Stolen vintage collectibles found in UPS impersonator's car in Pierce County, WA
The Brief
On Sunday, a woman was arrested for burglary while wearing a bogus UPS uniform.
She has been booked into jail for multiple felonies.
During a search of her vehicle, deputies in Pierce County found unique items they hope to return to their owners.
PIERCE COUNTY, Wash. - Deputies are learning more about the woman accused of using a bogus UPS delivery uniform to carry out burglaries over the weekend.
Stolen items found include items such as comic books, old film cameras, stamp collections, or a vintage replica World War II firearm. PCSD asks anyone who knows the righftul owners to come forward as soon as possible.
On Friday, Feb. 21, Pierce County Deputy Carly Cappetto released a video talking about the arrest and showing some of the items recovered from the suspects' car.
What they're saying
"The suspect's vehicle had been taken for a search warrant due to suspected stolen property inside the vehicle. What was found was incredible," said PCSD.
What you can do
Any Bonney Lake, Buckley, Orting, and Sumner residents that have experienced a type of burglary and/or are missing vintage collectible items as listed above are urged to come forward as a possible victim so the items can be returned to their rightful owners.
The Source
Information for this report comes from the Pierce County Sheriff's Department.
Multiple pot shop smash and grabs shut down Seattle street, cause gas leak
'You steal for a living': Everett antique store confronts accused serial shoplifters
Trump Administration's federal layoffs close popular WA trails
2 bills aimed at improving community safety in WA advance
Pirate plunders boat motors from Gig Harbor, WA marina
To get the best local news, weather and sports in Seattle for free, sign up for the daily FOX Seattle Newsletter.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
34 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Critics want U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi disbarred, but at what cost?
The Florida Bar on Friday dismissed a complaint brought by a coalition of about 70 liberal-leaning and moderate law professors, attorneys and former Florida Supreme Court justices against U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi. The complaint accuses Bondi, Florida's former attorney general, of violating her ethical duties in her current job. As the Miami Herald reported, the complaint claims Bondi 'has sought to compel Department of Justice lawyers to violate their ethical obligations under the guise of 'zealous advocacy.'' While Bondi may have violated ethical rules — that's unclear — disbarring a U.S. attorney general is extreme and could be a slippery slope. The move would no doubt be seen, perhaps rightfully so, as political retribution, and that would only add more fuel to the raging dumpster fire of our partisan politics these days. The complaint outlined three instances in which the coalition said Bondi's conduct violated Florida Bar rules and longstanding norms of the Justice Department. In one instance, they said, she fired a seasoned immigration lawyer who the Trump administration said sabotaged the case in the mistaken deportation of a Maryland man to El Salvador. Another instance cited: A longtime federal prosecutor in the District of Columbia resigned rather than carry out enforcement orders that she said were unsupported by evidence. A third example: Several senior federal prosecutors in New York and Washington resigned after they refused to follow a Justice Department order to drop corruption charges against New York Mayor Eric Adams. The Bar rejected the complaint Friday, as it had done with two previous complaints about Bondi by the same group, and cited a jurisdictional issue. It said it 'does not investigate or prosecute sitting officers appointed under the U.S. Constitution while they are in office.' The group includes two retired Florida Supreme Court justices, Barbara J. Pariente and Peggy A. Quince. Make no mistake: Bondi is deeply political. And she has shown her commitment to carry out President Donald Trump's agenda at all costs. Bondi has made it clear that the president's priorities and the DOJ's mission are, in her view, one and the same. This is a break in the fire wall that has long existed between the presidency and the Justice Department. But politicizing the law — or the Bar — isn't the answer, no matter which side is doing it. Ethical standards must be enforced. That's a cornerstone of the legal profession. But it's hypocritical to condemn Bondi's politicization of the DOJ while attempting a similar act via the Bar. We recognize that Trump's Justice Department is by design, political. And Bondi's actions have been extremely partisan — including when she placed the DOJ attorney on leave in the case of the Maryland man who had been wrongly deported a man to El Salvador. 'At my direction, every Department of Justice attorney is required to zealously advocate on behalf of the United States,' Bondi said in a statement. 'Any attorney who fails to abide by this direction will face consequences.' The Florida Bar exists to ensure the integrity of the legal system is protected – not act as a political referee. It's understandable that some feel justified challenging Bondi's standing as a lawyer. Bondi's conduct does warrant scrutiny, and she holds an enormous amount of power as the U.S. attorney general. But the uncertainty of the times shouldn't be a reason to use the law to punish ideological opponents, even if we think the other side does it, here to send the letter.
Yahoo
34 minutes ago
- Yahoo
How Kilmar Abrego Garcia's case became a political flashpoint
Kilmar Abrego Garcia's case started quietly, boiling down to a clerical error that moved him up on a list to land on a deportation flight destined to El Salvador in March. And then a court filing from the Trump Justice Department acknowledging the mistake brought it to the national forefront – culminating in a fraught legal battle and heated political debate. On Friday, the Trump administration announced that Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran national who had resided in Maryland until he was mistakenly deported to his home country, landed in the United States, and was facing criminal charges. It was an extraordinary development in a case that's come to define the president's hardline immigration policies and a striking about-face from the Trump administration, which had maintained he would not return to the US. At the start of the legal battle, nearly three months ago, both sides agreed that Abrego Garcia's deportation to El Salvador – and subsequent imprisonment in the country's notorious mega-prison – was a mistake. In 2019, an immigration judge granted Abrego Garcia withholding of removal, meaning he couldn't be removed to El Salvador over fear of persecution. A senior Immigration and Customs Enforcement official called his removal an 'administrative error' in a March court declaration, appearing to mark the first time the administration had conceded an error over the controversial flights to El Salvador that resulted in the detention of hundreds of migrants in the CECOT prison. But then, Trump administration officials publicly abandoned that position and called Abrego Garcia 'a terrorist,' because they allege he is a member of MS-13, which the US has designated as a terrorist organization. His attorneys and family maintain that he was not a member of MS-13 and have argued that he is still entitled to due process. Here's how Abrego Garcia's case played out over the last few months. Abrego Garcia, who came to the United States illegally in 2012, first had an encounter with immigration authorities in 2019 after an arrest. At the time, the government similarly argued that Abrego Garcia was a gang member while he made the case that he feared a possible return to El Salvador. The immigration judge presiding over the case sided with Abrego Garcia and ruled that he may not be deported back to El Salvador. Years later, on March 12, 2025, Immigration and Customs Enforcement pulled over Abrego Garcia and arrested him, which came as the Trump administration continued its aggressive crackdown on immigration. Abrego Garcia was then mistakenly put on a deportation flight three days later and sent to CECOT. It took the Trump administration weeks to concede that it mistakenly deported the Maryland father to El Salvador 'because of an administrative error.' But while doing acknowledging the mistake, the administration said in court filings on March 31 that it could not return him because he was in Salvadoran custody. Later that week, Judge Paula Xinis of the US District Court in Maryland ordered the Trump administration to return Abrego Garcia to the US, kicking off a monthslong legal battle in which the Trump administration has argued that courts cannot intervene in the foreign policy decision-making of the United States. In her April 4 order, Xinis gave a deadline of April 7 to bring back Abrego Garcia but the Supreme Court paused the deadline. Days later, the Supreme Court ruled that the Trump administration must 'facilitate' Abrego Garcia's return but stopped short of requiring the government to return him. In recent weeks, Xinis has accused the Trump administration of repeated stonewalling and intentional noncompliance with its obligation to produce information related to how it has been facilitating Abrego Garcia's return. President Donald Trump, in an interview with ABC News in April, acknowledged that he could secure Abrego Garcia's return, contradicting previous remarks made by him and his his top aides who said the US did not have the ability to return Abrego Garcia because he was in the custody of a foreign government. When asked by ABC's Terry Moran why he can't just pick up the phone and secure Abrego Garcia's return, Trump said: 'And if he were the gentleman that you say he is, I would do that. But he is not.' The president went on to accuse Abrego Garcia of being a MS-13 member, pointing to his tattoos, which experts say are not by themselves proof he's a gang member. And just days later, the White House and El Salvador's President Nayib Bukele made clear during an Oval Office meeting that Abrego Garcia would not be returned to the US. Democratic lawmakers have been critical of how the Trump administration handled the Abrego Garcia case and continued to call for him to be brought back. One Democratic senator, Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, flew down to El Salvador to meet with his constituent. After initially not being allowed to meet him, Van Hollen had a sit down with Abrego Garcia on April 17 and in a press conference a day later, the senator said Abrego Garcia told him he was traumatized. 'He said he was not afraid of the other prisoners in his immediate cell but that he was traumatized by being at CECOT and fearful of many of the prisoners in other cell blocks who called out to him and taunted him in various ways,' Van Hollen said. Van Hollen added that Abrego Garcia was moved a week earlier from the maximum-security prison to another detention center where 'conditions are better.' The Trump administration slammed the senator's visit, claiming Democrats and the media painted an overly rosy picture of Abrego Garcia. Meanwhile, the administration continued to portray him as a violent and dangerous criminal, releasing previously unshared documents stemming from two interactions Abrego Garcia had with law enforcement and the courts system: a 2019 arrest that didn't lead to charges or a conviction, but did result in his detention by immigration officials, and a 2021 protective order his wife filed against him alleging domestic violence, which she later decided against pursuing further after she said the couple had resolved their issues. Sources told CNN in late April that Secretary of State Marco Rubio had been in touch with Bukele about the detention of Abrego Garcia. A US official told CNN the Trump administration was working closely with El Salvador and asked for Abrego Garcia's return but insisted that Bukele had made clear that he was not returning him to the US. In early May, Tennessee state law enforcement released a video of a November 2022 traffic stop involving Abrego Garcia – an incident that US officials argue supports their claims that Abrego Garcia was a member of MS-13 and involved in human trafficking. The video showed Abrego Garcia being stopped for speeding. When asked about other passengers in the car, Abrego Garcia tells the trooper he and the others are workers returning from a construction project in St. Louis, Missouri. When the trooper asked for his documents, Abrego Garcia explains in the video that his driver's license was expired and that he is waiting for immigration documents to renew it. He tells the officer the vehicle, which had a Texas license plate, belonged to his boss. The trooper then searches the car with a police canine. They do not appear to find anything suspicious, according to the video. Abrego Garcia was not detained during the stop and no charges were filed. Nearly three months after he was deported, Abrego Garcia on Friday returned to the US to face federal criminal charges. Abrego Garcia has been indicted on two criminal counts in the Middle District of Tennessee: conspiracy to unlawfully transport illegal aliens for financial gain and unlawful transportation of illegal aliens for financial gain. Trump administration officials pointed to the charges as justifying their effort to remove Abrego Garcia from the United States. Meanwhile, Simon Sandoval-Moshenberg, an attorney for Abrego Garcia, accused the Trump administration of 'playing games' with the legal system and said his client should appear in immigration court, not criminal court. 'The government disappeared Kilmar to a foreign prison in violation of a court order. Now, after months of delay and secrecy, they're bringing him back, not to correct their error but to prosecute him. This shows that they were playing games with the court all along,' Sandoval-Moshenberg said in a statement to CNN. 'Due process means the chance to defend yourself before you're punished, not after. This is an abuse of power, not justice.' Abrego Garcia will be in custody for at least a week, followed by an arraignment and detention hearing, the Associated Press reported.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Proud Boys Sue DOJ For $100 Million Over Jan. 6 Arrests
On his first day in office, President Donald Trump issued a blanket pardon to more than 1,500 people charged in the deadly Jan. 6 insurrection. But it still wasn't enough. Now, five Proud Boys leaders are suing the Department of Justice (DOJ) over their prosecutions and asking the government to surrender millions. The lawsuit, filed by Dominic Pezzola, Henry 'Enrique' Tarrio, Ethan Nordean, Joe Biggs, and Zachary Rehl, asks the government to pay them $100 million in restitution, despite the fact that the latter four were found guilty of engaging in a seditious 2021 conspiracy to keep Trump in power. Two years after the riot, Tarrio, Nordean, Biggs and Rehl were found guilty of plotting to oppose Congress' election certification by force. Pezzola was the only one who was acquitted of seditious conspiracy but was still found guilty of assaulting police, stealing a riot shield, smashing a window breached by rioters, conspiring to impede lawmakers and police, and more. The five men filed the lawsuit Friday in Florida, putting the ball in Trump's court to either defend the prosecutions or pay an exorbitant sum at taxpayers' expense. The Proud Boys is a far-right militant organization that promotes political violence and embraces misogynistic, xenophobic, and anti-LGBTQ+ ideologies. If the DOJ decides to pay the Proud Boys members, many Democrats worry that it could symbolize the president's willingness to outwardly sanction political violence and empower extremists. In the pardon proclamation announced on Jan. 20, Trump noted that the controversial mercy 'ends a grave national injustice that has been perpetrated upon the American people over the last four years and begins a process of national reconciliation.' Prior to the pardons, Tarrio, Nordean, Biggs, Rehl, and Pezzola were each sentenced to 22, 18, 17, 15, and 10 years in prison, respectively. The Proud Boys members claim there was an 'egregious and systemic abuse of the legal system and the United States Constitution to punish and oppress political allies of President Trump, by any and all means necessary, legal, or illegal.' 'A settlement would suggest that the violence of January 6 was entirely justified,' Matthew Dallek, a political historian at The George Washington University, told The Washington Post. 'It would say to the country that these Proud Boys who were convicted in a court of law, in a fair trial, were wrongfully prosecuted and victims. It just turns the entire day on its head.' The insurrection interrupted Congress' attempt to certify former President Joe Biden as the winner of the 2020 election. After a mob stormed the Capitol, five people died in or immediately after the violence and 140 officers were assaulted. The Daily Beast has reached out to the Trump administration for comment.
