stand up for our troopers,” Matthews said.

North’s attorney, Jeffrey Ment, declined to comment on the case, but said, “Trooper North appreciated the support of his brother and sister officers from not only Connecticut, but also from surrounding states.”

Five things to know as leaked Supreme Court draft ruling puts focus on abortion

May 3, 2022 by WDNY Radio

(NEW YORK) — An unprecedented leak of a draft Supreme Court opinion on abortion is putting a new spotlight on what could happen if the court overturns Roe v. Wade, the landmark case that made abortion a federally protected right in the United States.

The document, obtained by Politico, shows the Supreme Court’s conservative majority of justices are ready to overturn nearly 50 years of established abortion rights precedent via the Mississippi, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health, a case the court heard last year and is expected to rule publicly on by the end of June.

“Roe was egregiously wrong from the start,” writes Justice Samuel Alito, the opinion’s apparent author, in a copy of the draft posted online Tuesday night.

Chief Justice John Roberts called the leaked draft a “singular and egregious breach” of trust in a statement issued Wednesday.

Here are five things to know about the leaked draft, the Mississippi case and what is expected to happen to abortion access in the U.S. if Roe is overturned.

1. The Mississippi case centers on a 15-week abortion ban.

In the case, the state of Mississippi is arguing to uphold a law that would ban most abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy, while Jackson Women’s Health, Mississippi’s lone abortion clinic, argues the Supreme Court’s protection of a woman’s right to choose the procedure is clear, well-established and should be respected.

Since the Roe v. Wade ruling and the 1992 Planned Parenthood v. Casey ruling that affirmed the decision, the court has never allowed states to prohibit the termination of pregnancies prior to fetal viability outside the womb, roughly 24 weeks, according to medical experts.

Mississippi, through its state health officer, Dr. Thomas E. Dobbs, an infectious disease physician, argues Roe and Casey were wrongly decided and that each state should be allowed to set its policy.

2. How the draft ruling became public remains a mystery.

The leak of the draft ruling on a high-stakes issue like abortion is being described as an extraordinary breach of protocol and tradition for the Supreme Court, whose nine justices and their clerks are known for being extremely discreet.

The document, which Politico said it obtained from a “person familiar with the court’s proceedings,” is marked “first draft” and dated Feb. 10, 2022 — two months after oral arguments were heard in the case Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization.

“The Constitution does not prohibit the citizens of each State from regulating or prohibiting abortion,” the draft states. “Roe and Casey arrogated that authority. We now overrule those decisions and return that authority to the people and their elected representatives.”

Following the publication of the draft, Chief Justice Roberts announced he has directed the Marshal of the Court — its chief operations and security officer — to investigate the leak.

“To the extent this betrayal of the confidences of the Court was intended to undermine the integrity of our operations, it will not succeed. The work of the Court will not be affected in any way,” Roberts said in a statement. “We at the Court are blessed to have a workforce — permanent employees and law clerks alike — intensely loyal to the institution and dedicated to the rule of law.”

“Court employees have an exemplary and important tradition of respecting the confidentiality of the judicial process and upholding the trust of the Court. This was a singular and egregious breach of that trust that is an affront to the Court and the community of public servants who work here,” he said. “I have directed the Marshal of the Court to launch an investigation into the source of the leak.”

3. The draft ruling is not a final Supreme Court decision.

The drafting of Supreme Court opinions is a fluid and dynamic process, sources familiar with the internal operations have told ABC News.

The leaked document is part of that fluid process and is not the court’s final ruling.

Though the document is from February, an unnamed source familiar with the deliberations told Politico that Justices Alito, Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett all initially supported a ruling siding with Mississippi and “that line-up remains unchanged as of this week.”

A Wall Street Journal editorial this month suggested that Chief Justice John Roberts, known for his passion for established precedent and the court’s reputation, may try to convince one of his conservative colleagues to join him in a narrower opinion that would not completely overturn Roe v. Wade.

4. Overturning Roe v. Wade would give power to the states.

If the Supreme Court rules to overturn Roe v. Wade, the power to decide abortion access would rest with the elected leaders of each state.

As of today, more than half of the nation’s 50 states are prepared to ban abortion if Roe is overturned, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a reproductive rights organization.

Twenty-one states already have laws on the books that would immediately ban abortion if Roe were overturned. Five additional states are likely to ban abortion should Roe be overturned, the Guttmacher report said.

Because the states that plan to ban abortion are focused in specific geographic regions, including the South, the expected effect is that women will have to travel much longer distances, at a greater cost and inconvenience, to seek abortion care, according to Elizabeth Nash, interim associate director of state issues at the Guttmacher Institute.

On the other side, states that support abortion rights, like California, Connecticut and New York, are also ones to watch if Roe is overturned because they could fortify laws that enhance and protect abortion access in their states, experts say.

5. Abortion remains legal in all 50 states as of now.

Abortion rights advocates are messaging to people that abortion is currently legal in all 50 states.

Though many states over the past several decades have passed laws that limit abortion access — as seen most recently in Oklahoma, Florida and Texas — Roe v. Wade, which made access to abortion a constitutional right, currently remains the law of the land.

ABC News’ Devin Dwyer contributed to this report.

+ More