La Jolla Teen Pleads Guilty to Kicking Protected Sea Lion
Tyler Muehl, 18, admitted to kicking a sea lion at La Jolla Cove beach and faces up to a year in prison.
3 reports on this incident · first at Aug 17, 2026, 10:40 p.m. ET
This case is not concluded. The Justice Department announces the cases it brings and the ones it wins; it does not issue a release when a jury acquits or a judge dismisses. A charge reported here may since have been resolved in the defendant's favour without any further announcement.
We last searched for new coverage of this at Aug 17, 2026, 11:09 p.m. ET — checked 10h ago.
Earlier reports
Aug 17, 2026, 10:52 p.m. ET
San Diego Teen Pleads Guilty to Kicking Protected Sea Lion
On August 17, 2026, authorities announced that Tyler Muehl, an 18-year-old from La Jolla, San Diego, pleaded guilty to violating the Marine Mammal Protection Act, according to abc7.com. Prosecutors stated that Muehl repeatedly kicked and chased a protected sea lion on July 22 at La Jolla Cove beach.
According to abc7.com, Muehl admitted that he kicked at the sea lion four times and landed at least two kicks. The incident was investigated by the NOAA-Fisheries Office of Law Enforcement West Coast Division.
ABC7.com reported that the charge carries a statutory maximum penalty of up to a year in prison and a fine of $100,000.
Aug 17, 2026, 10:40 p.m. ETFirst report
San Diego Teen Pleads Guilty to Kicking Sea Lion at La Jolla Cove
On July 22, 18-year-old Tyler Muehl of La Jolla, San Diego, repeatedly kicked and chased a protected sea lion at La Jolla Cove beach, according to prosecutors. The case remains open and developing following an announcement on August 17, 2026.
According to abc7.com, Muehl pleaded guilty to violating the Marine Mammal Protection Act following an investigation by the NOAA-Fisheries Office of Law Enforcement West Coast Division. Prosecutors said Muehl admitted he kicked at the sea lion four times and landed at least two kicks.
Violating the act carries a statutory maximum penalty of up to a year in prison and a fine of $100,000, abc7.com reported.
Was this report accurate and useful?
Sources
Revision history
- Version 118 Aug 2026, 02:52current
First published.
- Version 118 Aug 2026, 02:40current
First published.
- Version 118 Aug 2026, 02:54current
First published.
How we work
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.