Connect with us

Missouri

Two Missouri officers asked women for their phones at traffic stops – then stole nude images, authorities say | CNN

Published

on

Two Missouri officers asked women for their phones at traffic stops – then stole nude images, authorities say | CNN




CNN
 — 

A former Missouri police officer and a former Missouri State Highway Patrol trooper have been indicted separately on federal charges accusing them of taking nude images from women’s phones during traffic stops while on duty.

Julian Alcala, a 29-year-old former police officer in Florissant, was indicted Wednesday in federal court in St. Louis. David McKnight, a 39-year-old former state trooper, was indicted Tuesday in federal court in southeastern Missouri’s Cape Girardeau, court documents show.

A spokesperson for the FBI St. Louis office told CNN the two cases are not connected, describing the similarities as “a matter of coincidence.”

Advertisement

In both cases, federal prosecutors allege the officers asked women for their phones – ostensibly to check their insurance coverage, vehicle registration or identification – and then searched the women’s phones for nude images, the US attorney’s office for Missouri’s eastern district asserts in the indictments. In two cases, McKnight also took the phones of alleged victims after arresting them.

The officers then used their personal cell phones to take photos of nude images they found – often images of the women, but in a few cases images of other people, the indictments say. Images of the nude photos were found on the men’s phones and on Alcala’s iCloud account, according to the indictments.

While the indictments don’t specify how the men came under suspicion, the attorney for one of Alcala’s alleged victims has said she reported an incident to the FBI, and one of McKnight’s alleged victims has said she reported him to his supervisor.

Alcala is accused of searching and taking images from the cell phones of 20 women between February 6 and May 18. McKnight is accused of searching nine women’s cell phones – and taking images from at least seven – between September 2023 and August 2024, the indictments read.

Each man is charged with one count of destroying records in a federal investigation and multiple counts of deprivation of the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure. Alcala pleaded not guilty in an arraignment on Friday and McKnight pleaded not guilty in a Thursday arraignment, court records show.

Advertisement

At least three lawsuits involving six plaintiffs have been filed in federal court against Alcala and the city of Florissant relating to the same allegations made in his indictment.

In one of the lawsuits against Alcala, a female plaintiff alleged that after he pulled her over in Florissant and took her phone, ostensibly to check her insurance in February, she noticed a deleted text message sent at the time of the traffic stop.

The lawsuit alleges Alcala found a video of the woman having sex and texted the video from her phone to his. That woman, having found the deleted message and realizing the video was sent from her phone to a number she didn’t recognize, contacted the FBI, her attorney, J.C. Pleban, told CNN affiliate KSDK.

The lawsuits also allege either that Alcala showed the nude images to other people, or that people have seen the images because of him.

CNN has sought comment from Pleban, other plaintiffs’ attorneys, the attorneys representing Florissant in the lawsuits against it, an attorney for McKnight, and the Missouri State Highway Patrol.

Advertisement

One of Alcala’s attorneys, Scott Rosenblum, told CNN Saturday he was reviewing evidence in the case.

The Florissant Police Department said in a Facebook post they learned about the allegations against Alcala in June, when the FBI in St. Louis informed them of the investigation into the officer. Alcala “immediately resigned” and the “department fully cooperated with the investigation,” the post says.

The department described itself as “disgusted at this behavior, which is a complete betrayal of the values we uphold and in no way reflects the professionalism and integrity of our dedicated officers.” They had “no knowledge of any illegal activity or improper behavior by Alcala” and had received no complaints about him during his employment, the post says. No other members of the police department were involved, according to the post.

One lawsuit filed against Alcala and Florissant on October 22 alleges that during two traffic stops for a broken taillight, he took pictures of nude photos of the unnamed plaintiff. The lawsuit claims he “observed those photos himself, and also distributed the photos to others.” The victim didn’t know about the photos until an FBI agent contacted her months later, the suit says.

In an email to CNN, W. Bevis Schock, an attorney representing the plaintiff in the October 22nd lawsuit, said of Alcala’s alleged actions: “The most important question is why? The answer, I think, is power.”

Advertisement

Another lawsuit was filed against Alcala and Florissant on October 28 on behalf of four anonymous victims, and another on behalf of an anonymous victim on November 14.

The October 28 lawsuit describes Alcala’s alleged actions as “a shocking degradation, an egregious humiliation and a flagrant breach of confidentiality.”

Alcala committed “a brutal abuse of official power that shocks the conscience,” the suit says. The suit also frames the incidents as sex-based discrimination, noting that Alcala only took photos and videos from women’s phones.

All three lawsuits also accuse Florissant. The October 28 lawsuit argues that the city “demonstrated deliberate indifference to or tacit authorization of the
Defendants’ misconduct after notice” and that it had failed to properly train or supervise officers “when they engaged in constitutional violations.”

McKnight, while working for the Missouri State Highway Patrol, searched through victims’ cell phones between September 1, 2023 and August 19, 2024, according to the indictment. Seven of the counts specify he took photographs of nude images he found on the victims’ phones, which were found on McKnight’s cell phone.

Advertisement

In two of the incidents, McKnight took the alleged victims’ phones after arresting them, the indictment says. In the other cases, he told the alleged victims he was checking their insurance coverage or identification before searching through their phones without a warrant or probable cause.

The destroying records count alleges that McKnight “deleted or attempted to delete those images from his cell phone.”

McKnight was arrested in August and charged with six counts of felony invasion of privacy in New Madrid and Scott counties, according to CNN affiliate KFVS. He pleaded not guilty to those charges, KFVS reported. CNN has reached out to the prosecuting attorneys in both counties for comment. He resigned from the Missouri State Highway Patrol on August 26, the patrol told CNN.

“Employees are required to safeguard the rights of everyone, obey all laws and are prohibited from performing any act that constitutes a violation of any law,” the patrol said in an email.

One of the former state trooper’s alleged victims described her experience as “really violating” in an interview with KFVS.

Advertisement

Emily Northern said McKnight pulled her over in late July for expired vehicle registration tags. When she showed him her insurance on her cell phone, he asked to take it back to his car, KFVS reported.

“I was uncomfortable with it, but I didn’t want to argue with him,” Northern told KFVS.

When he returned her phone, she looked at her screen time and could see that he had spent 5 minutes looking through her photos and was on her Snapchat account, she said.

She reported the encounter to his supervisor, she said.

“I was a mess. I was crying,” Northern said, according to KFVS. “It was such an awful feeling knowing he was going through my phone, like I’ve got private personal photos of me.”

Advertisement



Source link

Missouri

Lawsuit aims to block Missouri income tax amendment from ballot

Published

on

Lawsuit aims to block Missouri income tax amendment from ballot


A lawsuit filed Wednesday, May 13 seeks to knock a proposed constitutional amendment off Missouri’s 2026 ballot that would give lawmakers new power to expand sales taxes to eliminate the income tax, arguing legislators bundled too many subjects into one proposal and wrote misleading ballot language.

The lawsuit, filed in Cole County Circuit Court by attorney Chuck Hatfield on behalf of a Missouri resident, challenges a proposed ballot question that would ask voters to amend the Missouri Constitution to begin phasing out the state individual income tax.

The measure, approved by the legislature last month, is expected to appear on the November ballot unless Gov. Mike Kehoe moves it to another election. Kehoe has made eliminating the income tax one of his top priorities, arguing it would make Missouri more competitive with states that do not tax individual income.

Advertisement

But the lawsuit argues the proposal is constitutionally defective and should be blocked from any ballot. In the alternative, it asks the court to rewrite the summary statement voters would see.

The lawsuits central legal argument is that the proposal violates constitutional limits on ballot measures by including more than one subject and effectively amending multiple articles of the Missouri Constitution.

“This is precisely the logrolling harm the multi-article rule was designed to prevent,” the lawsuit argues, contending voters who support eliminating the income tax could be forced to also accept provisions they oppose, such as expanding the sales tax or changing how road funds and local taxes are handled.

The lawsuit also argues the proposal would improperly expand the constitutional role of the state auditor by requiring the office to calculate reduced tax rates triggered by the amendment. The petition contends that duty is not related to auditing the receipt or expenditure of public funds, which the Missouri Constitution says is the limit of the auditor’s authority.

Advertisement

Instead, the lawsuit argues, the amendment would give the auditor a new rate-setting or revenue-modeling role, including authority to calculate changes affecting tax rates set elsewhere in the constitution.

A spokesperson for Secretary of State Denny Hoskins, who was among the named respondents in the lawsuit, did not respond to a request for comment.

If passed, the proposal would direct lawmakers to set a revenue baseline and triggers for phased-in reductions in the top tax rate. It also allows five years for the legislature to write a new sales tax law, which must be directly tied to cuts in the top income tax rate in a manner supporters hope will not increase or decrease revenue.

Currently Missouri has an income tax with a top rate of 4.7% for taxable incomes greater than about $9,200 a year. The sales tax is 3% for general revenue, but earmarked state taxes and local options stack on top of that, creating a rate that is 7% to 8% in most locations and can be as much as 12% in some special districts.

The sales tax applies to physical goods and excludes services. The Missouri Constitution prohibits lawmakers from applying the sales tax to real estate transfers and any goods or services not currently taxed, but those provisions would not apply to any sales tax plan passed as a result of the constitutional amendment.

Advertisement

Missouri gets about 65% of its state revenue from income tax, about 22% from sales tax and the rest from other sources including a corporate income tax. To replace the revenue from the income tax without expanding coverage of the sales tax would increase the tax rate by as much as 8.5%.

State law exempts residential utility costs, prescription drugs and groceries from all or a portion of the current sales tax. There are also dozens of other sales tax exemptions, mainly tied to business operations as an economic development tool.

The lawsuit also challenges the ballot summary approved by lawmakers.

The summary asks voters whether the Missouri Constitution should be amended to “phase-out the individual income tax based on revenue growth,” “reduce personal property and other local taxes when local revenues increase,” “modify the sales and use tax to eliminate income tax and reduce local taxes” and “protect local funding for public schools and other purposes.”

The lawsuit argues that language is unfair and insufficient because it does not tell voters that the amendment would allow lawmakers to tax services now protected from sales taxes, would temporarily exempt certain tax increases from constitutional limits on new annual revenue and would permanently bar lawmakers from reimposing an individual income tax once it is eliminated.

Advertisement

The lawsuit takes particular aim at the word “modify,” arguing it fails to convey the breadth of the sales-tax authority voters would be granting lawmakers.

“A voter reading ‘modify the sales and use tax’ would not be apprised that the resolution authorizes the state to begin taxing services such as haircuts, legal fees, home repairs, medical services, accounting, and any other service currently exempt from sales tax,” the lawsuit states.

It also argues the phrase “protect local funding for public schools and other purposes” is argumentative because the word “protect” encourages support for the measure rather than neutrally describing what it does.

“If the people are allowed to have a fair vote, they’ll vote this amendment down,” Hatfield said in an interview May 13. “But the ballot summary the legislature wants to show them is just not fair or accurate.”

The governor called on lawmakers in January to place an income-tax phaseout on the ballot, saying voter approval would allow lawmakers to act next session.

Advertisement

Supporters of the amendment have argued that eliminating the income tax would help Missouri attract residents, jobs and investment. During debate over the proposal, Republicans framed it as a long-term economic growth strategy and a way to let Missourians keep more of what they earn.

Opponents have argued the plan would shift the tax burden toward sales taxes, raising costs for people who spend a larger share of their income on taxable goods and services. They have also warned that the ballot language does not make clear that voters would be authorizing a broader sales tax in order to replace revenue from the income tax.

The lawsuit asks the court to permanently block Hoskins from placing the measure on any ballot. If the court declines to do that, it asks for a new summary statement that “fairly and accurately conveys the central purpose and probable effects” of the amendment.

This story was first published at missouriindependent.com.



Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Missouri

Missouri lawmakers pass bill requiring age verification for porn sites

Published

on

Missouri lawmakers pass bill requiring age verification for porn sites


A bill requiring pornography websites to conduct age checks before granting access is headed to Missouri Gov. Mike Kehoe.

Commercial websites and platforms must already verify that users are at least 18 if more than a third of their content is sexually explicit as part of a rule enforced by Missouri Attorney General Catherine Hanaway since December.

The bill, sponsored by Republican state Rep. Sherri Gallick of Belton, would codify that rule in state law, requiring websites to use third-party age verification providers.

Advertisement

“One of the things that was really compelling to me is that a lot of people growing up in today’s age look at a phone or they look at a computer, and they think that is reality,” Gallick told The Independent. “It’s very demeaning to women and to children.”

Sites that don’t comply would be subject to civil penalties, including fines up to $10,000 per day in violation of the law and an additional $250,000 if at least one minor accessed sexually explicit content. Sites could be charged $10,000 per violation of a provision prohibiting age verification providers from retaining users’ identifiable information.

The House passed the bill 112-25 Wednesday, May 13, with 20 Democrats and 5 Republicans in opposition and 11 Democrats voting “present.” The Senate passed the bill 32-0 on Tuesday, May 12, sending it back to the House for approval of a minor amendment.

The bill got initial House approval last year but was dropped from the calendar before getting a formal vote due to a challenge in the U.S. Supreme Court to a similar Texas law.

Advertisement

“The fear was, ‘Okay, what if they don’t uphold that? Then we would have to make some changes,’” Gallick said.

The court sided with Texas in July 2025, ruling that the state’s requirement that users prove their age by showing government-issued identification did not violate adults’ right to access constitutionally-protected content. 

During House debate in March, Democratic lawmakers questioned the potential effectiveness of the bill and raised the possibility of unintended consequences.

Democratic state Rep. Eric Woods of Kansas City said young people are likely to find ways around age verification requirements.

“Kids are smart,” Woods said. “There are VPNs. There are browser settings that allow you to skirt around some of this stuff.”

Advertisement

House Minority Leader Ashley Aune, a Kansas City Democrat, argued that age verification requirements could lead more prominent porn websites to block access in Missouri, driving traffic to less scrupulous sites with fewer content safeguards.

“The websites that are less inclined to follow the rules also tend to be the types of websites that are filled with child sexual assault material, that include nonconsensual sex acts,” Aune said.

The porn industry’s largest website, Pornhub, blocked access in Missouri after Hanaway announced her office’s rule, issuing a statement calling the new rule ineffective and raising data privacy concerns.

Gallick said that while she realizes some young people will still access sexually explicit material, putting age verification requirements in state law is an important step to protect children. She said pornography can be used by bad actors to “groom” children to engage in sexual activity.

“When there’s a leak in your house you turn the water off,” Gallick said. “When there’s pests that come into your house, an exterminator comes in and cuts off the source. This is the source. Children do not need to view pornography.”

Advertisement

This story was first published at missouriindependent.com.



Source link

Continue Reading

Missouri

Missouri Lottery Powerball, Pick 3 winning numbers for May 13, 2026

Published

on


The Missouri Lottery offers several draw games for those aiming to win big.

Here’s a look at May 13, 2026, results for each game:

Winning Powerball numbers from May 13 drawing

22-31-52-56-67, Powerball: 15, Power Play: 2

Check Powerball payouts and previous drawings here.

Advertisement

Winning Pick 3 numbers from May 13 drawing

Midday: 2-6-1

Midday Wild: 7

Evening: 7-8-3

Evening Wild: 2

Check Pick 3 payouts and previous drawings here.

Advertisement

Winning Pick 4 numbers from May 13 drawing

Midday: 5-8-3-5

Midday Wild: 0

Evening: 8-7-7-9

Evening Wild: 1

Check Pick 4 payouts and previous drawings here.

Advertisement

Winning Cash Pop numbers from May 13 drawing

Early Bird: 11

Morning: 15

Matinee: 14

Prime Time: 12

Night Owl: 11

Advertisement

Check Cash Pop payouts and previous drawings here.

Winning Show Me Cash numbers from May 13 drawing

04-08-18-19-27

Check Show Me Cash payouts and previous drawings here.

Winning Powerball Double Play numbers from May 13 drawing

08-13-39-63-66, Powerball: 02

Check Powerball Double Play payouts and previous drawings here.

Advertisement

Feeling lucky? Explore the latest lottery news & results

Are you a winner? Here’s how to claim your lottery prize

All Missouri Lottery retailers can redeem prizes up to $600. For prizes over $600, winners have the option to submit their claim by mail or in person at one of Missouri Lottery’s regional offices, by appointment only.

To claim by mail, complete a Missouri Lottery winner claim form, sign your winning ticket, and include a copy of your government-issued photo ID along with a completed IRS Form W-9. Ensure your name, address, telephone number and signature are on the back of your ticket. Claims should be mailed to:

Ticket Redemption

Missouri Lottery

Advertisement

P.O. Box 7777

Jefferson City, MO 65102-7777

For in-person claims, visit the Missouri Lottery Headquarters in Jefferson City or one of the regional offices in Kansas City, Springfield or St. Louis. Be sure to call ahead to verify hours and check if an appointment is required.

For additional instructions or to download the claim form, visit the Missouri Lottery prize claim page.

When are the Missouri Lottery drawings held?

  • Powerball: 9:59 p.m. Monday, Wednesday and Saturday.
  • Mega Millions: 10 p.m. Tuesday and Friday.
  • Pick 3: 12:45 p.m. (Midday) and 8:59 p.m. (Evening) daily.
  • Pick 4: 12:45 p.m. (Midday) and 8:59 p.m. (Evening) daily.
  • Cash4Life: 8 p.m. daily.
  • Cash Pop: 8 a.m. (Early Bird), 11 a.m. (Late Morning), 3 p.m. (Matinee), 7 p.m. (Prime Time) and 11 p.m. (Night Owl) daily.
  • Show Me Cash: 8:59 p.m. daily.
  • Lotto: 8:59 p.m. Wednesday and Saturday.
  • Powerball Double Play: 9:59 p.m. Monday, Wednesday and Saturday.

This results page was generated automatically using information from TinBu and a template written and reviewed by a Missouri editor. You can send feedback using this form.



Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending