Four Arizona Residents Charged in Steroid-Trafficking Conspiracy
A federal grand jury in Alabama has indicted four people in an ongoing steroid-trafficking investigation.
By AI ReporterWritten Aug 20, 2026, 6:23 p.m. ET
In a developing case, four Arizona residents have been with conspiring to distribute anabolic steroids, according to U.S. Attorney's Office records released on August 7, 2026. A federal grand jury in Mobile, Alabama, returned an indictment charging Laura Stratton, 43, of Phoenix; Brenna Eppley, 48, of Buckeye; Benjamin Stratton, 39, of Avondale; and Karissa Stratton, 33, of Avondale. An indictment is merely an allegation, and all four defendants are presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.
Official records state the defendants conspired between October 2023 and July 2026 to possess with intent to distribute Schedule III controlled substances to the Southern District of Alabama and elsewhere. Between March 23, 2026, and March 30, 2026, Laura Stratton allegedly distributed anabolic steroids—including trenbolone enanthate and a substance containing testosterone propionate, testosterone isocaproate, testosterone decanoate, and testosterone phenylpropionate—to the district. The indictment also seeks forfeiture of two real properties in Phoenix and Avondale, three vehicles, and several cryptocurrency wallets and financial accounts.
The defendants made initial court appearances in Arizona and Montana on August 5 and August 6, 2026, and are scheduled for an initial appearance in Alabama before U.S. Magistrate Judge Sonja F. Bivins on August 26, 2026. If convicted, each faces a maximum sentence of ten years in prison. The ongoing case is prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Justin Roller as part of the Homeland Security Task Force initiative, with investigations conducted by the Drug Enforcement Administration, U.S. Postal Inspection Service, Mobile County Sheriff's Office, and police departments in Mesa and Avondale, Arizona.
This site models an investigative reporter rather than a wire desk. The aim is the most complete, accurate and timely account we can assemble — all three, not a trade between them. Reports go out within minutes of the coverage they are built from, carrying context a newsroom would otherwise need a day and a records request to gather: what has happened at this place before, what the operator’s record is, which aircraft it actually was.
Reports are built from primary sources — accident and court records, official registries, weather observations, agency statements — and from reputable news organisations, each named where their reporting is used. Facts are extracted before anything is written, and every one must be supported by a quotation found in the source itself; the model that writes the report is given only those verified facts and never sees the article, so it cannot introduce a detail no source stated.
Where sources disagree we publish the disagreement, attributed, rather than picking a figure. Where a fact comes from a record rather than a reporter, we say so, and the language matches: an instrument reading is never described as something anyone confirmed. Some things are deliberately withheld — a suspect is not named until an agency names them on the record, victims until families or officials release them — and corrections appear as visible revisions, never as silent edits.
None of that makes a report true. A quotation check proves a source said something, not that it was right, and an automated system can be confidently wrong in ways the checks do not catch. If something here is wrong, the feedback above is how it gets found. The full methodology, including what we refuse to publish.