Pensacola police provide new details in car crash with jogger
A Dodge Challenger traveling west on Garden Street was turning left, or south, onto Palafox Street, according to Pensacola police.
A jogger was running south down Palafox at the same time, and the two collided, police said.
The crash is still under investigation.
PREVIOUS REPORTING:
PENSACOLA, Fla. (WKRG) — Pensacola police are investigating a serious crash involving a pedestrian and a vehicle at the intersection of Palafox and Garden Streets, authorities said.
Todd Chrisley speaks out after Trump pardon, alleges racial injustice at FPC Pensacola
Officers reported that the pedestrian was 'trauma alerted' to a hospital following the incident. The crash occurred along the route of the annual .
Police described the scene as active but said they expect to complete the investigation before the parade begins.
According to a news release from the City of Pensacola, the parade begins at 7 p.m.
'When she called me, she was crying': Nanny Faye's local friend on Todd Chrisley's release
No further details about the victim or the circumstances of the crash were immediately released.
This story is developing. News 5 will update this article as more information becomes available.
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 This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.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
CNBC
17 minutes ago
- CNBC
Appeals court keeps order blocking Trump administration from indiscriminate immigration sweeps
A federal appeals court ruled Friday night to uphold a lower court's temporary order blocking the Trump administration from conducting indiscriminate immigration stops and arrests in Southern California. A three-judge panel of the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals held a hearing Monday afternoon at which the federal government asked the court to overturn a temporary restraining order issued July 12 by Judge Maame E. Frimpong, arguing it hindered their enforcement of immigration law. Immigrant advocacy groups filed suit last month accusing President Donald Trump's administration of systematically targeting brown-skinned people in Southern California during the administration's crackdown on illegal immigration. The lawsuit included three detained immigrants and two U.S. citizens as plaintiffs. In her order, Frimpong said there was a "mountain of evidence" that federal immigration enforcement tactics were violating the Constitution. She wrote the government cannot use factors such as apparent race or ethnicity, speaking Spanish or English with an accent, presence at a location such as a tow yard or car wash, or someone's occupation as the only basis for reasonable suspicion to detain someone. The appeals court panel agreed and questioned the government's need to oppose an order preventing them from violating the constitution. "If, as Defendants suggest, they are not conducting stops that lack reasonable suspicion, they can hardly claim to be irreparably harmed by an injunction aimed at preventing a subset of stops not supported by reasonable suspicion," the judges wrote. A hearing for a preliminary injunction, which would be a more substantial court order as the lawsuit proceeds, is scheduled for September. The Los Angeles region has been a battleground with the Trump administration over its aggressive immigration strategy that spurred protests and the deployment of the National Guard and Marines for several weeks. Federal agents have rounded up immigrants without legal status to be in the U.S. from Home Depots, car washes, bus stops, and farms, many of whom have lived in the country for decades. Among the plaintiffs is Los Angeles resident Brian Gavidia, who was shown in a video taken by a friend on June 13 being seized by federal agents as he yells, "I was born here in the states, East LA bro!" They want to "send us back to a world where a U.S. citizen ... can be grabbed, slammed against a fence and have his phone and ID taken from him just because he was working at a tow yard in a Latino neighborhood," American Civil Liberties Union attorney Mohammad Tajsar told the court Monday. The federal government argued that it hadn't been given enough time to collect and present evidence in the lawsuit, given that it was filed shortly before the July 4 holiday and a hearing was held the following week. "It's a very serious thing to say that multiple federal government agencies have a policy of violating the Constitution," attorney Jacob Roth said. He also argued that the lower court's order was too broad, and that immigrant advocates did not present enough evidence to prove that the government had an official policy of stopping people without reasonable suspicion. He referred to the four factors of race, language, presence at a location, and occupation that were listed in the temporary restraining order, saying the court should not be able to ban the government from using them at all. He also argued that the order was unclear on what exactly is permissible under law. "Legally, I think it's appropriate to use the factors for reasonable suspicion," Roth said The judges sharply questioned the government over their arguments. "No one has suggested that you cannot consider these factors at all," Judge Jennifer Sung said. However, those factors alone only form a "broad profile" and don't satisfy the reasonable suspicion standard to stop someone, she said. Sung, a Biden appointee, said that in an area like Los Angeles, where Latinos make up as much as half the population, those factors "cannot possibly weed out those who have undocumented status and those who have documented legal status." She also asked: "What is the harm to being told not to do something that you claim you're already not doing?" Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass called the Friday night decision a "victory for the rule of law" and said the city will protect residents from the "racial profiling and other illegal tactics" used by federal agents.
CBS News
17 minutes ago
- CBS News
Appeals court largely keeps restrictions on immigration raids in Los Angeles area
An appeals court late Friday mostly kept in place restrictions on "roving" immigration raids in the Los Angeles area, agreeing with a lower court judge who found that sweeps conducted by the Trump administration in Southern California appeared to have been predicated on people's race and other factors, like speaking Spanish. A panel of judges at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit largely denied a Trump administration request to suspend the lower court ruling, which required federal immigration officials to have reasonable suspicion that someone is in the country illegally before detaining them. The immigration raids at the center of the legal battle triggered massive protests in the Los Angeles area in June, as well as widespread fears among the region's large Latino community. While most demonstrations were peaceful, instances of violence led President Trump to deploy National Guard troops and U.S. Marines to Los Angeles with orders to protect federal buildings and the immigration agents enforcing his far-reaching crackdown on illegal immigration. Most of them have since been demobilized. Those high-profile immigration arrests in California have continued, led by Customs and Border Protection agents who have been assigned to help Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers with furthering the Trump administration's mass deportation campaign — in some cases, far away from the U.S.-Mexico border. Beyond requiring CBP and ICE to have reasonable suspicion before detaining someone, the July order from U.S. District Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong prohibited federal agents from basing arrests on people's race or ethnicity, the fact that they speak Spanish or have an accent, their presence in a location, or their occupation. Frimpong stated that any immigration arrests that relied exclusively on these factors violated the U.S. Constitution's 4th Amendment, which protects individuals from unreasonable searches and seizures. "We agree with the district court that, in the context of the Central District of California, the four enumerated factors at issue — apparent race or ethnicity, speaking Spanish or speaking English with an accent, particular location, and type of work, even when considered together — describe only a broad profile and 'do not demonstrate reasonable suspicion for any particular stop,'" the 9th Circuit panel wrote in its opinion Friday. The panel was comprised of Circuit Judges Ronald M. Gould, Marsha S. Berzon, and Jennifer Sung, appointees of former Presidents Bill Clinton and Joe Biden. The cases cited in the lawsuit against the Los Angeles-area immigration sweeps involved arrests in June near a car wash, a tow yard and other locations where U.S. citizens were among those questioned about their legal status and detained by federal agents. Advocates have described the operations as "roving patrols." The 9th Circuit did alter one part of Frimpong's ruling, removing an exception to her ban on using the four factors that include people's race and vocation when making arrests. The panel said that an "except as permitted by law" clause in her order was too vague. Pro-immigrants advocates hailed Friday's ruling, denouncing the Trump administration's immigration sweeps as indiscriminate raids that have instilled fear in the Los Angeles area. "Every person, regardless of immigration status, has the right to live, work, and belong in their community without being hunted, harassed, or locked away," said Lindsay Toczylowski, president of the Immigrant Defenders Law Center, a Los Angeles-based group that represents those facing deportation. The Trump administration has maintained in court that federal officials rely on intelligence packages and certain information — like "past experiences" that immigrants living in the U.S. illegally frequent or work at certain locations — when carrying out immigration enforcement operations. CBS News reached out to representatives for the Department of Homeland Security, which oversees ICE and CBP, to request comment on Friday's order.
Yahoo
23 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Judge blocks Trump rapid-fire deportations for immigrants with parole status
A federal judge has blocked the Trump administration from rapidly deporting hundreds of thousands of immigrants who had previously been paroled into the United States to flee violence and oppression in their home countries. U.S. District Judge Jia Cobb said in a ruling Friday that the Department of Homeland Security's tactics — rapid-fire deportation proceedings with little to no chance to lodge challenges — amounted to changing the rules in the middle of the game for people previously welcomed into the country on a temporary basis. Cobb barred foreigners with immigration parole, typically a short-term status that allows foreigners to live and work in the U.S. legally, from being subjected to a controversial maneuver the administration has adopted in recent months: dismissing immigrants' pending proceedings in immigration court — only to immediately arrest them outside the courtroom and put them into a sped-up deportation process known as expedited removal. 'In a world of bad options, they played by the rules,' Cobb, a Biden appointee, wrote. 'Now, the Government has not only closed off those pathways for new arrivals but changed the game for parolees already here.' That new tactic arrived amid pressure within the Trump administration to ramp up arrests in support of President Donald Trump's mass deportation agenda, a detail Cobb cited in her ruling. But she said the basis for the expansion of 'expedited removal' and for targeting those previously granted parole exceeded the administration's legal authority and was arbitrary. The White House has put intense pressure on Immigration and Customs Enforcement to increase arrest numbers, with the aim of 3,000 a day. Trump officials view the immigration courts as one of the biggest roadblocks in reaching its goal of 1 million annual deportations and have used the immigration court arrests to increase its numbers. Immigration attorneys have scrambled to adapt to the tactic in recent months, preparing their clients for the possibility of being detained at ICE check-ins and immigration courts. The arrests have spurred fear in immigrant communities across the country, with attorneys warning of a chilling effect among immigrants who have long followed the rules. 'This case's underlying question, then, asks whether parolees who escaped oppression will have the chance to plead their case within a system of rules. Or, alternatively, will they be summarily removed from a country that — as they are swept up at checkpoints and outside courtrooms, often by plainclothes officers without explanation or charges, may look to them more and more like the countries from which they tried to escape?' It's unclear how many immigrants are impacted by Cobb's ruling. She estimated the number as 'hundreds of thousands,' but statistics compiled by Republican lawmakers and immigration opponents suggest the figure could be 1 million or more. "Judge Cobb is flagrantly ignoring the United States Supreme Court which upheld expedited removals of illegal aliens by a 7-2 majority," DHS spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin said. "This ruling is lawless and won't stand." As illegal crossings at the border with Mexico mushroomed into a political crisis during the Biden administration, officials increasingly turned to immigration parole as a means to limit chaotic scenes at the border by allowing immigrants from Central America to enter the U.S. legally. A report presented at a House hearing in April by a group favoring greater restrictions on immigration, the Center for Immigration Studies, estimated that the Biden administration granted immigration parole to 2.8 million people. However, only some of those people would be impacted by the judge's ruling Friday since federal law bars the use of expedited removal against immigrants who have been living in the U.S. for more than two years. The new ruling specifically blocks three Trump administration directives: a Jan. 23 memo authorizing the use of 'expedited removal' as broadly as possible; a Feb. 18 Immigration and Customs Enforcement directive authorizing expedited removal for 'paroled arriving aliens'; and a March 25 notice canceling parole status for Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans and Venezuelans. Solve the daily Crossword
