Mall shoppers blame car break-ins on lack of security
CHESAPEAKE, Va. (WAVY) — Shoppers are on alert after cars were broken into Monday at Greenbrier Mall in Chesapeake.
Tatyana, one of the victims who wants to referred to by just her first name, said she was at Greenbrier Mall with her eight-month-old son. When she got back to her car, she felt unsettled by what she saw.
Car break-ins and thefts surge in Virginia Beach, prompting police warning
'I put my son in the car and when I was putting him in the car,' Tatyana said. 'I realized his stuff had been thrown across the backseat. I knew something was up, but I tried to ignore it until I started driving and my lights came on and it alerted me that my passenger door had been opened, but I had no passengers.'She admits her car was unlocked while she was shopping. After realizing her door had been opened by someone else, she noticed two pairs of shoes were missing from the floorboard of the passenger side.'It was actually my brother's shoes and they're KD's (Kevin Durant Nike shoes), they're like basketball shoes,' she said. 'And they were made in like 2014, so these shoes are not coming back out again, but they were worth some money. Obviously, I'm just a woman. I was scared because you never know who did it and what they plan to do next.'She called mall security on her way off the property.'When I called security, security says 'Hey, we don't even have cameras on the building anymore because we're updating. So we took all the cameras down, so we can't see anything out in the parking lot,'' she said. Greenbrier Mall was recently bought by Virginia Beach-based developer Mike Sifen. Tatyana thinks the upgrades are part of a renovation and wonders if someone who worked in the mall knew about it.
Virginia Beach's Mike Sifen buys Greenbrier Mall for $22.4M
We've reached out to the mall's general manager about the cameras and are waiting to hear back.
Newport News residents furious over rash of car break-ins
There is at least one other victim. Chesapeake Police said a report was filed by someone saying their back window was smashed in and a purse was stolen. They want to remind folks to not leave their doors unlocked or any valuables out in plain sight.
If you saw anything that could help police, call the Crime Line at 1-888-LOCK-U-UP.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
15 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Emilie Kiser Blocks Three-Year-Old's Death Records From Going Public — For Now
A non-dissemination order has been instituted to temporarily halt the release of records in the case of influencer Emilie Kiser suing to keep the records of her three-year-old son's drowning death private, according to a filing in the Superior Court of Arizona. On May 18, Trigg Kiser, son of mom influencer Emilie Kiser, died following a drowning incident at the family's Chandler, Arizona home. According to the Chandler Police Department, the circumstances surrounding the incident are still under investigation. In the wake of the tragedy, the reaction online was intense, with an outpouring of both grief and scrutiny. Some TikTok creators posted videos of themselves sobbing after hearing the news of Trigg's death, while others zoomed into photos of Kiser's house in an attempt to decipher safety regulations and cast blame. More than 100 records requests were filed with the City of Chandler and the Maricopa County Medical Examiner's office for investigative records related to Trigg's death, according to the lawsuit. More from Rolling Stone Mom Influencer Emilie Kiser Sues to Keep Her 3-Year-Old Son's Death Records Private A Momfluencer's Son Drowned. Now Other Parents Are Rethinking How Much They Share Online Mexican Beauty Influencer Shot and Killed on TikTok Live Nine days after his death, on May 27, Emilie Kiser filed a lawsuit to keep the records — which could include the autopsy report, photos of the scene, the police report, and autopsy photos, among other documents — private. 'Emilie and her family desperately want to grieve in private but sadly, the public will not let them,' the lawsuit states. 'Trigg's death has become a media frenzy. Emilie and her family will suffer specific, material, and irreparable harm if the investigation records are released to the public.' As part of the lawsuit filing, Kiser submitted a four-page declaration which a source close to the litigation called 'an intensely personal account of her grief and trauma submitted to help the court understand her perspective.' The declaration was entirely redacted in public records of the lawsuit. In a statement to Rolling Stone, a source close to the litigation said, 'all parties have agreed that release of any information is on pause until a determination is made that balances the public's need for information versus privacy interests.' The non-dissemination order is basically a temporary pause, according to Craig Weiner, a New York-based lawyer who is not affiliated with the case. 'It means that everyone agrees not to release the autopsy reports [or any other reports] while the judge takes a good look at the situation and exercises his or her discretion,' Weiner says. 'You have to balance everything out. What is more important here — the public's right to know or the harm it may cause this private citizen?' The decision could take months, Weiner says, and could potentially be split, with some information — like police reports and autopsy reports — being released, while other information — like recordings of 911 calls and photos from the scene — remain private. The source close to the litigation considers the ruling a victory. '[This preserves] a small measure of privacy in the midst of public scrutiny is a reasonable and compassionate choice given the circumstances,' they said. Best of Rolling Stone Every Super Bowl Halftime Show, Ranked From Worst to Best The United States of Weed Gaming Levels Up
CNBC
30 minutes ago
- CNBC
Supreme Court rejects Mexico's lawsuit against U.S. gun makers
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Thursday threw out the Mexican government's lawsuit against U.S. firearms manufacturers accusing them of aiding and abetting gun violence. The court ruled unanimously in a ruling authored by Justice Elena Kagan that the lawsuit is barred by a 2005 federal law that shields gun companies from legal liability. The 2021 lawsuit accused Smith & Wesson, Colt and other companies of deliberately selling guns to dealers who sell products that are frequently recovered at Mexican crime scenes. The Mexican government accused the companies of "aiding and abetting" violations of U.S. law, which they had argued means the gun makers were not protected by the federal immunity shield, called the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. Mexico is seeking up to $10 billion in damages. The case at the Supreme Court involved two companies — Smith & Wesson and Interstate Arms. Other manufacturers, including Glock and Colt, successfully had claims against them tossed out. A federal judge initially ruled for the manufacturers, but the Boston-based 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals revived the case last year, saying the liability shield did not extend to Mexico's specific claims. The case reached the Supreme Court following increased tensions between American and Mexican leaders after the election of President Donald Trump, who has cited drug trafficking and gang violence in Mexico amid his crackdown on illegal immigrants. Democrats in Congress have introduced legislation intended to reduce the flow of guns across the border, which they estimate to total at least 200,000 a year.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Supreme Court spares US gun companies from Mexico's lawsuit
By John Kruzel and Andrew Chung WASHINGTON (Reuters) -The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday spared two American gun companies from a lawsuit by Mexico's government accusing them of aiding illegal firearms trafficking to drug cartels and fueling gun violence in the southern neighbor of the United States. The justices in a 9-0 ruling overturned a lower court's ruling that had allowed the lawsuit to proceed against firearms maker Smith & Wesson and distributor Interstate Arms. The lower court had found that Mexico plausibly alleged that the companies aided and abetted illegal gun sales, harming its government. The companies had argued for the dismissal of Mexico's suit, filed in Boston in 2021, under a 2005 U.S. law called the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act that broadly shields gun companies from liability for crimes committed with their products. The Boston-based 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decided in 2024 that the alleged conduct by the companies fell outside these protections. "Mexico alleges that the companies aided and abetted unlawful sales routing guns to Mexican drug cartels. The question presented is whether Mexico's complaint plausibly pleads that conduct. We conclude it does not," liberal Justice Elena Kagan wrote for the court. The case came to the Supreme Court at a complicated time for U.S.-Mexican relations as President Donald Trump pursues on-again, off-again tariffs on Mexican goods. Trump has also accused Mexico of doing too little to stop the flow of synthetic drugs such as fentanyl and migrant arrivals at the border. Mexico's lawsuit, filed in Boston in 2021, accused the two companies of violating various U.S. and Mexican laws. Mexico claims that the companies have deliberately maintained a distribution system that included firearms dealers who knowingly sell weapons to third-party, or "straw," purchasers who then traffic guns to cartels in Mexico. The suit also accused the companies of unlawfully designing and marketing their guns as military-grade weapons to drive up demand among the cartels, including by associating their products with the American military and law enforcement. The gun companies said they make and sell lawful products. To avoid its lawsuit being dismissed under the 2005 law, Mexico was required to plausibly allege that the companies aided and abetted illegal gun sales and that such conduct was the "proximate cause" - a legal principle involving who is responsible for causing an injury - of the harms claimed by Mexico. Mexico in the lawsuit sought monetary damages of an unspecified amount and a court order requiring Smith & Wesson and Interstate Arms to take steps to "abate and remedy the public nuisance they have created in Mexico." Gun violence fueled by trafficked U.S.-made firearms has contributed to a decline in business investment and economic activity in Mexico and forced its government to incur unusually high costs on services including healthcare, law enforcement and the military, according to the lawsuit. Mexico, a country with strict firearms laws, has said most of its gun homicides are committed with weapons trafficked from the United States and valued at more than $250 million annually. The Supreme Court heard arguments in the case on March 4.
