federal authority

Federal prosecutors announced charges Wednesday against 12 people who allegedly engaged in violence during demonstrations against the Trump administration’s immigration policies.

The charges, part of an effort dubbed “Operation Bridge Too Far” by federal authorities, largely centered on demonstrations that erupted on a freeway overpass near an immigration detention center in downtown Los Angeles on June 8, the first day the National Guard was deployed to the city.

What started as a small, peaceful protest on Alameda Street exploded into a series of tense clashes between demonstrators and law enforcement. After National Guard members and U.S. Department of Homeland Security officials used tear gas and smoke bombs to try and disperse a crowd outside the detention center, more protesters flooded the area.

A number of Waymo self-driving vehicles were set on fire near Olivera Street, and a group of California Highway Patrol officers on the 101 Freeway were pelted with items from protesters on the overpass above. At times, they returned fire with less-lethal rounds and tear gas. At least one protester had previously been charged in state court with throwing a flaming item at a CHP vehicle from the overpass.

Authorities announced that 10 defendants charged in connection with the incident were in federal custody this week. Another is in state custody and expected to be handed over to federal authorities, and one remains a fugitive.

Among those charged tied to the June 8 protest are Ronald Alexis Coreas, 23, of Westlake; Junior Roldan, 27, of Hollywood; Elmore Sylvester Cage, 34, of downtown Los Angeles; Balto Montion, 24, of Watsonville; Jesus Gonzalez Hernandez Jr., 22, of Las Vegas; Hector Daniel Ramos, 66, of Alhambra; Stefano Deong Green, 34, of Westmont; Yachua Mauricio Flores, 23, of Lincoln Heights; and Ismael Vega, 41, of Westlake.

Prosecutors also charged Virginia Reyes, 32, and Isai Carrillo, 31, who they say are members of “VC Defensa,” an immigrant rights group that has been documenting raids in the region.

Yovany Marcario Canil, 22, of Boyle Heights, was charged with assault on a federal officer for pepper-spraying members of an FBI S.W.A.T. team who were inside a government vehicle leaving the site of a raid in the downtown L.A. Fashion District on June 6.

A protester lobs a large rock at CHP officers stationed on the 101 Freeway below.

(Robert Gauthier / Los Angeles Times)

“Acts of violence against the brave law enforcement officers who protect us are an attack on civilized society itself,” Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi said in a news release. “Anyone who engages in such disgusting conduct will face severe consequences from this Department of Justice.”

The FBI offered up to $10,000 for information leading to the arrest and conviction of 10 other unknown individuals accused of engaging in similar attacks from the overpass.

“A group of violent protesters threw rocks, pieces of concrete, electric scooters, and fireworks at officers and patrol cars” on the 101 Freeway, the FBI said.

Bill Essayli, the top federal prosecutor for the Central District of California, has aggressively pursued charges against those who clashed with law enforcement during protests against the Trump administration’s immigration raids over the last few months. On Wednesday, Essayli said that his office has charged 97 people with assaulting or impeding officers.

Of those, Essayli said, 18 have pleaded guilty and 44 are set to go to trial. His office has taken two defendants in misdemeanor assault cases to trial, but both ended in acquittals.

Earlier this year, a Times investigation found Essayli’s prosecutors have failed to convince grand juries to secure indictments in a number of protest-related cases.

Prosecutors face a much lower legal bar before a grand jury than they do in a criminal trial, and experts say it is rare for federal prosecutors to lose at that preliminary stage. Prosecutors in Chicago and Washington have faced similar struggles, court records show.

The defendants who have pleaded guilty in L.A. include a 23-year-old undocumented immigrant who hurled a molotov cocktail at L.A. County sheriff’s deputies during a June rally against immigration enforcement.

A 24-year-old Honduran man who was fleeing federal immigration agents in Virginia died on a highway after being struck by a vehicle.

The death of Josué Castro Rivera follows recent incidents in which three other immigrants in Chicago and California were killed during immigration enforcement operations under the Trump administration’s crackdown.

Castro Rivera was headed to a gardening job Thursday when his vehicle was pulled over by Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers, brother Henry Castro said.

Agents tried to detain Castro Rivera and the three other passengers, and he fled on foot, tried to cross Interstate 264 in Norfolk and was fatally struck, according to state and federal authorities.

Castro Rivera came to the United States four years ago and was working to send money to family in Honduras, according to his brother.

“He had a very good heart,” Castro said Sunday.

The Department of Homeland Security said Castro Rivera’s vehicle was stopped by ICE as part of a “targeted, intelligence-based” operation and passengers were detained for allegedly living in the country without legal permission.

DHS said in a statement that Castro Rivera “resisted heavily and fled” and died after a passing vehicle struck him. DHS officials did not respond Sunday to requests for further comment.

Virginia State Police said officers responded to a report of a vehicle-pedestrian crash around 11 a.m. Thursday on eastbound I-264 at the Military Highway interchange. Police said Castro Rivera was hit by a 2002 Ford pickup and was pronounced dead at the scene.

The crash remains under investigation.

Federal authorities and state police gave his first name as Jose, but family members said it was Josué. DHS and state police did not explain the discrepancy.

Castro called his brother’s death an injustice and said he is raising money to transport the body back to Honduras for the funeral.

“He didn’t deserve everything that happened to him,” Castro said.

DHS blamed Castro Rivera’s death on “a direct result of every politician, activist and reporter who continue to spread propaganda and misinformation about ICE’s mission and ways to avoid detention.”

Similar deaths amid immigration operations elsewhere have triggered protests, lawsuits and calls for investigation amid claims that the Trump administration’s initial accounts are misleading.

Last month in suburban Chicago, federal immigration agents fatally shot a Mexican man during a traffic stop. DHS initially said a federal officer was “seriously injured,” but police body camera video showed the federal officer walking around and describing his own injuries as “ nothing major.”

In July, a farmworker who fell from a greenhouse roof during a chaotic ICE raid at a California cannabis facility died of his injuries. And in August, a man ran away from federal agents onto a freeway in the same state and was fatally struck by a vehicle.

Tareen and Walling write for the Associated Press.

If you thought Jimmy Kimmel saved free speech, think again.

To hear President Trump tell it, no one, especially law enforcement officers, is safe from the dangers caused by opposing his policies — and he’s ready to do something about it.

“This political violence is not a series of isolated incidents and does not emerge organically,” Trump wrote in a new executive order. “A new law enforcement strategy that investigates all participants in these criminal and terroristic conspiracies — including the organized structures, networks, entities, organizations, funding sources, and predicate actions behind them — is required.”

Of course, despite his menacing tone, I agree with Trump that politically motivated violence against law enforcement — or anyone, be it Charlie Kirk or immigrant detainees — is reprehensible and completely unacceptable.

The deadly shooting in Dallas this week, which Trump referred to in the order, is a tragedy and any political violence should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the many laws on the books that protect our public servants, and the public at large.

But criticizing government overreach is not inciting violence, and calls for Democrats to stop attacking Trump’s policies are just calls to silence dissent — one more attack on free speech at a moment when it’s clear this administration is intent on demolishing opposition.

If we are serious about preventing further political violence, trust in our justice system must be a priority. And you know what’s really eroding trust? Scary masked agents on our streets who refuse to even say what agency they work for.

In recent days, about 6,700 federal workers from agencies outside of ICE have been pulled into its immigration mission, according to the non-partisan Niskanen Center.

The anxiety brought on by an unaccountable and unknowable federal force, one that is expected to grow by thousands in coming years, is what is raising the temperature in American politics far more than the words from either side, though I am not here to argue that words don’t have power.

Ending the fear that our justice system is devolving into secrecy and lawlessness will reduce tension, and the potential for violence. Want to protect officers — and our democracy?

Ban masks.

“Listen, I understand that it being a law enforcement officer is scary,” former Capitol police officer Harry Dunn told me Wednesday during a press event for the immigration organization America’s Voice.

Dunn was attacked, beaten and called racial slurs during the political violence on Jan. 6, 2021.

“Nobody ever signed up to be harassed, to be targeted. That should never happen,” he said.

But Dunn said he’d never don a mask, because it harms that public trust, that mission to serve and protect.

When officers cover their faces and demand to be nameless and faceless, “They are terrorizing … with something just as simple as a mask,” he said.

Which is why California just passed a law attempting to ban such masks, effective next year — though it will likely be challenged in court, and federal authorities have already said they will ignore it.

“We’re not North Korea, Mr. President. We’re not the Soviet Union. This is the United States of America, and I’m really proud of the state of California and our state of mind that we’re pushing back against these authoritarian tendencies and actions of this administration,” said Gov. Gavin Newsom before signing the bill.

The argument in favor of masks is that some officers are afraid to do their jobs without them, fearing they or their families will be identified and targeted. The Department of Homeland security claims that assaults on officers are up 1,000%, though it’s unclear what data produced that figure.

“Every time I’m in a room with our law enforcement officers, I’m talking to them before they go out on our streets, I’m just overwhelmed by the fact that all of these young men and women have families that they all want to go home to,” Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said. “(P)eople like Gavin Newsom are making it much more dangerous for them just to go do their job.”

Federal immigration authorities are not required by their agencies to wear masks. Not ski masks, not balaclavas, not even medical masks — which many officers refused to don even during the pandemic.

Like the choice to become a federal law enforcement officer, hiding their identity while doing their duty is a personal decision. Some agents aren’t masked. There is no rule to bring clarity, only leaders pushing the false narrative that protecting officers is impossible at this moment of unrest, and they must do what they see fit to protect themselves.

Which raises the question, why not help all officers feel safe enough to go unmasked, rather than allowing some to work in a fearful environment? Surely, if some officers feel safe enough to go about their duties in a regular fashion, there must be something their leaders can do to promote that sense of strength among the ranks rather than cave to the timidity of anonymity and helplessness?

“Things can be done,” Gabriel Chin told me. He’s a professor of law at UC Davis and an expert on criminal procedure.

“The nice thing about being a law enforcement officer is if somebody does something illegal to you, you have the resources to investigate and have them criminally charged,” Chin said. “But you know, this kind of thing has happened to judges and police and prosecutors, apart from ICE, for some years, unfortunately, and yet we don’t have masked judges and masked prosecutors.”

In 2020, for example, the son of New Jersey judge Esther Salas was shot and killed by a self-described men’s rights lawyer who came to her front door and had a list of other judges in his car.

Salas did not respond by demanding judges become faceless. Instead, she successfully lobbied for greater protection of all judges nationwide.

U.S. District Judge John Coughenour, a Republican-appointee who was the first to block Trump’s executive order axing birthright citizenship, has spoken publicly, along with five other federal judges, about continuing threats facing his brethren, including both a recent “swatting” incident and a bomb threat against him and his family.

“It’s just been stunning to me how much damage has been done to the reputation of our judiciary because some political actors think that they can gain some advantage by attacking the independence of the judiciary and threatening the rule of law,” he told Reuters — an attack coming from the right.

Speaking at the same event, Chief U.S. District Judge John McConnell of Rhode Island said that like many other judges, he’s been harassed with pizzas being sent to his home address — including “one in the name of Daniel Anderl,” Reuters reported. That’s the name of Salas’ murdered son.

Just this week, a Santa Monica man was arrested and charged with doxxing an ICE lawyer.

But McConnell’s face is still visible when he takes the bench, as is Coughenour’s and every other judge and prosecutor. They face those who come before them for justice, because that is what justice requires.

What ultimately keeps them — and our system — safe is our collective belief that, even if imperfect, it has rules, stated and implied.

The most basic of these is that we face each other, even if we are afraid.

A federal grand jury has charged two brothers in Southern California with tax evasion on more than $1.1 million in income they allegedly received in part from a years-long scheme selling tee times on local golf courses.

Se Youn “Steve” Kim, 41, and his identical twin brother, Hee Youn “Ted” Kim, 41, were arrested Thursday morning by federal authorities and pleaded not guilty.

From 2021 to 2023, the Kim brothers’ tee time brokering business scooped up thousands of reservation slots at golf courses across the U.S., including at least 17 public golf courses in Southern California, according to the indictment filed Wednesday in U.S. District Court.

The brothers used online platforms including KakaoTalk, a Korean instant messaging app, to reach their customers. Federal prosecutors say that by quickly nabbing popular early morning tee times almost immediately after they were available to the public, the brothers “created a monopoly” of Southern California golf courses.

The prevalence of tee-time brokering was reported by The Times last year, in which scores of local golfers shared frustrations over their inability to secure a tee time on public courses in L.A.

“Finally, it’s justice,” said Joseph Lee, a vocal critic of tee time brokers who helped collect evidence and met with federal prosecutors during their investigation of the Kim brothers. “For a long time, L.A. golfers have been frustrated by these illegal tee time brokers and their resale market. Authorities have finally recognized the seriousness of the issue.”

Anthony Solis, the attorney representing Ted Kim, said he did not immediately have a response on behalf of his client. The attorney representing Steve Kim did not respond to a message seeking comment.

Federal prosecutors said the brothers had customers pay reservation fees to their personal accounts via Venmo, Zelle, and other applications. The tee time brokering business netted the brothers nearly $700,000 between 2021 and 2023, according to the indictment. The brothers, who also worked as MRI technicians, are accused of willfully failing to report a combined $1.1 million in income to the Internal Revenue Service for 2022 and 2023.

The Kim brothers are also accused of failing to pay taxes that the IRS had assessed. Rather than paying off mounting tax debts, the indictment alleges that the brothers made lavish purchases at Chanel, Cartier, Prada and Louis Vuitton.

In a brief interview with The Times last year, Ted Kim said that he used up to five devices and relied on unspecified friends to secure tee times. He said he is on the same playing field as every other golfer in L.A. and does not use bots to game the system.

“It’s not like I’m taking advantage of technology. I’m booking myself,” Kim told The Times in an interview. “I’m not doing anything illegal.”

Kim told the newspaper that he profited a couple thousand dollars a month, and framed his business as a way of helping elderly Korean golfers without tech savvy to navigate the online golf reservation system.

“I’m just helping Korean seniors, because they have a right to play golf, because all the Koreans play golf, right? Without my help, they actually struggle,” he said.

This is a breaking news story and will be updated.

WASHINGTON — Federal authorities have used checkpoints around the nation’s capital to screen vehicles, sometimes asking people for their immigration status after stopping them, as President Trump’s crackdown reaches the two-week mark in Washington.

The use of checkpoints, which can be legally controversial, is the latest indication that the White House’s mass deportation agenda is central to its assertion of federal power in Washington. Federal agents and hundreds of National Guard troops have surged into Washington this month, putting some residents on edge and creating tense confrontations in the streets.

The city’s immigrant population, in particular, is rattled. A daycare was partially closed on Thursday when staff became afraid to go to work because they heard about federal agents nearby. An administrator asked parents to keep their children at home if possible.

Other day cares have stopped taking kids on daily walks because of fears about encountering law enforcement.

D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser acknowledged Thursday that the proliferation of traffic checkpoints are an inevitable aspect of the federal law enforcement operations.

“The surge of federal officers is allowing for different types of deployments, more frequent types of deployments, like checkpoints,” Bowser said.

Since Aug. 7, when Trump began surging federal agents into the city, there have been 630 arrests, including 251 people who are in the country illegally, according to the White House. Trump has been ratcheting up the pressure since then, seizing control of the D.C. police department Aug. 11 and deploying more National Guard troops, mostly from Republican-led states.

Soldiers have been largely stationed in downtown areas, such as monuments on the National Mall and transit stations.

However, federal agents are operating more widely through the city — and some may soon get a visit from the president himself.

Trump is expected to join a patrol in D.C. on Thursday night. He told his plans to Todd Starnes, a conservative commentator.

Not a normal traffic stop

On Thursday morning, as Martin Romero rode through Washington’s Rock Creek Park on his way to a construction job in Virginia, he saw police on the road up ahead. He figured it was a normal traffic stop, but it wasn’t.

Romero, 41, said that U.S. Park Police were telling pickup trucks with company logos to pull over, reminding them that commercial vehicles weren’t allowed on park roads. They checked for licenses and insurance information, and then U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents came over.

Romero said there were two agents on one side of his truck and three on the other. He started to get nervous as the agents asked where they were from and whether they were in the country illegally.

“We just came here to work,” Romero said afterward. “We aren’t doing anything bad.”

Two people in his truck were detained and the agents didn’t give a reason, he said. He also saw three other people taken from other vehicles.

“I feel really worried because they took two of our guys,” he said. “They wouldn’t say where they’re taking them or if they’ll be able to come back.”

Romero said he called his boss, who told him to just head home. They wouldn’t be working today.

Enrique Martinez, a supervisor at the construction company, came to the scene afterward. He pondered whether to call families of the detained men.

“This has never happened to our company before,” Martinez said. “I’m not really sure what to do.”

Checkpoints are legal, to a point

The Supreme Court has upheld the use of law enforcement and government checkpoints for specific purposes, such as for policing the border and for identifying suspected drunk drivers.

But there are restrictions on that authority, especially when it comes to general crime control. Jeffrey Bellin, a former prosecutor in Washington and professor at Vanderbilt Law School who specializes in criminal law and procedures, said the Constitution doesn’t allow “the government to be constantly checking us and stopping to see if we’re up to any criminal activity.”

He said checkpoints for a legally justifiable purpose — like checking for driver’s licenses and registrations — cannot be used as “subterfuge” or a pretext for stops that would otherwise not be allowed. And though the court has affirmed the use of checkpoints at the border, and even some distance away from it, to ask drivers about immigration status, Bellin said it was unlikely the authority would extend to Washington.

Anthony Michael Kreis, a professor at Georgia State College of Law, said the seemingly “arbitrary” and intrusive nature of the checkpoints in the capital could leave residents feeling aggrieved.

“Some of the things could be entirely constitutional and fine, but at the same time, the way that things are unfolding, people are suspicious — and I think for good reason,” he said.

From Los Angeles to D.C.

There are few places in the country that have been unaffected by Trump’s deportation drive, but his push into D.C. is shaping into something more sustained, similar to what has unfolded in the Los Angeles area since early June.

In Los Angeles, immigration officers — working with the Border Patrol and other federal agencies — have been a near-daily presence at Home Depots, car washes and other highly visible locations.

In a demonstration of how enforcement has affected routines, the bishop of San Bernardino formally excused parishioners of their weekly obligation to attend Mass after immigration agents detained people on two parish properties.

Immigration officials have been an unusually public presence, sending horse patrols to the city’s famed MacArthur Park and appearing outside California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s news conference last week on congressional redistricting. Authorities said an agent fired at a moving vehicle last week after the driver refused to roll down his window during an immigration stop.

The National Guard and Marines were previously in the city for weeks on an assignment to maintain order amid protests.

A federal judge blocked the administration from conducting indiscriminate immigration stops in Southern California but authorities have vowed to keep the pressure on.

Megerian and Martin write for the Associated Press. AP writers Eric Tucker and Ashraf Khalil in Washington and Elliot Spagat in San Diego contributed to this report.

BRIDGEWATER, N.J. — Federal officials have opened an investigation into Jack Smith, the former special counsel who indicted then-candidate Donald Trump on felony charges before his election to a second term.

The current Office of Special Counsel, traditionally an independent federal agency, on Saturday confirmed the investigation after reporting by other news organizations. Smith was named special counsel by then-Atty. Gen. Merrick Garland to investigate Trump in November 2022 for his actions related to trying to overturn his 2020 election loss to Joe Biden and his hoarding of classified documents at his home in Florida.

Trump and his Republican allies, including Sen. Tom Cotton, have — without offering evidence of wrongdoing — accused Smith of violating the Hatch Act, a federal law that bans certain public officials from engaging in political activity.

Smith prosecuted two federal cases against Trump and indicted him on multiple felony charges in both. He dropped both cases after Trump won the election in November, as a sitting president is shielded from prosecution according to long-standing Justice Department practice. Smith then subsequently resigned as special counsel.

Cotton (R-Ark.) on Wednesday asked the Office of Special Counsel to investigate Smith, alleging that his conduct was designed to help then-President Biden and then-Vice Presiedent Kamala Harris, who became the Democratic nominee in last year’s race against Trump.

Trump is the only felon to ever occupy the White House, having been convicted in May 2024 on 34 criminal counts for fraud related to a hush-money payment to a porn star before the 2016 election, which he also won.

The White House had no immediate comment on the investigation.

The New York Post was first to report on the investigation into Smith.

Superville writes for the Associated Press.

NORFOLK, Va. — A Virginia man pleaded guilty Friday in a federal case that accused him of stockpiling the largest number of finished explosives in FBI history and of using then-President Biden’s photo for target practice.

Brad Spafford pleaded guilty in federal court in Norfolk to possession of an unregistered short-barreled rifle and possession of an unregistered destructive device, according to court documents. Each count carries a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison. His sentencing is scheduled for December.

Federal authorities said they seized about 150 pipe bombs and other homemade devices last fall at Spafford’s home in Isle of Wight County, which is northwest of Norfolk.

The investigation into Spafford began in 2023 when an informant told authorities that Spafford was stockpiling weapons and ammunition, according to court documents. The informant, a friend and member of law enforcement, told authorities that Spafford was using pictures of then-President Biden for target practice and that “he believed political assassinations should be brought back,” prosecutors wrote.

Two weeks after the assassination attempt of then-presidential candidate Donald Trump in 2024, Spafford told the informant, “bro I hope the shooter doesn’t miss Kamala,” according to court documents. Former Vice President Kamala Harris had recently announced she was running for president. On around the same day, Spafford told the informant that he was pursuing a sniper qualification at the local gun range, court records stated.

Numerous law enforcement officers and bomb technicians searched the property in December.

Spafford stored a highly unstable explosive material in a garage freezer next to “Hot Pockets and frozen corn on the cob,” according to court documents. Investigators also said they found explosive devices in an unsecured backpack labeled “#NoLivesMatter.”

Spafford has remained in jail since his arrest in December. U.S. District Judge Arenda L. Wright Allen ruled against his release in January, writing that Spafford has “shown the capacity for extreme danger.” She also noted that Spafford lost three fingers in an accident involving homemade explosives in 2021.

Spafford had initially pleaded not guilty to the charges in January. Defense attorneys had argued at the time that Spafford, who is married and a father of two young daughters, works a steady job as a machinist and has no criminal record.

Defense attorney Jeffrey Swartz said at Spafford’s January detention hearing that investigators had gathered information on him since January 2023, during which Spafford never threatened anyone.

“And what has he done during those two years?” Swartz said. “He purchased a home. He’s raised his children. He’s in a great marriage. He has a fantastic job, and those things all still exist for him.”

Investigators, however, said they had limited knowledge of the homemade bombs until an informant visited Spafford’s home, federal prosecutors wrote in a filing.

“But once the defendant stated on a recorded wire that he had an unstable primary explosive in the freezer in October 2024, the government moved swiftly,” prosecutors wrote.

Finley writes for the Associated Press.

NEW YORK — New York City’s former interim police commissioner is suing Mayor Eric Adams and his top deputies, accusing them of operating the NYPD as a “criminal enterprise.”

In a federal racketeering lawsuit filed Wednesday, the ex-commissioner, Thomas Donlon, alleges Adams and his inner circle showered unqualified loyalists with promotions, buried allegations of misconduct and gratuitously punished whistleblowers.

It is the latest in a series of recent lawsuits by former NYPD leaders describing a department ruled by graft and cronyism, with swift repercussions for those who questioned the mayor’s allies.

In a statement, City Hall spokesperson Kayla Mamelak Altus called the allegations “baseless,” blasting Donlon as a “disgruntled former employee who — when given the opportunity to lead the greatest police department in the world — proved himself to be ineffective.”

Donlon, a longtime FBI official, was appointed last fall by Adams to stabilize a department shaken by federal investigations and high-profile resignations.

He stepped down less than a month into the job, after federal authorities searched his home for decades-old documents that he said were unrelated to his work at the department.

During his brief tenure, Donlon said he uncovered “systemic corruption and criminal conduct” enabled by Adams and carried out by his hand-picked confidants who operated outside the department’s standard chain of command.

Their alleged corruption triggered a “massive, unlawful transfer of public wealth,” the suit alleges, through unearned salary increases, overtime payments, pension enhancement and other benefits.

In one case, Donlon said he caught the department’s former top spokesperson, Tarik Sheppard, improperly using his rubber signature to give himself a raise and promotion. When Donlon confronted him, Sheppard allegedly threatened to kill him.

Later, when Donlon’s wife was involved in a minor car accident, Sheppard leaked personal family details to the press, according to the lawsuit.

Sheppard, who left the department in May, did not immediately respond to an email seeking comment.

The lawsuit also accuses police leaders of blocking internal investigations requested by Donlon and refusing to cooperate with federal authorities. And it outlines several instances in which officers with little experience — but close connections to Adams’ allies — received promotions, sometimes in exchange for favors.

The lawsuit names Adams and eight current and former high-ranking NYPD officials, including Chief of Department John Chell and Deputy Mayor Kaz Daughtry.

It calls for a federal takeover of the NYPD and unspecified damages for Donlon, whose professional reputation was “deliberately destroyed,” according to the suit.

Before joining the NYPD, Donlon spent decades working on terrorism cases for the FBI, including the investigation into the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center. He also led New York state’s Office of Homeland Security before going into the private sector security industry.

He was replaced as commissioner by Jessica Tisch, who has pledged to restore trust within the department. But as Adams seeks reelection on a platform touting decreases in crime, he now faces renewed scrutiny over his management of the police force.

Last week, four other former high-ranking New York City police officials filed separate lawsuits against Adams and his top deputies, alleging a culture of rampant corruption and bribes that preceded Donlon’s appointment.

In response to that suit, a spokesperson for Adams said the administration “holds all city employees — including leadership at the NYPD — to the highest standards.”

Offenhartz writes for the Associated Press.

I’ve watched two disturbing videos in the past day of federal authorities acting with frightening disregard for decency and democracy as they arrest immigrants.

At least, I think they are federal authorities. But these days, who knows?

The alleged officers detaining hundreds if not thousands of people each day in California and across the country are often masked. They sometimes refuse to answer questions, including which agency they represent. They threaten force — and even use it to make arrests of bystanders — when they are challenged.

In the first video I watched, a man in an unmarked car detains another man sitting on a bus bench in Pasadena. The man presumed to be a federal agent has on a vest that simply says “Police” and a cheap black ski mask that covers every bit of his face — the kind that looks like it was purchased on Amazon and that we have previously most associated with criminals such as robbers and rapists. A few of his colleagues are in the background, some also seemingly masked.

If these men approached me or one of my kids dressed like that, I would run. I would fight. I would certainly not take his word that he was “police” and had the right to force me into his car.

In the second video, another presumed federal agent jumps out of his unmarked vehicle and draws his weapon on a civilian attempting to take a photo of the license plate.

Yes — he points his gun at a civilian who is not threatening him or committing a crime. Folks, maybe you consider it a bad idea to try to photograph what may or may not be a legitimate police operation, but it is not illegal. This alleged officer appears to have simply not liked what was happening, and threatened to shoot the person upsetting him. The man taking the photo ran away, but what would have happened had he not?

These actions by alleged authorities are examples of impunity, and it is what happens when accountability is lost.

“It’s terrifying to be assaulted by people that you can’t be sure are law enforcement and who seem to be hiding their identity from you,” David Sklansky told me. He’s a law professor at Stanford and an expert on policing. He said there are times when secrecy by authorities can be justified, but it should be the exception, not the rule.

“The seizure of people by agents of the state who don’t identify themselves as agents of the state is a tool that has a long and ugly history of being used by authoritarian regimes,” he said.

ICE has claimed that its officers have a need and right to remain anonymous because threats and attacks against them have dramatically increased. The agency has been publicizing that its staff has seen a 413% increase in assaults against them, and that they and their families have been doxxed.

Speaking on the New York Times podcast “The Daily,” President Trump’s top border policy advisor, Tom Homan, said that his officers are doing the best they can under difficult circumstances.

“It’s not about intimidation,” Homan said. “ICE officers are wearing masks because they’ve been doxxed by the thousands. Their families have been doxxed. ICE officers’ pictures have shown up on trees and telephone poles. Death threats are sky-high. I know because I’ve been doxxed 1,000 times myself.”

You know what? I believe ICE officers are getting doxxed and threatened.

Any violent attack on law enforcement should be condemned.

And while we are at it, I don’t have any issue with deporting dangerous criminals. For today, I’m leaving aside the issue of whether Trump’s aggressive drive to deport people is good or bad. This isn’t about what is happening with these deportations, but about how authorities are exercising their power.

Threatening a law enforcement official is a crime. Doxxing is a crime. These agencies have the resources to track down, arrest and prosecute anyone who breaks those laws. They should absolutely do that.

Instead, federal authorities are hiding, apparently too frightened of online provocateurs and in-person hecklers to do their duty in plain sight.

But judges are being doxxed and don’t wear masks. Journalists are being doxxed and don’t wear masks. Politicians are being doxxed — and even killed — and are still doing their jobs out in the open. Which raises the question: Is it really not about intimidation?

“Quite frankly, I’ve had lots of guns pointed at me. I’ve had lots of threats against my life,” Lt. Diane Goldstein told me. “I never once wore a mask because I was afraid.”

Goldstein is the executive director of the Law Enforcement Action Partnership, a nonprofit composed of justice system authorities who advocate for better policies. She was also the first female lieutenant in the Redondo Beach Police Department, where she worked for more than 20 years, including on undercover assignments.

She points out that accountability demands some way to attach actions to individuals. Take that officer who pulled the gun on the license plate photographer.

“If one of my officers would have done that, I would have put him on an administrative leave, taken his gun away and initiated an internal affairs investigation,” she said. “There is no constitutional reason for him to jump out of a car and point a gun in that type of aggressive fashion at an ordinary citizen.”

However, we likely will never get to ask that officer what he was thinking — if he saw a threat that justified lethal force — because there is no easy way of identifying him. Forget who he is personally, we don’t even know what agency he is from.

“You have no idea if it’s the FBI, if it’s the DEA, if it’s ICE, if it’s CBP,” said Goldstein, rattling off the acronyms for various federal authorities. “There is no accountability and transparency.”

Sklansky points out that accountability doesn’t necessarily require a name or face. Although there is no law that requires it, federal authorities could simply put their badge number and agency name someplace visible. Voila! Accountability and safety for officers.

“Lots of law enforcement works this way,” he said.

Failing to provide any kind of trustworthy identification causes its own dangers, both Sklansky and Goldstein told me. People are required by law not to interfere with law enforcement doing their duty. But if you don’t know it’s law enforcement and fear you are witnessing an attack or are the victim of one, the situation is different.

Goldstein said that she worries about violence if bystanders think they are in the midst of a crime, or that local law enforcement will be called to intervene in what appears to be a kidnapping or assault.

“People can’t tell if they’re crooks or they’re law enforcement,” Goldstein said of officers who mask or hide their affiliation.

“Someone’s going to get hurt. A citizen is going to get hurt, a local cop is going to get hurt or a federal agent is going to get hurt. Their tactics are dangerous and putting the community in danger,” she said.

That fear that people are posing as law enforcement is real. Last week, a Minnesota legislator and her husband were killed by a gunman posing as a police officer. That same gunman earlier also went to the home of another politician and his wife and shot them as well, though they are expected to survive — their 28-year-old daughter called 911 after being shielded from the bullets by her mom.

The shooter banged on the front door of his victims, demanding to be let inside because he was law enforcement. Since then, articles are popping up, pointing out that people have a right to ask questions before just assuming that guy with the badge is really a cop.

After that attack, St. Cloud Police Chief Jeff Oxton sought to quell fears of fake cops roaming the streets by putting out a statement that stressed that it is “important that our public has confidence in the identification of our police officers.”

Of course it is important. In fact, it’s vital to democracy and public safety. The might of law derives from our trust in those empowered to enforce it, our willingness to respect their authority because it comes with both boundaries and responsibilities. The death of George Floyd and the protests that followed show just how tenuous, and how vital, that trust is.

An anonymous man in a ski mask does not inspire that trust, and does not deserve it.

One of the two detainees still missing after escaping from a New Jersey federal immigration detention center has been arrested, the FBI said Tuesday.

Franklin Norberto Bautista-Reyes, from Honduras, has been taken into custody, FBI spokesperson Amy Thoreson said in an email. Andres Felipe Pineda-Mogollon, from Colombia, is still missing from Thursday night’s escape, the bureau said.

Bautista-Reyes and Pineda-Mogollon and two other men busted out of the Delaney Hall detention center in Newark during reports of disorder there by breaking through a wall and escaping from a parking lot, according to U.S. Sen. Andy Kim, a New Jersey Democrat, and Homeland Security officials.

All four men were in the country illegally and had been charged by local police in New Jersey and New York City, federal officials said.

Bautista-Reyes was charged in May with aggravated assault, attempt to cause bodily injury, terroristic threats and a weapon crime. Pineda-Mogollon, from Colombia, was charged with minor larceny and burglary crimes.

The details surrounding Bautista-Reyes’ capture were not immediately clear. Messages seeking information were sent to the FBI and the Homeland Security Department, which oversees Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

The FBI on Monday had increased the reward for information leading to their arrest to $25,000 from $10,000.

Joel Enrique Sandoval-Lopez, one of the other fugitives, was taken into custody in Passaic, N.J., on Friday, the day after the escape in nearby Newark. Then, on Sunday, Joan Sebastian Castaneda-Lozada surrendered to federal authorities in Milleville, N.J. Sandoval-Lopez, from Honduras, was charged with unlawful possession of a handgun in October and aggravated assault in February, officials said. Castaneda-Lozada, from Colombia, was charged with burglary, theft and conspiracy, authorities said.

A message seeking comment on behalf of the men was left Tuesday with the New Jersey public defender’s office. It’s unclear who may be representing the men.

Newark Mayor Ras Baraka, a Democrat who’s been critical of President Trump’s immigration crackdown, cited reports of a possible uprising and escape after disorder broke out at the facility Thursday night and protesters outside the center locked arms and pushed against barricades as vehicles passed through gates. Much is still unclear about what unfolded there.

But GEO Group, the company that owns and operates the detention facility for the federal government, said in a statement that there was “no widespread unrest” at the facility.

Delaney Hall has been the site of clashes this year between Democratic officials who say the facility needs more oversight and the Trump administration and those who run the facility.

Baraka was arrested May 9, handcuffed and charged with trespassing. The charge was later dropped and U.S. Democratic Rep. LaMonica McIver was later charged with assaulting federal officers, stemming from a skirmish that happened outside the facility. She has denied the charges.

Catalini writes for the Associated Press.

California officials on Monday filed a federal lawsuit over the mobilization of the state’s National Guard during the weekend’s immigration protests in Los Angeles, accusing President Trump of overstepping his federal authority and violating the U.S. Constitution.

As thousands of people gathered in the streets to protest raids and arrests by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Trump mobilized nearly 2,000 members of the National Guard over the objections of California Gov. Gavin Newsom, who said that state officials could handle the situation and that Trump was sowing chaos in the streets for political purposes.

California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta said the decision by Trump and U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth violated the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which spells out the limits of federal power. Bonta said the state will seek a restraining order for the “unlawful, unprecedented” deployment of the National Guard, and argues in the 22-page lawsuit that an impending deployment of U.S. Marines was “similarly unlawful.”

“Trump and Hegseth ignored law enforcement’s expertise and guidance and trampled over our state’s, California’s, sovereignty,” Bonta said at a news conference.

Experts and state officials say Trump’s actions and the subsequent lawsuit have thrust the U.S. into uncharted legal territory. Bonta said there have not been many court rulings on the questions at play because the statute Trump cited “has been rarely used, for good reason.”

“It is very unusual and unnecessary, and out of keeping with our constitutional tradition, that they are there without the consent of the governor, in a situation where the governor says that state authorities have the situation under control,” said Laura A. Dickinson, a professor at the George Washington University Law School.

Whether Trump’s action was illegal, Dickinson said, “is really untested.”

Trump and the White House say the military mobilization is legal under Section 12406 of Title 10 of the U.S. Code on Armed Forces. The statute gives the president the authority to federalize the National Guard if there is “a rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of the government of the United States,” but says the Guard must be called up through an order from the state’s governor.

Because founders distrusted military rule, the Constitution allows the president to deploy the military for civil law enforcement only in “dire, narrow circumstances,” Bonta’s complaint argues. But, the lawsuit says, the Trump administration appears to be using the statute “as a mechanism to evade these time-honored constitutional limits.”

Trump has said that the mobilization was necessary to “deal with the violent, instigated riots,” and that without the National Guard, “Los Angeles would have been completely obliterated.”

Days of protests after the ICE raids included some violent clashes involving protesters, local police and federal officials and some vandalism and burglaries. Local officials have decried those actions but have defended the right of Angelenos to peacefully demonstrate.

“It was heading in the wrong direction,” Trump said at the White House. “It’s now heading in the right direction. And we hope to have the support of Gavin, because Gavin is the big beneficiary as we straighten out his problems. I mean, his state is a mess.”

The part of the law that “the Trump administration is going to have difficulty explaining away” requires that orders to call up the National Guard “be issued through the governors, which is obviously not happening here,” said Elizabeth Goitein, the senior director of the Brennan Center’s Liberty and National Security Program.

Less black and white, she said, is what happens “if the president tries to exercise the authority provided by that law to federalize the National Guard and the governor refuses to issue the orders.”

As the governor, Newsom is the commander in chief of the California National Guard. On Saturday night, Hegseth sent a memo to the head of the California Guard to mobilize nearly 2,000 members. The leader of the state National Guard then sent the memo to Newsom’s office, the complaint says. Neither Newsom nor his office consented to the mobilization, the lawsuit says.

Newsom wrote to Hegseth on Sunday, asking him to rescind the troop deployment. The letter said the mobilization was “a serious breach of state sovereignty that seems intentionally designed to inflame the situation, while simultaneously depriving the state from deploying these personnel and resources where they are truly required.”

Hegseth issued another memo Monday night deploying another 2,000 members of the National Guard, the lawsuit says.

Newsom has warned that the executive order that Trump signed applies to other states as well as to California, which will “allow him to go into any state and do the same thing.”

Legal experts said the statute that the White House used to justify the National Guard mobilization is usually invoked in concert with the Insurrection Act of 1807, a wide-reaching law that gives presidents the emergency power to call up the military in the United States if they believe the situation warrants it.

Goitein said presidents generally invoke the Insurrection Act, then use the statute that Trump cited as the “call-up authority” to actually mobilize the military. How the law stands on its own, she said, “is one of the legal questions that have not come up before in the courts.”

The Insurrection Act has been invoked 30 times in the history of the country, and Trump has not invoked it in Los Angeles. It was last invoked in 1992, when then-Gov. Pete Wilson asked President George H.W. Bush to federalize the National Guard in the wake of the Rodney King verdict.

The last time a president sent the National Guard into a state without a request from the governor was six decades ago, when President Lyndon B. Johnson mobilized troops in Alabama to defend civil rights demonstrators and enforce a federal court order in 1965.

Bonta’s office said the specific statute that Trump is using has been invoked only once before, when President Nixon mobilized the National Guard to deliver the mail during a U.S. Postal Service strike in 1970.

The argument that Trump has violated the 10th Amendment is a clever subversion of a line of thinking that has traditionally been backed by conservative judges, said Erwin Chemerinsky, the dean of the UC Berkeley School of Law.

The 10th Amendment says that the federal government has only the powers specifically assigned by the Constitution, and other powers are controlled by the states.

“Deploying over 4,000 federalized military forces to quell a protest or prevent future protests despite the lack of evidence that local law enforcement was incapable of asserting control and ensuring public safety during such protests represents the exact type of intrusion on state power that is at the heart of the 10th Amendment,” state lawyers argue in the lawsuit.

“The state has a strong argument that … by nationalizing the state guard, that Trump is commandeering the state,” Chemerinsky said.

He said the Supreme Court has ruled on the 10th Amendment only a handful of times in recent decades, including saying that Congress couldn’t require states to accept federal mandates related to sports betting, background checks for guns and radioactive waste disposal.

Times staff writer Seema Mehta contributed to this report.