New search warrant in Kristin Smart case, decades after 19-year-old disappeared
Deputies served a search warrant at a property in the 500 block of East Branch Street in San Luis Obispo, Calif., May 5, 2026, in connection with the 1996 disappearance of Kristin Smart. (San Luis Obispo County Sheriff’s Office)
(SAN LUIS OBISPO, Calif.) — Nearly 30 years after 19-year-old Kristin Smart disappeared, California investigators conducted new search warrants as part of their ongoing probe into the location of her body.
The San Luis Obispo County Sheriff’s Office announced Wednesday that deputies executed a search warrant at the 500 block of East Branch Street.
The sheriff’s office declined to provide further details about the operation.
“The Sheriff’s Office remains committed to bringing Kristin home to her family. No further information is available,” it said in a statement.
Smart attended an off-campus party at California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, where she was a freshman, on May 24, 1996, but never returned to her dormitory.
Investigators declared Smart legally dead in 2002 and the case remained cold until 17 years later, when the true crime podcast “Your Own Backyard” launched and helped investigators to get new witnesses and evidence.
In 2021, investigators arrested and charged Paul Flores, who was a student at the college at the time of Smart’s disappearance.
Detectives said that some classmates found Smart passed out during the early morning hours of May 25, 1996, and Flores appeared out of nowhere. He claimed to the other classmates that he knew where she lived and offered to help her to her dorm, detectives said.
Flores was interviewed by officers following Smart’s disappearance, but he was not charged.
In 2021, police searched the home belonging to Flores’ father, Ruben Flores, and allegedly found human blood and fibers in the dirt that matched the colors of the clothing Smart had been wearing when she went missing.
Ed Martin, former Interim U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, departs following a meeting at the White House on January 9, 2026 in Washington, DC. (Al Drago/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — The Washington, D.C., Bar initiated disciplinary proceedings against Justice Department pardon attorney Ed Martin over allegations he improperly threatened to withhold federal funding from Georgetown University’s law school and then attempted to sideline an investigation into his conduct while serving as D.C.’s top federal prosecutor last year, according to a disciplinary petition.
In a two-count petition filed last week with the D.C. Court of Appeals Board of Professional Responsibility, attorneys with the D.C. Bar’s Office of Disciplinary Counsel alleged that Martin engaged in “conduct that seriously interferes with the administration of justice,” including by allegedly demanding that a judge suspend the attorney investigating his actions.
“Mr. Martin knew or should have known that, as a government official, his conduct violated the First and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States,” the disciplinary petition said.
According to the complaint, Martin – while serving as the interim U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia last year – threatened to withhold federal funding and freeze hirings from Georgetown University Law Center over allegations that the school was promoting diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) measures.
After sending letters to the dean of Georgetown’s law school about DEI programming last year, Martin allegedly told the school’s interim president that their answers about DEI would “bear directly on Georgetown University’s status as a 501(c) nonprofit and its receipt of nearly $1 billion of federal tax money.”
“He demanded that Georgetown Law relinquish its free speech and religious rights in order to continue to obtain a benefit, employment opportunities for its students,” the petition said. “His demand did not provide Georgetown Law fair notice of what is allegedly prohibited because he did not define ‘DEI,’ cited no authority for his demand, and did not describe what actions, and what timetable, might satisfy his demand.”
After a retired judge reported Martin’s conduct to the Office of Disciplinary Counsel, Martin allegedly attempted to sideline the investigation by sending a letter directly to the chief judge and senior judges on the D.C. Court of Appeals, according to the complaint.
“In that letter, he stated that he would not be responding to Disciplinary Counsel’s inquiry, complained about Disciplinary Counsel’s ‘uneven behavior,’ and requested a ‘face-to-face meeting with all of you to discuss this matter and find a way forward.’ He copied the White House Counsel ‘for informational purposes because of the importance of getting this issue addressed,'” the complaint said.
The complaint alleges that Martin – after being told to not directly communicate with judges – sent another letter to the chief judge demanding that the court suspend the investigator probing his conduct and dismiss the case against him.
With the charges filed, D.C.’s Board on Professional Responsibility is expected to refer the petition to a hearing committee.
Martin’s interactions are just one among a series of controversies from his brief tenure as Washington’s top federal prosecutor from January to May 2025 before his temporary appointment to the position lapsed and he failed to gain enough support from Republican senators for his confirmation to the post.
He was then appointed to four separate senior positions in the Justice Department before sources said he was effectively demoted earlier this year after multiple other incidents where he faced admonishment from leadership for his conduct.
Martin remains in his role as pardon attorney, according to the DOJ, and has used the post to float controversial clemency recommendations to the White House while frequently citing the phrase, “No MAGA left behind.”
The ethics complaint was filed the same week that the DOJ proposed new regulations that would seek to give Attorney General Pam Bondi the authority to suspend state bar investigations, arguing the policy is necessary to combat the “weaponization” of the complaint process. It’s not immediately clear what legal basis the department would have to intervene in state-level proceedings, however.
Martin and a DOJ spokesperson did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the complaint.
Georgetown Law’s then-Dean William Treanor previously responded to Martin’s letter, affirming the school’s speech protections under the First Amendment. He accused Martin of mounting “an attack on the University’s mission as a Jesuit and Catholic institution.”
Nicolas Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, are seen in handcuffs after landing at a Manhattan helipad, escorted by heavily armed Federal agents as they make their way into an armored car en route to a Federal courthouse in Manhattan on January 5, 2026 in New York City. (Photo by XNY/Star Max/GC Images)
(NEW YORK) — After three months in jail, ousted Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro appeared thinner and grayer, but still in command, as he appeared in federal court in Manhattan for a status conference on Thursday.
Maduro — was shackled at the ankles and wearing a beige smock over an orange shirt — nodded to the gallery and said “good morning,” in English.
Judge Alvin Hellerstein said he would not dismiss the narcoterrorism and other charges Maduro faces, but appeared to wrestle with how to assure Maduro had access to sufficient counsel.
The defense argued the case must be tossed because the Treasury Department had not given the government of Venezuela a special license to fund Maduro’s defense with funds subject to U.S. sanctions.
“I’m not going to dismiss the case,” Hellerstein said. However, the judge questioned the national security need for sanctions now that Maduro is no longer in charge and he and his wife, Cilia Flores, are in American custody.
“I see no abiding interest in national security in the right to defend yourself,” Hellerstein said. “The right to defend is paramount.”
A federal prosecutor said Maduro should not be allowed to use Venezuelan funds after he was accused of plundering the country’s wealth.
“A defendant has no right to spend a third party’s money,” prosecutor Kyle Wirshba said.
Defense attorney Barry Pollack said the quality of Maduro’s defense would suffer with court-appointed counsel, whose taxpayer-funded resources are often limited.
Pollack said the allegations “against these defendants occurred in Venezuela.”
Hellerstein agreed that defending Maduro would come at “great expense” and deplete the resources of most public defenders.
“Truthfully, we have no case like this,” Hellerstein said.
President Donald Trump said at a Cabinet meeting Thursday that he was hopeful that additional charges will be brought against Maduro and said Maduro should be charged for facilitating the transport of people and drugs into the U.S.
“I hope that charge will be brought at some point,” Trump said.
“He emptied his prisons into our country and was a major purveyor of drugs coming into our country. … I would imagine there are other trials coming,” Trump said.
Maduro and his wife pleaded not guilty to federal charges including narco-terrorism during their first appearance in court in January, and their attorneys have since pushed to have the case dismissed over concerns that the Trump administration is blocking the Venezuelan government from paying their legal fees.
For more than a decade, Maduro enjoyed an opulent life as Venezuela’s president, living in the neoclassical palace in Caracas and accruing a net worth reportedly in the millions. He allegedly owned multiple mansions, two private jets, millions in jewelry and cash, a horse farm, and a fleet of luxury vehicles.
But he’s pushing to have his case dismissed by arguing he doesn’t have enough money to pay for his own legal defense — and his lawyers argue his due process rights will be violated if Venezuela is unable to pay for his lawyers because of U.S. sanctions on the country.
“I understand that the government of Venezuela is prepared to fund my legal defense and it is my expectation that it will,” Maduro said in a sworn declaration. “I have relied on this expectation and cannot afford to pay for my own legal defense.”
As the Trump administration gradually warms relations with Venezuela, Thursday’s hearing marks the second time that the ousted Venezuelan leader has appeared in a U.S. courtroom since special operations forces captured him in Caracas in January.
The Department of Justice initially brought an indictment against Maduro and 14 other Venezuelan officials in March of 2020, arguing they committed narco-terrorism by conspiring with drug cartels to allow the flow of cocaine into the United States.
Nearly six years later, prosecutors filed a new indictment charging Maduro, Flores, Maduro’s son, and three others with narco-terrorism conspiracy, cocaine importation conspiracy and weapons offenses.
Maduro “sits atop a corrupt, illegitimate government that, for decades, has leveraged government power to protect and promote illegal activity, including drug trafficking,” the indictment said.
Prosecutors alleged that Maduro allowed “cocaine-fueled corruption to flourish for his own benefit,” including by providing diplomatic cover to drug traffickers and money launderers. Maduro has pleaded not guilty and denies being involved in drug trafficking.
“[Maduro] is at the forefront of that corruption and has partnered with his co-conspirators to use his illegally obtained authority and the institutions he corroded to transport thousands of tons of cocaine to the United States,” the indictment said.
-ABC News’ Emily Chang, Michelle Stoddart and Fritz Farrow
(WASHINGTON) — President Donald Trump on Friday announced plans to impose his global tariffs a different way after the Supreme Court struck down most of the levies as illegal — a decision he lambasted as “deeply disappointing.”
“We’re going forward,” Trump told reporters in the White House briefing room.
This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.
