New video shows suspects who stole NYC subway, took it for a joyride
According to police, an R train was reported stolen at around 10 p.m. Saturday. The MTA said people entered an unoccupied train that was left secured in a layup area at the 71st Avenue Station in Queens, where trains are stored when they are not in service.
Authorities said the people who entered the train vandalized it by breaking numerous train car windows and operated it for a short distance.
Video of the thieves operating the train was posted to social media, and shows them inside the conductor's cabin. One person operates the controls, while another sits with his legs dangling out the open front door of the train over the tracks, with another person standing beside him.
Police have now released additional surveillance video of the incident, which shows at least six people moving inside the train car.
So far there's no official word on how long the group operated the train or how far it was taken. The video posted by the suspects, however, shows the train operating at a high rate of speed.
The suspects wore black outfits and masks and covered cameras inside the train with black marker, authorities said.
Police say the suspects could face reckless endangerment charges.
"Any breach of security on our rolling stock affects not only NYCT personnel but the riding public as well. We are all at risk – trains in active service with members of the public on board can also be compromised," TWU Local 100 interim president John Chiarello said. "Because train keys have been available to bad actors like these youngsters, we are fighting an uphill battle."
It's not the first time New York City subway trains have been taken for joyrides. Back in September, two 17-year-olds were charged with reckless endangerment and criminal mischief after trying to operate an unoccupied train in Queens and crashing it. And last January, another vacant R train was taken from the Forest Hills/71st Avenue station and driven onto train storage tracks.
Anyone with information in this case is asked to call the NYPD's Crime Stoppers hotline at 1-800-577-TIPS (8477), or for Spanish, 1-888-57-PISTA (74782). You can also submit a tip via their website or via DM on Twitter, @NYPDTips. All calls are kept confidential.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Post
4 hours ago
- New York Post
Drone allows Mayor Adams real time, bird's eye view of NYC emergencies
He's watching over Gotham. Mayor Adams has been tapping into NYPD drone footage to get an immediate assessment during the city's most critical emergencies, officials told The Post. 'I can send him a link upon his request to be able to see in real time what's happening on the ground,' Deputy Mayor of Public Safety Kaz Daughtry said of Adams, the first NYC mayor to have this access. 'Remember, he was a police officer. He doesn't want to get updates on the phone. He wants to get them in real time.' 6 Mayor Adams got a link to live feed from the shooting at 345 Park Avenue in Midtown while he was in his car. Andrew Schwartz / The mayor was watching the NYPD's response to 345 Park Ave., after gunman Shane Tamura, 27, walked across the outdoor plaza wielding an AR-15-style rifle and murdered four people inside before killing himself, Daughtry said. When he saw how dire the situation was, he got there as fast as he could, Daughtry said. 'I spoke to him several times during that whole incident,' Daughtry said, explaining he told the mayor the NYPD called a level three mobilization. 6 Deputy Mayor Kaz Daughtry sends teh mayor a link when there's a large incident or event he needs to know about. Leonardo Munoz 'We're calling for resources from all over the city to respond because this is an active shooter situation,' Daughtry said, explaining the level three. 'We immediately deployed the drone. They're part of that mobilization.' Adams watched the video from his car and saw people running out of the building with their hands up. 'He was like, 'I can't believe this is happening in our city,'' Daughtry recalled. 6 The mayor tapped into the drone feed to monitor a recent large protest in Manhattan. Michael Nigro 'Now, as NYPD officers are running into a building you've got folks running out with their hands up. I think that made him respond to the scene faster.' In April, the mayor watched rescue efforts from above after a helicopter carrying a Spanish family on a sightseeing tour plummeted into the Hudson River. 'Immediately he says 'Is everyone OK?' Daughtry recalled. 'Do we have our drones up yet can you please send me a link?'' 6 Shooter Shane Tamura killed four people inside the building before fatally shooting himself. AP Adams watched as the family of five and pilot were being pulled out of the water, saw efforts to resuscitate them with CPR, and rushed to the scene. 'I told him, 'We're pulling out victims now and it's not looking good,'' Daughtry recalled. 'If he wants to see the drones, he can look real time and he can make decisions from his vehicle,' Daughtry said. 'That's only for high profile incidents. There's got to be something that rises to the magnitude where we're notifying the mayor in real time.' 6 The mayor is able to access the drone feed during large incidents. Leonardo Munoz Daughtry has been a staunch cheerleader for the NYPD's drone program since it started in 2019. The department uses the unmanned aerial vehicles for everything from crimefighting, to search and rescue and disaster response. The NYPD has about 100 drones at its command and an equal number of police officers who are certified by the Federal Aviation Administration to fly them. In 2024, the NYPD started its Drone as a First Responder (DFR) program, which deploys the unmanned aerial vehicles on 911 calls to get an overview of the scene and improve situational awareness for cops. 6 The mayor also got a link to watch rescue efforts after a helicopter crahed into the Hudson River in April. Bruce Wall The department also uses drones to locate and rescue swimmers in distress off the city's beaches — along with the FDNY — and detect illegal activities, such as subway surfing. Civil libertarians have cried foul, arguing the video surveillance violates privacy rights. 'The drones are a force multiplier and they just add a real time sense of what's going on,' he said. 'People said it would not work and it is working here.' The Adams administration pointed out that shootings and shooting victims are at historic lows in the city because of efforts to take guns off the street, gang takedowns and precision policing. 'As technology evolves, we are evolving with it — and drones have become a critical crime-fighting tool that helps our officers do exactly that,' Adams said in a statement. 'Real-time camera access for our senior leadership during emergencies or mass protests allows us to keep communities safe and respond to active incidents faster.'
Chicago Tribune
20 hours ago
- Chicago Tribune
ICE grabs 7-year-old NYC public school student amid Trump immigration crackdown
Federal immigration authorities have seized a 7-year-old New York City public school student, the youngest-known local school kid to be detained during the second Trump administration. Dayra, an Ecuadorian student at P.S. 89 The Jose Peralta School of Dreamers in Queens, and her mom were separated from her 19-year-old brother during an immigration check-in on Tuesday at 26 Federal Plaza, according to the family and their advocates. Her last name is being withheld as a minor. 'We were all very scared,' Patricio, Dayra's mom's boyfriend who lives with the family, said in Spanish. 'Because we knew they were going to arrest them.' Dayra and her mom, Martha, were shipped off to a detention center in Texas, advocates said. The U.S. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement locator showed Martha as of Friday afternoon at South Texas Family Residential Center, one of the largest immigration facilities in the country. The center was reopened this year after the Biden administration shuttered it. (The locator does not provide information for detainees under 18.) 'She called me yesterday, she told me she was fine. But she is very afraid of returning to Ecuador,' Patricio said of Martha, who fled domestic violence in the country. An immigration judge had previously denied her asylum bid and ordered the family deported, according to court records, but they continued to report to their check-ins as required by law. Dayra's brother, Manuel, 19, was being held at 26 Federal Plaza, before being moved to a detention center in Newark, New Jersey, according to the locator. He recently graduated high school on Long Island and was supposed to start college this year, Patricio said. The Department of Homeland Security, the agency that houses ICE, did not immediately comment. 'We are hearing extremely concerning reports about an immigrant family, including a 7-year-old local public school student and her 19-year-old brother, detained by ICE,' Councilman Shekar Krishnan (D-Queens) said in a statement. 'My office is working actively to obtain all the details. We are in contact with the local school, DOE officials, and federal offices to learn more and fight to make sure the family can be reunited.' 'Family separation is horrific, and ICE must stop these cruel tactics.' In the Elmhurst neighborhood of Queens, P.S. 89 hosts a Spanish dual-language program and is in the process of launching a similar program in Bengali, according to school data and social media. More than half of students are learning English as a new language. 'The abuses of the federal government and neglect from City Hall have created an environment of terror for families in the streets of New York,' said Naveed Hasan, an advocate for the city's immigrant students. '7-year-old Dayra is among the youngest children taken by ICE, and if she's not immediately released, our own government will illegally deprive her of her right to learn and thrive with her loving PS 89Q community.' Dayra and Manuel are the latest in a slew of New York students to be swept up in President Trump's deportation agenda, including two young men, Dylan and Mouctar, who attend the city's alternative high schools for students behind on credits. On Thursday, local lawmakers and advocated rallied for their release ahead of the school year, which begins on Sept. 4. The Patchogue-Medford School District, where advocates say Manuel attended high school, did not return a request for comment Friday. Nicole Brownstein, the press secretary for the city's public schools, said the agency has helped connect families with their permission to legal support and other resources. 'New York City Public Schools stands with all of our students, and we are committed to supporting every child and family in our system,' she said.
Vox
a day ago
- Vox
Trump's immigration raids are now before the Supreme Court
is a senior correspondent at Vox, where he focuses on the Supreme Court, the Constitution, and the decline of liberal democracy in the United States. He received a JD from Duke University and is the author of two books on the Supreme Court. Last month, a federal judge in Los Angeles handed down a temporary order placing some restrictions on the Trump administration's immigration crackdown in that city. The Trump administration now wants the Supreme Court to lift those restrictions. The contested provisions of Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong's order are fairly narrow. They provide that federal law enforcement may not rely 'solely' on four factors when determining to stop or detain someone suspected of being an undocumented immigrant. Under Frimpong's order, the government may not stop or detain someone solely because of 1) their 'apparent race or ethnicity,' 2) the fact that they either speak Spanish or speak English with an accent, 3) their presence at a location such as an agricultural workplace or day laborer pick-up site, or 4) the type of work that they do. SCOTUS, Explained Get the latest developments on the US Supreme Court from senior correspondent Ian Millhiser. Email (required) Sign Up By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms and Privacy Notice . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. Frimpong's order prohibits the government from relying exclusively on any one of these factors or on any combination of them, so it could not detain someone solely because they speak Spanish and they are a day laborer, for example. The government may still rely on these four factors to determine whom to stop or detain, however, so long as it has other reasons for targeting a particular individual. Thus, for example, US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) could target someone because that person speaks Spanish, and they work as a day laborer, and they were witnessed getting into a truck owned by a company known for hiring undocumented immigrants, because one of the three factors that ICE considered in this hypothetical stop is not on Frimpong's list. That said, at least according to the Cato Institute's David Bier, Frimpong's order has drastically reduced the number of immigration arrests within Los Angeles. The central issue in this case, known as Noem v. Perdomo, is what courts are practically able to do in order to rein in overzealous tactics by law enforcement. Judge Frimpong's order is modest — again, it does not prevent the Trump administration from targeting anyone, just as long as part of the reason why a particular individual is targeted doesn't appear on Frimpong's list of four — but it is also unlikely to survive contact with a Republican Supreme Court that is extraordinarily solicitous toward Donald Trump. Indeed, the Court has long cautioned lower court judges against issuing broad orders imposing across-the-board restrictions on law enforcement. One of the seminal cases that the Trump administration relied upon in its Perdomo brief was handed down in 1983, well before the Court's recent partisan turn. The Republican justices, in other words, likely will not even need to stretch the law very far if they want to rule in Trump's favor in Perdomo. What is ICE up to in Los Angeles? The Perdomo case arises out of multiple immigration raids in Los Angeles, which have often taken place at job sites and other locations where the Trump administration believes that undocumented immigrants are often present. As Frimpong found, 'car wash workers, farm and agricultural workers, street vendors, recycling center workers, tow yard workers, and packing house workers were targeted.' One early operation 'detained multiple day laborers outside of the Westlake Home Depot.' At least some of these operations appear to violate the Constitution. In some instances, law enforcement appears to have targeted people because of their race. Frimpong, for example, pointed to an incident where 'agents approached and prevented a nonwhite individual from walking away but not those who appeared to be Caucasians.' A Latino car wash worker targeted by one of the raids testified that the federal agents who arrested him ignored two of his light-skinned coworkers, one of whom is Russian and another who is Persian. In other cases, federal agents appear to have targeted individuals despite having no reasonable grounds to believe they are undocumented. Plaintiff Jason Brian Gavidia, for example, is an American who was born in Los Angeles. According to an appeals court that upheld nearly all of Frimpong's order, agents 'forcefully pushed [Gavidia] up against the metal gated fence, put [his] hands behind [his] back, and twisted [his] arm' after he was unable to identify which hospital he was born in. The agents eventually released Gavidia after he produced a Real ID card, a document that is only issued to people who are legally present in the United States, but they took his ID. It is quite difficult to obtain a federal injunction against law enforcement officials It is likely, in other words, that at least some of the people targeted by these Los Angeles raids could individually challenge their arrests or detention in court. But the ability to bring such individual challenges often isn't worth very much. For starters, the Republican justices' decisions in Hernández v. Mesa (2020) and Egbert v. Boule (2022) likely make it impossible to collect money damages from an ICE agent who violates your constitutional rights. In Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents (1971), the Supreme Court held that federal law enforcement officers who violate someone's constitutional rights may be personally liable for that violation. But Hernández and Egbert read that decision so narrowly that such suits rarely, if ever, move forward. So, even if someone like Gavidia brings a successful lawsuit, he probably wouldn't win anything more than the right to get his ID back. Someone who is unlawfully detained could potentially obtain a court order demanding their release. But many people targeted by law enforcement lack access to legal counsel or cannot afford to hire a lawyer even if they can find one who will take their case. While indigent criminal defendants have a right to a government-paid lawyer, defendants in immigration proceedings typically do not. And even when immigration defendants do prevail, an occasional court decision declaring some long-past arrest illegal is unlikely to deter future illegal arrests. Yet, the Supreme Court has long discouraged federal judges from issuing injunctions that forbid law enforcement from acting illegally in the future. The key case is City of Los Angeles v. Lyons (1983), which held that Adolph Lyons, a man who was allegedly choked out by police officers without provocation, could not obtain a court order forbidding LA's police from using such chokeholds in the future. 'Past exposure to illegal conduct,' Justice Byron White wrote for the Court in Lyons, does not permit someone to seek an injunction. Rather, 'Lyons' standing to seek the injunction requested depended on whether he was likely to suffer future injury from the use of the chokeholds by police officers.' Indeed, White's decision placed nearly impossible barriers before most plaintiffs seeking court orders requiring police to modify their behavior. To obtain such an injunction, White wrote, Lyons 'would have had not only to allege that he would have another encounter with the police, but also to make the incredible assertion either (1) that all police officers in Los Angeles always choke any citizen with whom they happen to have an encounter, whether for the purpose of arrest, issuing a citation, or for questioning, or (2) that the City ordered or authorized police officers to act in such manner.' At least some of the plaintiffs in Perdomo present an unusually strong case that they are likely to be caught up in an immigration raid again in the future. According to the appeals court which heard this case, 'at least one individual with lawful status was stopped twice by roving patrols in just 10 days.' So a court could quite reasonably conclude that this individual is 'likely to suffer' the 'future injury' that Lyons demands. But Lyons also places such a high bar in front of plaintiffs seeking an injunction against law enforcement that it would not be difficult for the Republican justices to write an opinion relying on Lyons to toss out Judge Frimpong's order, assuming that they even bother to explain their decision in the first place — something that the Court's Republican majority often refuses to do. In addition to arguing that Lyons requires the Supreme Court to block Frimpong's decision, Trump's lawyers also point to the Court's recent decision in Trump v. CASA (2025), which held that federal courts typically should not issue injunctions that extend beyond the individual parties to a lawsuit. So, even if the one plaintiff who was stopped twice may obtain an injunction, that court order might have to be so narrow that it protects him and him alone against future illegal stops. Trump's CASA argument is hardly airtight. Though CASA did hold that broad injunctions are generally discouraged, it did permit them when necessary to give a victorious plaintiff 'complete relief.' Frimpong argued that a broad injunction is warranted in Perdomo, because law enforcement officers cannot reasonably be expected to know which suspects are protected by a court order. 'It would be a fantasy to expect that law enforcement could and would inquire whether a given individual was among the [plaintiffs] before proceeding with a seizure,' she wrote. The only way to stop ICE from targeting the Perdomo plaintiffs is to issue a court order that protects everyone in Los Angeles. Will that argument persuade a majority of the justices? The honest answer is, 'Who knows?' CASA is a brand new decision, handed down less than two months ago, and the Court has yet to apply its new rule to the facts of any specific case — including the CASA case itself. And the fact remains that it is exceedingly difficult to obtain any injunction against law enforcement, much less the broadly applicable one handed down by Judge Frimpong. The Supreme Court has generally preferred for judges to adjudicate alleged legal violations by law enforcement one at a time, rather than issuing wholesale injunctions halting an illegal practice — even though individual decisions often do little to stop these practices. At least some parts of Frimpong's order are probably overly broad In fairness, there are some good reasons to prefer individual lawsuits over wholesale court orders. Fourth Amendment search and seizure cases typically turn on the very specific facts of a particular case. Police might reasonably suspect, for example, that a person spotted with a large wad of cash in a neighborhood where illegal drugs are often sold is engaged in illegal activity. By contrast, police may not have reasonable grounds to suspect a similar person spotted walking near a business where people often make down payments on their new homes. As a general rule, the Fourth Amendment permits police to briefly stop and search someone if they reasonably suspect that person is engaged in illegal activity — or, in an immigration case, of being illegally present in the United States. To be sure, there are some things that law enforcement may almost never consider when determining whether to stop a particular individual. In Kansas v. Glover (2020), for example, the Court said that police may not target someone based on 'nothing more than a demographic profile' or stop and question someone about their immigration status because of their 'Mexican ancestry.' Frimpong's conclusion that ICE may not target someone solely because of their 'apparent race or ethnicity' is consistent with Glover. But Frimpong's conclusion that law enforcement may never reasonably suspect someone of being undocumented solely based on their presence in a particular location is probably a bit of a stretch. As a federal appeals court explained in a 2014 case, day laborer jobs are 'one of the limited options for workers without documents.' These jobs are often grueling, unreliable, and underpaid. They are unattractive to virtually anyone who is authorized to work in the United States and, thus, have less-demanding and better-paying job options available to them. There are at least some cases, in other words, where a law enforcement officer could reasonably suspect someone of being undocumented if they are consistently seen at a location where undocumented workers seek jobs as day laborers — what Frimpong described as a 'day laborer pick up site.' It is difficult to come up with categorical rules governing which factors law enforcement may consider when deciding whom to stop. Even race may be an acceptable factor in very limited circumstances; if multiple witnesses to a robbery tell police that they saw an East Asian man commit the crime, for example, then police could reasonably limit their search to people who appear to be East Asian. This is one reason why cases like Lyons exist: to prevent judges from handing down categorical rules that prevent police from conducting lawful investigations.
