Baltimore SWAT officer faces child porn charges
YESTERDAY’S NUMBERS AND RECENT DRAWINGS
Federal prosecutors have charged a Baltimore Police SWAT officer with possession and production of child pornography, alleging they uncovered videos and images as well as evidence indicating he had accessed a site where such content is exchanged for cryptocurrency.
Donald Hildebrandt, 51, was first arrested last fall after members of the Harford County Child Advocacy Center were told that Hildebrandt had assaulted a minor. The additional evidence — including that Hildebrandt possessed the address of a web site described as a “safe zone for pedo folks” — was uncovered after a search warrant was executed at his Bel Air residence, according to court documents.
He was ordered detained pending trial in state court, but remains employed with the Baltimore Police Department and suspended without pay, per state law.
After seizing Hildebrandt’s electronic devices, prosecutors say a forensic examiner decrypted a file found on Hildebrandt’s laptop computer and discovered videos allegedly documenting the sexual abuse of a minor female.
Another nearly three-hour long video discovered on Hildebrandt’s laptop depicted a compilation of multiple instances of child sexual abuse, according to the charges. Additionally, over 100 still shots believed to be derived from covert video recordings allegedly taken by Hildebrandt were uncovered by investigators, prosecutors said.
In January 2021, a witness informed investigators that Hildebrandt had reset his tablet, prosecutors say. A forensic review of the previously seized tablet showed signs consistent with a factory reset.
In Hildebrandt’s iCloud account, analysts also discovered a web address to an anonymous communication network within Hildebrandt’s notes application, which opened to a child pornography website. The website allowed customers to anonymously purchase child pornography with cryptocurrency.
Hildebrandt has been a Baltimore Police officer since 2006. His public defender, representing him on state charges pending since the fall, declined to comment.
If convicted, Hildebrandt faces a mandatory minimum sentence of 15 years and a maximum sentence of 30 years in federal prison for production of child pornography; plus additional penalties for an obstruction of justice charge.
MARYLAND
Day Daily: 721
Pick 4: 9899
Night Daily: 712
Pick 4: 3758
5 Card Cash: 6D 5C 2H AD JD Bonus
Match 5: 05 10 13 33 39 / 24 Multi-Match, March1:——————
DELAWARE
Day Daily: 359 Play 4: 2426 Night Daily: 453 Play 4: 9633 Multi-Win,
March 1: 07 15 18 24 32 33
PENNSYLVANIA
Day Pick 3: 612
Pick 4: 8913
Night Pick 3: 568
Pick 4: 4371
Treasure Hunt: 04 09 14 17 29 Match 6:
11 24 32 37 40 42
Cash 5: 06 14 23 30 35
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
D.C. 3: 516
D.C. 4: 5053
Night D.C. 3: 381
D.C. 4: 2133 DayD.C.5:47416
Night D.C. 5: 4 9 8 2 3 MULTISTATE GAMES
Mega Millions,
Feb. 26: 11 15 37 62 64 / 05 Powerball,
Feb. 27: 02 28 31 44 52 / 18 Cash4Life,
Feb. 28: 02 16 23 48 60 / 04 MegaMillions: Tuesday’s jackpot is an estimated $43 million.
Powerball: Wednesday’s jackpot is an estimated $123 million.
WASHINGTON — Democrats’ efforts to include a minimum wage increase in their $1.9 trillion COVID-19 relief bill seemed all but dead Monday as Senate leaders prepared to begin debate on their own version of the House-passed aid package.
Top Democrats have abandoned a potential amendment threatening tax increases on big companies that don’t boost workers’ pay to certain levels, Senate aides said. Four days after the chamber’s parliamentarian said Senate rules forbid inclusion of a straight-out minimum wage increase in the relief measure, Democrats seemed to have exhausted their most realistic options for quickly salvaging the pay hike.
“At this moment, we may not have path, but I hope we can find one” for pushing the federal pay floor to $15 an hour, said No. 2 Senate Democratic leader Dick Durbin of Illinois.
Senate Democrats hope to unveil their version of the broad relief package and begin debate as early as Wednesday. Congressional
leaders want to send President Joe Biden the legislation combating the pandemic and bolstering the economy by March 14, the date emergency jobless benefits that lawmakers approved in December expire.
The bill is Biden’s biggest early legislative priority. It looms as an initial test of his ability to unite Democrats in the Senate — where the party has no votes to spare — and risks lasting damage to his influence should he fail. Republicans are strongly against the legislation and could well oppose it unanimously, as House GOP lawmakers did when that
chamber approved the bill early Saturday.
The Senate is divided 50-50 between the parties, with Vice President Kamala Harris able to cast only tie-breaking votes.
The overall bill would provide $1,400 payments to individuals plus hundreds of billions of dollars for schools and colleges, COVID-19 vaccines and testing, mass transit systems, renters and small businesses. It also has money for child care, tax breaks for families with children and states willing to expand Medicaid coverage for low-income residents.
Democrats are considering several changes in the
House measure, but they seem modest compared to dropping the minimum wage increase.
Senate Democrats may reshape the $350 billion the bill provides for state and local governments. They also might extend its fresh round of emergency unemployment benefits, which would be $400 weekly, through September instead of August, as the House approved.
The parliamentarian’s interpretation of Senate rules could force other changes as well. These might include dropping or altering provisions in the House bill providing billions of dollars to help some struggling pension plans and to help people who have lost jobs during the pandemic afford health insurance.
The House-approved minimum wage language would gradually raise the federal floor to $15 an hour by 2025, more than double the $7.25 in place since 2009.
After the parliamentarian said that provision would have to be deleted, Sens. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., and Ron Wyden, D-Ore., said they were working on plans to increase taxes on large corporations that don’t meet certain levels for workers’ pay. Sanders is chief Senate sponsor of the $15 plan, while Wyden is chair of the tax-writing Senate Finance Committee.
But three Senate aides, speaking on condition of anonymity to describe internal discussions, said Monday that party leaders were dropping those proposals.
It was always questionable whether pressuring companies with tax increases if they don’t raise pay would win enough support from Senate Democrats to survive. The White House did not embrace the tax proposals, and some House Democrats reacted coolly to the plan, which would have affected only a fraction of workers paid the minimum wage.
Raising the minimum has broad support among Democrats. But while it’s embraced passionately by the party’s progressives, at least two Senate moderates — Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona — have voiced opposition to including it in the broader relief measure, wounding its prospects and fostering tensions within the party.
The tepid Democratic reaction to the tax plan has left the party looking at potentially pushing a minimum wage increase in future legislation, where it could well face enough GOP opposition to kill it.
As an alternative, progressives want Senate Democrats to simply overrule the parliamentarian and include the pay raise anyway, or to eliminate Senate filibusters — procedural delays that let a minority party kill legislation that lacks at least 60 votes.
But those ideas seem to lack enough Democratic support to succeed. Senate moderates are wary of erasing procedures that the party has used in the past, and could use again, to protect its priorities when it is in the minority.
Among those who have long supported retaining the filibuster is Biden, who served nearly four decades in the Senate.
In case you missed it: You can now get tested for the coronavirus at home.
This is great news, especially for people who don’t have access to a testing site. Currently, these portable tests come in two flavors. The first is test-by-mail kits, which allow patients to swab their noses at home and mail them to a laboratory for a result in a day or two. The other types are called at-home tests, which give an answer on the spot.
Currently, the Food and Drug Administration has authorized dozens of testby-mail kits, and three at-home tests.
These tests are not nearly as accurate as those taken in a clinic, but experts say coronavirus tests that can be done at home play an important role as the country continues to reopen.
“They get actionable information in people’s hands quickly,” said Jennifer Bacci, an assistant professor at the University of Washington School of Pharmacy.
Of course, no coronavirus diagnostic test is 100% accurate.
Even the nasopharyngeal swab, given at many clinics, can return a negative result even though you might be carrying the coronavirus. And these tests only inform you about a single point in time. But even if home tests may be less accurate, they can quickly alert people if they test positive.
Certainly the market for home test kits will likely grow, said Gigi Gronvall, a public health expert at Johns Hopkins University. But with more options, consumers will need to learn what test is best for them.
Here are some questions to consider when deciding on an at-home kit.
What are the trade-offs between mail-in kits and fully at-home tests?
Test-by-mail kits require
users to purchase a kit, take a sample at home and ship the swab back to a lab. These kits take more processing time and use a method called polymerase chain reaction, or PCR, to detect the coronavirus.
PCR works by identifying and magnifying specific gene sequences.
“It can take a very small signal and amplify it,” to detect smaller amounts of the virus, Gronvall said. These tests are highly sensitive, picking up positive cases nearly all the time (accuracy varies by lab, and false negatives can be as high as 20%).
“A negative PCR isn’t perfect, but it gives a high degree of assurance,” said Dr. Ashish Jha, dean of the Brown University School of Public Health.
Fully at-home tests, such as those made by Ellume and Abbott, require users to swab their noses and drop the swabs in a liquid. The
tests provide an answer in as little as 15 minutes for the Abbott test and 20 minutes for Ellume.
These tests look for antigens — parts of microbes that cause an immune response. Unlike PCR, antigen tests do not amplify signals, which makes them faster but less accurate. These rapid antigen tests, Gronvall said, are good for measuring how contagious you are. “If you test positive on that, you really need to isolate,” she said, and get a clinical swab done to confirm the results.
False negatives, however, are much more common with antigen tests, meaning infected people might think they are virus free, especially if they are not having symptoms.
“The sensitivity of these tests tend to be pretty bad,” said Dr. Yvonne Maldonado, an infectious disease specialist at Stanford University School of Medicine. If users have symptoms, the BinaxNOW
antigen test has a 64% chance of correctly spotting the virus (and about half that in those without symptoms). Accuracy for some antigen tests in asymptomatic individuals can be less than 50% — worse than flipping a coin, she said.
Remember, any test’s ability to detect coronavirus depends on how much virus is in the location of your body where you are taking a sample. Tests taken early, say, hours after a potential virus exposure, have a higher chance of resulting in a false negative.
What home test should you use?
If you’re asymptomatic, you may have a smaller amount of virus in your body. In this case, experts said that your best bet for an accurate test is to use a test-by-mail kit because PCR will be able to amplify lower levels of virus.
If you have symptoms, either a PCR-based test or
an antigen test will likely be able to confirm you have it.
When choosing an antigen test, Jha said, look for whichever option at your disposal that has the highest sensitivity, which refers to a test’s ability to detect the virus. Look for a sensitivity rating from 95% to 99%, he said.
Turnaround time is also important. Antigen tests are less accurate but offer an answer much faster without having to mail a sample. Results of either test should always be confirmed by a clinical test, Maldonado said.
Costs, too, may play a factor. Test-by-mail kits can cost $100 or more and may not be reimbursed by insurance companies.
“Many patients have encountered unanticipated bills or red tape when seeking reimbursement for mail-in coronavirus testing, even though insurance companies are obligated to do so,” said Dr. Marisa Cruz, head of clinical affairs at Everlywell, a company that makes at-home health tests, including one for the coronavirus.
Antigen tests, on the other hand, range from $25 to $50.
What should you check for on the box?
Make sure that the home test or collection kit you’re looking to buy has an emergency use authorization from the FDA (it will be printed on the box) and that the company works with certified lab partners.
Also look for tests that offer a telemedicine consult, advised Cruz, so you can discuss your diagnosis and next steps.
How should I interpret a result from an at-home coronavirus test?
Following the test kit instructions is key to getting a reliable result. “A specimen that is not collected correctly may lead to false negative test results,” Cruz said.
Imperfect swabbing technique, or swabbing only one nostril, may increase the risk of less accurate results. And samples for test-by-mail kits should be shipped the same day they are collected; the less time in transit, the better.
Samples sent on weekends or holidays may be delayed, although some use FedEx and overnight shipping.
If you test positive on either a mail-in PCR or an at-home antigen test, you are likely to be infected and presumed contagious, said Bacci, so isolate from others and continue to monitor your symptoms. Repeat testing can help track the disease course, if, say, someone goes from being asymptomatic to displaying symptoms.
Negative results are more likely to be wrong than positive ones.
“A negative result does not necessarily mean you do not have COVID-19, which is the same interpretation for either an at-home test, a mail-in test or one offered in a doctor’s office,” Cruz said.