Connect with us

The Dictatorship

Why the car app used in the New Orleans attack should have police worried

Published

on

Why the car app used in the New Orleans attack should have police worried

Officials say that the Ford 150 Lightning pickup truck used in the New Year’s Day terrorist attack in New Orleans and the Tesla Cybertruck that exploded outside Trump International Hotel in Las Vegas were separately rented by the men responsible for those crimes through the vehicle-sharing app Turo.  The man who drove that truck into the New Orleans French Quarter killed 14 people before officials say police shot him dead. The person inside the Cybertruck was discovered dead inside the vehicle with a self-inflicted gun wound.

The owners who rented out those vehicles via the app must have been gobsmacked to start the new year by learning they were tangled up in federal investigations into the deadly attacks.

When police usually run the license plates of vehicles used in illegal activities, the information connects them to the owners. The owners who rented out those vehicles via the app must have been gobsmacked to start the new year by learning they were tangled up in federal investigations into the deadly attacks.

Officials have not found any link between the attacks in New Orleans and Las Vegas. Aside from the coincidence that both the New Orleans attacker and the man who drove the Cybertruck served in the Army, the only known similarity is that the men rented the vehicles in question through Turo.

For many people, the crimes in New Orleans and Las Vegas may be the first they’ve heard of the peer-to-peer method of renting vehicles.  But law enforcement officials have been paying attention.

These vehicle-sharing applications have, for the past few years, been garnering the wrong kind of attention from the wrong kinds of renters. Some vehicles offered on these apps, such as Getaround, and now defunct Karshare, have been stolen, used in homicidesdrug dealing or human trafficking.


The pickup truck drove into a crowd on Bourbon Street in New Orleans, killing and injuring a number of people, early New Year's Day.
The pickup truck drove into a crowd on Bourbon Street in New Orleans, killing and injuring a number of people, early New Year’s Day.Gerald Herbert / AP

Reports suggest peer-to-peer rentals are more likely to attract criminals and be used by criminals than those from vehicle rental companies and that, if they are used in a crime, can take investigators more time to distinguish those who own the vehicles from those who committed the crimes.

For example, according to a May 2024 report in the Houston Chronicle, federal prosecutors there said a man in that area paid people to rent cars through Turo that he then sold in Mexico. Turo cooperated with that investigation. “Turo has a message to those with criminal intent: We will stop at nothing to see you brought to justice,” the company said in a statement.”

According to a statement the company released Wednesday, “It is with a heavy heart that we confirm that this morning’s horrific attack in New Orleans and this afternoon’s Tesla Cybertruck explosion in Las Vegas both involved vehicles rented on Turo.” The company added: “Our thoughts and prayers are with the victims and their families.”

It’s too bad that companies trying to make renting a vehicle cheaper for the renter, and safe and lucrative for the owner, have to contend with people using their service to commit crimes.

Turo is one of several companies that seek to provide consumers with an alternative to the brick-and-mortar rental vehicle behemoths we most often see at airports. It’s too bad that companies trying to make renting a vehicle cheaper for the renter, and safe and lucrative for the owner, have to contend with people using their service to commit crimes. The companies put systems in place that are meant to prevent that. A vehicle owner looking to make some extra income applies for approval to post it on the app; the company screens the owner, learns about the vehicle and, if all goes well, permits the owner to post it. Would-be renters are similarly screened and subjected to a criminal background check.

In these cases, Turo said in its Wednesday statement that the two renters had valid driver’s licenses, clean background checks and both had been honorably discharged from the military.

So, why would this attract criminals?

First, the owner and renter mutually decide either to schedule an in-person exchange of the keys or to have the owner leave the vehicle at a prearranged location. Vehicles posted for rent are often left at locations with keys inside, for easy, contactless pickup by a renter. Someone browsing one of the apps could determine its location, break into it and steal it without ever renting it. Similarly, people could, and have, rented it for the express purpose of stealing it — perhaps because it’s a highly sought after vehicle.

The Turo app on a phone.
The Turo app on a phone. Jakub Porzycki / NurPhoto / Getty Images

When a law enforcement agency, such as Border Patrolfocuses on a vehicle because of suspected crimes, such as human or drug smuggling, they run its license plate, which comes back to the owner. The driver may or may not have any identification on them. In contrast to how easy it would be to trace a car rented from a traditional company, when it’s a peer-to-peer app, the police can’t always quickly determine that the car was rented or, if it was rented, who rented it.

With a traditional rental company, the police can typically make one phone call to the company to get the information they need.

A Tucson, Arizona, news station sought comment from Turo in 2023 after a man who’d offered his vehicles on the app said Border Patrol had impounded an SUV he owned after determining it had been used in human smuggling. The company responded, “We are aware of incidents where guests violated our policy by giving their vehicles to unauthorized individuals. We acted promptly by restricting their access to our platform and collaborating with the host and law enforcement to recover the vehicle while covering the host’s associated expenses.”

More than a few owners have been told their car has been impounded in connection with a crime they had nothing to do with. The whole process is a giant speed bump for police who may be rushing to get to the bottom of a crime. Time is especially of the essence during investigations of apparent terrorism.

Peer-to-peer car-sharing apps can be a convenient low-cost method to rent a vehicle and even try out an exotic, expensive one. But easy to rent can mean easy to steal, and easier to elude investigators who have to burn precious hours trying to learn where a vehicle came from and who is the person they’re really pursuing.

Frank Figliuzzi

Frank Figliuzzi is an BLN columnist and Senior National Security and Intelligence Analyst for NBC News and BLN. He was the assistant director for counterintelligence at the FBI, where he served 25 years as a special agent and directed all espionage investigations across the government. He is the author of “The FBI Way: Inside the Bureau’s Code of Excellence.”

Read More

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

The Dictatorship

The Latest: Trump seeks help opening the Strait of Hormuz as Iran war chokes oil shipping

Published

on

The Latest: Trump seeks help opening the Strait of Hormuz as Iran war chokes oil shipping

Read More

Continue Reading

The Dictatorship

BBC asks a court to dismiss Trump’s $10 billion lawsuit

Published

on

BBC asks a court to dismiss Trump’s $10 billion lawsuit

LONDON (AP) — The BBC filed a motion Monday asking a U.S. court to dismiss President Donald Trump’s $10 billion lawsuit against it, warning that the case could have a “chilling effect” on robust reporting on public figures and events.

The suit was filed in a Florida court, but the British national broadcaster argued that the court did not have jurisdiction, nor could Trump show that the BBC intended to misrepresent him.

Trump filed a lawsuit in December over the way a BBC documentary edited a speech he gave on Jan. 6, 2021. The claim seeks $5 billion in damages for defamation and a further $5 billion for unfair trade practices.

Last month a judge at the federal court for the Southern District of Florida provisionally set a trial date for February 2027.

The BBC argued that the case should be thrown out because the documentary was never aired in Florida or the U.S.

“We have therefore challenged jurisdiction of the Florida court and filed a motion to dismiss the president’s claim,” the corporation said in a statement.

In a 34-page document, the BBC also argued that Trump failed to “plausibly allege facts showing that defendants knowingly intended to create a false impression.”

Trump’s case “falls well short of the high bar of actual malice,” it said.

The document further claimed that “the chilling effect is clear” when Trump is “among the most powerful and high-profile individuals in the world, on whose activities the BBC reports every day.”

“Early dismissal is favoured given the powerful interest in ensuring that free speech is not unduly burdened by the necessity of defending against expensive yet groundless litigation, which would constrict the breathing space needed to ensure robust reporting on public figures and events,” it said.

The documentary — titled “Trump: A Second Chance?” — was aired days before the 2024 U.S. presidential election.

The program spliced together three quotes from two sections of a speech Trump made on Jan. 6, 2021, into what appeared to be one quote, in which Trump appeared to explicitly encourage his supporters to storm the Capitol building.

Among the parts cut out was a section where Trump said he wanted supporters to demonstrate peacefully.

Trump’s lawsuit accuses the BBC of broadcasting a “false, defamatory, deceptive, disparaging, inflammatory, and malicious depiction” of him, and called it “a brazen attempt to interfere in and influence” the 2024 U.S. presidential election.

The broadcaster’s chairman has apologized to Trump over the edit of the speech, admitting that it gave “the impression of a direct call for violent action.” But the BBC rejects claims it defamed him. The furor triggered the resignations of the BBC’s top executive and its head of news last year.

Read More

Continue Reading

The Dictatorship

The DOJ’s ethics proposal would have a corrupt fox guarding the henhouse

Published

on

State bar associations play an important accountability role across the country. Trump administration lawyers know that their legal licenses are subject to censure, because practicing law in the United States remains a privilege, not a right. But if Attorney General Pam Bondi has her way, even this guardrail could disappear.

Last week, Bondi proposed a new rule that would allow the Department of Justice to take over investigations of alleged attorney misconduct of its own lawyers. State bar authorities would have to pause their investigations while the Justice Department conducts its own probe. The rule gives the DOJ the ability to delay or even derail a state investigation.

The rule gives the DOJ the ability to delay or even derail a state investigation.

It doesn’t feel like a coincidence that there has been a series of state ethics complaints filed against Trump administration lawyers, including Bondi, Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche and federal prosecutors handling immigration cases. President Donald Trump’s polarizing pardon attorney Ed Martin is currently facing just such a complaint from the D.C. Bar.

As outlined in the Federal Registerthe proposal argues that “political activists have weaponized the bar complaint and investigation process.” Of course, even if it were true that frivolous complaints were being filed against Justice Department lawyers, state bar grievance authorities should be able to weed them out just as effectively as the department’s own investigators. In fact, having an independent review process would provide more credibility than the DOJ would in dismissing such claims.

Federal law requires all federal prosecutors to comply with the ethics rules of the state where they practice law, including the District of Columbia. The new rule requires Justice Department lawyers to obey the substance of their state’s ethics rules, but gives the DOJ the authority to investigate violations. According to the proposal, whenever a bar grievance is filed, “the Department will have the right to review the allegations in the first instance and shall request that the bar disciplinary authority suspend any parallel investigations until the completion of the Department’s review.”

From there, multiple scenarios are possible. First, “if the Attorney General decides not to complete her review,” the state bar disciplinary authorities “may resume their investigations or disciplinary hearings.” Second, if the attorney general finds misconduct, “the State bar disciplinary authorities will then have the option of beginning or resuming their investigations or disciplinary proceedings” and, if appropriate, “to impose additional sanctions beyond those already imposed by the Department, including suspension or permanent disbarment.”

But what is missing from the language of the rule itself is a potential third scenario. What if the attorney general clears the attorney of misconduct? On that, the rule is silent.

Say, for example, a federal prosecutor in Minnesota is accused of making false representations to an immigration judge. The judge or opposing party could file a grievance with the Minnesota Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility. Under the new rule, the state bar would be required to stand down and await a DOJ investigation, with no provisions for time limits or transparency. Of course, even the delay could compromise the subsequent Minnesota probe. But if the Justice Department clears the lawyer, it is also unclear what happens next. According to Bloomberg“If the DOJ finds no violation, that blocks the state from investigating the alleged infraction.” This conclusion may be a fair inference for a department that has thrown its weight around. According to the proposed rule, “the Attorney General retains the discretion to displace State bar enforcement and to create an entirely Federal enforcement mechanism.”

But even if the rule merely delays state enforcement, the DOJ could slow-walk a grievance into oblivion. According to a comment posted by the Illinois State Bar Association, the DOJ is attempting to “shield” its lawyers from accountability. The proposed rule also includes an ominous provision that if bar disciplinary authorities refuse the attorney general’s request, “the Department shall take appropriate action to prevent the bar disciplinary authorities from interfering with the Attorney General’s review of the allegations.”

Even if the rule merely delays state enforcement, the DOJ could slow-walk a grievance into oblivion.

In the decades since the Watergate scandal, the Justice Department has conducted robust investigations of allegations of ethical misconduct by its own attorneys and imposed discipline. In fact, it was common for state bar authorities to wait for the DOJ to complete its investigations before initiating their own probes, because the federal process held attorneys to standards even higher than state ethics rules. But that landscape changed last year, when Bondi fired the head of the department’s Office of Professional Responsibility and its chief ethics officer. Now there is a risk that DOJ lawyers will be even further sheltered from meaningful ethical oversight.

In the first nine days of the 30-day notice and comment period, the proposed rule has attracted more than 30,000 comments. And once implemented, the rule will no doubt invite legal challenges and ultimately could be struck down. But until then, it threatens to give carte blanche to DOJ lawyers who represent the Trump administration not just zealously but with impunity, knowing that the attorney general can simply delay or even block state bar ethics complaints. And the rule represents one more openly regressive blow against the checks and balances that are essential to democracy.

Barbara McQuade is a former Michigan U.S. attorney and legal analyst.

Read More

Continue Reading

Trending