Goines admitted in federal court before U.S. District Judge George Hanks that he made materially false statements in the warrant affidavit. The plea adds a federal accountability outcome to a case that already produced his separate Texas murder conviction and a 60-year prison sentence.

What Goines admitted

According to the U.S. Department of Justice, Goines falsely claimed that a confidential informant had purchased heroin from a resident of the Harding Street home and provided it to him. Goines admitted that he knew the information was false.

He also admitted making additional false claims in the affidavit about drug purchases involving residents of the home during the roughly three weeks before the warrant was issued.

The federal case involved two counts alleging deprivation of constitutional rights under color of law. Goines’ guilty plea means he admitted the conduct supporting those federal counts; it does not itself overturn or replace the separate Texas case.

What happened during the raid

The warrant led to a no-knock raid on January 28, 2019, at the couple’s home in Houston’s Pecan Park neighborhood. The forced entry quickly ended in a shootout.

Dennis Tuttle and Rhogena Nicholas were killed, and four Houston police officers were injured, according to federal prosecutors and the Houston Chronicle.

The raid’s justification came under scrutiny after investigators examined Goines’ account of the alleged drug purchases. The Chronicle has reported that prosecutors dismissed dozens of pending cases and reviewed hundreds of past convictions tied to Goines’ testimony or casework. Those reviews do not mean every case connected to the narcotics operation was invalid.

How the federal case differs from the Texas conviction

A Harris County jury convicted Goines in 2024 in connection with the deaths of Tuttle and Nicholas, and he was sentenced to 60 years in state prison. That state case addressed the deaths during the raid; the federal case addresses Goines’ abuse of police authority and the false information used to secure the warrant.

Former HPD officer Steven O. Bryant and Patricia Ann Garcia previously pleaded guilty to separate federal offenses connected to the investigation. The Justice Department said Bryant pleaded guilty to obstruction of justice and Garcia pleaded guilty to providing false information.

What comes next

Judge Hanks is scheduled to sentence Goines on November 9, 2026. The Justice Department said he faces up to 10 years in federal prison and a possible fine of up to $250,000.

Federal prosecutors agreed to recommend a five-year sentence under the plea agreement, according to the Houston Chronicle, but the final sentence remains for the judge to impose. It also remains unclear how any federal sentence will be handled in relation to Goines’ existing Texas sentence.

For victims’ families, affected defendants and law-enforcement agencies, the next test is whether sentencing and continuing case reviews produce further consequences. The plea underscores the practical importance of accurate warrant affidavits, reliable confidential-informant information and officer credibility in both public-safety operations and later criminal prosecutions.

Sources

• U.S. Department of Justice, Southern District of Texas plea announcement
• Houston Chronicle report on Goines' federal plea
• Associated Press report on the 60-year state sentence

The plea by Nathaniel Pack, announced by the U.S. Department of Justice on July 23 and updated July 28, describes at least seven “blind spot” incidents between about April 2020 and March 1, 2022. Pack also admitted that officers prepared false reports, failed to document injuries and delayed medical staff during an incident involving pretrial detainee Q.B.

The new development is Pack’s guilty plea, not a new incident at the jail. The conduct described in the plea occurred years earlier and remains attributed to Pack’s admissions in his plea agreement and statements during the plea hearing.

What Pack admitted

Pack pleaded guilty to one count under 18 U.S.C. § 241, a federal civil-rights conspiracy statute. According to the Justice Department, he admitted that officers used unreasonable and unjustified force against inmates they believed or perceived had engaged in misconduct, including as punishment or retaliation.

Pack admitted that officers moved detainees to interview rooms or cells not captured by surveillance cameras so assaults would not be recorded and the officers could avoid accountability. The plea describes incidents involving pretrial detainees identified by the initials J.D.H., D.W.M. and H.B.

In November 2020, Pack and other officers allegedly handcuffed J.D.H. and moved him to an interview room described as a camera blind spot, where they struck and punched him while he was not a threat, causing bodily injury. In July 2021, officers allegedly struck D.W.M. in the face and body while he was handcuffed, causing lacerations and bleeding around his head. In January 2022, Pack admitted striking H.B. in the face and repeatedly punching him while he was handcuffed, causing facial injuries.

The Q.B. incident

Pack also admitted that on March 1, 2022, he delayed medical personnel after officers restrained and handcuffed Q.B. and escorted him toward the blind-spot interview room. Pack said he went to the medical unit and told staff to wait a few minutes because he wanted to give other officers time to use unreasonable force against Q.B. inside the room.

That admission is separate from the earlier federal prosecution over Q.B.’s death. In that case, former Southern Regional Jail officers pleaded guilty or were convicted on charges involving the assault, failures to intervene and an alleged cover-up. The Justice Department has reported prison sentences ranging from three years to 21 years for several officers, including sentences for using unreasonable force, failing to intervene and obstructing the investigation.

Pack’s plea does not establish criminal liability for every person he identified as a co-conspirator. It also is separate from the April 2026 guilty plea by former officer Michael Pack, who admitted participating in a related conspiracy involving blind spots, unreasonable force and false reports.

Why the plea matters

The plea adds detail about two alleged ways abuse inside a jail can be concealed: physical spaces outside camera coverage and incident reports that omit injuries or deny force. Pack admitted that false reports were prepared so officers would not be investigated or held accountable for their actions.

For detainees, including people awaiting trial, the allegations raise practical questions about how facilities preserve video, document injuries, summon medical staff and review use-of-force incidents. Pack’s plea does not resolve broader questions about jail oversight, institutional responsibility or whether additional participants may face charges.

What happens next

Pack is scheduled to be sentenced on December 4, 2026. Under the plea agreement, he faces a statutory maximum of 10 years in prison and a fine of up to $250,000. That maximum does not predict the sentence he will receive.

The case now moves toward sentencing while questions remain about other potential participants and the accountability systems at Southern Regional Jail. The plea’s practical significance is broader than one officer: it describes how camera coverage, medical response and incident reporting can affect whether detainee injuries are documented and investigated.

Sources

• U.S. Department of Justice plea announcement for Nathaniel Pack
• WV MetroNews report on Michael Pack’s guilty plea

The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Illinois announced the pleas on July 14, 2026. Craig Muhs, 28, a former correctional officer, and Ethan Yates, 30, a former correctional lieutenant responsible for supervising staff, each pleaded guilty to conspiring to deprive the inmate of civil rights during a July 31, 2025, incident and the investigation that followed.

The case places physical force, supervisory responsibility, reporting duties and the federal duty to intervene in the same state-prison prosecution. The available records establish the admissions by Muhs and Yates, but not the legal status of every person described as part of the conspiracy.

What the pleas establish

According to the Justice Department and the admissions described in court documents, the incident began after employees mistakenly believed the inmate had assaulted a female employee. The inmate was restrained in a mobility chair with leg shackles and handcuffs.

Muhs and Yates admitted that they struck the inmate. They also admitted that they failed to intervene while other employees abused him, failed to submit required reports about the incident and failed to obtain appropriate medical attention.

The Justice Department described the conduct as part of a six-person conspiracy. That description does not establish that all six people have been charged, convicted or disciplined.

What the inmate suffered

The Justice Department said the inmate was struck in the face, head and body, pepper-sprayed in the genital region and subjected to water being poured over the cloth spit hood covering his mouth and nose. The department said the inmate experienced a sensation of asphyxiation.

The inmate suffered numerous injuries, including an orbital fracture that required reconstructive surgery. These details come from the federal account of the incident and the defendants’ admissions. Sentencing has not yet occurred.

Lawrence Correctional Center is a maximum-security adult-male facility in Sumner, Illinois, operated by the Illinois Department of Corrections. The federal case does not by itself establish institutional liability or a systemwide finding against the state agency.

Why the case raises accountability questions

Yates’ former role as a correctional lieutenant is relevant because the Justice Department says he was responsible for supervising other staff. The plea allegations concern both direct participation in the force and failures to act when other employees abused the restrained inmate.

The admissions also cover the response after the incident. The Justice Department says required reports were not submitted and appropriate medical attention was not obtained. That makes the case about more than the alleged physical assault: It also concerns what correctional employees did—or failed to do—after force was used.

The Justice Department said federal law requires officers not only to refrain from excessive force but also to intervene when a fellow officer uses excessive force. It said a civil-rights deprivation charge carries a potential sentence of up to 10 years; the eventual penalties will be set by the federal court.

What happens next

Muhs’ sentencing is scheduled for Nov. 9, 2026, at the federal courthouse in Benton. Yates’ sentencing is scheduled for Nov. 12, 2026, at the same courthouse, according to the U.S. Attorney’s Office.

Illinois State Police is leading the investigation, and an assistant U.S. attorney is prosecuting the case, the federal office said.

For now, the case concerns two former Illinois correctional employees who admitted in federal court to participating in the abuse of a restrained inmate and to failing to intervene, report the conduct and secure appropriate medical attention. The pleas do not, on their own, establish that every alleged participant has been prosecuted or that the Illinois prison system has been found liable.

Sources

• U.S. Attorney’s Office details the guilty pleas and sentencing dates
• Illinois Department of Corrections identifies Lawrence Correctional Center
• GIANT fm reports on the federal pleas

City materials and local reporting say the drones would launch from Minneapolis Fire Station 14 in the Fourth Precinct and stream live video back to Minneapolis 911 and responding officers. Officials have described the idea as proactive “situational awareness,” so first responders can “watch what is happening before they get there.”

What the pilot would do (if approved)

In the lead-up to the vote, the city described the pilot as a way to test whether drones can improve safety and help with emergency response decisions. Reporting also says the city described drones as a tool—not a replacement for police, firefighters, or EMS.

Minneapolis 911’s role, as described during the presentation, is also part of the design: dispatchers would work directly with drone pilots as calls come in, with the aim of seeing whether the drone-assisted approach is faster or helps clear certain calls.

Privacy and data-handling safeguards the city has described

Minneapolis legislative tracking for the “Drones as First Responders” effort centers on privacy, transparency, and civil liberties, including staff requests for clear information on how data would be collected, used, stored, and retained, along with what oversight mechanisms and legal protections would be needed.

In the city presentation discussed by local reporters, officials said:

• Drones operate only when authorized under Minnesota Statute 626.19.
• Drones are prohibited from random surveillance, facial recognition, and use of weapons.
• Non-evidentiary video would be deleted within seven days.
• Flights would be posted on a public transparency dashboard.

What residents are worried about

Residents who spoke out at the committee hearing raised concerns about surveillance and civil liberties and about the company involved. One local report said about 40 residents testified against the pilot.

Another recurring concern in reporting: some residents warned that drone footage could be requested or used by other government entities under Minnesota law, which they said could expand access beyond local use.

Timeline: what happens next

Local reporting says the committee vote sent the matter to the full City Council without recommendation. If the City Council approves the pilot, the trial would begin July 20 in the Fourth Precinct.

After the 75-day pilot period, city staff are expected to return with results and recommendations—so the practical test for residents is what happens in the real world: whether the privacy/data rules described in the presentation and legislative materials are followed in implementation.

Sources

• Minneapolis LIMS (RCA-2026-00431)
• KSTP (5 Eyewitness News) — community pushback ahead of July 16 vote
• City of Minneapolis — Ward 2 Updates (GovDelivery)