Minnesota fallen officers among those honored during National Police Week memorial service
Several Minnesota police officers killed in the line of duty will be remembered during a memorial service in Washington D.C. Thursday morning.
The memorial service is part of the National Police Week, an event which brings law enforcement and families together to pay homage to those killed. This year, roughly 350 fallen police officers will be memorialized.
Minnesota officers include Paul Elmstrand and Matthew Ruge, who were shot and killed in February 2024 along with firefighter paramedic Adam Finseth.
Other Minnesota officers being remembered include Jesse Branch, of Red Lake Nation Police; National Park Service Ranger Kevin Grossheim; and Minneapolis Police Officer Jamal Mitchell.
How to watch
What: A memorial service honoring the officers who were killed in the line of duty.
A memorial service honoring the officers who were killed in the line of duty. When: 11 a.m. CT
11 a.m. CT Where: Washington, D.C.
Washington, D.C. How to watch: You can watch the memorial service live in the player above, on CBS News Minnesota or on Pluto TV.
The 101 Market and Garden Center raised funds to help send the families of Elmstrand, Ruge and Finseth — as well as the entire Burnsville Police Department — to Washington, D.C. to attend the memorial.
The officers' names were read aloud during a candlelight vigil Tuesday on the National Mall.
"It is just a really powerful and moving thing, and you could see the emotion in people's eyes," Burnsville Police Dep. Chief Matt Smith told WCCO News. "We've been waiting a long time for this week and this event to honor Matt and Paul and Adam."
Finseth was honored in early May as part of National Firefighter Memorial Weekend.
This story will be updated.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
15 hours ago
- Yahoo
A Runner Was Prosecuted for Unapproved Trail Use After the Referring Agency Called It 'Overcriminalization'
When the federal government decided to prosecute mountain runner Michelino Sunseri for using an unauthorized trail while setting a record for ascending and descending Grand Teton in September 2024, it seemed like a good example of a problem that President Donald Trump decried in an executive order last month: "overcriminalization in federal regulations." The National Park Service (NPS) ultimately agreed, saying it was "withdrawing its criminal prosecution referral" after "further review" in light of the president's order. But the Justice Department proceeded with the case anyway, resulting in a two-day bench trial that ended on May 21. That disagreement, revealed in an email chain that Sunseri's lawyers obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request, raises questions about whether prosecutors met their constitutional obligation to share information that would have been helpful to the defense. It also casts doubt on whether the Justice Department is complying with the policy described in Trump's order, which said federal prosecutors should eschew charges involving regulatory crimes unless they have evidence indicating that the defendant knowingly violated the law. That point always seemed doubtful in Sunseri's case. For one thing, he publicized his route up and down Grand Teton with a map that he posted on social media. According to the NPS and the Justice Department, that map showed Sunseri had committed a federal misdemeanor punishable by up to six months in jail. And as WyoFile reporter Katie Klingsporn noted during Sunseri's trial before U.S. Magistrate Judge Stephanie Hambrick in Jackson, Wyoming, the route that the NPS said he should not have taken, known as the "old climber's trail," is "a historic trail so well-used that it's become a skinny singletrack." In fact, Cato Institute legal fellow Mike Fox noted in March, "record holders before Sunseri had used the same trail, and tour guides who charge hefty sums frequently lead hikers up the same route. Only two tiny and ambiguous signs inform the public that the trail is off-limits." One of those signs, at the top of the trail, said "shortcutting causes erosion." The other sign, at the bottom of the trail, said "closed for regrowth." Ed Bushnell, Sunseri's defense attorney, argued that his client was not "shortcutting," since he was using a long-established trail. Bushnell added that it was unclear whether the "closed" notice referred to the area around the sign or the trail beyond it. "There is no clear prohibition there," Bushnell said. "This is not conspicuous signage." Given the evidence that Sunseri did not deliberately violate park rules, the criminal referral was puzzling and controversial. As is typical with regulatory crimes, his prosecution was based on the interaction between the Code of Federal Regulations—a body of law so vast and obscure that even experts can only guess at the number of criminal penalties it authorizes (at least 300,000, they think)—and a more general statute enacted by Congress. Sunseri was charged with violating 36 CFR 21(b), which says a park superintendent "may restrict hiking or pedestrian use to a designated trail or walkway system." It adds that "leaving a trail or walkway to shortcut between portions of the same trail or walkway, or to shortcut to an adjacent trail or walkway in violation of designated restrictions is prohibited." The regulation says nothing about criminal penalties, which are separately authorized by 16 USC 551. That law says violations of "rules and regulations" governing the use of public and national forests "shall be punished by a fine of not more than $500 or imprisonment for not more than six months, or both." By authorizing prosecution for agency-defined offenses, Congress has created a bewildering situation in which the average American cannot reasonably be expected to know when he is committing a federal crime. "This status quo is absurd and unjust," Trump said in his executive order, which he issued on May 9. "It allows the executive branch to write the law, in addition to executing it." In addition to urging prosecutorial restraint, Trump instructed federal agencies to "explicitly describe" conduct subject to criminal punishment under new regulations and prepare lists of regulatory violations that already can be treated as crimes. He also told them to publish plans to "address criminally liable regulatory offenses." In deciding whether to make a criminal referral, he said, agencies should consider factors such as "the harm or risk of harm, pecuniary or otherwise, caused by the alleged offense"; "the potential gain to the putative defendant that could result from the offense"; and "evidence, if any is available, of the putative defendant's general awareness of the unlawfulness of his conduct as well as his knowledge or lack thereof of the regulation at issue." The Interior Department, which includes the NPS, got the message. A week later, Damon Hagan, a deputy solicitor at the department, emailed Assistant U.S. Attorney Ariel Calmes, noting his office's "review of our regulations for compliance" with Trump's order. Hagan added that he "look[ed] forward to further discussions with your supervisors and yourself regarding the Michelino Sunseri matter." Hagan also emailed Adam Gustafson, acting assistant attorney general for the Justice Department's Environment and Natural Resources Division, noting his office's interest in reconsidering the Sunseri case. Three days later, on May 19, Hagan emailed Nicole Romine, chief of the criminal division at the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Wyoming, passing along a message "for your situational awareness" from Frank Lands, deputy director for operations at the NPS. "After further review," Lands said, "the National Park Service is withdrawing its criminal prosecution referral in the Michelino Sunseri matter." He noted that the prosecution's most recent plea deal proposal entailed a fine and a five-year ban from Grand Teton National Park. Because "we believe" that represents "an overcriminalization based on the gravity of the offense," he said, "we withdraw our support." Romine was unfazed. "Thank you," she wrote back to Hagan that evening. "We're continuing with the prosecution." Sunseri's trial began the next day. Although Romine and Calmes "had access to this email [from Lands] before trial," Bushnell and co-counsel Alexander Rienzie say in a motion they filed with Hambrick on Wednesday, they "decided not to disclose it to the defense, despite its clear relevance to DOJ authorization, defense strategy and witness impeachment." That failure, Bushnell and Rienzie argue, ran afoul of the prosecution's obligations under Brady v. Maryland, the 1963 case in which the Supreme Court held that criminal defendants have a due process right to see evidence "material" to their guilt or punishment. In the 1995 case Kyles v. Whitley, the lawyers note, the Supreme Court clarified that "a showing of materiality does not require demonstration by a preponderance [of the evidence] that disclosure of the suppressed evidence would have resulted ultimately in the defendant's acquittal." Rather, it is enough that the suppression "undermines confidence in the outcome of the trial," which implies a "reasonable probability" that the evidence might have changed the result. If they had known about the Lands email before Sunseri's trial, Bushnell and Rienzie suggest, they would have called additional witnesses, including NPS Public Affairs Officer Emily Davis. They say they also would have "expand[ed] trial strategy to challenge the institutional legitimacy of the prosecution" and "explore[d] additional selective/vindictive prosecution theories on cross-examination." Those missed opportunities, they say, "collectively undermin[ed] the fundamental fairness of Mr. Sunseri's trial." Bushnell and Rienzie are asking Hambrick, who has not yet delivered a verdict, to admit the email chain as evidence. They are also seeking an evidentiary hearing to address several issues raised by those messages, including a possible Brady violation and "the integrity and authorization of the prosecution itself, in light of the initiating agency withdrawing support." They are curious about "the decision-making process that led DOJ to continue prosecution without agency support" and "the motivation to continue pursuing disproportionate plea terms after NPS withdrawal." Connor Burkesmith, a photographer who documented Sunseri's Grand Teton feat and is working on a film about it, thinks that decision was plainly unfair. "After the National Park Service explicitly withdrew, the prosecution decided to continue on the war path and subpoenaed the park rangers to testify," Burkesmith says in an email. "The trial then proceeded for two days, with [about] 20 federal employees in attendance, wasting countless taxpayer dollars to prosecute a trail runner for running on a trail." This certainly seems like a case that could have been handled with a civil fine rather than a criminal prosecution, or at least with a plea deal less onerous than the one prosecutors offered. "Even after the DOJ was aware of NPS withdrawal of support, on the morning of trial," Bushnell and Rienzie say, Calmes "reiterated an offer of deferred prosecution with 1,000 hours of community service and a ban from Grand Teton National Park—entirely disproportionate to the conduct at question, particularly with the initiating agency no longer supporting prosecution." Sunseri's lawyers "extended a counter-offer modifying community service to 60 hours and replacing the ban with a restriction tied to alleged conduct." It is unclear how Hambrick will respond to Sunseri's motion, how she is inclined to assess his guilt, or what punishment she might think is appropriate. But the fact that his fate will be decided by a single judge (subject to appeal) could affect the ultimate outcome. Hambrick rejected Sunseri's request for a jury trial, which she was allowed to do under a "petty offense exception" that the Supreme Court has atextually carved out of the Sixth Amendment. That amendment says defendants "in all criminal prosecutions" have a right to "a speedy and public trial" by "an impartial jury." In cases like Sunseri's, "the right to a jury trial is of particular importance," Fox argues. "Founding-era jurors were tasked with preventing injustice. Criminal jurors had a civic duty to assess the wisdom, legitimacy and fairness of a given prosecution, and they had the power to acquit against the evidence to prevent injustice. It is doubtful that a jury fully cognizant of its historical powers and duties would convict Sunseri." The post A Runner Was Prosecuted for Unapproved Trail Use After the Referring Agency Called It 'Overcriminalization' appeared first on
Yahoo
a day ago
- Yahoo
Dupont Circle Park will officially close for DC's WorldPride weekend
WASHINGTON () — After days of uncertainty and unanswered questions, the National Park Service has officially announced that Dupont Circle Park will close for WorldPride weekend. This announcement came after the United States Park Police (USPP) requested the closure over safety concerns. Park police said closing the circle was necessary for the maintenance of public health and safety and protection of natural and cultural resources in the park. Park police added the temporary closure throughout the weekend will 'secure the park, deter potential violence, reduce the risk of destructive acts and decrease the need for extensive law enforcement presences.' PREVIOUS COVERAGE | Uncertainty lingers over Dupont Circle's status ahead of WorldPride Parade The decision stemmed from previous Pride weekends, when D.C. police said groups of people damaged property, looted and participated in underage drinking. The historic fountain at the center of the circle was reportedly damaged, and there were reports of gunfire. Significant road closures for WorldPride Parade, Block Party In a letter to park police on April 22, D.C. Police Chief Pamela Smith wrote, 'Every year, the situation has strained our personnel as the large crowds continued to linger around the park and spill into the nearby roadway causing further disturbances.' Days later, D.C. police rescinded their request to install anti-scale fencing around the perimeter of Dupont Circle after pushback from the community. However, the final decision was up to the United States Park Police. Around 5 a.m. on Friday, officers surrounded Dupont Circle with police tape, and fencing began going up around the park. USPP said the park will remain closed through Sunday, June 8, around 6 p.m. Richard Lewis, who lived in the community for nearly two decades, said he is truly disappointed. 'Very disappointed in the agencies that were involved in this lack of decision making, the back and forth. The public outcry apparently doesn't seem to matter. There are ways of doing and protecting the property without closing it,' said Lewis. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
a day ago
- Yahoo
Independence police chief on leave, fires back at ‘baseless rumors' in FOX4 interview
INDEPENDENCE, Mo. — Independence Police Chief Adam Dustman is speaking out Thursday, June 5, to give his side of the story amid swirling rumors about his recent leave from the department. In a revealing interview with FOX4, Dustman categorically denied allegations tied to an incident during National Police Week and emphasized his commitment to the job he loves. Bomb Squad removes grenade from Independence cemetery Since May 23, Chief Dustman has been off the job, stepping away to address 'personal issues.' 'I have personal issues going on. I've decided to take time. I've gone through a rough couple of years with the department and the loss we've had,' he said when asked about the reasons for his leave. 'With the addition of personal issues, now is the time to take some time away to focus on being the best me I can be and the best dad I can be for my boys.' FOX4 confirmed through public records and the chief himself that his wife, Sarah Dustman, filed for divorce at the end of March. However, personal challenges aren't the heart of the controversy. The controversy centers on an event during National Police Week in Washington, D.C., which began on Sunday, May 11. Chief Dustman represented the Independence Police Department as the name of fallen officer Cody Allen was added to the National Fallen Officer Memorial. It was following that solemn event that rumors began to circulate. Some claim the chief went out with colleagues, got so intoxicated he had to be carried to his hotel, and was even kicked out of a bar or involved in a fight. Dustman, however, vehemently denies these claims. Woman arrested & charged with murdering pregnant woman, unborn child on Christmas Eve 2023 The only truth he says is that he went out after hours with fellow officers. Despite his denials, a high-level source confirmed to FOX4 that the incident has prompted, or will prompt, an internal affairs investigation. Chief Dustman says he welcomes the probe and insists his leave of absence has nothing to do with it. In the meantime, Deputy Chief Jason Petersen is leading the department. Dustman says he has full confidence in Petersen and the team to keep things running smoothly. 'I am 100% up for the job. I love this job, it's literally, outside of my kiddos, the single greatest accomplishment of my life,' Dustman responded when asked if he's still up for the job. 'I'm proud to serve this city and the men and women of this police department each and every day. That will never change.' He also expressed concern about someone leaking highly personal information within the department, but said he does not know who is responsible. Person waiting for bus in critical condition after being hit by car Chief Dustman says he is focusing on his sons during this time away and expects to return to headquarters in early July. FOX4 has reached out to the city and the department for comment and is awaiting their response. Stay tuned to FOX4 for the latest updates and developments. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
