Sheriff McFadden claims he hasn't been part of conversations on reopening of Mecklenburg County's juvenile detention center
The facility off Statesville Road in north Charlotte closed in 2022, with McFadden citing COVID-related staffing issues. It has since been used to host a free summer camp.
He claims other officials have been discussing the jail's future without his input, but did not specify which ones.
'Missed opportunity': ICE's Charlotte operation sparks tension with sheriff over alleged lack of communication
'As ongoing discussions regarding the reopening of the Mecklenburg County Sheriff's Office North Juvenile Detention Center, commonly referred to as Jail North, continue, it is imperative that these conversations should be held with an invitation to the Mecklenburg County Sheriff,' McFadden said in a statement released Wednesday. 'I have consistently prioritized the support of juveniles in our community involved in the criminal justice system.'
Following the closure, McFadden says the sheriff's office did not extend the contract with the state to operate Jail North.
'This decision was made due to political maneuvering and misleading information by the North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services,' he wrote. 'During the COVID era, DHHS inspections found that staffing levels were inadequate at Detention Center Central, so I had no choice but to close Jail North and allocate staff from there to Central. In reality, our agency was operating adequately at all of our facilities, despite the findings.'
He says he's open to participating in all discussions regarding his plans for Jail North.
'As your sheriff, I must have a say in these pivotal conversations that impact the lives of our juvenile offenders in Mecklenburg County and beyond,' he said. 'I firmly disagree with any suggestion that we were not cooperating with the state. Therefore, I strongly oppose any assertion or implication that certain decisions were or had been made without the sheriff's office's input, consideration, or recommendations when it comes to the well-being of our juveniles.'
Prior to the closure, McFadden implemented programs like public speaking classes, essay writing, a barber school, and business proposal classes.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Post
an hour ago
- New York Post
Trump, Newsom square off in court over deployment of troops to quell LA riots
Justice Department lawyers were in federal court Monday to defend the Trump administration's deployment of Marines and California National Guard troops during violent anti-ICE demonstrations in Los Angeles in June. The three-day trial kicked off in San Francisco, with attorneys for the state arguing the deployment — which California Gov. Gavin Newsom strenuously objected to — violated a federal law against using military forces for domestic law enforcement. 4 Trump administration and State of California lawyers are facing off in federal court this week over the deployment of National Guard members during June's anti-ICE riots in Los Angeles. AFP via Getty Images Advertisement The protests began June 6 as lawful demonstrations stemming from a series of raids conducted by Immigration and Customs Enforcement that saw more than 100 illegal immigrants rounded up around the city. Hundreds took to the streets, chanting in opposition and waving Mexican flags and anti-ICE signs while clashing with cops and federal immigration officers. 4 The riots began as protests but quickly descended into anarchy. AFP via Getty Images Advertisement But the protests soon escalated into full-blown riots, with cars burned in the streets, public buildings vandalized and local businesses pillaged by looters. As the violence dragged on, President Trump announced he was deploying some 4,000 Coast Guard members and around 700 active-duty Marines to the City of Angels to put an end to the anarchy. Newsom condemned the deployments, saying it amounted to using soldiers as 'props in the federal government's propaganda machine.' The Trump administration fired back, arguing the state's sanctuary city laws preventing local law enforcement from upholding immigration laws made federal intervention necessary. Advertisement Newsom sued the administration, and federal Judge Charles R. Breyer — a former President Clinton appointee who is overseeing the California bench trial — ruled the deployment was illegal. However, hours later an appeals court rejected Breyer's ruling which cleared the way for the mobilization to continue. 4 Trump's lawyers have argued the president was within his rights to order the troop deployments. By July 1, nearly all of the National Guard members and Marines called to Los Angeles had been released, with around 300 still in the city. Advertisement Those remaining on duty are 'supporting the request for assistance' from federal law enforcement agencies, William Harrington, former deputy chief of staff for the Army task force in charge of the Guard troops said in court Monday, according to the New York Times. 4 California Gov. Gavin Newsom's lawyers insist the mobilizations were illegal under the Posse Comitatus Act, a 1878 federal law prohibiting the use of soldiers to engage in civil law enforcement. Jonathan Alcorn/UPI/Shutterstock The trial could set a legal precedent for the extent of a commander-in-chief's authority over the military on US soil. Newsom's lawyers are vehement that sending troops to Los Angeles violated the Posse Comitatus Act, an 1878 federal law prohibiting the president from using armed forces to engage in civil law enforcement. Attorneys for the state also argue that by deploying troops over the objections of the governor and other California officials, Trump violated the 10th Amendment of the Constitution, which delineates the balance of power between the federal government and US states. Also being alleged is that Trump and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth violated the Administrative Procedure Act, arguing they 'lack authority to federalize members of the California National Guard without issuing such orders through Governor Newsom,' the complaint reads. Trump's lawyers have staked their counter-argument on a little-known law — Section 12406(3) of the US Code — which permits the president to federalize the National Guard under certain circumstances. Advertisement Among them, if the US is in danger of being invaded or currently under invasion, if there is an ongoing rebellion or danger of one occurring, or if the president is unable 'with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States.' Newsom and California are seeking a formal declaration from the court that Trump and Hegseth's orders were illegal, as well as injunctive relief, which would prohibit future deployments of the California National Guard without the governor's express approval. The bench trial opened on the same day President Trump announced he was placing Washington, DC's police department under federal control and deploying the National Guard to patrol the streets amid a surge of violent crime in the US capital.
The Hill
an hour ago
- The Hill
Five takeaways as Trump seizes control of DC police, deploys National Guard
President Trump announced on Monday that he was taking control of the District of Columbia's police and deploying the National Guard. Trump portrayed the moves, which will involve around 800 National Guard troops, as a response to high crime rates in the nation's capital. He said it was an attempt to 'rescue' the District from 'bloodshed, bedlam and squalor.' Reporters in a packed White House briefing room received handouts just before the president spoke where the District's murder rate was shown as higher than those of other international cities including Bogota, Delhi and London. Police statistics, however, show that crime rates in the District have fallen sharply over the past two years. Violent crime is down 26 percent when compared year-to-date against 2024. Last year, in turn, saw a 32 percent drop in homicides and a 35 percent drop in overall violent crime compared to 2023. That being said, the total number of homicides last year, 187, was still above the years that immediately preceded 2020's COVID-19 pandemic. Here are the main takeaways from Trump's announcement. A major assertion of federal power — and Trump's power The decision from Trump was more expansive than many people expected. A deployment of National Guard troops had been predicted, in part because the District's status — short of full statehood — gives the president clear control of when the Guard is deployed. The decision to wrest control of Washington's police — the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) — was a significantly larger step. The fact that it came amid falling crime rates makes it even more controversial. So too does the politics of the District. Voters who gave then-Vice President Harris more than 90 percent of their votes last November will have their police force taken over by a notably divisive Republican president. Trump secured fewer than seven percent of the vote in D.C. The Home Rule Act of 1973, which gives the District its current measure of autonomy, provides for a president taking emergency control of the D.C. police for 48 hours. During that period, a president who wishes to extend control is supposed to provide the reasons for that decision to the chairpersons and ranking members of House and Senate committees with responsibilities for the District. Doing this enables presidential control for 30 days. Any extension beyond that, the statute says, can only come if 'the Senate and the House of Representatives enact into law a joint resolution authorizing such an extension.' Whether Trump accedes to those requirements remains to be seen. D.C. mayor offers modulated response District of Columbia Mayor Muriel Bowser (D) was critical of Trump's decision without intensifying her rhetoric as much as she could have. Bowser called the president's move 'unsettling and unprecedented' in a news conference. She also used the move to reiterate her belief that D.C. should be granted full statehood — a long-standing aim for many of the District's voters. In relation to a question about the prospect of military troops being deployed, Bowser said: 'I think I speak for all Americans: We don't believe it is legal to use the American military against American citizens on American soil.' But Bowser struck a fairly restrained tone throughout — including on social media where she wrote: 'Here's where we stand after today's announcement: we will follow the law, work with federal officials, and continue the work we do every single day to keep D.C. safe, beautiful, and the best city in the world.' Not everyone in city government was quite so measured. The District's attorney general, Brian Schwalb (D), said that Trump's move was 'unlawful' and asserted that 'there is no crime emergency in the District of Columbia.' Democrats, liberal groups worry about militarization at Trump's behest Beyond the D.C. government, Democrats, liberals and civil rights groups expressed angst over what they see as Trump's penchant for gratuitous militarization. Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.) said in a statement that Trump's 'ever-expanding use of the military for domestic matters is beyond alarming.' Reed cited as a precursor Trump's deployment of the National Guard and Marines in Los Angeles earlier this year — against the wishes of California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) — saying that this showed a willingness 'to deploy U.S. military forces on American streets for inflammatory and political reasons.' Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) accused Trump of being 'an incoherent wannabe dictator who is trying to turn D.C. into his personal police state.' Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) contended that 'using U.S. military forces to enforce a policy agenda on American soil is a gross abuse of power that reeks of authoritarianism.' Among the broader criticism, Monica Hopkins, the executive director of the D.C. chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) called Trump's move, 'political theater and a blatantly phony justification for abuse of emergency powers.' It's unclear where things go from here Even amid all the words on both sides, there is a lot of uncertainty. One obvious question is whether Trump will fulfill the demands of the Home Rule Act, in terms of informing Congress about the reasons for his decision to take control of the police, and in ceding back control of the MPD after no more than 30 days. Another issue is where exactly the National Guard or other federally-commanded troops will be deployed. Trump has focused on tourist-friendly areas being besmirched by crime. But in fact Washington's worst crime rates by far are found in the economically deprived neighborhoods east of the Anacostia River, far from the epicenter of tourism. Another uncertainty hangs over what the president would characterize as success. In a social media post, he insisted that crime — as well as 'Savagery, Filth and Scum' — would 'DISAPPEAR' from D.C. Presumably he doesn't consider literally zero crime to be an achievable goal. Does any crime at all amount in his mind to justification for maintaining federal control? The news conference wasn't all about D.C. During Monday's news conference, Trump took questions on other topics. The most interesting moments came when he discussed his upcoming meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin, scheduled for Friday in Alaska. Trump's tone suggested a new turn against Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. Trump and Vice President Vance berated Zelensky during an Oval Office meeting in late February but more recently the president had seemed to be putting pressure on Putin. That changed back Monday, when Trump once again appeared to blame Zelensky for the war, which was in fact started by Russia's 2022 invasion. 'I get along with Zelensky but, you know, I disagree with what he's done — very severely disagree,' Trump said. 'This is a war that should have never happened.' A deadline Trump had set for new sanctions on Russia expired on Friday without action being taken.
Newsweek
an hour ago
- Newsweek
CDC Shooting: Georgia Man Fired Nearly 200 Shots, Broke 150 Windows
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. The man who attacked the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) headquarters in Atlanta on Friday fired more than 180 rounds into the campus, shattering about 150 windows. Bullets pierced "blast-resistant" glass, sending shards into numerous rooms, according to internal information circulated within the agency. CDC personnel said it could take "weeks or even months" to replace the damaged windows and fully clean up the site. Authorities identified the gunman as 30-year-old Patrick Joseph White, a Georgia man who had publicly blamed the COVID-19 vaccine for making him depressed and suicidal. Late Friday afternoon, White opened fire, killing police officer David Rose. No one at the CDC was injured in the attack. The notable bullet marks on the windows of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention headquarters are visible on Sunday Aug. 10, 2025. The notable bullet marks on the windows of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention headquarters are visible on Sunday Aug. 10, 2025. Associated Press According to a law enforcement official who spoke to the Associated Press on condition of anonymity, CDC security guards stopped the shooter before he drove to a nearby pharmacy and opened fire again. White later died, though authorities have not confirmed whether he was killed by police or took his own life. On Monday, U.S. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. toured the CDC campus, where security staff pointed out bullet damage across multiple buildings, including the main guard booth, according to a statement from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). He was joined by HHS Deputy Secretary Jim O'Neill and CDC Director Susan Monarez. Kennedy also visited the DeKalb County Police Department, where he met with the police chief before holding a private meeting with Rose's widow. Monarez posted on social media Friday night that "at least four CDC buildings" had been struck during the attack. Over the weekend, details of the damage became clearer during a CDC leadership meeting. Two employees familiar with the meeting's discussion told the Associated Press—on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly—that Building 21, where Monarez's office is located, sustained the most bullet strikes. CDC officials did not say whether her office itself had been hit. An internal agency memo seen by an AP reporter confirmed those details. Employees were advised to work from home this week. In a statement Saturday, Kennedy said, "No one should face violence while working to protect the health of others," adding that top federal health officials were "actively supporting CDC staff." He did not speak to the media during his Monday visit. Former CDC official Stephan Monroe expressed concern about the long-term consequences for recruiting young scientists to public service. "I'm concerned that this is going to be a generational hit," Monroe said, speaking near a memorial poster for Officer Rose. Kennedy has a long history as a leader in the national anti-vaccine movement. Before President Donald Trump appointed him to oversee federal health agencies, he made false and misleading claims about the safety and effectiveness of COVID-19 shots and other vaccines. Tim Young, a former CDC employee who retired in April, said years of misinformation about vaccines and public health inevitably "take a toll on people's mental health" and "leads to violence." Dr. Jerome Adams, who served as U.S. surgeon general during Trump's first administration, said on CBS' Face the Nation Sunday that health leaders must understand the power of their public statements. "We have to understand people are listening," Adams said. "When you make claims that have been proven false time and time again about safety and efficacy of vaccines, that can cause unintended consequences." This article includes reporting by the Associated Press
