Milwaukee man's car stolen by thieves using a reprogrammed key fob — what to know about this alarming trend
Austin Washington's car keys were at his apartment in the Milwaukee suburb of Shorewood. However, thieves were still able to drive off with his vehicle. They broke into his parked Infiniti car through the sunroof and stole it using a reprogrammed key fob.
Thanks to Jeff Bezos, you can now become a landlord for as little as $100 — and no, you don't have to deal with tenants or fix freezers. Here's how
I'm 49 years old and have nothing saved for retirement — what should I do? Don't panic. Here are 5 of the easiest ways you can catch up (and fast)
Nervous about the stock market in 2025? Find out how you can access this $1B private real estate fund (with as little as $10)
Last month, Washington told WISN 12 News he felt 'violated.'
"Somebody was in your car, going through your stuff, stole your car," he said. "I thought I was doing everything right with the information I knew about vehicles. I had no idea about these fob re-programmers."
Fortunately, police found his car dumped a few miles away, but they told the news network such high-tech car theft is on the rise across Milwaukee.
Thieves use key fob programmers to get cars to start, and then simply drive away. Milwaukee police told WISN 12 News there have been at least 19 reported cases of car thefts using this method within the first three months of 2025.
Keyless, or re-programmed car keys, is a growing method of car theft. News reports show that police in different parts of the country, like San Fernando Valley or Oakland County, have issued warnings about this problem.
Multiple locksmiths told WISN 12 News that thieves steal key programmers from businesses like theirs in order to steal cars with keyless ignitions.
Itay Rahamim, owner of Milwaukee Automotive Locksmith, showed reporters how the theft works on a Lexus.
Thieves either go through the sunroof, break the window, or find some other way to get inside the vehicle. They then find the vehicle's on-board diagnostic (OBD) port and plug in the key programmer. It's typically under the steering wheel, close to the gas and brake pedals.
Once it's successfully plugged in, the thief can then program a new key to the car.
It was about 40 seconds from the time Rahamim opened the door to the car to when he started it using the reprogrammer.
Read more: This is how American car dealers use the '4-square method' to make big profits off you — and how you can ensure you pay a fair price for all your vehicle costs
Any car that uses a key fob is susceptible to such theft, but some vehicles are more vulnerable than others.
Nissans and Infinitis are the most targeted, police told WISN 12 News, but they are not exactly sure why.
Rahamim told reporters that 2007 to 2017 models of Honda, Nissan, Infiniti, Dodge, Chrysler, Lexus, and Toyota are more easily stolen
The reason? These cars don't have a wait time for someone to start the vehicle after they've reprogrammed a new key.
Ford and GM vehicles are among those that do not start immediately, and so they are harder to steal, according to him.
Vehicle thefts nationwide decreased 17% to 850,708 in 2024, dropping below the one million mark for the first time since 2021, according to the National Insurance Crime Bureau (NICB).
But owners should still take precautions. In an April Facebook post, Milwaukee Police said it has noticed an increase in motorvehicle thefts and drivers should consider protecting their car by installing a lock over their car's OBD port.
These types of locks are typically made from a piece of metal or strong plastic that covers the OBD port and makes sure it can only be accessed with a special key.
A wheel lock can also deter thieves.
The National Insurance Crime Bureau recommends taking the 'layered approach' to protection and has a list of ways owners can try to prevent car theft..
If you discover your vehicle has been stolen, file a police report right away. Provide as many details as possible like information about your car, where it was parked and when you last saw it.
Call your auto insurance company and report the loss. Insurers should be able to help if you have comprehensive coverage.
Even if your vehicle is recovered, your insurance company may pay to repair it or pay you the actual cash value if it's been declared a total loss.
Want an extra $1,300,000 when you retire? Dave Ramsey says this 7-step plan 'works every single time' to kill debt, get rich in America — and that 'anyone' can do it
Rich, young Americans are ditching the stormy stock market — here are the alternative assets they're banking on instead
Robert Kiyosaki warns of a 'Greater Depression' coming to the US — with millions of Americans going poor. But he says these 2 'easy-money' assets will bring in 'great wealth'. How to get in now
Here are 5 'must have' items that Americans (almost) always overpay for — and very quickly regret. How many are hurting you?
This article provides information only and should not be construed as advice. It is provided without warranty of any kind.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
38 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Supreme Court strikes down Mexico's lawsuit against US gun manufacturers
The United States Supreme Court has rejected a lawsuit from the government of Mexico that argued American gun manufacturers like Smith & Wesson failed to prevent illegal firearm sales to cartels and criminal organisations. In one of a slew of decisions handed down on Thursday, the top court decided that the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act shielded the gun manufacturers from Mexico's suit. The court's decision was unanimous. Writing for the nine-member bench, Justice Elena Kagan explained that even 'indifference' to the trafficking of firearms does not amount to willfully assisting a criminal enterprise. 'Mexico's complaint does not plausibly allege that the defendant manufacturers aided and abetted gun dealers' unlawful sales of firearms to Mexican traffickers,' Kagan wrote (PDF). 'We have little doubt that, as the complaint asserts, some such sales take place — and that the manufacturers know they do. But still, Mexico has not adequately pleaded what it needs to: that the manufacturers 'participate in' those sales.' The Mexican government's complaint, she added, 'does not pinpoint, as most aiding-and-abetting claims do, any specific criminal transactions that the defendants (allegedly) assisted'. The case stems from a complaint filed in August 2021 in a federal court in Boston, Massachusetts. In that initial complaint, the Mexican government — then led by President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador — argued that the sheer volume of firearms illegally smuggled into its country amounted to negligence on the part of gun manufacturers. Those firearms, it said, had exacted a devastating toll on Mexican society. The country has some of the highest homicide rates in the world, with the United Nations estimating in 2023 that nearly 25 intentional killings happen for every 100,000 people. Much of that crime has been credited to the presence of cartels and other criminal enterprises operating in Mexico. The Igarape Institute, a Brazil-based think tank, estimated that Mexico's crime cost the country nearly 1.92 percent of its gross domestic product (GDP) from 2010 to 2014. The US is the largest arms manufacturer in the world — and also the largest source of illegally sourced firearms. The stream of firearms that pour into Mexico and the broader Latin America region, for instance, has been dubbed the 'iron river'. Nearly 70 percent of the illegal guns seized in Mexico from 2014 to 2018, for instance, were traced to origins in the US, according to the Department of Justice. That has led countries like Mexico to demand action from the US to limit the number of firearms trafficked abroad. In its lawsuit, Mexico targeted some of the biggest names in gun manufacturing in the US: not just Smith & Wesson, but also companies like Beretta USA, Glock Inc and Colt's Manufacturing LLC. But the firearm companies pushed back against the lawsuit, arguing they could not be held responsible for the actions of criminals in another country. The Supreme Court itself cast doubt on some of Mexico's arguments, including the idea that the gun manufacturers designed and marketed their products specifically for cartel buyers. 'Mexico focuses on production of 'military style' assault weapons, but these products are widely legal and purchased by ordinary consumers. Manufacturers cannot be charged with assisting criminal acts simply because Mexican cartel members also prefer these guns,' Justice Kagan wrote. 'The same applies to firearms with Spanish language names or graphics alluding to Mexican history,' she added. 'While they may be 'coveted by the cartels,' they also may appeal to 'millions of law-abiding Hispanic Americans.'' On Thursday, an industry trade group, the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), celebrated the Supreme Court's decision as a 'tremendous victory' against an unfair charge. It had filed an amicus brief in support of the defendants in the case. 'For too long, gun control activists have attempted to twist basic tort law to malign the highly-regulated U.S. firearm industry with the criminal actions of violent organized crime, both here in the United States and abroad,' the group's senior vice president, Lawrence G Keane, said in a statement. Keane added that he and others in the firearm industry felt 'sympathetic to plight of those in Mexico who are victims of rampant and uncontrolled violence at the hands of narco-terrorist drug cartels'. But he said the issue was about 'responsible firearm ownership', not the actions of gun manufacturers.
Associated Press
an hour ago
- Associated Press
Trump alleges that, under Biden, 'whoever used the autopen was the president'
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump intensified his assertions — without evidence — that officials using an autopen undermined the actions of his predecessor, Joe Biden, even suggesting Thursday that 'essentially whoever used the autopen was president.' 'I happen to think I know' who was using a tool that allows for auto signatures, Trump told reporters in the Oval Office, while saying it was the 'biggest scandal' in years. The Justice Department under Democratic and Republican administrations has recognized the use of an autopen to sign legislation and issue pardons for decades. Trump presented no evidence that Biden was unaware of the actions taken in his name, and the president's absolute pardon power is enshrined in the U.S. Constitution. 'It's a very bad thing, very dangerous,' Trump said, arguing that, 'Essentially, whoever used the autopen was the president.' Those comments came a day after Trump directed his administration to investigate Biden's actions as president, alleging aides masked his predecessor's 'cognitive decline' and casting doubts on the legitimacy of his use of the autopen to sign pardons and other documents. An executive order he signed marked a significant escalation in Trump's targeting of political adversaries and could lay the groundwork for arguments by the Republican that a range of Biden's actions as president were invalid. Biden responded in a statement Wednesday night: 'Let me be clear: I made the decisions during my presidency. I made the decisions about the pardons, executive orders, legislation, and proclamations. Any suggestion that I didn't is ridiculous and false.' Trump wrote in a memo Wednesday that, 'This conspiracy marks one of the most dangerous and concerning scandals in American history.' The American public, he said, 'was purposefully shielded from discovering who wielded the executive power, all while Biden's signature was deployed across thousands of documents to effect radical policy shifts.' Trump directed Attorney General Pam Bondi and White House counsel David Warrington to handle the investigation. Even as Trump doubled down on his accusations, it is unclear how far Trump will push this effort, which would face certain legal challenges. It nonetheless reflects his fixation on Biden, who defeated him in 2020, an election that Trump never conceded and continues to falsely claim was rigged against him. In lobbing allegations against Biden on Thursday, Trump continued to insist that the 2020 election was stolen from him. Trump frequently suggests that Biden was wrong to use an autopen, a mechanical device that replicates a person's authentic signature. Although they've been used in the White House for decades, Trump claims that Biden's aides were usurping presidential authority. Biden issued pardons for his two brothers and his sister shortly before leaving office, hoping to shield them from potential prosecution under Trump, who had promised retribution during last year's campaign. Other Biden pardon recipients included members of a congressional committee that investigated the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol. Trump often suggests that his political opponents should be investigated, and he has directed the Justice Department to look into people who have angered him over the years. They include Chris Krebs, a former cybersecurity official who disputed Trump's claims of a stolen election in 2020, and Miles Taylor, a former Department of Homeland Security official who wrote an anonymous op-ed sharply critical of the president in 2018. Meanwhile, House Oversight Chairman James Comer of Kentucky, a Republican, requested transcribed interviews with five Biden aides, alleging they had participated in a 'cover-up' that amounted to 'one of the greatest scandals in our nation's history.' 'These five former senior advisors were eyewitnesses to President Biden's condition and operations within the Biden White House,' Comer said in a statement. 'They must appear before the House Oversight Committee and provide truthful answers about President Biden's cognitive state and who was calling the shots.' Interviews were requested with White House senior advisers Mike Donilon and Anita Dunn, former White House chief of staff Ron Klain, former deputy chief of staff Bruce Reed and Steve Ricchetti, a former counselor to the president. Comer reiterated his call for Biden's physician, Kevin O'Connor, and former senior White House aides Annie Tomasini, Anthony Bernal, Ashley Williams and Neera Tanden to appear before the committee. He warned subpoenas would be issued this week if they refuse to schedule voluntary interviews. 'I think that people will start coming in the next two weeks,' Comer told reporters. He added that the committee would release a report with its findings, 'and we'll release the transcribed interviews, so it'll be very transparent.' Rep. Brandon Gill, a freshman Republican from Texas, said 'the American people didn't elect a bureaucracy to run the country,' said 'I think that the American people deserve to know the truth and they want to know the truth of what happened.' Democrats have dismissed the accusations as a distraction. 'Chairman Comer had his big shot in the last Congress to impeach Joe Biden and it was, of course, a spectacular flop,' said Rep. Jamie Raskin, the Maryland Democrat who served as the ranking member on the oversight committee in the previous Congress. 'And now he's just living off of a spent dream. It's over. And he should give up the whole thing.'
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
On a big decision day, the Supreme Court sent a message about unity
Supreme Court justices sent a message to the American public on Thursday: We're not as divided as you think. Of the six rulings that were released, four were unanimous, including the opinions in high-profile battles over reverse discrimination and faith-based tax breaks. Another decision was nearly unanimous, with just one justice peeling away on one part of the ruling. And the sixth decision had just one dissent, meaning that nearly all of the justices agreed with the plan to dismiss the case as 'improvidently granted.' Here's an overview of the six rulings released on Thursday — and a look at what's still to come from the Supreme Court in June. Ruling: Unanimous In Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, the court was considering whether members of a majority group, such as straight, white males, should have to meet a higher burden of proof in order to make an employment discrimination claim. The case was brought by Marlean Ames, a straight, white woman, who accused her former employer of privileging LGBTQ employees during the promotion process. Ames lost in front of lower courts, but the Supreme Court overturned those decisions on Thursday. The justices unanimously said that members of majority groups should not have to meet a higher burden of proof and sent Ames' case back to the lower courts for reconsideration. The question in this case is whether ... a plaintiff who is a member of a majority group must also show 'background circumstances to support the suspicion that the defendant is that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority.' We hold that this additional 'background circumstances' requirement is not consistent with Title VII's text or our case law construing the statute," Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote in the opinion. Ruling: Unanimous In Smith & Wesson Brands v. Mexico, the court was asked to determine whether the Mexican government could sue seven gun manufacturers based in the U.S. over their role in unlawful gun sales in Mexico. The Supreme Court unanimously said on Thursday that the Mexican government's lawsuit cannot move forward 'because Mexico's complaint does not plausibly allege that the defendant gun manufacturers aided and abetted gun dealers' unlawful sales of firearms to Mexican traffickers.' 'We have little doubt that, as the complaint asserts, some such sales take place — and that the manufacturers know they do. But still, Mexico has not adequately pleaded what it needs to: that the manufacturers 'participate in' those sales 'as in something that (they) wish to bring about,'' Justice Elena Kagan wrote in the opinion. Ruling: Unanimous In Catholic Charities Bureau v. Wisconsin Labor and Industry Review Commission, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether the state of Wisconsin was violating the First Amendment's religious freedom protections by denying a faith-based tax break to a group of Catholic nonprofits. The nonprofits said their service to people in need was clearly motivated by Catholic teachings, but Wisconsin officials said they didn't qualify for the religious exemption to the state's unemployment tax because they did not seek to serve only Catholics or evangelize to their clients, as the Deseret News previously reported. State officials won in front of the Wisconsin Supreme Court, which said that the Catholic nonprofits' work did not serve 'primarily religious purposes.' In Thursday's unanimous decision, the Supreme Court reversed that decision, ruling that Wisconsin was violating the First Amendment by privileging certain religious beliefs and actions over others. 'It is fundamental to our constitutional order that the government maintain 'neutrality between religion and religion.' There may be hard calls to make in policing that rule, but this is not one,' Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in the opinion. Ruling: Unanimous In CC/Devas (Mauritius) v. Antrix, the justices were considering under what circumstances federal courts in the U.S. can assert jurisdiction over foreign states. The case stemmed from a conflict between a company that's active in the U.S. and a corporation owned by India. The Supreme Court on Thursday unanimously ruled that federal courts did have jurisdiction over India in this dispute and reversed a decision from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Justice Samuel Alito wrote the opinion. Ruling: Nearly unanimous, with one justice taking issue with one part of the majority opinion. In Blom Bank v. Honickman, the court was considering whether victims of terrorist attacks or their surviving family members could reopen their case against a bank that had allegedly aided and abetted terrorists by providing financial services. The Supreme Court ruled that the people who brought the case did not meet the high standard that must be cleared to reopen the case. The majority opinion, authored by Justice Clarence Thomas, was nearly unanimous. Eight of the justices, including Thomas, joined it in full, but Jackson only joined it in part. Ruling: Dismissed as improvidently granted, with one justice dissenting to the dismissal In Lab Corp v. Davis, the justices were considering whether a federal court can certify a class action suit if some of the parties in the suit lack legal standing. A majority of the justices decided to dismiss the case as improvidently granted, meaning that they felt the court should never have agreed to weigh in. Justice Brett Kavanaugh dissented to that decision, writing that he felt it was possible — and would be valuable — to rule on the case. The Supreme Court will release around two dozen more rulings throughout the month of June as it works to wrap up its 2024-25 term by early July. The justices have yet to announce their decision in four of the five cases that the Deseret News highlighted in its list of this term's highest profile battles. The Supreme Court's next decision day has not yet been announced, but it will likely be Thursday, June 12.
