New York state trooper who allegedly ‘staged’ shooting surrenders on criminal charges: Criminal complaint
Lori Van Buren/Albany Times Union via Getty Images
(HEMPSTEAD, N.Y.) — A New York state trooper who claimed to have been shot in the line of duty in October is now facing criminal charges for having allegedly “staged” the shooting, according to officials.
Thomas Mascia, 27, surrendered to police Monday morning, a spokesperson for the Nassau County District Attorney’s Office told ABC News. He faces charges of official misconduct, falsely reporting a crime and tampering with evidence.
Mascia’s parents, Dorothy and Thomas, also surrendered to police on charges of criminal possession of a firearm, according to the district attorney’s office. All three have been released on their own recognizance.
Mascia was on duty Oct. 30 in Hempstead when he “initiated a radio transmission for shots fired,” according to a felony complaint obtained by ABC News.
He then “claimed he was shot by the driver of a black Dodger Charger described as either a Black or dark-skinned Hispanic male.”
The complaint alleges Mascia actually “staged the scene of the shooting,” placing shell casings on the ground hours earlier.
He then allegedly “shot himself in the leg in another location before returning to the staged location” on the Southern State Parkway.
State police temporarily shut down the section of the parkway where Mascia claimed the incident occurred “in an effort to locate the non-existent shooters, causing alarm and inconvenience to the public,” the complaint states.
The complaint accuses Mascia of staging the shooting “for the benefit of gaining attention or sympathy for himself.”
An attorney representing Mascia did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
He is expected to make his next court appearance Feb. 5.
(SEATTLE) — A federal judge in Seattle has signed a temporary restraining order blocking President Donald Trump’s executive order on birthright citizenship.
U.S. District Judge John Coughenour on Thursday heard a request made by four Democratic-led states to issue a temporary restraining order against the executive order signed by Trump that purports to limit birthright citizenship — long guaranteed by the 14th Amendment — to people who have at least one parent who is a United States citizen or permanent resident.
“I have been on the bench for over four decades,” said Judge Coughenour, who was nominated to the bench by President Ronald Reagan in 1981. “I can’t remember another case where the question presented is as clear as it is here. This is a blatantly unconstitutional order.”
“In your opinion, is this executive order constitutional?” he asked DOJ attorney Brett Shumate.
“Yes, we think it is,” Shumate said, drawing the judge’s rebuke.
“I have difficulty understanding how a member of the bar can state unequivocally that this is a constitutional order. It boggles my mind,” Coughenour said. “Where were the lawyers when this decision was being made?”
Shumate implored Coughenour to hold off on blocking the order, saying that it does not take effect until Feb. 19.
“It’s enough to say there is no imminent harm that the states will incur as a result of this order,” Shumate said. “We urge the court not to grant any temporary order today on the merits. What makes sense is to have a full briefing on the preliminary injunction.”
“Births cannot be paused while the court considers this case,” said Lane Polozola, an attorney representing the state attorneys general, who said Trump’s executive order attempts to change a part of the Constitution that is “off limits” after being settled across a century of legal precedent.
Judge Coughenour appeared convinced, ending the hearing by saying that he signed the temporary restraining order and that he would consider whether to grant a long-term injunction over the coming weeks.
Coughenour’s order temporarily enjoins Trump and any federal employee from enforcing or implementing the executive order.
“The Plaintiff States have also shown that they are likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief,” Coughenour wrote, citing the costs of medical care, social services, and administrative work encountered by the four states who sued Trump.
“The balance of equities tips toward the Plaintiff States and the public interest strongly weighs in favor of entering temporary relief,” the order said.
Thursday’s ruling was the first legal test of Trump’s executive order reinterpreting the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of birthright citizenship, which Trump long promised on the campaign trail. The executive action is expected to spark a lengthy legal challenge that could define the president’s sweeping immigration agenda.
Democratic attorneys general from 22 states and two cities have sued Trump over the executive order, and the president faces at least five separate lawsuits over the policy.
In an interview with ABC News after the hearing, Washington state Attorney General Nick Brown said he plans to continue fighting the executive order if the Trump administration appeals to a higher court.
“I don’t think it ends here,” Brown said. “First and foremost, there are other cases being brought across the country, and so those cases will continue to move forward, and this president and this administration certainly has a propensity to keep these fights going, and so I anticipate that will happen moving forward.”
Coughenour scheduled Thursday’s in-person hearing in the case brought by the attorneys general of Arizona, Oregon, Washington and Illinois. In a federal complaint filed on Tuesday, the four attorneys general argued that Trump’s policy would unlawfully strip at least 150,000 newborn children each year of citizenship entitled to them by federal law and the 14th Amendment.
“The Plaintiff States will also suffer irreparable harm because thousands of children will be born within their borders but denied full participation and opportunity in American society,” the lawsuit says. “Absent a temporary restraining order, children born in the Plaintiff States will soon be rendered undocumented, subject to removal or detention, and many stateless.”
The lawsuit argues that enforcement of Trump’s executive order would cause irreparable harm to the children born from undocumented parents by preventing them from enjoying their right to “full participation and opportunity in American society.”
“They will lose their right to vote, serve on juries, and run for certain offices,” the complaint says. “And they will be placed into lifelong positions of instability and insecurity as part of a new underclass in the United States.”
Lawyers for the Department of Justice, now under new leadership, opposed the request for a temporary restraining order in a court filing Wednesday.
Intended to take effect next month, Trump’s executive order seeks to reinterpret the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of birthright citizenship by arguing a child born in the United States to an undocumented mother cannot receive citizenship unless his or her father is a citizen or green card holder.
While most countries confer a child’s citizenship based on their parents, the United States and more than two dozen countries, including Canada and Mexico, follow the principle of jus soli or “right of the soil.”
Following the Civil War, the United States codified jus soli through the passage of the 14th Amendment, repudiating the Supreme Court’s finding in Dred Scott v. Sanford that African Americans were ineligible for citizenship.
“President Trump and the federal government now seek to impose a modern version of Dred Scott. But nothing in the Constitution grants the President, federal agencies, or anyone else authority to impose conditions on the grant of citizenship to individuals born in the United States,” the states’ lawsuit argued.
The Supreme Court further enshrined birthright citizenship in 1898 when it found that the San Francisco-born son of Chinese immigrants was an American citizen despite the Chinese Exclusion Act restricting immigration from China and prohibiting Chinese Americans from becoming naturalized citizens.
By seeking to end birthright citizenship, Trump’s executive order centers on the same phrase within the 14th Amendment — “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” — that the Supreme Court considered in 1898. Trump’s executive order argues that text of the 14th Amendment excludes children born of parents who are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States, such as people who are unlawfully in the U.S.
While legal scholars have expressed skepticism about the legality of Trump’s executive order, the lawsuit could set the stage for a lengthy legal battle that ends up before the Supreme Court.
(NEW YORK) — The Gulf Coast is digging out from a once-in-a-lifetime snowstorm that struck from Texas to Florida, closing airports and crippling roadways.
Over 2,000 flights were canceled on Tuesday and more than 1,300 flights have been canceled on Wednesday.
Multiple fatalities have been reported due to car crashes and hypothermia.
In the Atlanta area, DeKalb County officials declared a state of emergency on Wednesday and are urging all residents to shelter in place due to the severe winter weather. Over 100 cars have been reported stranded on roadways, keeping crews from responding to emergencies, officials said.
Many areas saw more snow than they have in at least 130 years.
Florida saw its most snow on record, with a preliminary 8.8 inches of snow observed in Milton, north of Pensacola.
The southeast part of Houston saw over 4 inches, making it one of the top snowstorms to impact the area.
Mobile, Alabama, and Pensacola, Florida, saw all-time record highs with 7.5 inches and 7.6 inches respectively.
In Louisiana, Baton Rouge saw 7.6 inches, New Orleans saw 8 inches and Lafayette recorded 9 inches.
New Orleans demolished its most recent highest snow total, which was 2.7 inches in 1963.
Snow is still falling early Wednesday in Georgia, Florida and the coastal Carolinas.
About 5 inches have so far been reported in parts of coastal North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia.
The snow is expected to end this morning but rain will continue in Florida.
(AUSTIN, Texas) — A man is facing charges after five people were killed and 11 were hospitalized in a collision involving 17 vehicles, including a semi-truck, in Austin, Texas, authorities said.
Solomun Weldekeal Araya, 37, has been charged with five counts of intoxication manslaughter and two counts of intoxication assault, according to Austin police.
The accident unfolded at approximately 11:23 p.m. on Interstate 35 southbound, according to Capt. Krista Stedman, public information officer for Austin-Travis County EMS. Crews arrived on scene to find multiple patients pinned in their cars, officials said.
Five people died at the scene: three adults, one child and one infant, authorities said. Eleven others were taken to hospitals.
“This incident was incredibly chaotic, and it was spread out over about a tenth of a mile,” Stedman said. “We were able to get all the critical patients off the scene within about 40 minutes and, considering how complex the scene was, that’s pretty impressive.”
The National Transportation Safety Board said it’s launched a safety investigation.
