Connect with us

News

Police: Iowa football player arrested after drunkenly mistaking cop car for Uber

Published

on

A University of Iowa football player was arrested early Saturday morning after police said he drunkenly mistook one of their cruisers for an Uber car. Hawkeyes Coach Kirk Ferentz subsequently suspended defensive tackle Brady Reiff for the team’s season opener against Northern Illinois.

“I’m not pleased about what we learned about Brady Reiff this weekend,” Ferentz said Monday at a Big Ten media days session (via ESPN). “Had a chance to visit with him today. He’s going to go through a couple steps but . . . he will be suspended for the first game, among some other activities.”

According to a university police report, per the Gazette, the 22-year-old redshirt junior approached the police car at around 2 a.m. in Iowa City. He was reported to have first tried to open the passenger door, then, after seeing someone sitting there, went for a back door.

When officers asked what he was doing, they said Reiff replied that he was trying to get a ride home. “He thought that was our job,” police said in their report.

Reiff was asked if he thought the vehicle was an Uber car, and he was said to have responded, “Yes.”

Police: UI football player arrested after drunkenly mistaking police car for Uber https://t.co/TFd78NqY4X pic.twitter.com/TeoWVfvMRW

— The Gazette (@gazettedotcom) July 23, 2018

A breathalyzer test revealed a blood alcohol content level of .204, well over the legal limit for drivers, and he was charged with public intoxication. The arrest took place at 2:44 a.m., and Reiff was released from Johnson County Jail later Saturday morning.

“Brady is subject to the rules and regulations of the UI Student-Athlete Code of Conduct and the rules and regulations of coach Kirk Ferentz and his program,” Iowa Director of Athletics Gary Barta said in a statement (via wcfcourier.com).

Reiff recorded 13 tackles, with one for a loss and one sack, plus an interception for Iowa last season. A 2017 academic all-Big Ten selection, he is the younger brother of Minnesota Vikings offensive lineman Riley Reiff, a former star at Iowa.

Read more from The Post:

UNC’s Larry Fedora, who questioned football’s link with CTE, finds backers at Fox Sports and Yahoo

Johnny Manziel may finally get a shot at starting again with trade to Montreal Alouettes

Redskins enter training camp with just a few minor position battles

‘Everything was perfect and then this happened’: Ryan Lochte’s blunder results in suspension

 

This article was written by Des Bieler from The Washington Post

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Breaking Now

House Democrats Subpoena Full Mueller Report, and the Underlying Evidence

Published

on

By

WASHINGTON — The chairman of the House Judiciary Committee formally issued a subpoena on Friday demanding that the Justice Department hand over to Congress an unredacted version of Robert S. Mueller III’s report and all of the evidence underlying it by May 1.


The subpoena, one of the few issued thus far by House Democrats, escalates a fight with Attorney General William P. Barr over what material Congress is entitled to see from the special counsel’s nearly two-year investigation. The chairman, Representative Jerrold Nadler of New York, asked for all evidence, including summaries of witness interviews and classified intelligence.

“My committee needs and is entitled to the full version of the report and the underlying evidence consistent with past practice,” Mr. Nadler said in a statement. “Even the redacted version of the report outlines serious instances of wrongdoing by President Trump and some of his closest associates. It now falls to Congress to determine the full scope of that alleged misconduct and to decide what steps we must take going forward.”

Mr. Nadler’s deadline falls a day before Mr. Barr is scheduled to testify publicly before the Judiciary Committee in what is expected to be an explosive session where Democrats plan to excoriate Mr. Barr’s handling of the report and Republicans will urge their colleagues to accept that there was no criminality and move on.

Mr. Barr released to Congress and the public a redacted copy of the more than 400-page report on Thursday. Though the redactions were less extensive than some Democrats feared, the Justice Department had blacked out sections of the report that it said contained classified material, secretive grand jury testimony or information that would affect investigations still underway.

Democrats have been threatening to issue a subpoena for weeks, and the Justice Department on Thursday sought to head off the subpoena with a pledge to share more information with Congress.

Stephen E. Boyd, an assistant attorney general, wrote in a letter that the department would allow the bipartisan leaders of the House and Senate, as well as the heads of their judiciary and intelligence committees, to view a fuller version of the report beginning next week. But he said even that copy would still have secretive grand jury information blacked out because of legal requirements.

Given the sensitive nature of the information, Mr. Boyd wrote, “all individuals reviewing the less-redacted version” must agree to keep the newly unredacted information confidential.

Mr. Nadler rejected the proposed accommodation as insufficient on Friday. He has repeatedly asked the Justice Department to join him in requesting that a court unseal the grand jury information, in particular, for Congress to review privately. Mr. Barr has so far rejected that request.

“I am open to working with the department to reach a reasonable accommodation for access to these materials,” he said, “however I cannot accept any proposal which leaves most of Congress in the dark, as they grapple with their duties of legislation, oversight and constitutional accountability.”

(Reporting by Washington Post)

Continue Reading

Health

Judge Rejects Anti-Vaxxer Lawsuit Against New York City’s Vaccine Mandate

Published

on

By

A state judge on Thursday rejected a lawsuit filed by anti-vaccination parents who sought to lift New York City’s new measles vaccination mandate, as parts of the metropolis continue to face an outbreak.


“A fireman need not obtain the informed consent of the owner before extinguishing a house fire,” Judge Lawrence Knipel wrote in his ruling. “Vaccination is known to extinguish the fire of contagion.”

Five anonymous parents in Brooklyn filed the lawsuit earlier this week against the city health department for ordering the mandatory vaccinations in parts of the borough amid a growing outbreak of the measles virus concentrated in the Williamsburg area. The lawsuit said the city’s response is “irrational,” and that the spread of the virus does not pose a clear danger to public health.

Knipel ruled that the city’s decision to require measles vaccinations during the outbreak is supported by “largely uncontroverted” evidence.

New York City Health Commissioner Oxiris Barbot issued the emergency order on April 9, requiring everyone who lives and works within four Brooklyn ZIP codes to receive the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine if they hadn’t already gotten it. Failure to comply with the mandate could result in misdemeanor punishments, including criminal fines or imprisonment.

The city has already issued summons to three people who refused the mandate and face $1,000 in fines.

As of Wednesday, the measles outbreak has infected at least 329 people since October, mostly children from Orthodox Jewish communities in Brooklyn, according to Barbot. Many Orthodox Jewish people believe vaccinations go against Jewish or Talmudic law, resulting in low vaccination rates for some communities.

Barbot praised the decision to dismiss the lawsuit, saying in a statement to HuffPost that it “will protect New Yorkers from a very dangerous infection with potentially fatal consequences.”

She added that officials “do not want to issue violations but will continue and hope that New Yorkers make the best choice for their families, their neighbors and their own health ― to get vaccinated.”

(Reporting by HuffPost)

Continue Reading

Court Rulings

Federal Appeals Court Backs California Laws To Protect Immigrants

Published

on

By

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — A federal appeals court on Thursday kept in place three California laws intended to protect immigrants, continuing the state’s efforts to be a national leader in opposing Trump administration policies.


The court upheld lower court rulings denying the Trump administration’s request to block law enforcement from providing release dates and personal information of people in jail, as well as to throw out a law barring employers from allowing immigration officials on their premises unless the officials have a warrant.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected U.S. District Judge John Mendez’s reasoning last year for denying a portion of the third law, which requires the state to review detention facilities where immigrants are held. It ruled that the section requiring the state to review circumstances surrounding the apprehension and transfer of detainees puts an impermissible burden on the federal government.

But the appellate panel said Mendez can consider rejecting a preliminary injunction for that section on other legal grounds.

The U.S. Justice Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

California Attorney General Xavier Becerra, who has repeatedly sued the Trump administration mostly over immigration and environmental decisions, said the ruling shows that states’ rights “continue to thrive.”

“We continue to prove in California that the rule of law not only stands for something but that people cannot act outside of it,” Becerra said in a statement.

California officials have said the immigration laws promote trust between immigrant communities and law enforcement, while the administration argued the state is allowing dangerous criminals on the streets.

Continue Reading

Popular

Copyright © 2018 News This Second