Brad Pitt's L.A. home torn up by burglars while he attends 'F1' premiere
Thieves broke into a Los Angeles home owned by Brad Pitt on Wednesday and ransacked the actor's abode while he was out of town, according to law enforcement sources.
Los Angeles police officials said a break-in at a home occurred around 10:30 p.m. Wednesday.
At least three suspects scaled the security fence at Pitt's Los Feliz-area house and smashed a window before entering, making "a real mess" and stealing some items, according to sources not authorized to discuss the case.
Pitt's possessions were tossed and overturned as the thieves "had gone through looking for what they could take of value," said one source familiar with the crime.
Pitt is one of the latest celebrities to see their home burglarized. South American theft gangs have plagued upscale areas of L.A. in recent years.
In early February, Olivier Giroud, the French striker who plays for Los Angeles FC, had his home targeted and $500,000 worth of jewelry and watches stolen, sources said. On Valentine's Day, Nicole Kidman and Keith Urban's home was burglarized.
Pitt's Midcentury Modern home, dubbed the Steel House, is one of several owned by the movie star. He was in London on Monday night for the European premiere of "F1: The Movie."
Last August, the FBI, working with local police, dismantled a multimillion-dollar crime tourism ring that had operated for years in Southern California, facilitating thefts across the country. Their investigation led them to a most unusual hub: a Los Angeles car rental business.
The group directed crime tourists who committed hundreds of thefts across the nation — including in Santa Barbara, Ventura, Los Angeles, Orange and San Diego counties — beginning around 2018. The thefts occurred in about 80 cities in California, Colorado, Arizona, New Jersey, Kansas and Illinois and netted about $5.5 million for those charged in the case, according to the indictment. Prosecutors, however, estimated the loss to businesses and homeowners at about $35 million.
The trend of South American crime groups visiting Southern California for thefts and robberies emerged roughly six years ago, and authorities have been grappling to get it under control.
Sign up for Essential California for news, features and recommendations from the L.A. Times and beyond in your inbox six days a week.
This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
16 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Threats against judges nearly doubled under Trump. Republicans blame the victim.
Kathleen O'Malley spent nearly three decades as a federal judge and knows what it feels like when the U.S. Marshals and FBI come calling with warnings about threats of harm. A jailhouse informant once revealed that another inmate was plotting to have her killed. O'Malley, who returned to private practice in 2022 after 16 years as a district judge in Ohio and 12 years on the U.S. Court of Appeals, told me she always knew during her time on the bench that the U.S. Department of Justice "had my back" when threats came up. She felt a shift during President Donald Trump's first administration, a confluence of his aggressive attacks on judges who made him follow the law and the amplifying impact of his criticism through social media. The point of all that, O'Malley told me, is to intimidate judges, to prevent them from ruling against a president willing to target them just for doing their jobs. O'Malley, who once sat on a judicial committee tasked with making courthouses safe and secure, spoke to me this week because I am tracking an effort to increase funding for federal judicial security. That push comes after funding has been flat in the past two federal fiscal years, despite a growing number of threats against judges. The call for more funding has drawn predictable pushback from some Republicans in the U.S. House, including some who have vilified judges for holding Trump accountable when he was out of office and for making his administration obey the U.S. Constitution now that he has returned to the White House. Sign up for our Opinion newsletter on people, power and policies in the time of Trump from columnist Chris Brennan. Get it delivered to your inbox. Judges don't come to this on a level playing field, O'Malley pointed out. The president is the commander in chief of our military. Congress controls spending. Judges? All they have is "the ability to persuade," she said. That should be enough. An NBC News poll released June 16 found that 81% of Americans said Trump should obey a federal court order if a judge rules his actions are illegal. That number drops to just 50% among Trump supporters. Opinion: The most 'beautiful' part of Trump's bill is it helps him defy federal courts So Trump just keeps turning up the heat as judges hold him accountable to the law. And his allies in the House shrug off the danger, while echoing his attacks. U.S. Rep. Jim Jordan, the Ohio Republican who chairs the House Judiciary Committee, told Punchbowl News on June 13 that he sees few members "excited" to increase judicial security funding, in his reaction to a report that noted that threats against judges have nearly doubled since Trump took office. U.S. Rep. Chip Roy, a Texas Republican who also sits on the Judiciary Committee, played the blame-the-victim game when asked about security for federal judges. 'Maybe they should stop screwing everything up,' Roy told Punchbowl News. Trump allies like Jordan and Roy offer cheap, empty rhetoric. The federal judiciary comes prepared with cold, hard math. The federal judiciary's $9.4 billion budget request for fiscal year 2026, which starts on Oct. 1, includes $892 million for security, a 19% increase of $142 million after no increases in fiscal years 2024 and 2025. Judge Amy St. Eve, who was elevated by Trump's appointment in 2018 to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit, testified to Congress in May in support of the increase for security funding, telling the House members, "The threat environment facing judges and the judiciary as a whole right now is particularly dynamic and worrisome." Judge Robert Conrad Jr., appointed to the bench by President George W. Bush 20 years ago, was named in 2024 by U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts as director of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts. He testified to Congress about the budget request with St. Eve and singled out threats of judicial impeachment being made by Trump and his allies. 'The independence of the judicial branch is jeopardized when judges are threatened with harm or impeachment for their rulings," Conrad warned. "Our constitutional system depends on judges who can make decisions free from threats and intimidation." Opinion: Trump's military show of force in LA and DC camouflage his failing presidency That echoes what Roberts wrote in his 2024 report on the federal judiciary, in which he said threats of impeaching judges for how they rule are "inappropriate and should be vigorously opposed." Roberts noted that the U.S. Marshals Service said "hostile threats" against judges have "more than tripled over the past decade." U.S. Rep. Michael Cloud, a Texas Republican, took offense during the testimony by St. Eve and Conrad, but not about the threats aimed at judges. No, Cloud said, the real danger came from judges like St. Eve, Conrad and Roberts linking the politically motivated calls for impeachment to the increase in threats to judges across the country. Opinion alerts: Get columns from your favorite columnists + expert analysis on top issues, delivered straight to your device through the USA TODAY app. Don't have the app? Download it for free from your app store. As with his colleagues, Jordan and Roy, Cloud wants us to blame the targets of those threats, federal judges, and not focus on anything politicians say that might help fuel those threats. The three of them, with their rhetoric, are all the evidence we need to demonstrate that an increase in security funding for federal judges is well worth it and long overdue. They, along with Trump, show no signs of stopping their attacks. We, as Americans, must provide for the safety of judges so they can uphold our laws. Follow USA TODAY columnist Chris Brennan on X, formerly known as Twitter: @ByChrisBrennan. Sign up for his weekly newsletter, Translating Politics, here. You can read diverse opinions from our USA TODAY columnists and other writers on the Opinion front page, on X, formerly Twitter, @usatodayopinion and in our Opinion newsletter. This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: As Trump targets judges, GOP bristles at protecting them | Opinion
CNET
17 minutes ago
- CNET
AT&T to Pay $177M in Data Breach Settlements. See if You're Eligible
AT&T customers injured by data breaches have been placed into two classes. AT&T/CNET In April 2024, a major data breach of AT&T customer records resulted in a remarkable 110,000,000 victim notices, according to the Identity Theft Resource Center's 2024 Annual Data Breach Report. The price tag for those privacy violations -- combined with another 2019 data breach -- now appears to be set at a similarly impressive $177 million. On Friday, June 20, US District Judge Ada Brown granted preliminary approval to the terms of a proposed settlement from AT&T that would resolve two lawsuits related to the data breaches. The current settlement would see AT&T pay $177 million to customers adversely affected by at least one of the two data breaches. The settlement will prioritize larger payments to customers who suffered damages that are "fairly traceable" to the data leaks. It will also provide bigger payments to those impacted by the larger of the two leaks, which began in 2019. While the company is working towards a settlement, it has continued to deny that it was "responsible for these criminal acts." For all the details about we have about the settlement right now, keep reading, and for more info about other recent settlements, find out how to claim Apple's Siri privacy settlement and see if you're eligible for 23andMe's privacy breach settlement. What happened with these AT&T data breaches? AT&T first confirmed the two data breaches last year, announcing an investigation into the first in March before confirming it in May, followed by confirmation of the second one in July. The first of the confirmed breaches began in 2019. The company revealed that around 7.6 million current and 65.4 million former account holders had their data exposed to hackers, including names, Social Security numbers and dates of birth. The company first began investigating the situation last year after it reported that customer data had appeared on the dark web. The second breach began in April of 2024, when a hacker broke into AT&T cloud storage provider Snowflake and accessed 2022 call and text records for almost all of the company's US customers, around 109 million in all. The company stressed that no names were attached to the stolen data, and two individuals were arrested in connection with the breach. Both of these incidents sparked a wave of class action lawsuits alleging corporate neglect on the part of AT&T in failing to sufficiently protect its customers. How will I know if I'm eligible for the AT&T data breach settlement? As of now, we know that the settlement will pay out to any current or former AT&T customer whose data was accessed in one of these data breaches, with higher payments reserved for those who can provide documented proof that they suffered damages directly resulting from their data being stolen. If you're eligible, you should receive a notice about it, either by email or by a physical letter in the mail, sometime in the coming months. The company expects that the claims process will begin on Aug. 4, 2025. How much will the AT&T data breach payments be? You'll have to "reasonably" prove damages caused by these data breaches to be eligible for the highest and most prioritized payouts. For the 2019 breach, those claimants can receive up to $5,000. For the Snowflake breach, the max payout will be $2,500. It's not clear at this time how the company might be handling customers who've been affected by both breaches. AT&T will focus on making those payments first, and whatever's left of the $177 million settlement total will be disbursed to anyone whose data was accessed, even without proof of damages. Since these payouts depend on how many people get the higher amounts first, we can't say definitively how much they will be. When could I get paid from the AT&T data breach settlement? AT&T expects that payments will start to go out sometime in early 2026. Exact dates aren't available right now. The recent court order approving the settlement lists a notification schedule of Aug. 4 to Oct. 17, 2025. The deadline for submitting a claim is currently set at Nov. 18, 2025. The final approval of the settlement needs to be given at a Dec. 3, 2025 court hearing in order for payments to begin. Stay tuned to this piece in the coming months to get all the new details as they emerge, and for more money help, check out CNET's daily tariff price impact tracker.
Fox News
an hour ago
- Fox News
Idaho judge tells Bryan Kohberger to prepare for summer courtroom showdown after last-minute effort
Idaho Judge Steven Hippler indicated he likely won't delay August's trial in Bryan Kohberger's quadruple murder case, following a request from his defense attorney. Wednesday's hearing focused on two motions from Kohberger's defense team, one seeking to delay August's trial and another which sought to include evidence that they claim points to the existence of "alternate perpetrators." Kohberger is accused of killing Xana Kernodle, 20, Kaylee Goncalves, 21, Madison Mogen, 21, and Ethan Chapin, 20. Hippler declined to issue a ruling on Kohberger's request to delay the trial, but said "it's likely you're going to trial on the date indicated." "I fully encourage everyone to continue as if the trial is going to take place when it is scheduled for," Hippler said. Anne Taylor, Kohberger's lawyer, argued that a TV episode that aired on May 9 has the potential to taint the jury pool. "Jury selection is going to be particularly challenged and will need a great deal of time based on what's happened in the media and continues to happen," Taylor said. Joshua Hurwit, special deputy prosecutor, accused Kohberger's defense team of using a "scorched earth" strategy in this case. "The record supports denying the motion based on what the defense has been doing, continues to do, and will continue to do through the mitigation phase until, the penalty phase, including presenting mitigation evidence that the jury will, ultimately, decide about if there is a conviction," Hurwit said. Information shared during the "Dateline" episode included surveillance video from a neighboring house, which showed a car similar to Kohberger's in the King Road area several times before the four University of Idaho students were killed. The episode also claimed that FBI cellphone tower data showed that Kohberger's phone pinged nearly a dozen times near a tower that provides coverage to the area within 100 feet of 1122 King Road, where the four University of Idaho students were killed. The phone pinged near the tower starting in July 2022 and continued through mid-August 2022. In a May 15 order, Hippler said the gag order was "likely" violated by someone involved in the case, saying it's possible law enforcement was the source of the leak. He ordered anyone who has worked for the defense team or investigation to retain all communications and data relating to the case. Hippler said the following pieces of evidence were revealed during the episode: "Such violations not only undermine the rule of law, potentially by persons charged with upholding it, but also significantly impede the ability to seat an impartial jury and will likely substantially increase the cost to be borne by the taxpayers of Latah County to prosecute this case by extending the time it will take to seat a jury and potentially requiring lengthy period of juror sequestration," Hippler wrote. Tara Jalali Malek, an Idaho-based lawyer and former assistant United States attorney, told Fox News Digital that Hippler could hold the prosecution or defense team accountable if it's found the leak came from them. "Violation of a court's order is sanctionable," Malek said. "It could be contempt of court, and contempt can be civil contempt or it could be criminal contempt. That is going to be completely separate from what happens ultimately in the trial, but things that you see with contempt, there could be a fine. There could be a public reprimand, for instance. So there's a variety of things that the court could possibly do or not do if it's found that someone violated that gag order." "Anyone who violated the order, no matter what side, would be held in contempt," she added. However, Malek said she doesn't think the leak will result in the trial being delayed, as Kohberger's defense team has requested. "I would be hard-pressed to think that the entire trial would stop as a result of this," she said. "I think what is most likely, in my opinion, to happen is that the trial will move forward. This will be on a separate track as far as the investigation goes and figuring out who leaked the information, which side was it from. And then ultimately, who else, if anybody was involved or had knowledge of it, or like I said, it was just a rogue actor here that, you know, needs to be personally sanctioned in some way." Prior to Wednesday's hearing, Kohberger's defense team replied to the prosecution's objection to delaying the trial. In the filing, Taylor argued that a TV episode about the case has the potential to taint the jury pool. "It was a choreographed narrative broadcast to millions of viewers and advertised to millions more. It aired nationally and was promoted heavily across commercial breaks, streaming platforms, and social media, maximizing its visibility and impact. It was designed to provoke strong emotional reactions, which is exactly the influence that taints jury pools and risks depriving Mr. Kohberger of a fair trial," Taylor said. Taylor also argued that there needs to be an investigation into the leak before the trial can start. "The prejudice from the Dateline episode requires a continuance both because of the resulting prejudice that is separate and apart from ordinary media coverage, and because trial cannot go forward without a thorough investigation into which person(s) leaked case information and numerous sealed photographs and videos to the media," she wrote. As the trial is scheduled to begin on Aug. 11, another surprise witness has emerged. A woman claiming to be a DoorDash driver says she dropped off food for Xana Kernodle just minutes before Kohberger allegedly killed the college student. The purported driver came to light after a YouTube account, Officer Axon, obtained body camera video that featured the woman. "I have to testify in a big murder case here... because I'm the DoorDash driver, so yeah," she says in the video. The officer then asked what case she was going to testify in. "The murder case with the college girls," she said. "I'm the DoorDash driver. I saw Bryan there. I parked right next to him."
