On Thursday, February 11, The Albuquerque Journal and Friday, February 12, KOB Channel 4 did remarkable stories that are worth noting. They are worth noting not for what was actually reported on but for revealing that Mayor Tim Keller’s 4 violent crime reduction programs initiated in 2019 are failures. They also revealed that Interim APD Chief is way over his head, does not know what he is doing and he is part of the problem.

ALBUQUERQUE JOURNAL STORY

On February 11, the Albuquerque Journal headline on the Metro & NM section blared above the fold “APD: Many Shot By Officers Were On Meth”; “Interim Chief Says Solution Is To Address Root Causes”. In the Journal story, APD highlighted the frequency of meth use among those who get into confrontations with police, many of which end up fatal. Medina said he and APD wanted to “raise awareness.”

The Albuquerque Journal story highlighted that the ratio was 3 out of the 6 people shot to death by APD in 2020 had meth in their system. In 2019, the ratio was one out of four. In 2018, when New Mexico ranked worst in the nation for fatal police shootings, it was 5 out of 7, or more than 70%. In both 2016 and 2017, 83% of those killed by APD had meth in their system. Between 2011 and 2015, the number stayed between 50% and 60%.

According to the Albuquerque Journal story:

“Compared with other places nationally, according to the data, Albuquerque had a higher frequency of meth usage connected to police shootings. In San Diego, 32% of those shot or killed by police between 1993 and 2012 had used meth. In San Bernardino, 31% of those shot or killed by police from 2010 to 2015 had used meth. And, in the state of Georgia, 20% of those killed by police from 2012 to 2017 had meth in their system.”

In the Journal story, Interim Chief Harold Medina said that it’s not just about decreasing officer-involved shootings, but also addressing the “lifestyle” and root causes, such as drug use, that lead to deadly encounters. According to Medina:

“We’re looking at the system as a whole – how do we reduce crime and where do we combine our resources to make sure that we’re getting to the root problem. … It’s something that’s impacting us as a community in all aspects and us as a department, so that’s why we’re taking a clear look at this and trying to get more information out. … There are no easy answers or solutions to this and, as a community … we have to have these discussions in order for us to ensure that families have resources. … .”

Medina added he has had family affected by meth use and said:

“If I struggle to get some of my loved ones the assistance they need, as deputy chief of police, what is available out there for the general public?”

In the Journal story, Barron Jones, senior policy strategist with the American Civil Liberties Union, said the trends speak to the need for police to find ways to better de-escalate and, meth or no meth, “keep these people alive.” He then goes on to state:

“I applaud the city in its efforts trying to address this now, but this problem didn’t just spring up yesterday or the last two or three years. … Now that they’re starting to have conversations about it, we can move forward to address it. … .”

The link to the entire Albuquerque Journal article is here:

https://www.abqjournal.com/2358459/apd-confrontations-often-fueled-by-meth-use-ex-interim-chief-medina-says-solution-is-to-address-lifestyle-and-root-causes.html

160 POUNDS OF METH SEIZED AT TRAFFIC STOP

On February 12, as a matter of sure coincidence with the day before story that meth usage is connected to police shootings, it was reported that a random traffic stop on the West Side in the early morning of February 11, a BCSO Deputy seized duffel bags stuffed with 160 pounds of methamphetamine. The meth was found stashed in brand-new duffel bags in an SUV stopped with price tags still attached.. Erica Gutierrez, 29, and Rodney Rodriguez, 68, both from California, were booked into the Metropolitan Detention Center and charged with distribution of a controlled substance. Given the sure volume of meth seized and the violent nature of drug dealers, the Sheriff’s Deputy did a remarkable job as the incident did not escalate into another shooting involving law enforcement.

A link to a full report is here:

https://www.abqjournal.com/2359161/bcso-traffic-stop-yields-more-than-160-lbs-of-meth.html

CHANNEL 4 REPORT

On Friday, February 12, KOB Channel 4 telecast a report entitled “Interim APD chief says pandemic, drugs contributing to crime in Albuquerque.”

Following are the relevant portions of the Channel 4 report by the news station on its web page:

“ALBUQUERQUE, N.M.-

The Albuquerque Police Department has opened up 20 homicide investigations in 2021. Interim APD Chief of Police Harold Medina spoke with KOB 4 about the crime crisis.

He didn’t have details about how many of the homicides have been solved. However, he pointed to an arrest from a January homicide. He also said they have leads in half of the homicides committed this week.

Medina added that he believes the pandemic is contributing to crime.
…
“I think this is directly related to the COVID situation that we’re in,” he said.

In addition to the pandemic, Medina said drugs are also fueling crime. Medina said he’s working on new strategies to help combat crime.

“One of the things that I’ve implemented as interim chief is we have an 8:45 call every morning that includes all the commanders, all the deputy chiefs, and we discuss what occurred the previous 24 hours. … I even created a new process where we get a 24-hour overall crime report broken down by area command.”

The homicide unit has 14 detectives. Medina said he eventually wants to add two more detectives to the unit.

Medina believes dealing with crime goes beyond the police department. He said the community comes together. But how will that work when it’s still unclear—who the next police chief will be?

“It’s realistic that chiefs aren’t going to be around like they were in the past for decades,” Medina said. “Their short-term goals have to be tied in to long-term sustainable goals that are based on the department’s needs, and are going to be sustained by the department.”

https://www.kob.com/albuquerque-news/interim-apd-chief-says-pandemic-drugs-contributing-to-crime-in-albuquerque/6011104/?cat=500

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

It’s truly amazing that Interim Chief Harold Medina is only now acknowledging that drugs are leading to increases in crime. What is shocking is when he tells the Journal:

“We’re looking at the system as a whole – how do we reduce crime and where do we combine our resources to make sure that we’re getting to the root problem”.

It is shocking in that after 24 years with law enforcement, and the past 3 years as Deputy Chief, Medina should have already known this and its basic law enforcement.

He also told Channel 4 that “he believes dealing with crime goes beyond the police department … and the community [needs to] comes together”

ACLU Senior Policy Strategist Barron Jones said it best with a little sarcasm:

“I applaud the city in its efforts trying to address [the root causes of crime] now, but this problem didn’t just spring up yesterday or the last two or three years. … Now that they’re starting to have conversations about it, we can move forward to address it. … .”

PAST STRATEGY’S HAVE FAILED

Interim APD Chief Harold Medina tells Channel 4 that he’s “working on new strategies to help combat crime.” What happened to the old strategies? Mayor Keller, APD and the city can only hope Medina’s “new” strategies will be far more effective than those that Medina has worked on during the past 3 years when he was Deputy Chief for Field Services. A discussion of those strategies are in order:

APD AND KELLER’S FAILED PROGRAMS

In 2019, in response to the continuing increase in violent crime rates, Mayor Keller scrambled to implement 4 major crime fighting programs to reduce violent crime:

1. The Shield Unit

In February 2018 the Albuquerque Police Department (APD) created the “Shield Unit”. The Shield Unit assists APD Police Officers to prepare cases for trial and prosecution by the Bernalillo County District Attorney’s office. The unit originally consisted of 3 para legals. It was announced that it is was expanded to 12 under the 2019-2020 city budget that took effect July 1, 2019.

https://www.abqjournal.com/1325167/apd-expands-unit-that-preps-cases-for-prosecution.html

2. Declaring Violent Crime “Public Health” issue

On April 8, 2019, Mayor Keller and APD announced efforts that will deal with “violent crime” in the context of it being a “public health issue” and dealing with crimes involving guns in an effort to bring down violent crime in Albuquerque. Mayor Keller and APD argue that gun violence is a “public health issue” because gun violence incidents have lasting adverse effects on children and others in the community that leads to further problems.

3. The “Violence Intervention Plan” (VIP program)

On November 22, Mayor Tim Keller announced what he called a “new initiative” to target violent offenders called “Violence Intervention Plan” (VIP). The VIP initiative was in response to the city’s recent murders resulting in the city tying the all-time record of homicides at 72 in one year. Mayor Keller proclaimed the VIP is a “partnership system” that includes law enforcement, prosecutors and social service and community provides to reduce violent crime. According to Keller vulnerable communities and law enforcement will be working together and building trust has proven results for public safety. Mayor Keller stated:

“… This is about trying to get these people not to shoot each other. …This is about understanding who they are and why they are engaged in violent crime. … And so, this actually in some ways, in that respect, this is the opposite of data. This is action. This is actually doing something with people. …”

4. The Metro 15 Operation program.

On Tuesday, November 26, Mayor Tim Keller held a press conference to announce a 4th program within 9 months to deal with the city’s violent crime and murder rates. At the time of the press conference, the city’s homicide count was at 72, matching the city’s record in 2017. Before 2017, the last time the City had the highest number of homicides in one year was in 1996 with 70 murders that year. Keller dubbed the new program “Metro 15 Operation” and is part of the Violence Intervention Program (VIP) program. According to Keller and then APD Chief Michael Geier the new program would target the top 15 most violent offenders in Albuquerque. It’s the city’s version of the FBI’s 10 most wanted list.

Links to news coverage are here:

https://www.abqjournal.com/1394576/city-launches-violence-intervention-program.html

https://www.kob.com/albuquerque-news/mayor-keller-touts-new-plan-to-tackle-violent-crime/5561150/?cat=500

MEDINA PLAGERIZES FORMER CHIEF GEIER’S GUN VIOLENCE PLAN

On February 12, 2021, Interim Chief Harold Medina told Channel 4:

“One of the things that I’ve implemented as interim chief is we have an 8:45 call every morning that includes all the commanders, all the deputy chiefs, and we discuss what occurred the previous 24 hours. … I even created a new process where we get a 24-hour overall crime report broken down by area command.”

SURPRISE, SURPRISE! If this sounds at all familiar, it should be. It’s essentially former APD Chief Geier’s “Gun Violence Plan”. After being fired by Mayor Tim Keller, Chief Michael Geier told the Albuquerque Journal that he and a commander created a violence reduction plan that included scheduling regular meetings and brainstorming sessions for officers to talk with their supervisors about patterns in fatal shootings and shootings with injury in their area commands and come up with plans to address it.

Geier told the Journal that Medina never embraced the gun violence plan and that Medina went so far as to not instruct his officers to follow it through. Geier said the program was delayed in launching by six weeks, and those under Medina’s command had to undergo remedial training on the project again because they still didn’t understand it. Medina told Geier it was too confusing.

In a memo to Medina, Geier wrote the startling comment that he felt like it’s “almost as if you made an effort to make this program fail … [and your] behavior has “bordered on insubordination.” Geier wrote Medina that he intended to move him from the field services bureau. “I plan on discussing this with [CAO] Sarita [Nair] at our weekly update meeting this coming Friday, September 4th. I expect you to handle your new position as a professional so as to renew my faith and trust in you.” The mistake Geier made was to tell Medina what he was going to do because Medina could not move fast enough to tell Chief Administrative Officer Sarita Nair what Gieier was up to and the two of them orchestrated Geier’s firing by Mayor Tim Keller. Rumor has it that Medina even suggested a walk in the park Keller had with Geier.

MEDINA’S ACKNOWLEGEMENT OF PROGRAM FAILURES

On December 10, 2020, Interim Chief Harold Medina said that there were encouraging signs that APD’s anti-crime operations, such as the Violence Intervention Program (VIP), were having an impact on the city’s violent crime. In support of his argument, Medina pointed out that Albuquerque has had a slight dip in all four violent crime categories of homicide, rape, robbery and aggravated assault. Medina had this to say:

“When we started these anti-crime operations in the fall, we wanted to shift gears from reactive to proactive. … One of the things we recognize in crime that’s occurring in the city is … it seems like every time we arrest someone for a violent crime, that individual had a warrant out for their arrest when we took that individual into custody.”

A link to source material is here:

https://www.abqjournal.com/1525709/apds-anti-crime-operations-made-more-than-500-arrests.html

It turns out that Medina spoke way too soon on the success of the 4 programs to reduce violent crime. As of January 31, there were 15 homicides, in the month of January, 2021. The 15 homicides are 2 more than the deadliest month in Albuquerque over the past 5 years. The record was 13 killings in each of the months of September and April of 2019 with 2019 being the record for the highest homicide total in recent history. The 15 homicides do not include one homicide classified as self-defense and do not in include vehicular homicides.

Links to news sources are here:

https://www.kob.com/new-mexico-news/violent-week-in-albuquerque-continues/5995016/?cat=500

https://www.abqjournal.com/2354217/apd-investigating-fatal-stabbing-and-suspicious-death-at-separate-abq-hotels.html

BACKING OFF ON CLAIMS OF REDUCED CRIME

On January 28, Interim Chief Harold Medina held a press briefing to address the increase in homicides. He was forced to back off on APD’s original assessment that violent crime was down and said:

“It’s apparent now that we’re starting to fall in line with a lot of issues that other major cities in the United States are seeing. … We’re in uncharted territory in a lot of ways … but we wanted to assure the public we’re going to continue conducting operations and making modifications to what trends we’re seeing out there.”

Interim Chief of Police Harold Medina pointed out that crime “is not a straight line” and that APD has been in this position before. Medina said:

“… We’re going to be going through peaks and valleys and that’s where we need to make quick adjustments as a department. … These are a lot of the steps we are doing to make sure that we’re communicating amongst one another as quickly as possible to get on these trends and see how we can devote resources to the problem.”

“I think the key is how we come out of this and how we develop programs and processes that are going to have long-term effects. … It’s really difficult for us right now because we’ve put together some programs that were showing promise. We were getting good results. We were doing well, and now we’ve seen this peak, and it’s really difficult to gauge because these programs. We’re not going to have an assessment until this pandemic is over.”

MEDINAS “REVELATION” THAT HOMICIDES ARE NOT RANDOM

During the January 28 press briefing, APD Interim Chief Harold Medina said the homicides are not “random” and involve drugs or domestic violence which is the reason many of the victims are women. Medina also went on to lay blame on staffing shortages and the pandemic by saying:

“The number one question is, ‘Should people feel safe?’ … We’re seeing trends in robberies that are related to narcotics and they are escalating to the point where we have homicides that occur as a result of this. … We need a lot more detectives in Homicide so they can devote the time. We have limited resources but we are giving two additional detectives to homicide.”

Links to news sources and quotes are here:

https://www.abqjournal.com/2353936/apd-battles-surge-of-homicides-across-abq.html

https://www.kob.com/albuquerque-news/albuquerque-facing-troubling-homicide-trend/5993736/?cat=500

DAILY 49 VIDEO

On January 30, APD Interim Chief Harold Medina addressed APD sworn personnel in a 4-minute internal message. The recorded message to all law enforcement personnel is referred to as the “Daily 49 Video”. The number 49 is code talk for police officer.

The recorded “Daily 49 Video” messages are not for release to the general public. In the recorded message, Medina says that APD cannot focus exclusively on fighting crime because it is being forced to divert resources to comply with Department of Justice mandated reforms. The video can be viewed in the entirety at this link:

https://www.facebook.com/abqraw/videos/1137832919984382

The most relevant portion of Medina’s recorded statement to APD sworn personnel is as follows:

“I wish, and those of you who know me … know that I would love to sit here and say that we’re going to focus on crime and crime alone. But the reality is that’s not where the Albuquerque Police Department is at this time, and we must change the culture for the good of the community and for the good of our officers. So we’re going to have to make sure that we’re open to ensuring that we move forward on all fronts, the compliance front and the crime front, and it’s a very delicate balancing act, and when we’re able to I intend to give more resources to Investigations.

We recognize the Field [of patrol officers] is short and I’m going to ask commanders in the field to make sure their people are getting information to us on which calls we shouldn’t be dispatching to. So there’s a lot of moving parts to this. We’re well aware of them, we’re committed, and everybody recognize that this is a tough time for law enforcement across the nation.”

When Medina says “we must change the culture” he is ostensibly referring to the DOJ consent decree to change the APD “culture of aggression” found by the DOJ in 2014. What was most surprising is Medina instructed APD Commanders to decide what calls will not be responded to by the police.

HOMICIDE UNIT’ S LONG-STANDING PROBLEM

During the February 12, 2021 Channel 4 interview, Interim Chief Medina said he did not have details about how many of the homicides thus far have been solved. He did say APD has leads in half of the homicides committed in the week of February 8. On February 12, Medina also told KOB Channel 4 that the homicide unit has 14 detectives and said he eventually wants to add two more detectives to the unit. Based on APDs past history, no one should be optimistic that the homicides will be solved.

For the past three years the homicide clearance percentage rate has been in the 50%-60% range. According to the proposed 2018-2019 APD City budget, in 2016 the APD homicide clearance rate was 80%. In 2017, under Mayor Berry the clearance rate was 70%. In 2018, the first year of Keller’s term, the homicide clearance rate was 56%. In 2019, the second year of Keller’s term, the homicide clearance rate was 52.5%, the lowest clearance rate in the last decade. In 2020 the clearance rate dropped to 50%. Of the 75 homicides in 2020, half remain unsolved. There are only a dozen homicide detectives each with caseloads high above the national average.

On January 29, 2021, Interim Chief Harold Medina held a press conference to discuss the continuing spike in murders in the city. What Medina said in part during the press conference merits repeating:

“I think the key is how we come out of this and how we develop programs and processes that are going to have long-term effects. … It’s really difficult for us right now because we’ve put together some programs that were showing promise. We were getting good results. We were doing well, and now we’ve seen this peak, and it’s really difficult to gauge because these programs – we’re not going to have an assessment until this pandemic is over. … We need a lot more detectives in homicide so they can devote the time. We have limited resources but we are giving two additional detectives to homicide” ”

During the last 3 years, the city has had a record-breaking number of murders. In 2018, there were 69 homicides. In 2019, there were 82 homicides.

Albuquerque had more homicides in 2019 than in any other year in the city’s history. The previous high was in 2017 when 72 homicides were reported. The previous high mark was in 1996, when the city had 70 homicides. The year 2020 ended with 76 homicides, the second-highest count since 1996. The decline dropped the homicide rate from 14.64 per 100,000 people in 2019 to about 13.5 in 2020.

https://www.abqjournal.com/1534762/homicide-numbers-high-despite-pandemic.html?amp=1

Based on the city’s high violent crime and murder rates, APD is failing is failing in its primary mission of combating crime and keeping the city safe. As the Deputy Chief of Field services, Medina was interictally involved with the programs being administered.

One can only wonder what the hell Deputy Chief Medina was doing as Deputy of Field Services for 3 years, other than planning his “coup de tate” of former Chief Geier, but then again that is the only success Medina has had since returning to APD.

Over 3 years ago on December 28, 2017, it was reported the APD homicide unit was overwhelmed with only 11 detectives when the City reached a record high of 75 murders. APD management, which Medina was the Deputy of Field Services, did nothing to increase the size of the unit.

During an October, 2019 City Council meeting, APD management said it was working on new strategies to ease the workload on APD homicide detectives. During the City Council meeting, APD Commander of Criminal Investigations Joe Burke had this to say:

“I would say in the long term if I was looking at a long-term solution—I believe we need two homicide units. I think the best practices around the nation normally have two homicide units. Detectives should be balancing between three to five investigations and we’re nearly double that.

… We absolutely need detectives in criminal investigations. … I was happy when I went over at the end of July and was briefed on the status of the unit that there’s a plan in place within the executive staff that when cadets are graduating from the academy that we’re going to get a certain percentage specifically for the criminal investigations bureau.”

https://www.petedinelli.com/2020/09/04/53-murders-and-counting-52-clearance-rate-apd-adds-one-sergeant-to-homicide-unit-as-solution/

On November 21, 2019 when the number of homicides hit 72, it was again advocated that the Homicide Investigation Unit be increased from 11 detectives to at least 25 detectives. Further, given the units low clearance rate and past performance, more was needed to be done then with respect to recruiting and training. At the very least, APD needed to ask for temporary assignment of personnel from other agencies such as the Bernalillo County Sherriff’s Department or the State Police to help clear out the cases.

https://www.petedinelli.com/2019/11/21/city-matches-homicide-record-high-of-72-murders-mayor-keller-forced-to-defend-policies-makes-more-promises-asks-for-more-money/

On New Year’ s Eve, December 31, 2019, the City hit a new all-time record of 80 reported homicides, again with an embarrassing clearance rate. It was advocated to increase the Homicide Unit from 11 to at least 25 detectives, and still nothing was done by Medina.

https://www.petedinelli.com/2019/12/26/all-time-low-apd-clearance-rate-charging-and-jailing-an-innocent-child-for-murder-can-lead-homicide-unit-to-water-but-refused-to-be-trained/

FINAL COMMENTARY

It is as if Interim Chief Medina is attempting to act and sound intelligent so that Mayor Tim Keller will appoint him permanent APD Chief. What his comments did show painfully is he has learned very little over his 24 years of service with the Albuquerque Police Department and has absolutely no idea how to make programs work.

The comments and actions of Interim APD Chief Harold Medina in the recent reports are nothing short of embarrassing. At a minimum, the comments should disqualify Harold Medina him from being appointed permanent APD Chief. Notwithstanding, Medina is one of 3 finalists for APD Chief and City Hall insiders say it is more likely than not Medina will get the appointment.

Maybe Keller will dust off the press release he used when he appointed Geier chief 3 years ago and again say he conducted a national search and guess what, the most qualified person has always been right before our eyes.

On November 12, 2014, the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) filed its action against the City of Albuquerque seeking to remedy a pattern or practice of excessive force and deadly force by the Albuquerque Police Department (APD).

In response to the litigation, the City and the DOJ agreed to a Court-Approved Settlement Agreement (CASA). The settlement requires the City to implement comprehensive reforms at APD. The reforms were negotiated to be fully implemented in 4 years and after 2 years of 95% compliance in 3 levels of compliance, the case was to be dismissed. It has now been over 6 years, 2 Mayors, 3 Chiefs, 3 United States Attorneys for New Mexico and APD still has failed to implement all the reforms.

The reforms are intended to address deficiencies in the areas of use of force, crisis intervention, deployment of specialized units, supervision, management, misconduct investigations, and data collection and analysis.

On February 4 and February 11, Channel 7 broadcast highly critical reports of the DOJ consent decree in its Target 7 reporting. Both reports singled out the Federal Monitor and the reform process under the Court Approved Settlement Agreement (CASA) as the reason for the city’s high crime rates.

Based on information from informed sources, Channel 7 reporters were contacted and asked by the APD Police Union or police union supporters to report what is happening in other cities with consent decrees asserting that the consent decrees are responsible for increases in crime in the cities and police officers cannot do their jobs.

FEBRUARY 4, 2021 TARGET 7 REPORT

On February 4, 2021 Channel 7 did its first Target 7 investigation report. The link to the entire Target 7 February 4 report is here:

https://www.koat.com/article/2021-starting-out-as-violent-year-in-abq/35356633

The February 4 Target 7 report boldly proclaims that it “wanted to know why APD wasn’t making progress” with all the reforms after “paying the Federal Monitor $7.5 Million and expending another $20 Million on the reforms” allocated to APD to implement the reforms for training, staffing and equipment over six years. The February 4, Target 7 report and the police union blame the DOJ reforms and the Federal Monitor for the 6- year delay in implementing the reforms mandated by the settlement.

A detailed analysis of the February 4, Target 7 report outlining misinformation in the report can be found here:

“Target 7 Searches For Scandal On Federal Court Monitor & Finds Nothing; Fails To Report APD Management And Police Union Reason For Costly Delay; “News You Can’t Trust”:

https://www.petedinelli.com/2021/02/10/target-7-searches-for-scandal-on-federal-court-monitor-finds-nothing-reports-millions-spent-on-reforms-fails-to-report-apd-management-and-police-union-reason-for-costly-delay/

FEBRUARY 11, 2021 TARGET 7 INVESTIGATIVE REPORT

On February 11, 2021 Target 7 did a second report. The transcript of the entire report can be reviewed at the below link with the headline “Violent Crime has increased 53% since city signed DOJ settlement agreement”:

https://www.koat.com/article/violent-crime-has-increased-53-since-city-signed-doj-settlement-agreement/35484856

ANALYSIS OF TARGET 7 FEBRAURY 11 REPORT

The Target 7 February 11 report is riddled with misleading or false statements and failures to disclose relevant information. The February 11 report failed to identify that the APD Police Union has been and continues to be the biggest reason for the 6-year delay in implementing the reforms.

THE HEADLINE

The Headline “Violent Crime has increased 53% since city signed DOJ settlement agreement” is as misleading as it gets. The headline is true as to the crime rates but steps over the line of responsible journalism. It essentially says that the DOJ consent decree is the reason for the increase in violent crime which is false.

NATIONAL TREND IN VIOLENT CRIME

The February 11 Target 7 report states:

“For the past six years, a court-ordered agreement with the Department of Justice has forced the Albuquerque Police Department to make court-ordered changes to the way it does business.

The agreement has cost taxpayers $20 million to pay for training, equipment, staffing and a court-appointed monitor.

And violent crime, murders, rapes, robberies and aggravated assaults have increased 53 percent, according to the latest FBI crime statistics. …

“The city says that you can’t blame the increase in crime on the court-ordered changes. “There are a lot of factors behind that not the least of which is a severely understaffed department,” said City Attorney Steve Aguilar. “But, APD and this department have proven it can fight crime.” … “

The Target 7 report is accurate when it says “violent crime, murders, rapes, robberies and aggravated assaults have increased 53 percent, according to the latest FBI crime statistics.” However, the word “latest” is the operative word. What Target 7 left out is that it’s a national trend that violent crime has increased and the city’s increase in crime has nothing to do with the DOJ reforms.

On August 8, 2020 a syndicated news column reported:

” … Homicides and gun violence are on the rise. Murders have spiked in 36 of the 50 biggest American cities that were studied during a newly released Wall Street Journal analysis of crime stats. On average, the nation’s homicide rate is up 24% so far this year compared to the same period in 2019. But in certain cities the murder rate is much higher. In Chicago homicides are up 52%. In San Antonio it’s 34%. Phoenix has seen a 32% rise in murders, Philadelphia 31% and Houston 27%. Gang activity is most frequently blamed for the rise as gang members are also feeling the economic pinch of isolation and turf wars have ignited, playing out on near-empty street corners. This year’s recent huge jump in gun sales may have also played a part in the rising inner-city death toll.”

https://www.abqjournal.com/1484278/the-good-and-very-bad-of-pandemicera-crime-rates.html

In yet another column, FBI statistics reveal that Albuquerque has the dubious distinction of having a crime rate about 194% higher than the national average. The FBI has never reported that Albuquerque’s high crime rates are attributed to the CASA reforms nor that APD officers can not do their jobs of fighting crime because of the reforms.

https://www.abqjournal.com/1491404/state-city-leaders-play-politics-with-public-safety.html

THE DOJ INVESTIGATION

The Target 7 Report states:

“In 2014, the DOJ sued APD after 20 people were shot and killed by Albuquerque police officers in a span of four years.”

The cursory statement totally downplays, to the point of being misleading, the seriousness of what was found by the DOJ. For that reason, a short summary of what the DOJ investigation found is in order.

On April 10, 2014, the DOJ Civil Rights Division, released a scathing 46-page investigation report on an 18-month civil rights investigation of the Albuquerque Police Department (APD). The DOJ reviewed all fatal shootings by officers between 2009 and 2012 and found that officers were not justified in using deadly force in the majority of those incidents.

The link to the entire investigation report is here:

https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/crt/legacy/2014/04/10/apd_findings_4-10-14.pdf

According to a DOJ press release issued on April 10, 2014:

“The investigation examined whether APD engages in an unconstitutional pattern or practice of excessive force, including deadly force, as well as the cause of any pattern or practice of a violation of the law. The department found reasonable cause to believe that APD engages in a pattern or practice of excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The department specifically found three patterns of excessive force:

APD officers too frequently use deadly force against people who pose a minimal threat and in situations where the conduct of the officers heightens the danger and contributes to the need to use force;

APD officers use less lethal force, including electronic controlled weapons, on people who are passively resisting, non-threatening, observably unable to comply with orders or pose only a minimal threat to the officers; and

Encounters between APD officers and persons with mental illness and in crisis too frequently result in a use of force or a higher level of force than necessary.

The department also found systemic deficiencies of the APD which contribute to these three patterns, including: deficient policies, failed accountability systems, inadequate training, inadequate supervision, ineffective systems of investigation and adjudication, the absence of a culture of community policing and a lack of sufficient civilian oversight.”

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-releases-investigative-findings-albuquerque-police-department

THE DOJ REFORMS

The Target 7 report states:

“The city reached a settlement and agreed to make about 300 policy changes to the department.”

The CASA actually mandates 271 major reforms. A link to the CASA is here:

https://www.cabq.gov/mental-health-response-advisory-committee/documents/court-approved-settlement-agreement-final.pdf

Among the 271 reforms agreed to by the City and APD are:

The city agreed to a complete re write of APD’s Use of Force and Deadly force Policies. Sweeping changes ranging from APD’s SWAT team protocols, to banning choke-holds, to auditing the use of every Taser carried by officers and re writing and implement new use of force and deadly force policies are mandated. The CASA mandates the teaching of “constitutional policing” practices and methods as well as mandatory crisis intervention techniques and de-escalation tactics with all and especially the mentally ill. Stricter training and restrictions on the use of nonlethal force is required under the CASA, and it requires more training and controls over the use of Tasers by officers along with quarterly audits of their use.

The agreement mandates that APD adopt a new system to hold officers and supervisors accountable for all use of force incidents with personnel procedures implemented and outlining details how use of force cases would be investigated. It requires far more reporting by officers and field supervisors and also requires detailed reviews of those reports up the chain of command within the department. Sergeants and lieutenants are required to be much more involved in field supervision and review of use of force by officers.

The city agreed to the creation of a Police Oversight Board (POB) as a civilian review agency that independently reviews citizen complaints, serious uses of force and officer-involved shootings by APD. The civilian agency also monitors, reviews and make recommended changes to APD policy on use of force. The city agreed to the creation of Police Civilian Advisory Councils (CPCs), one in each of the 6 APD area commands, designed to increase community interaction. The City agreed to create a new “Use of Force Review Board” to oversee all internal affairs investigations of use of force and deadly force.

COMPARING APPLES TO ORANGES

The Target 7 report compares the increase in crime in Albuquerque to other cities with consent decrees:

“There could have been other factors for the increase. But police union leaders don’t think so.
…
The police union says that’s not the case and they suggest similar agreements are not working in other cities.
…
Target 7 pulled crime data from the FBI for seven other cities that have had similar agreements with the Department of Justice. When compared to the first three years before the agreement to the three years that followed, only two small cities — East Haven, Connecticut and Warren, Ohio had a decrease in violent crime. Both of those cities had a 17 percent reduction.

Larger cities saw at least a 10 percent increase in violent crime:

Seattle – 15%
New Orleans – 25%
Los Angles – 61%
Cleveland – 10%
Phoenix – 17%”

Target 7’s report is very misleading or false on 3 levels:

FIRST: The increases in violent crime in the 5 cities listed can be attributed to the national trend in violent crime that was previously discussed in this article. Target 7 and the police union make the assumption without any supporting and definitive data that the increases are because of consent decrees. FBI statistics reveal that Albuquerque has the dubious distinction of having a crime rate about 194% higher than the national average. The FBI has never made the link that the cities consent decree is the cause of the rise in crime or that the reforms are keeping police from doing their jobs.

(See above: NATIONAL TREND IN VIOLENT CRIME INCREASES).

SECOND: Most importantly, all consent decrees are each tailored to what happened with law enforcement in those cities. The consent decrees in the cities of Seattle, New Orleans, Los Angeles, Cleveland and Phoenix all dealt with racial profiling and to some extent “systemic racism” and the targeting of minorities and use of excessive force and deadly force on minority suspects. That is not what has happened in Albuquerque.

Albuquerque’s consent decree is totally and significantly different than the other consent decrees. In Albuquerque, APD’s use of force cases reviewed involved persons suffering from acute mental illness and who were in crisis. The DOJ investigation of APD did not deal with “racial profiling” nor systemic racism as it did in the 7 cities listed by Channel 7 in its report. The DOJ investigation found APD’s policies, training, and supervision were insufficient to ensure that officers encountering people with mental illness or in distress do so in a manner that respected their rights and in a manner that was safe for all involved.

THIRD: Pointing out that violent crime has increased in the cities that have consent decrees is nothing more than a red herring by the police union. It is a tried-and-true tactic used by police unions to interfere with the reform process of consent decrees. On June 6, 2020, the New York Times published a news article on line entitled “How Police Unions Became Such Powerful Opponents to Reform Efforts”. The New York Times article discusses that as demands for police reform have mounted across the country in the aftermath of police violence or shootings resulting in death, unions have emerged as significant roadblocks to police reforms and change. According to the NY Times article, the greater the political pressure for police reform, the more defiant police unions become in resisting police reforms. The unions are aggressively protecting the rights of members accused of misconduct. The article reports that unions can be so effective at defending their members that cops with a pattern of abuse can be left untouched, ostensibly undisciplined and they remain on the force. A link to a related Dinelli blog article is here:

“NY Times: “How Police Unions Became Such Powerful Opponents to Reform Efforts”; This Sounds WAAAY Too Familiar! Dismiss Police Union As Party To Federal Lawsuit”

https://www.petedinelli.com/2020/10/15/ny-times-how-police-unions-became-such-powerful-opponents-to-reform-efforts-this-sounds-waaay-to-familiar-dismiss-police-union-as-party-to-federal-lawsuit/

TARGET 7 REPORT ON APD STAFFING LEVELS

The February 11, Target 7 Report states in part:

“Since the agreement started, the number of officers has grown from 903 to 962, according to FBI and city payroll records.”

The Target 7 report is seriously inaccurate as to APD’s past staffing levels and it is not up to date as far as APD’s current staffing levels.

In December of 2009, APD had 1,100 sworn police. At the time, APD was the best trained, best equipped, best funded and had the highest staffing levels in its history. Eight years later in December, 2017, a full 3 years after the agreement started, APD was funded for 1,000 sworn officers but it had only 853 sworn police officers, a total loss of 247 sworn police since 2009.

On August 1, 2019, the Albuquerque Police Department (APD) issued what it entitled “Staffing Snapshot” providing a report on the number of sworn police officers APD had at the time and where they have been assigned. According to the report, APD as of August 1, 2019 had a total of 972 sworn officers with 600 officers in the field patrolling 6 area commands and neighborhoods.

https://www.kob.com/albuquerque-news/apd-staffing-numbers-how-many-officers-are-in-your-neighborhood-/5449523/?cat=500

On January 9, 2021, APD payroll showed that APD staffing dropped from 972 sworn to 953 sworn officers with only 48 cadets in the academy. An APD spokesman said at the time there were 51 cadets that were expected to graduate in mid-March. The number of APD retirements will likely approach 30 to 40. APD will likely be short by at least 200 of the 1,200 promised by Mayor Tim Keller once retirements are factored in.

On Monday, February 8, 2021, during a meeting of the City Council’s Public Safety Committee, Interim Police Chief Harold Medina told the committee that APD has 957 officers, 20 less than it had it had two years ago. Medina further made the shocking disclosure that APD has only 371 police officers assigned to the field service bureau that respond to calls for service in the 6 area commands when in 2019 there were 600 sworn police officers responding to calls for service. Medina also told the city council committee that Field Services has 53 sergeants, 18 lieutenants, 6 area commanders, 21 bicycle officers and 32 crisis intervention officers, for a total of 511 officers. The problem is that the sergeants, the 6 area commanders, the bicycle officers and crisis intervention officers do not patrol the streets of Albuquerque taking calls for service.

https://www.abqreport.com/single-post/zero-growth-for-apd

THE PROMISED 1,200 SWORN POLICE

According to the Target 7 February 11 report:

“After completing a DOJ-mandated staffing study, the city has said it needs 1,200. It is more than 200 shy of that goal.”

This statement is false. It was candidate for Mayor Tim Keller who successfully argued and convinced city voters the city needs 1,200 officers.

The CASA originally required APD to conduct a staffing study to determine what level of sworn officers were required to carry out its functions. On December 11, 2015, the 62 page “Albuquerque Police Department Comprehensive Staffing Assessment and Resource Study” was released by the Alexander Weiss Consulting, LLC. The Alexander Weiss staffing report states:

“Based on our analysis the APD will be adequately staffed at the level of 1,000 sworn personnel.”

(See: Alexander Weiss Report, page 5)

The link to the Alexander Weiss staffing report is here:

https://www.cabq.gov/police/documents/monthly-reports/comprehensive-staffing-assessment-and-resource-study.pdf

The Wiess staffing report found that an APD staffing level of 1,000 sworn police was sufficient to deal with the city’s calls for service provided that certain calls, such as auto wrecks and false alarms, were no longer responded to by APD.

APD ON BRINK OF A CATASTROPHIC FAILURE

Quoting the Target 7 February 11 Investigation report:

“According to a recent report issued by a court-appointed monitor, APD is not close to ending the agreement and the city is in the process of negotiating an extension with the monitor.”

This is a complete understatement of just how bad APD’s present status is on implementing the reforms.

On Friday, October 6, 2020, Federal Monitor Ginger told the Federal District Court Judge overseeing the DOJ reform effort:

“We are on the brink of a catastrophic failure at APD. … [The department] has failed miserably in its ability to police itself. … If this were simply a question of leadership, I would be less concerned. But it’s not. It’s a question of leadership. It’s a question of command. It’s a question of supervision. And it’s a question of performance on the street. So as a monitor with significant amount of experience – I’ve been doing this since the ’90s – I would have to be candid with the Court and say we’re in more trouble here right now today than I’ve ever seen.”

APD POLICE UNION IS THE COUNTER CASA EFFECT

It was on September 10, 2018, at a status telephone conference call held with the US District Court Judge that Federal Monitor Dr. James Ginger first told the federal court that a group of “high-ranking APD officers” within APD were trying to thwart the reform efforts.

The Federal Monitor revealed that the group of “high-ranking APD officers” were APD sergeants and lieutenants who are all allowed to be members of the police union under the union contract despite being management. The APD police union contract with the city violates state law by allowing management positions of lieutenants and sergeants to join the collective bargaining unit, yet the city has allowed it for many years. A link to a related blog article citing state law is here:

https://www.petedinelli.com/2020/12/15/apd-police-union-contract-violates-state-law-by-allowing-management-positions-of-lieutenants-and-sergeants-into-bargaining-unit-empower-apd-chief-to-immediately-terminate-cops-for-cause/

In his 10th report Federal Monitor Ginger referred to the group as the “Counter-CASA effect” and stated:

“Sergeants and lieutenants, at times, go to extreme lengths to excuse officer behaviors that clearly violate established and trained APD policy, using excuses, deflective verbiage, de minimis comments and unsupported assertions to avoid calling out subordinates’ failures to adhere to established policies and expected practice. Supervisors (sergeants) and mid-level managers (lieutenants) routinely ignore serious violations, fail to note minor infractions, and instead, consider a given case “complete”.

“Some members of APD continue to resist actively APD’s reform efforts, including using deliberate counter-CASA processes. For example … Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) disciplinary timelines, appear at times to be manipulated by supervisory, management and command levels at the area commands, letting known violations lie dormant until timelines for discipline cannot be met.”

In the 12th Monitors report, Ginger states:

During the reporting period we encountered system-wide failures related to the oversight of force used by APD officers and supervisory and command review of those uses of force. The monitoring team has been critical of the Force Review Board (FRB), citing its past ineffectiveness and its failing to provide meaningful oversight for APD’s use of force system. The consequences are that APD’s FRB, and by extension APD itself, endorses questionable, and sometimes unlawful, conduct by its officers.
…

Still evident are systemic failures that allow questionable uses of force and misconduct to survive without being addressed in any meaningful way”.

In his 12th Monitor’s Report, Dr. Ginger also finds:

1.“… [When] … Internal Affairs … allow union representatives … and … officers to respond to salient, and reasonable, fact-finding questions by simply reading a Garrity statement [invoking the right to remain silent] … into the record, as opposed to answering questions posed, there are serious and near terminal problems with process, policy enforcement, and outcome factors.”

2. APD Internal Affairs routinely permits officers and union representatives to hijack internal fact-finding.

3. “[There] are strong under currents of Counter-CASA effects in some critical units on APD’s critical path related to CASA compliance. These include supervision at the field level; mid-level command in both operational and administrative functions, [including] patrol operations, internal affairs practices, disciplinary practices, training, and force review). Supervision, [the] sergeants and lieutenants, and mid-level command, [the commanders] remain one of the most critical weak links in APD’s compliance efforts.”

4. Many of the instances of non-compliance seen in the field are a matter of “will not,” instead of “cannot”! The Monitor … report[s] … he see actions that transcend innocent errors and instead speak to issues of cultural norms yet to be addressed and changed by APD leadership.

5. Supervision, which includes Lieutenants and Sergeants in the union, “needs to leave behind its dark traits of myopia, passive resistance, and outright support for, and implementation of, counter-CASA processes.”

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

The most troubling and likely reason for the Target 7 investigation reports was to give the APD Police Union and the union president an opportunity to “vent” their anger at the mandated reforms and the reform process. Informed sources have confirmed that it was the police union or its supporters who contacted Channel 7, provided the station with information and then asked Channel 7 to report it.

The obvious goal of the Channel 7 stories was to try to discredit the reform process in order to deflect the fact that the union and its membership have been identified by the Federal Monitor as the biggest impediment to the reform process.

In the February 11 Target 7 report Shaun Willoughby, President of the Albuquerque Police Officers’ Association said in a self-righteous and angry tone:

“The whole [reform effort] system is set up to fail and the taxpayers and the people that live in this community like me and my family are the ones that are taking the brunt [of violent crime]. … Really look at this process. … It is absolutely out of control. … The entire department and the processes within it are out of control. Your officers are running out the door. Really look at every single state or agency that’s been involved in this process. … What is happening? Did it bring harmony and trust with the community? I don’t think so.”

These statements alone by Willouby evidence that it was Willouby or one of his supporters who contacted Channel 7 to do the smear reports of the DOJ reforms and the process.

NOT THE FIRST TIME, NOR THE LAST TIME

It was on January 28, 2021, KOAT TV asked APD Union President Shaun Willoughby to react to the number of homicides in January, 2021. Not at all surprising, Willoughby blasted the Department of Justice (DOJ) consent decree reforms for the city’s violent crime and murder rates and told Channel 7:

“This should be no surprise to anybody in this community. We had a staggering number of homicides last year we had record-breaking number of homicides the year before. … Violent crime increases at an alarming rate in this community. We have for the last six years and I’ll be the first to tell you it’s not getting better and anybody that says it is not telling you the truth. … the department has become more reactive to crime, than proactive. … We’re focused on the DOJ consent decree instead of fighting crime.”

https://www.koat.com/article/2021-starting-out-as-violent-year-in-abq/35356633

On February 15, the Albuquerque Journal reported that the city and the DOJ have agreed to hiring an outside team of investigators to assist APD internal affairs with police use of force investigations. A stipulated order has been negotiated between the city and the DOJ to hire a “Use of Force Investigation Team” and a hearing must be held by the court to approve it. The order says that the city should try to return full responsibility to the internal investigators within nine months but that the time could be extended if needed.

A link to the full Albuquerque Journal report is here:

https://www.abqjournal.com/2359745/city-doj-agree-on-outside-team-to-help-oversee-apd.html

The outside use of force team was also reported on by this blog on February 11:

“City Agrees To Hire “Outside” Use of Force Investigators To Review APD’s Use Of Force Cases; Where There Is A Will To Obstruct, APD And Union Will Find A Way”

https://www.petedinelli.com/2021/02/11/city-agrees-to-hire-25-outside-use-of-force-investigators-to-review-apds-use-of-force-cases-where-there-is-a-will-to-obstruct-apd-and-union-will-find-a-way/

The Stipulated Order provides:

“For each use of force investigation, EFIT shall evaluate the quality of IA force personnel’s investigations and immediately notify APD and APD’s legal counsel of any deficiencies or misconduct by IA force personnel related to their investigations. … APD shall promptly address these deficiencies or misconduct through corrective action or discipline, consistent with the (Court Approved Settlement Agreement), APD policy, and the (Collective Bargaining Agreement).”

The order says that the city will try to return full responsibility to the internal investigators within 9 months but that the time could be extended if needed. Part of the order mandates that APD increase its Internal Affairs Force Division from 14 to 25 investigators.

A link to the Motion and the Stipulated Order is here:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1DO2UyAGKf5Srw50Y9DcYCmuX3WzESukC/view

In the Albuquerque Journal February 15 article, Shaun Willoughby, president of the Albuquerque Police Officers’ Association, characterized the proposed “Use of Force Team” as a “Knee-jerk” reaction and said it was a reaction to the criticism by the Federal Monitor in his last report, which is the 12th report filed. According to Willoughby:

“I don’t think we need it. … Could we do better? Yes. Could we invest more? Yes. Is this a challenge? Yes, it is. We’re an understaffed police department, with a crime rate that is unprecedented in one of the most challenging processes in bureaucracies that this police industry has to offer. …”

Willouby added that Internal Affairs detectives are unhappy about the plan and some want to transfer back to the field. He said they feel like they’re being punished even though they were not given adequate training to do what they needed to do.

WHAT LIKELY IRKS THE POLICE UNION

The police union leadership have said in the past and in open court that the mandated reforms under the consent decree are interfering with rank-and-file officer’s ability to perform their job duties. According to Willoughby, police officers are afraid to do their jobs for fear of being investigated, fired or disciplined. The police union has never articulated in open court and in clear terms exactly what it is about the reforms that are keeping rank and file from “doing their” jobs.

It’s likely what the police union feels is interfering with its membership from doing their jobs includes one or more of the following:

1. The mandatory use of lapel cameras by APD.
2. APD police can no longer shoot at fleeing cars.
3. APD police can no longer use choke holds to subdue suspects.
4. APD police need to use less lethal force and not rely on the SWAT unit.
5. APD police must use de-escalating tactics.
6. All APD officers must be trained in crisis intervention.
7. APD management must now hold all subordinate police officers accountable for all levels of violations of standard operating procedures.
8. The mandatory “paper work” associated with any degree of use of force is too cumbersome.
9. APD Police officers are required to intervene when they witness and are concerned about other officers use of force.
10. Mandatory notification to superiors for investigation by police officers who witness another officer’s “excessive use of force” or violations of CASA reforms.
11. Management must hold police accountable for violation of standard operating procedures.

The police union and critics of the Federal Monitor have said that the monitor is “nitpicking” when the monitor points out specific incidents of APD management’s failure to enforce standard operating procedure. The policies are APD’s policies, not the monitors. Answering the charge of “nitpicking”, why bother having the policies if officers are not going to follow them and management refuses to enforce them.

The consent decree was negotiated to be fully implemented during a 4-year period and then after two years of compliance dismissed. Over 6 years have now elapse and APD is still struggling to implement the all 271 mandated reforms agreed to by the City and APD in 2014. What the union has been doing for the last 6 years is disrupting the reform process. Instead of fighting the consent decree, the police union should have embraced the reforms and help implement them. Only then will APD be able to fight crime.

POLICE UNION PRESS CONTACTS UNDERMINE CASA REFORMS

After the DOJ initiated the federal lawsuit against APD and the City, the APOA Police Union intervened almost immediately to become a party to the federal lawsuit in order to advocate for union interests in city policy. The City, instead of opposing the intervention to the lawsuit agreed to it and the Federal Court went along with it. Allowing the union to intervene and become a party to the lawsuit was a major tactical mistake by the city, but it is now a tactical mistake for the union to continually contact the press and complain.

By becoming a party to the federal lawsuit, the union is subject to the jurisdiction of the federal court as is anyone who appears to represent the union or participates with the court proceedings. The union leadership always appears at court hearings and has been at the negotiating table. For a full year, the union representative was involved with the drafting new “use of force” and “deadly use of force” policy.

Once a party becomes part of litigation, a party’s first amendment rights are curtailed to an extent and any conduct to obstruct or interfere with court proceedings is strictly prohibited. It’s referred to as “litigating your case in the press” to influence a court or jury with public opinion pressure. In lieu of first amendment rights, a party to a lawsuit has the ability to make objections known to the courts through motions filed with the court outlining their concerns and arguing in open court before the judge.

Federal courts do have the authority to issue “gag orders” to the parties as well as initiate contempt of court proceeding for direct or indirect violations of court orders. The Court Approved Settlement Agreement (CASA) is a court order. The union contributed to the one-year delay in writing the policies objecting to many provisions of the policies. If the police union has any real objections, criticisms or concerns about the reforms, it should instruct its attorney to file a motion before the court and scheduled a hearing to take testimony and evidence. The attempt by the union to litigate the CASA in the press by contacting the press is totally inappropriate and is likely unethical conduct.

The union and its attorneys would be wise to curtail the obvious union attempts to disparage or undermine in the press or obstruct the implementation of the DOJ reforms in the press, otherwise they risk the real possibility of the Federal Court, the DOJ or the City seeking contempt of court action or ask for a “gag order”.

Given the union’s past actions, it’s not likely they will ever listen to reason, especially when you have a union president who is attracted to TV camera lights like a moth to a light bulb on a hot summer night.

On February 13, the second impeachment of Donald Trump ended with his acquittal. A two thirds vote of 34 was needed to acquit. The vote was, 43 “not guilty”, 57 “guilty” votes. Seven Republican Senators put the country first over party and loyalty to Trump and voted with 50 Democrat and Independent Senators to convict.

We can now add the name of President Donald Trump to the list of shameful acquittals of guilty persons who have committed serious crimes and offenses, very much like OJ Simpson. Hell,Trump even had Alan Dershowitz who represented OJ Simpson and the pedophile Jeffry Epstein as one of his attorneys.

The second impeachment trial of Trump will go down as a complete disgrace to the United States Senate. It was a trial held at the “scene of a crime”, with victims of the crime acting as jurors, and the Republican jurors too scared of the very one who placed them in harm’s way and threatened their lives. It was a case where Republican jurors refused to convict a Republican President who instigated a riot to stop certification of an election and the peaceful transition of power. It was a trial of a President who was so desperate to cling to power that he sought to have his thugs and white supremist seek out and kill his own Vice President Mike Pence and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi.

ACQUITTAL DOES NOT MEAN “NOT GUILTY”

In both of the Senate Impeachment trials, Trump was acquitted. That does NOT mean he is “not guilty” as found by Republican Senators both times. The evidence presented by the Democrat House Impeachment Managers in the second trial was overwhelming. The evidence was so overwhelming that Republican Minority Leader Mitch McConnell was forced to make the identical arguments put forth by Democrat Lead Floor Impeachment Manager Representative Jamie Raskin, but then turn around, almost breaking his back, as did all the other Republicans, to acquit Trump making the false argument that the Senate can only find guilty a president who is still in office. The US Senate has an extensive history of impeaching and finding other office holders guilty for their actions even after they have resigned and left office.

EDITOR’S NOTE: The remarks of Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell delivered after the vote is in the postscript to this blog article.

With both impeachments, Trump is a man who did the crime but will not do the time. The big difference with Trump, he will always be known as the President who was impeached twice and who was acquitted along party lines. History written and public opion will be the final judge of his innocence while in office.

One major consolation is that Führer Trump, along with his sons and daughter, are likely facing criminal charges in the very near future. New York state prosecutors are still investigating whether the Trump Organization violated state law connected to hush-money payments made to two women who alleged affairs with President Donald Trump. The investigation began after federal prosecutors from the Southern District of New York formally closed their criminal probe into the payments in July. A related blog article entitled “Citizen Trump Likely Facing Criminal Prosecutions” can be read here:

https://www.petedinelli.com/2020/12/01/citizen-trump-likely-facing-criminal-prosecution/

CONCLUSION

Despite all of his efforts, our institutions stand strong as does our democracy. Trump will likely find out now that our criminal justice system works when he is indicted, found guilty and sentenced to jail in State Courts for his crimes including fraud, tax evasion and bank fraud. The Senate vote to acquit is a stain on the US Senate, as much as Trump was on the Presidency, that will never be removed.

There is an old saying that the wheels of justice turn slowly. In Trumps case, the wheels of Justice are still turning. Trump’s luck of “not doing the time for doing the crime” is about to run out now that he is out of office and when he is charged in state court for crimes. Then again, Trump is 72 and nature and the Almighty will render the ultimate sentence of justice unto him and he will begin his sentence of eternity where he really belongs.

At that time Führer Trump will be able to have conversations with people he likes and emulates such as Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini and so many other dictators in history.

____________________

POSCRIPT

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell delivered a speech on the Senate floor after he and 43 Republicans voted to acquit former President Donald Trump. It’s a speech that essentially says there is no longer a Republican Party but the Trump Party. For that reason, it’s worth the read:

“January 6th was a disgrace.

American citizens attacked their own government. They used terrorism to try to stop a specific piece of democratic business they did not like. Fellow Americans beat and bloodied our own police. They stormed the Senate floor. They tried to hunt down the Speaker of the House. They built a gallows and chanted about murdering the Vice President. They did this because they had been fed wild falsehoods by the most powerful man on Earth — because he was angry he’d lost an election. Former President Trump’s actions preceding the riot were a disgraceful dereliction of duty. The House accused the former President of, quote, incitement.’ That is a specific term from the criminal law.

Let me put that to the side for one moment and reiterate something I said weeks ago: There is no question that President Trump is practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of that day. The people who stormed this building believed they were acting on the wishes and instructions of their President. And their having that belief was a foreseeable consequence of the growing crescendo of false statements, conspiracy theories, and reckless hyperbole which the defeated President kept shouting into the largest megaphone on planet Earth.

The issue is not only the President’s intemperate language on January 6th. It is not just his endorsement of remarks in which an associate urged ‘trial by combat.’ It was also the entire manufactured atmosphere of looming catastrophe; the increasingly wild myths about a reverse landslide election that was being stolen in some secret coup by our now-President.

I defended the President’s right to bring any complaints to our legal system. The legal system spoke. The Electoral College spoke. As I stood up and said clearly at the time, the election was settled. But that reality just opened a new chapter of even wilder and more unfounded claims.

The leader of the free world cannot spend weeks thundering that shadowy forces are stealing our country and then feign surprise when people believe him and do reckless things. Sadly, many politicians sometimes make overheated comments or use metaphors that unhinged listeners might take literally. This was different. This was an intensifying crescendo of conspiracy theories, orchestrated by an outgoing president who seemed determined to either overturn the voters’ decision or else torch our institutions on the way out.

The unconscionable behavior did not end when the violence began. Whatever our ex-President claims he thought might happen that day… whatever reaction he says he meant to produce… by that afternoon, he was watching the same live television as the rest of the world. A mob was assaulting the Capitol in his name. These criminals were carrying his banners, hanging his flags, and screaming their loyalty to him. It was obvious that only President Trump could end this.

Former aides publicly begged him to do so. Loyal allies frantically called the Administration. But the President did not act swiftly. He did not do his job. He didn’t take steps so federal law could be faithfully executed, and order restored. Instead, according to public reports, he watched television happily as the chaos unfolded. He kept pressing his scheme to overturn the election! Even after it was clear to any reasonable observer that Vice President Pence was in danger… even as the mob carrying Trump banners was beating cops and breaching perimeters… the President sent a further tweet attacking his Vice President.

Predictably and foreseeably under the circumstances, members of the mob seemed to interpret this as further inspiration to lawlessness and violence. Later, even when the President did halfheartedly begin calling for peace, he did not call right away for the riot to end. He did not tell the mob to depart until even later. And even then, with police officers bleeding and broken glass covering Capitol floors, he kept repeating election lies and praising the criminals.

In recent weeks, our ex-President’s associates have tried to use the 74 million Americans who voted to re-elect him as a kind of human shield against criticism. Anyone who decries his awful behavior is accused of insulting millions of voters. That is an absurd deflection.

74 million Americans did not invade the Capitol. Several hundred rioters did. And 74 million Americans did not engineer the campaign of disinformation and rage that provoked it. One person did. I have made my view of this episode very plain.

But our system of government gave the Senate a specific task. The Constitution gives us a particular role. This body is not invited to act as the nation’s overarching moral tribunal. We are not free to work backward from whether the accused party might personally deserve some kind of punishment.

Justice Joseph Story was our nation’s first great constitutional scholar. As he explained nearly 200 years ago, the process of impeachment and conviction is a narrow tool for a narrow purpose. Story explained this limited tool exists to “secure the state against gross official misdemeanors.” That is, to protect the country from government officers.

If President Trump were still in office, I would have carefully considered whether the House managers proved their specific charge. By the strict criminal standard, the President’s speech probably was not incitement. However, in the context of impeachment, the Senate might have decided this was acceptable shorthand for the reckless actions that preceded the riot.

But in this case, that question is moot. Because former President Trump is constitutionally not eligible for conviction. There is no doubt this is a very close question. Donald Trump was the President when the House voted, though not when the House chose to deliver the papers.

Brilliant scholars argue both sides of the jurisdictional question. The text is legitimately ambiguous. I respect my colleagues who have reached either conclusion. But after intense reflection, I believe the best constitutional reading shows that Article II, Section 4 exhausts the set of persons who can legitimately be impeached, tried, or convicted. The President, Vice President, and civil officers.

We have no power to convict and disqualify a former officeholder who is now a private citizen. Here is Article II, Section 4:

“The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

Now, everyone basically agrees that the second half of that sentence exhausts the legitimate grounds for conviction. The debates around the Constitution’s framing make that clear. Congress cannot convict for reasons besides those. It therefore follows that the list of persons in that same sentence is also exhaustive. There is no reason why one list would be exhaustive but the other would not.

Article II, Section 4 must limit both why impeachment and conviction can occur… and to whom. If this provision does not limit the impeachment and conviction powers, then it has no limits at all. The House’s ‘sole power of Impeachment’ and the Senate’s ‘sole Power to try all Impeachments’ would create an unlimited circular logic, empowering Congress to ban any private citizen from federal office. This is an incredible claim. But it is the argument the House Managers seemed to make. One Manager said the House and Senate have ‘absolute, unqualified… jurisdictional power.’ That was very honest. Because there is no limiting principle in the constitutional text that would empower the Senate to convict former officers that would not also let them convict and disqualify any private citizen. An absurd end result to which no one subscribes.

Article II, Section 4 must have force. It tells us the President, Vice President, and civil officers may be impeached and convicted. Donald Trump is no longer the president. Likewise, the provision states that officers subject to impeachment and conviction ‘shall be removed from Office’ if convicted.

Shall.

As Justice Story explained, ‘the Senate, [upon] conviction, [is] bound, in all cases, to enter a judgment of removal from office.’ Removal is mandatory upon conviction. Clearly, he explained, that mandatory sentence cannot be applied to somebody who has left office.

The entire process revolves around removal. If removal becomes impossible, conviction becomes insensible. In one light, it certainly does seem counterintuitive that an officeholder can elude Senate conviction by resignation or expiration of term. But this just underscores that impeachment was never meant to be the final forum for American justice.

Impeachment, conviction, and removal are a specific intra-governmental safety valve. It is not the criminal justice system, where individual accountability is the paramount goal. Indeed, Justice Story specifically reminded that while former officials were not eligible for impeachment or conviction, they were “still liable to be tried and punished in the ordinary tribunals of justice.” We have a criminal justice system in this country. We have civil litigation. And former Presidents are not immune from being held accountable by either one.

I believe the Senate was right not to grab power the Constitution does not give us. And the Senate was right not to entertain some light-speed sham process to try to outrun the loss of jurisdiction. It took both sides more than a week just to produce their pre-trial briefs. Speaker Pelosi’s own scheduling decisions conceded what President Biden publicly confirmed: A Senate verdict before Inauguration Day was never possible.

This has been a dispiriting time. But the Senate has done our duty. The framers’ firewall held up again. On January 6th, we returned to our posts and certified the election, uncowed. And since then, we resisted the clamor to defy our own constitutional guardrails in hot pursuit of a particular outcome. We refused to continue a cycle of recklessness by straining our own constitutional boundaries in response.

The Senate’s decision does not condone anything that happened on or before that terrible day. It simply shows that Senators did what the former President failed to do: We put our constitutional duty first.”

The link to the speech is here

https://www.cnn.com/2021/02/13/politics/mcconnell-remarks-trump-acquittal/index.html

On January 19, the 2021 New Mexico legislature convened for its 60 day session. As of February 12, there are 3 major legislative initiatives that have passed at least one chamber of the New Mexico legislature that are worth noting.

SENATE APPROVES REPEAL OF ABORTION BAN

On Thursday, February 11, the New Mexico Senate passed the repeal of the state’s abortion ban. As the saying goes “elections have consequences”. Two years after voting down a bill that would have repealed the long-dormant New Mexico abortion ban, the New Mexico State Senate voted 25-17 to repeal the 1969 abortion law making abortions illegal. The state law was suspended because of US Supreme Court ruling of Roe v. Wade making abortions legal. However, if the US Supreme Court would reverse Roe v. Wade, the 1969 abortion law would be enforceable.

The 2020 NM general election resulted in the defeat of 5 long serving, conservative Democrat Senators who for years voted with Republicans to form a “conservative coalition” that stymied more progressive legislation sent to the Senate by the New Mexico House. The repeal now goes to the he Democratic-controlled House where final approval is expected. Once approved by the House, it will be sent to Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham who has already said she has said she will sign the repeal legislation.

SENATE APPROVES ECONOMIC RELIEF

On Wednesday, February 10, the New Mexico Senate passed a corona virus pandemic-related financial relief measure. The legislation includes low interest loans to small businesses that have been battered by the virus and closures by the emergency health restrictions. Bills that passed the Senate include tax breaks for restaurants and a temporary waiver on liquor license fees. One bill would authorize loans of up to $150,000 to small businesses at sub-prime rates of less than 2% annual interest. The bill passed on a 35-3 vote with several senators recusing themselves from voting because of ties to businesses that might apply for the relief.

The bill will create a state trust fund to invest up to $500 million in loans to businesses with ownership ties to New Mexico. The bill expands the more limited small business loan program enacted last year that provides a total of about $40 million in loans of as much as $75,000 each. The new program would allow the loans to be refinanced at more favorable terms. The State Senate also unanimously approved a proposal to provide a $600 tax rebate to working, low-income families and provide a tax break on business sales and services to food establishments such as restaurants, craft breweries and food trucks.

On February 10, the Senate approved on a 41-1 vote a bill that would waive fees for all liquor licenses in order to help the hospitality industry.

HOUSE LIQUOR LICENSE REFORM

On Wednesday, February 10, HB 255 passed the House Commerce and Economic Development committee on a 6-3 vote to move the bill forward, after extensive amendments, without any recommendation. HB 255 will allow home-delivery of alcohol in some circumstances and establish tax breaks intended to help the holders of certain liquor licenses HB 255 proposes a new license that will allow restaurants to expand from serving beer and wine to hard liquor. Under HB 255, local communities could choose to opt out.

Democrat Representative Antonio “Moe” Maestas of Albuquerque is a co-sponsor of HB 255 said that the legislation would help the state struggling economy and said:

“We’re going to try to our darnedest to jump-start the economy once COVID is gone from our communities. … [ The bill is to] save our restaurant industry and save our tourism industry.”

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

There are still a significant number of issues that the New Mexico legislature will be dealing with over the next few weeks remaining of the session. Those include the legalization of recreational marijuana, the “red flag” law dealing with the ability for law enforcement to temporarily seize guns by court order from those who are a threat to themselves or others and comprehensive “liquor license reform.”

On November 12, 2014, the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) filed its action against the City of Albuquerque seeking to remedy a pattern or practice of excessive force and deadly force by the Albuquerque Police Department (APD).

In response to the litigation, two days later, the City and the DOJ agreed to a Court-Approved Settlement Agreement (CASA), requiring the City to implement comprehensive reforms at APD to address deficiencies in the areas of use of force, crisis intervention, deployment of specialized units, supervision, management, misconduct investigations, and data collection and analysis.

Editor’s Note: The postscript to this article gives a 4-point summation of what is included in the 271 reforms.

The CASA is a 106-page negotiated Court Approved Settlement Agreement ( CASA) that mandates 271 major reforms. Implementation of the CASA was to be over a 4-year period and after a 95% compliance over two consecutive years in 3 identified compliance areas and the case was to be dismissed. Its now been over 6 years and the case has not been dismissed. The CASA provides that it is “designed to ensure police integrity, protect officer safety, and prevent use of excessive force, including unreasonable use of deadly force, by APD.”

A link to the court approved settlement agreement (CASA) is here:

https://www.cabq.gov/mental-health-response-advisory-committee/documents/court-approved-settlement-agreement-final.pdf

MOTION FILED FOR “USE OF FORCE” INVESTIGATION TEAM

On Friday, February 5, the City of Albuquerque and the Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a “Joint Motion For Entry of Stipulated Order Establishing An External Force Investigation Team”. The motion has attached to it a proposed Stipulated Order that has been negotiated between the city and the DOJ with no objection from the court appointed Federal Monitor. The APD Police Union is an intervenor in the case, but did not sign off on the motion and ostensibly was not involved with negotiation of the stipulated order. A hearing must be held by the Federal Judge who must approve the Stipulated Order before it can be implemented.

A link to the Motion and the Stipulated Order is here:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1DO2UyAGKf5Srw50Y9DcYCmuX3WzESukC/view

According to the motion filed, the proposed Stipulated Order will require the City to establish, on a “temporary basis”, an External Force Investigation Team (EFIT) to assist the Albuquerque Police Department (APD) in conducting use of force investigations by APD officers, while also assisting APD with improving the quality of its use of force by police investigations.

The EFIT team will train APD Internal Affairs investigators on how to properly investigate uses of force instances by APD police officers. According to the proposed order, the City will ensure that APD maintains at least 25 force investigators assigned to the APD Internal Affairs unit unless and until APD can demonstrate by an internal staffing analysis that fewer investigators are necessary to timely investigate uses of force by APD Officers.

PROPOSED TO STIPULATED ORDER

The proposed stipulated order provides for the establishment of the “External Force Investigation Team” (EFIT):

“EFIT shall be overseen by an Administrator. The City shall empower the EFIT Administrator to hire and retain the staff necessary to fulfill the requirements of this Order. It is anticipated that the EFIT Administrator will hire and retain a number of investigators, as well as administrative support staff and Supervisors, as necessary to fulfill the duties under the EFIT Administrator’s contract with the City. The EFIT Administrator shall ensure that a sufficient number of EFIT Investigators to meet the requirements of … this Order are physically present in Albuquerque and able to respond to the scene of Level 2 and Level 3 uses of force.”

The proposed Stipulated Order provides that the Independent Monitor will continue to provide extensive technical assistance to the City regarding Internal Affairs processes, including the period before an EFIT administrator is selected. Presumably, the specialized unit would be disbanded when APD becomes proficient at investigating itself, but that is not outlined and neither is the actual cost to the city.

The Stipulated Order also provides that the additional services to be provided by the Federal Monitor will be additional to the auditing work under the CASA. According to the Stipulated Order, the monitor and the city will have to enter into a separate contract providing additional compensation. The Federal monitor’s team has already been paid $7.5 million for 6 years of work and is currently being paid $1.5 million a year. The Federal Monitor employees a 9-member professional team in addition to local staff and the city provides office space.

The Motion outlines the time line for he process:

“In the first months following the entry of the Stipulated Order, the Order requires the City to make three key improvements, in addition to establishing EFIT, to bring its force investigations into compliance with the CASA (Court Approved Settlement Agreement) and to maintain compliance after EFIT is gone.

First: Within two months of the entry of the Order, the Order requires the City to submit to the United States and the Independent Monitor a proposal for redesigning its internal affairs investigation process. After the Parties and Monitor have agreed on the proposal, the City will receive guidance and technical assistance from the Independent Monitor to implement the proposal. The Parties expect that the redesigned process will result in changes to APD’s policies that are long overdue.

Second: The Order requires the City to increase the number of force investigators at APD, a commitment of resources that is necessary to ensure that APD can investigate all force incidents in a timely manner. The Parties anticipate that staffing will increase over time and may fluctuate as EFIT and APD determine whether individual force investigators have the relevant investigative skills.

Third: The Order requires APD to develop new training for force investigators within three months of the entry of the Order. These improvements are necessary to ensure that APD can make positive and durable changes to its force investigations.”
…
As a way to consolidate and track all of the initiatives required by the Stipulated Order, the Order requires the City to develop and file with the Court, within 5 months of the entry of the Order, a remedial action plan that “will identify concrete actions that the City and EFIT will take to improve the quality and timeliness of investigations of Level 2 and Level 3 uses of force.” After filing the plan, the City will report to the Court quarterly on its progress in implementing the plan, including metrics that will indicate whether APD is making progress toward regaining full responsibility for conducting investigations of Level 2 and Level 3 uses of force.”

According to the stipulated order, this city will issue a Request For Proposal (RFP) to seek bids for an EFIT administrator by early March. An administrator would be hired by May 3. The agreement does not say exactly how many investigators the EIFT administrator will be given authorization to hire nor how much the unit will cost, but it does say that at least 25 investigators must be hired.

The Stipulated Order says that no EIFT personnel:

“shall have any current or previous employment relationship or contract for services with APD or the City.”

What this means is that no one from Albuquerque, including retired APD or other retired law enforcement personnel can be hired. The practical effect is that out of state people will have to be hired and they likely would have to work remotely from out of state.

USE OF FORCE INVESTIGATION TEAM

It was during the December 4 status conference hearing on the 12th Federal Monitor’s that the “Use of Force” Investigation Team was first revealed to the general public and it was disclosed that the City and the DOJ were negotiating a stipulate order for a “use of force team”. The stake holders in the case, including APD Forward were taken by surprise by the announcement in that they were never told of the negotiations and did not take part or allowed to give input on the proposed Use of Force Team.

Paul Killebrew, special counsel for the DOJ’s civil rights division, said that after the 12th Federal Monitor’s report was released November 2, the DOJ and the City realized that something had to be done. If not agreed to by the city, the DOJ would have to take very aggressive action. Killebrew told the Federal Court:

“The city agreed the problems were serious and needed to be addressed … that’s significant. If we had gone to the city and the city disagreed with our picture of reality, and had they not been willing to address the problem we identified, I think we would be in a different posture … We might have needed to seek enforcement action over the city’s objections.”

The enforcement action that could have been filed is a “Motion for Contempt of Court” seeking sanctions against the City and APD for intentional violations of the CASA. Another option would have been to have had APD placed in a “receivership” with the appointment of a Special Master to take over the day-to-day management of APD, something advocated for by police reform advocacy groups. During the December 4 hearing, many of the friends of court and other stake holders asked that APD be placed into receivership while others also asked that the police union be dismissed from the case.

As presented during the hearing, the investigation team will be totally independent from the city and the APD Internal Affairs Unit and APD Force Review Board. the Use of Force Investigation Team would consist of highly experienced professionals, potentially from all over the country, whose responsibility would investigate level 2 and level 3 uses of force which involve great bodily harm, permanent injury or death. The outside team of experts would interact with APD personnel, gather evidence as needed and conduct interviews if needed and submit final reports within a very short time frame of weeks. Normally, such investigations have been taking upwards of 6 months to a year.

Editor’s Note: Level 1 use of force is force that does not result in injury or complaint of injury; Level 2 use of force force that does result in injury or complaint of injury; and Level 3 is force that results in serious injury, hospitalization, or death.

Killebrew said the proposal is for the city to hire external investigators who could work remotely from anywhere in the country, at least until the pandemic no longer poses a problem. Existing Internal Affairs Force Division detectives would conduct the on-the-ground investigation at the scene, including taking photographs and taking witness interviews. The investigation materials gathered would be sent to the external investigators. The external investigators who would determine if they think force was improperly used. Discipline recommendations would also be made.

The city’s procurement process would be used and the city would fund the services. The goal would be to hire the most qualified professionals with a proven track record. Final reports prepared by the “use of force” investigation team would then be forwarded to the city’s Use of Force Board.

According to Killebrew, the use of force investigation team will not be easily side tracked by APD interference and resistance and put it this way:

“There are not that many human beings that stand between Internal Affairs Force investigators and the chief of police … We believe that if the external team conducts the investigation and recommends a finding of out of compliance and recommends discipline, it will be obvious to us if the external team’s findings are being undermined by the commander over IAFD, the deputy chief or by the chief. We can then target any necessary action at those levels of command.”

Federal Judge James Browning, to whom the case is assigned, stated that a stipulated order creating a “use of force” investigation team was not as intrusive as putting the city under a receivership. However, Judge Browning did question if creating such a “use of force” team outside the city for investigation was a “tremendous loss of sovereignty and self-direction by the city”.

12TH FEDERAL MONITOR’S REPORT PROMPTED CREATION OF THE USE OF FORCE INVESTIGATION TEAM

After the 12th Federal Monitor’s report was released November 2, the DOJ and the City realized that something had to be done when it came to APD’s failure to address use of force investigations.

On Friday, October 6, 2020 Federal Monitor Ginger told the Federal District Court Judge James Browning overseeing the DOJ reform effort:

“We are on the brink of a catastrophic failure at APD. … [The department] has failed miserably in its ability to police itself. … If this were simply a question of leadership, I would be less concerned. But it’s not. It’s a question of leadership. It’s a question of command. It’s a question of supervision. And it’s a question of performance on the street. So as a monitor with significant amount of experience … I would have to be candid with the Court and say we’re in more trouble here right now today than I’ve ever seen.”

On November 2, 2020, the Monitor filed 12th Compliance Audit Report of APD. The report covers the twelfth-monitoring period of February 1, 2020 to July 31, 2020. The 12th Federal Monitors’ report contains a summary that highlights major deficiencies that have set back compliance levels resulting is delay of the reforms.

For at least the 4th time, the monitor reported that the “Counter Casa” effect was interfering with APD accomplishing the implementing the CASA reforms. It was in the Federal Monitors 10th audit report that the “Counter CASA” effect was fully explained. According to the Federal Monitor’s 10th report:

“Sergeants and lieutenants, at times, go to extreme lengths to excuse officer behaviors that clearly violate established and trained APD policy, using excuses, deflective verbiage, de minimis comments and unsupported assertions to avoid calling out subordinates’ failures to adhere to established policies and expected practice. Supervisors (sergeants) and mid-level managers (lieutenants) routinely ignore serious violations, fail to note minor infractions, and instead, consider a given case “complete”.
…
“Some members of APD continue to resist actively APD’s reform efforts, including using deliberate counter-CASA processes. For example:

• Sergeants assessed during this reporting period were “0 for 5” in some routine aspects of CASA-required field inspections;

• Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) disciplinary timelines, appear at times to be manipulated by supervisory, management and command levels at the area commands, letting known violations lie dormant until timelines for discipline cannot be met;”

According to the 12th Monitor’s report:

“[The federal monitor] identified strong under currents of the Counter Casa effects in some critical units on APD’s critical path related to CASA compliance. These include supervision at the field level; mid-level command in both operational and administrative functions, [including] patrol operations, internal affairs practices, disciplinary practices, training, and force review). Supervision, [the] sergeants and lieutenants, and mid-level command, [the commanders] remain one of the most critical weak links in APD’s compliance efforts.

“[The monitoring team] have no doubt that many of the instances of non-compliance we see currently in the field are a matter of “will not,” instead of “cannot”! The monitoring team expected there would be a period of time during which mistakes were made while applying the new policies and training, but issues we continue to see transcend innocent errors and instead speak to issues of cultural norms yet to be addressed and changed by APD leadership.”
…

During the reporting period we encountered system-wide failures related to the oversight of force used by APD officers and supervisory and command review of those uses of force. The monitoring team has been critical of the Force Review Board (FRB), citing its past ineffectiveness and its failing to provide meaningful oversight for APD’s use of force system. The consequences are that APD’s FRB, and by extension APD itself, endorses questionable, and sometimes unlawful, conduct by its officers.

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

It is understood that “settlements” are preferred by the courts instead of aggressive litigation, hearings and trials. Notwithstanding, it is extremely disappointing that the City and the Department of Justice (DOJ) essentially ignored and turned their backs on the citizens of Albuquerque, including victims of police misconduct, the amici groups and public stakeholders who they are supposed to be representing, in order to negotiate the creation of a “use of force investigation team” with the city.

When it comes to government and law enforcement, settlements must include conferring with those who will be affected the most by those settlements. In criminal prosecutions for example, plea agreements are between the government and the defendant in the case. However, there is a “victims bill of rights” in New Mexico and prosecutors have a duty to confer with victims of the crime before agreeing to plea and disposition agreements and sentencing agreements approved by a Judge.

WHERE THERE IS A WILL TO OBSTRUCT AND DELAY APD WILL FIND A WAY

The single most remarkable understatement made during the entire one-day December 4 status conference hearing was made by Special Counsel for the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division Paul Killebrew when he said:

“APD has proven over and over again its agility to avoid the requirements of the CASA.”

Nothing gets past Kilebrew and the DOJ!!!! Notwithstanding his comment, Killebrew felt the “use of force” investigation team should be implemented even with the risk of APD continuing to avoid the CASA. The DOJ is seriously mistaken if it feels a use of force team, especially whose work is done remotely, will be able to avoid APD agility and resistance to the reforms.

For the past 6 years, the CASA has been plagued with inconsistencies, conflicts, and the political turmoil. In the last 6 years there have been 3 United States Attorneys General, 2 Federal Judges assigned to the case, 2 appointed New Mexico United States Attorneys, the City has elected 2 Mayors, there have been 3 police Chiefs, the court has called a “reset” of the process 3 years ago after the current Mayor was elected, the APD has undergone at least 3 reorganizations, the high command of Deputy Chiefs and Area Commanders has changed at least 3 times with reorganizations.

The findings of the 12th Monitors report is what prompted the city and the DOJ to enter into the Stipulated Order to create the Use of Force Investigation Team. After 6 years, it is pathetic that there is still overt resistance to the consent decree by not assuming responsibility for investigating use of force and deadly force cases in a proper way.

What the City and the DOJ have done is negotiate a stipulated order to create another level of bureaucracy with the creation of a “use of force team.” Even though motion says that the EFIT unit will established on a “temporary basis”, given APD’s failed track record of the past 6 years and millions spent, it’s more likely than not the EFIT will be around for some time. The DOJ is essentially throwing in the towel on forcing the city to do what is required under the CASA. The DOJ is giving APD another way out of a problem its management and the police union have created on their very own.

There have been only 3 consistent factors relating to the CASA: the reforms mandated by the CASA, the same federal monitor and resistance to the reforms by APD.

The creation of a new use of force team is nothing more than creating another level of bureaucracy that will be costly. It will almost assuredly guarantee that the CASA will continue for any number of years and beyond the 6 years as was originally envisioned because APD will still have not learned to properly do use of force investigations.

It’s more likely than not APD management, the union and rank and file will continue with their efforts of “noncompliance”, not overtly, but in a manner to avoid detection and once again using “agility to avoid the requirements of the CASA.”

Where there is a will to obstruct the CASA reforms, APD and the Police Union always find a way and the City and the DOJ have failed to learn that lesson after 6 years and millions spent on the reform effort.

_______________________________________

POSTSCRIPT

The CASA mandates 271 major reforms. Implementation of the CASA was to be over a 4-year period and after a 95% compliance over two consecutive years in 3 identified compliance areas, the case was to be dismissed. The CASA provides that it is “designed to ensure police integrity, protect officer safety, and prevent use of excessive force, including unreasonable use of deadly force, by APD.” The settlement agreement requires APD to strive and use its best efforts to come in compliance with all requirements within four years, and if that were to occur, the case would be dismissed.

https://www.cabq.gov/mental-health-response-advisory-committee/documents/court-approved-settlement-agreement-final.pdf

Among the 271 reforms agreed to by the City and APD are:

1. The city agreed to a complete re write of APD’s Use of Force and Deadly force Policies. Sweeping changes ranging from APD’s SWAT team protocols, to banning choke-holds, to auditing the use of every Taser carried by officers and re writing and implement new use of force and deadly force policies are mandated. Certain types of hand-to-hand techniques are barred under the CASA unless the officer is in a situation that require the use of lethal force if it were available. Neck holds, sometimes called choke-holds, are explicitly forbidden to be used by officers except in situations where lethal force would be authorized. APD officers are prohibited from firing their weapons at moving vehicles in all but life-threatening situations. APD agreed to revise and update its policies on the mandatory use of lapel cameras by all police officers.

2. The CASA mandates the teaching of “constitutional policing” practices and methods as well as mandatory crisis intervention techniques and de-escalation tactics with all and especially the mentally ill. Stricter training and restrictions on the use of nonlethal force is required under the CASA, and it requires more training and controls over the use of Tasers by officers along with quarterly audits of their use.

3. The agreement mandates that APD adopt a new system to hold officers and supervisors accountable for all use of force incidents with personnel procedures implemented and outlining details how use of force cases would be investigated. It requires far more reporting by officers and field supervisors and also requires detailed reviews of those reports up the chain of command within the department. Sergeants and lieutenants are required to be much more involved in field supervision and review of use of force by officers.

4. The city agreed to the creation of a Police Oversight Board (POB) as a civilian review agency that independently reviews citizen complaints, serious uses of force and officer-involved shootings by APD. The civilian agency also monitors, reviews and make recommended changes to APD policy on use of force. The city agreed to the creation of Police Civilian Advisory Councils (CPCs), one in each of the 6 APD area commands, designed to increase community interaction.

5. The City agreed to create a new “Use of Force Review Board” to oversee all internal affairs investigations of use of force and deadly force. A new chain of command for the review of Internal Affairs reports of officer-involved shootings was created that reviews the Internal Affairs Reports and makes recommendations on discipline or asks for further investigation of an incident, and the board makes recommendations on discipline to the APD Chief. The Use of Force Board is required to make quarterly reports after reviewing all use of force reports to identify trends and policy changes.

On February 4, 2021 Channel 7 did a “Target 7” investigation report highlighting the court approved Federal Monitor Dr. James Ginger and his company Public Management Resources. The report was fixated on what the city has paid over the last 6 years for the auditing of APD’s progress with the Court Approved Settlement Agreement (CASA) reforms. The Target 7 investigation reported the city has extended the original 4-year contract and the Federal monitor has been paid $7.5 million for 6 years of work by the monitoring team.

The link to the entire Target 7 report is here:

https://www.koat.com/article/doj-settlement-agreement-with-the-city-enters-7th-year-dollar20-million/35421909

The Target 7 Report said the city has incurred “other costs associated with the agreement totaling $20 million.” The city provided Target 7 documents showing the cost of reforming APD thus far is $20-million. The Target7 report did not make it clear that the $20 million did not go directly to the federal monitor but was used by APD to add more staff, and more equipment. The $20 million was spent by APD on APD police training in constitutional policing practices, mandatory crisis intervention techniques and de-escalation tactics and re writing of new use of force and deadly force policies and APD personnel required to oversee the reform process and Internal Affairs functions.

Quoting the Channel 7 Report:

“Target 7 went to the city’s online checkbook and found during the original 4-year contract Ginger’s company made about $4.5 million. Over the past two years, he had made about $3 million. The city attorney says Ginger wanted more money because more work needed to be done.”

City Attorney Estaban Aguilar had this to say:

“We went back and negotiated as best as we can but ultimately at the end of the day all of those expenses are ordered by the court,”.

Under Ginger’s contract, the city can challenge his fees, but the City has never done that, not even once. …

[T]he city is now paying Ginger’s company $1.5 dollars a year, according to the city’s online records. One requirement of his job is to write quarterly reports after reviewing instances of use of force within the department and grades the progress.”

Target 7 did not report that Ginger has prepared 12 Federal Monitors Reports over the last 6 years and that are well over 300 pages long. The reports contain case studies and goes paragraph by paragraph of the 107-page court approved settlement agreement and provides data on each of the 271 reforms and the progress made.

TARGET 7 INVESTIGATIVE REPORTER SEEKS MONITOR’S POSITION

Target 7 boldly dispatched its Investigative Reporter T.J. Wilham to track down Dr. Ginger and to interview him in the traditional “no advance warning” style such as Target 7 reporters are known for. T.J. Wilham worked as a reporter for a number of years for the Albuquerque Journal, then quite to go to work for Republican Mayor RJ Berry as a spokesperson and then was appointed as Director of the APD Real Time Crime Center. Within one year after Mayor Keller was elected, Wilham left the city with confidential sources saying he was asked to leave and he then went to work for Channel 7 as its “Investigative Producer.”

Quoting the Channel 7 report:

“Target 7 wanted to know why APD wasn’t making progress. Producers and reporters have gone to the address for Ginger’s company listed on his website dedicated to the settlement agreement. The office is actually located inside a city-owned senior center. There are no signs on the door.

When someone answered a Target 7 producer was told “I don’t know what that is.” Workers at the office complex said they were aware of employees who worked there for the independent monitor, but they weren’t there. A person answering a follow-up phone call said the office is only open to the public by appointment only.

Ginger did call Target 7 the Next day. He didn’t say much but pointed producers to a line in the agreement with the city that prohibits him from speaking with reporters.

“Any press or public statement made by the Monitor regarding its employment or monitoring activities under this Agreement shall first be approved by DOJ and the city,” the agreement says.”

COMMENTARY: Target 7 Sending a reporter and producer to the Monitor’s office without making an appointment or contacting him before to interview him and get on camera interview is a classic and worn out ambush tactic used by local investigative reporters such as Target 7. Target 7 did not have to interview the monitor to get his opinion or comment. Target 7 could have read any one of the Monitor’s 12 reports to get his thoughts and opinions for the delay in implementing the reforms. Target 7 failed to quote a single Monitor’s Report on his findings which are clearly the Monitor’s comments in writing and submitted to the Federal Court and made a part of the court docket on the case.

AUDITING THE MONITOR

According to the Target 7, it claims its investigation revealed 3 city councilors a few years ago wanted to know who was monitoring the monitor as if it was a major revelation. Those who have been following the federal case and CASA reforms were fully aware of the city councilors request.

To quote the Target 7 report:

“That audit never happened, even though $25,000 was earmarked for the project. Target 7 asked the two city councilors who called for the audit why it was not performed and they said the federal judge delivered them a message through their attorney. Former city Councilor Brad Winter had this to say:

“[The judge] said ‘I can’t stop you from doing the audit but there could be consequences … So at that point, everyone advised us it would be better not to do the audit.” Target 7 pulled up transcripts from a court hearing in which the judge said he was not pleased with the city’s plans for an audit. He told the monitor in court quote “I don’t want to have too much of your time and energy spent looking sideways when we have so much ground to cover going forward.”

Channel 7’s report was misleading. It failed to report that the transcripts of the court hearing it reviewed was a hearing conducted by Federal District Court Judge Brack to whom the case was originally assigned to and who is now retired. The case has for the past few years has been assigned to Federal District Court Judge James Browning. Target 7 failed to ascertain Judge Browning’s position on a city audit of the Monitor.

CITY RESPONDS TO TARGET 7

Target 7 interviewed City Attorney Estaban Aguilar and asked him about the monitors latest report that says APD “failed miserably in its ability to police itself.” Aguilar had this to say:

“I disagree with the adjectives use with the court but there is no disagreement with the data.”

According to the Target 7 Report, the city attorney says his contract will be extended because a monitor has to oversee the reform until compliance is reached–so what will he be paid?

“We haven’t started having those discussions yet,” Aguilar said.

Republican City Council Don Harris piled on and told Target 7:

“I am trying to sound the alarm here that we are in year 6 of a 4 year contract. … In the self-interest he has is to find fault to keep the city’s checkbook open.”

COMMENTARY: Target 7 never asked Harris why he is questioning the Monitors billings now. Don Harris was on the City Council 6 years ago when the Department of Justice found a culture of aggression within APD that resulted in the Court Approved Settlement Agreement (CASA). Don Harris did absolutely nothing when it comes to the APD reforms and never challenged the APD command staff in any meaningful way demanding compliance with the Department of Justice (DOJ) consent decree reforms.

Each of the 12 times the Federal Monitor presented his critical reports of APD to the City Council, Harris was nowhere to be found and has been silent and has declined to demand accountability from Mayors Berry and Keller. Harris failed to hold the APD command staff responsible for dragging their feet on the reforms. Harris has not attended any of the federal court hearings on the consent decree. It’s doubtful Harris has even bothered to read even one of the 12 Federal Monitors reports given his reputation being lazy and lack of attention and involvement in the process.

POLICE UNION RESPONDS TO TARGET 7

To quote the Target 7 report:

“Target 7 contacted APOA president Shaun Willoughby, the union that represents police officers for comment. Willoughby worried about the time and money spent on one man’s company and told Target 7:

“I think that’s an incredible amount of money that is that is on the shoulders of our taxpayers. … According to my opinion working here … I think we are another six years away from accomplishing this goal.”

The court order governs what happens and someone, whether Ginger and his company or someone new, someone will continue to get paid until the Albuquerque Police Department lives up to the changes agreed to in the settlement with the department of justice.”

UNION PRESIDENT RELIABLE TARGET 7 “ON CAMERA” SOURCE

Willoughby’s comments should come as no surprise to anyone especially Target 7. Its common knowledge that certain Channel 7 reporters have an extreme bias in favor of police and the union with Willoughby being their “go to guy” to speak negatively about the Keller Administration and the federal court consent decree. Willoughby in the past has gone as far as to blame the increase in the City’s violent crime and murder rates on the Department of Justice reforms.

It was on January 28, 2021, KOAT TV asked APD Union President Shaun Willoughby to react to the number of homicides in January. Not at all surprising, Willoughby blamed the Department of Justice (DOJ) consent decree for the city’s violent crime and murder rates and told Channel 7:

“This should be no surprise to anybody in this community. We had a staggering number of homicides last year we had record-breaking number of homicides the year before. … Violent crime increases at an alarming rate in this community. We have for the last six years and I’ll be the first to tell you it’s not getting better and anybody that says it is not telling you the truth. … the department has become more reactive to crime, than proactive. … We’re focused on the DOJ consent decree instead of fighting crime.”

ACLU REPONDS TO TARGET 7

APD Forward includes 19 organizations who have affiliated with each other in an effort to reform APD and implement the DOJ consent reforms. Members of APD Forward include Albuquerque Health Care for the Homeless, American Civil Liberties, Bernalillo County Community Health Council, Common Cause New Mexico, Disability Rights New Mexico, Equality New Mexico, League of Women Voters of Central New, Mexico New Mexico Conference of Churches, New Mexico Criminal Defense Lawyers Association, Sierra Club Rio Grande Chapter, the Transgender Resource Center of New Mexico and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). The ACLU is considered the main member to speak for the organization.

When target 7 asked Peter Simonson, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of New Mexico, about Ginger’s hiring by the city he had this to say:

“He was by far and away the best applicant for this role that the city received.”

As for who should be blamed for the delay in the reforms, Simonson said:

“All of the blame for the lack of progress land squarely with the city there’s no evidence none whatsoever to suggest that Doctor Ginger has moved the goalposts in any way. ”

Simonson was not asked about the role of the APD union and their delay and obstruction tactics. More than one of the 19 organizations that make up APD Forward have been critical of the union.

Simonson went on to tell Target 7 that it’s a worthy investment saying the price of the monitor is saving taxpayers money because the city will ultimately save money on settlement costs from people and families shot by police.

Simonson put it this way:

“We should invest millions of dollars in getting that done this department has you know a long history and many cycles of violence within the community and we still haven’t corrected it yet this is the opportunity to finally get the department that Albuquerque deserves.”

https://www.koat.com/article/doj-settlement-agreement-with-the-city-enters-7th-year-dollar20-million/35421909

FEDERAL COURT APPOINTED MONITOR HAS NO AUTHORITY OVER APD

The entire Target 7 Investigation report leads the impression that the Federal Court Appointed Monitor has a degree of management, control and authority over the APD. The Court Approved Settlement Agreement (CASA) is clear that the Federal Monitor’s authority is limited to preparing reports and does not assume the role and duties of APD.

Paragraphs 294 and 295 of the CASA are worth noting:

A. Independent Monitor

294. The Parties will jointly select an Independent Monitor (“Monitor”) who will assess and report whether the requirements of this Agreement have been implemented, and whether this implementation is resulting in high-level, quality service; officer safety and accountability; effective, constitutional policing; and increased community trust of APD.

295. The Monitor shall only have the duties, responsibilities, and authority conferred by this Agreement. The Monitor shall not, and is not intended to, replace or assume the role and duties of APD, including the Chief or any other City official. The Monitor shall be subject to the supervision and orders of the Court, consistent with this Agreement and applicable law.

The Federal Monitor’s lack of authority over APD has contributed substantially to the problem of systematic failure of the CASA, especially having no authority to write policy and no authority to remove and appoint personnel and issue appropriate orders and commands to sworn personnel.

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

The Target 7 Report failed miserably in its investigation report to determine and report the truth as to the cause of the delay in implementing all the reforms. After 6 years under the consent decree, this is the first so called “investigative report” Target 7 has ever done on the consent decree and the reforms. It cannot be recalled if Channel 7 Reporter Nancy Laflin or Target 7 Investigative Report Producer T.J. Wilham has ever attended any of the day long court hearings on the CASA and it is unknown if they have even read any of the monitor’s 12 reports.

Its laughable when Target 7 reports:

“Producers and reporters have gone to the address for Ginger’s company listed on his website dedicated to the settlement agreement. … When someone answered a Target 7 producer was told “I don’t know what that is. … Ginger did call Target 7 the Next day. He didn’t say much but pointed producers to a line in the agreement with the city that prohibits him from speaking with reporters.”

The truth is that Target 7 did not have to interview Ginger. The Target 7 report reflected a level of laziness typical of local news reporting. The answer to Target 7 questions as to why APD has not made progress with all the reforms and the reason for the delay are contained in Court hearing transcripts and in the 10th and 12th Monitors reports. At a minimum, Target 7 should have quoted the transcripts or the monitor’s reports and there was no need of an on camera interview with Monitor James Ginger.

For that reason, past comments made by Ginger and his reports are worth repeating.

APD ON BRINK OF A CATASTROPHIC FAILURE

On Friday, October 6, 2020 Federal Monitor Ginger told the Federal District Court Judge James Browning overseeing the DOJ reform effort:

“We are on the brink of a catastrophic failure at APD. … [The department] has failed miserably in its ability to police itself. … If this were simply a question of leadership, I would be less concerned. But it’s not. It’s a question of leadership. It’s a question of command. It’s a question of supervision. And it’s a question of performance on the street. So as a monitor with significant amount of experience – I’ve been doing this since the ’90s – I would have to be candid with the Court and say we’re in more trouble here right now today than I’ve ever seen.”

12th FEDERAL MONITOR’S REPORT

On November 2, 2020, the Federal Court Appointed Monitor filed with the Federal Court his 12th Compliance Audit Report of APD. The report covers the twelfth-monitoring period of February 1, 2020 to July 31, 2020. The 12th Federal Monitors’ report contains a summary that highlights major deficiencies that have set back compliance levels resulting in the delay of the reforms.

For at least the 4th time, the monitor reported that the “Counter Casa” effect was interfering with APD accomplishing the implementing the CASA reforms. According to the 12th report:

“[The federal monitor] identified strong under currents of Counter-CASA effects in some critical units on APD’s critical path related to CASA compliance. These include supervision at the field level; mid-level command in both operational and administrative functions, [including] patrol operations, internal affairs practices, disciplinary practices, training, and force review). Supervision, [the] sergeants and lieutenants, and mid-level command, [the commanders] remain one of the most critical weak links in APD’s compliance efforts.”

EDITOR’S NOTE: It was on September 10, 2018, during a status telephone conference call with the US District Court Judge that Federal Monitor Dr. James Ginger first told the federal court that a group of “high-ranking APD officers” within APD were thwarting the reform efforts. The Federal Monitor revealed that the group of “high-ranking APD officers” were APD sergeants and lieutenants who are management but yet allowed to join the union.

In his 10th report Federal Monitor Ginger states:

“Sergeants and lieutenants, at times, go to extreme lengths to excuse officer behaviors that clearly violate established and trained APD policy, using excuses, deflective verbiage, de minimis comments and unsupported assertions to avoid calling out subordinates’ failures to adhere to established policies and expected practice. Supervisors (sergeants) and mid-level managers (lieutenants) routinely ignore serious violations, fail to note minor infractions, and instead, consider a given case “complete” … “Some members of APD continue to resist actively APD’s reform efforts, including using deliberate counter-CASA processes. For example … Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) disciplinary timelines, appear at times to be manipulated by supervisory, management and command levels at the area commands, letting known violations lie dormant until timelines for discipline cannot be met.”

The 12th Federal Monitors’ report states:

“During this reporting period, the monitoring team often found in its reviews of management and oversight practices, a near myopathy at APD when it comes to assessing actions in the field against the requirements of APD policy and the CASA. Supervisors and command level personnel have a deleterious tendency to ignore the requirements of policy and training, and at times to even support processes to hide or circumvent internal systems designed to ensure compliance to established policy.

Even more importantly, Tier 4 training and required annual training processes are at or near atrophy at APD. When a major police organization can “forget” to plan for annual training processes and no one notices except the monitoring team, there are serious, meaningful, and near terminal problems with leadership at the training command level, and at the executive oversight and control level.
When a major … CASA-critical command such as Internal Affairs can allow union representatives to hijack internal investigations and can allow officers to respond to salient , and reasonable, fact-finding questions by simply reading a … statement … into the record, as opposed to answering questions posed, there are serious and near terminal problems with process, policy enforcement, and outcome factors. “

“[The monitoring team] have no doubt that many of the instances of non-compliance we see currently in the field are a matter of “will not,” instead of “cannot”! The monitoring team expected there would be a period of time during which mistakes were made while applying the new policies and training, but issues we continue to see transcend innocent errors and instead speak to issues of cultural norms yet to be addressed and changed by APD leadership.”
…

During the reporting period we encountered system-wide failures related to the oversight of force used by APD officers and supervisory and command review of those uses of force. The monitoring team has been critical of the Force Review Board (FRB), citing its past ineffectiveness and its failing to provide meaningful oversight for APD’s use of force system. The consequences are that APD’s FRB, and by extension APD itself, endorses questionable, and sometimes unlawful, conduct by its officers.
…

Still evident are systemic failures that allow questionable uses of force and misconduct to survive without being addressed in any meaningful way”.

“APD’s compliance efforts have exhibited serious shortfalls during the … reporting period. These range from critical shortfalls in management and oversight of the APD Training Academy, significant and deleterious failures relating to oversight and discipline; and executive-level failures regarding oversight, command and control, discipline, supervision, and training.

“During the reporting period [of] February through July 2020, virtually all of these failures can be traced back to leadership failures at the top of the organization. During the past two reporting periods, the monitor has provided more direct technical assistance, advice, high-level problem identification, mid-level problem-solving processes, and executive-level consultation than was provided in any of the monitor’s previous monitoring experiences. Each of our reports is accompanied by an exhaustive list of recommendations for improvement in any CASA compliance area that was not found in compliance. Those lists of recommendations detail hundreds of process improvement designs. The vast majority of these recommendations appear to have been filed away, rather than actualized.” (Page 3.)
…
Since the inception of this monitoring process in 2015, we have been as open and honest as possible with APD executive leadership and have never noted a problem at APD without following up with suggestions regarding how APD might best address that problem. At this stage of the process most of those discussions at the executive level have fallen on deaf ears. After six years of suggestions, recommendations, and problem-solving meetings, … as of the end of the … reporting period, much remains to be done.

To be perfectly clear, based on the monitor’s experience with these projects, [which] dates back to the 1990s, APD is on a path that reflects deliberate indifference to the requirements of the CASA. We highly recommend that the City take direct steps to put APD on an alternate trajectory regarding compliance efforts. … .

CONCLUSION

The Target 7 report boldly proclaimed it wanted to know why APD wasn’t making progress with all the reforms and the reason for the delay. Simply put, the Target 7 report was a miserable failure in it’s announced intended goals. The Target 7 report on the Federal Monitor was nothing more than a typical “hit job” in search of a scandal. Target 7 found no scandal it wanted to report on and no doubt to its chagrin. The real scandal is that blame for the delay in implementing the reforms rests on the shoulders of APD leadership and the APD police union. To lay blame on the Federal Monitor and the Federal Court is irresponsible news reporting at its worst.

Elected and government officials, readers and viewers cannot demand, instruct nor tell the press or any reporter what to write, how to write it, when to write it, what tone it should take, nor what sources are used. Those are all rights that are protected by this First Amendment to the United States Constitution. A free press is essential to all our other freedoms.

Notwithstanding, elected and government officials, readers and viewers must demand truth, accuracy and completeness in news reports. The Target 7 February 4, 2021 did a major disservice to its viewers and the federal court with inaccurate and incomplete reporting.

Channel 7 is now running another Target 7 teaser saying it will be reporting on Thursday, February 11, if the Department of Justice Reforms are responsible for the City’s spike in violent crime and the murder rates.

Channel 7 should change its slogan from “News You Can Count On” to “News You Can’t Trust”.

A link to a related blog article is here:

REPULSIVE: Omitting Their Own Conduct, APD Interim Chief Harold Medina And APD Union President Sean Willoughby Blame Violent Crime And Murder Rate Increases On DOJ Mandated Reforms