On February 26, at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Orlando, “Der Führer” former President Donald Trump predicted “a major war in Europe” would erupt. Trump called Russia’s invasion of Ukraine “an atrocity that should have never been allowed to occur” and then put the blame on President Joe Biden’s administration. “Der Führer” Trump mentioned Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky as if an afterthought calling him “a brave man” Trump told the audience of 5,000:

“The problem is not that Putin is smart, which of course he’s smart, but the real problem is that our leaders are dumb.”

As Russia was beginning to invade Ukraine and the United States was rushing to defend neighboring allies in Europe, Der Führer Trump expressed admiration for Vladimir Putin. Trump said at a Florida fund-raiser:

“Putin’s pretty smart! He’s taken over a country for $2 worth of sanctions. … taking over a country — really a vast, vast location, a great piece of land with a lot of people — and just walking right in.”

“Der Führer” Trump praised Putin’s aggressive moves against Ukraine as “genius” and “very savvy” in an earlier podcast interview with conservative podcaster Buck Sexton. Trump said in part:

“I went in yesterday and there was a television screen, and I said, ‘This is genius.’ Putin declares a big portion of the Ukraine — of Ukraine — Putin declares it as independent. Oh, that’s wonderful. I said, ‘How smart is that?’ And he’s gonna go in and be a peacekeeper. That’s strongest peace force…. We could use that on our southern border. That’s the strongest peace force I’ve ever seen. There were more army tanks than I’ve ever seen. They’re gonna keep peace all right. Here’s a guy who’s very savvy… I know him very well. Very, very well.”

https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/donald-trumps-gushing-praise-vladimir-putin-matters-rcna17315

“DER FÜHRER” TRUMP ON THE PROWEL

During the February 26 the Conservative Political Action Conference in Florida, Trump, made the strongest suggestion yet that he is going to run for president again in 2024 and he said this:

“[Democrats] are going to find out the hard way starting on November 8, and then again even more so on November 2024. They will find out like never before. We did it twice. We will do it again. We are going to be doing it again a third time.”

Trump, who has already endorsed over 120 local and federal Republican candidates in the 2022 midterm elections

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-cpac-ukraine-russia-major-war-in-europe-2024/

PRESIDENT ZELENSKY THE “BRAVE MAN” DER FÜHRER TRUMP ORDERED $400 MILLION IN AIDE WITHHELD

Trump was impeached for the first time for trying to pressure Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden, and his son, Hunter Biden. The effort included holding up nearly $400 million in U.S. security aid to Ukraine and leveraging an Oval Office visit that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy had been requesting. Trump also pushed discredited claims that Ukraine, not Russia, had meddled in the 2016 election, repeatedly siding with Putin over his own national intelligence agencies.

Retired U.S. Army lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman, the former national security council whistleblower who raised alarms about Trump’s pressure tactics said this:

“Putin is the critical agent, but certainly Trump contributed to it with his scheme back then and continued to contribute it by undermining national security. … Ultimately the president undermined U.S. foreign policy because he weakened Ukraine.”

It was on September 23, 2019 that the Washington Post and other national news outlets reported that President Trump told his acting chief of staff, Mick Mulvaney, to hold back almost $400 million in military aid for Ukraine. According to three Trump senior administration officials, Trump issued the order at least a week before a phone call in which Trump pressured Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to investigate the son of former vice president Joe Biden, according to three senior administration officials.

According to Trump officials who spoke on condition of anonymity, officials at the Office of Management and Budget relayed Trump’s order to the State Department and the Pentagon during an interagency meeting in mid-July. They explained that Trump had “concerns” and wanted to analyze whether the money needed to be spent. The Trump Administration officials were instructed to tell lawmakers that the delays were part of an “interagency process” but to give them no additional information. It was a pattern that continued for nearly two months, until the White House released the funds on the night of Sept. 11.

Trump’s order to withhold aid to Ukraine a week before his July 25 call with Volodymyr Zelensky raised questions about the motivation for his decision and fuel suspicions on Capitol Hill that Trump sought to leverage congressionally approved aid to damage Joe Biden. The revelation occurred as lawmakers clash with the White House over a related whistleblower complaint made by an intelligence official alarmed by Trump’s actions.

Republican senators on the Senate Appropriations Committee said that the aid to Ukraine had been held up while the Trump administration explored whether Zelensky, then the country’s new president, was pro-Russian or pro-Western. They said the White House decided to release the aid after Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.) threatened to freeze $5 billion in Pentagon funding unless the money was distributed.

A Trump senior administration official said that Trump’s decision to hold back the funds was based on his concerns about there being “a lot of corruption in Ukraine” and that the determination to release the money was motivated by the fiscal year’s looming closure.

There was concern within the Trump administration that if they did not spend the money, they would run afoul of the law. Eventually, Trump gave the OMB’s acting director, Russell Vought, permission to release the money. Trump officials emphatically denied that there was any link between blocking the aid and pressing Zelensky into investigating the Bidens, stating: “It had nothing to do with a quid pro quo.”

Trump repeatedly denied doing anything improper and insisted that his July 25, 2019 conversation with Zelensky was “a perfect phone call.” He also hinted that he may release a transcript of it, but he never did.

Connecticut Democrat Senator Chris Murphy said at the time that Ukrain President Zelensky’s “entire” administration was concerned that the aid that was being cut off to Ukraine by Trump was a consequence for their unwillingness, at the time, to investigate the Bidens. Murphy cited his interactions with numerous Ukrainian officials during an early September trip there. Murphy said he heard “directly” from Zelensky about “his concern about why the aid was being cut off to Ukraine,” though the Ukraine’s new president did not specifically broach the subject of a quid pro quo.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/trump-ordered-hold-on-military-aid-days-before-calling-ukrainian-president-officials-say/2019/09/23/df93a6ca-de38-11e9-8dc8-498eabc129a0_story.html

What “Der Führer” TRUMP did in ordering $400 million in aide withheld from Ukrain can only be described as an extortion that failed. It was done by Trump to reshape American foreign policy and to advance his personal and political goals.

Senator Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) at the time had this to say:

“I don’t think it really matters . . . whether the president explicitly told the Ukrainians that they wouldn’t get their security aid if they didn’t interfere in the 2020 elections … There is an implicit threat in every demand that a United States president makes of a foreign power. . . . That foreign country knows that if they don’t do it, there are likely to be consequences.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/trump-ordered-hold-on-military-aid-days-before-calling-ukrainian-president-officials-say/2019/09/23/df93a6ca-de38-11e9-8dc8-498eabc129a0_story.html

TRUMP HAS HISTORY OF SIDING WITH PUTIN ON UKRAIN

Trump has a long history of siding with Putin when it comes to Ukraine to the point that saying Putin would never invade the country.

It was on August 1, 2016 that Trump in an interview with ABC’s George Stephanopoulos on “This Week ” that Russian President Vladimir Putin would never make a military move into Ukraine, even though Putin already had done just that, seizing the country’s Crimean Peninsula:

“He’s not going into Ukraine, OK, just so you understand. He’s not going to go into Ukraine, all right? You can mark it down. You can put it down. You can take it anywhere you want.”

Stephanopoulos responded with a reference to Crimea, which Putin took from Ukraine in early 2014:

“Well, he’s already there, isn’t he?”

Trump responded:

“OK – well, he’s there in a certain way. But I’m not there. … And frankly, that whole part of the world is a mess … with all the strength that you’re talking about and all of the power of NATO and all of this. In the meantime, he’s going away. He takes Crimea.”

https://www.cnn.com/2016/07/31/politics/donald-trump-russia-ukraine-crimea-putin/

A link to a related blog article entitled in part “Trump: The Once And Future Fascist Who Wants To Be President Again” is here:

https://www.petedinelli.com/2020/11/27/trump-the-once-and-future-fascist-who-wants-to-be-president-again-us-military-loyalty-to-democracy-trump-needs-to-be-moved-to-a-gated-community/

PUTIN INVADES UKRAIN

On Wednesday, February 23, Russian President Vladimir Putin announced the evasion of Ukraine and said that a “special military operation” would begin. Before the announcement, Putin had amassed upwards of 150,000 troops along its border. President Joe Biden said repeatedly weeks prior that Putin would invade the European democracy.

Multiple news organizations reported explosions in multiple cities and evidence of large-scale military operations across Ukraine have now been going on for a full week with no end in sight. Putin has made it clear that his goal is to overthrow the Ukraine Government The full invasion of Ukraine by Russia is on a scale Europe has not seen since World War II and since Adolph Hitler began invasions. The Russian invasion is a bloody and devastating conflict for Russians and Ukrainians alike.

Putin’s clearest answer for the invasion was revealed on Monday, February 21, in a speech he delivered. Putin proclaimed that Ukraine is an illegitimate country that exists on land that’s historically and rightfully Russian and he said: “Ukraine actually never had stable traditions of real statehood. ” For the past few years, Ukraine has made overtures to the West and wanting to join the North Atlantic Treaty Organizations (NATO) of European Country.

NATO provides that war on one member country is a declaration of war on all. Putin believes the Ukraine democracy is anti-Russian regime in what Putin views as rightfully Russian territory populated by rightfully Russian people and it is totally unacceptable to him. The Russian invasion is yet another step of his to recreating the Soviet Union. Putin’s expressed beliefs about Ukraine goes back since the USSR dissolved and the 20 years he has been the Russian President. In a 2005 speech Putin proclaimed:

“The collapse of the Soviet Union was a major geopolitical disaster [in which] tens of millions of our co-citizens and compatriots found themselves outside Russian territory.”

The central contention of Putin’s speech on February 21 is that Ukraine and Russia are essentially inseparable from a historical standpoint. Putin said this:

“Ukraine is not just a neighboring country for us. It is an inalienable part of our own history, culture and spiritual space. … Since time immemorial, the people living in the south-west of what has historically been Russian land have called themselves Russians. … [ Ukraine] was entirely created by Russia or, to be more precise, by Bolshevik Communist Russia.”

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-cpac-ukraine-russia-major-war-in-europe-2024/

You can read more on Putin’s reasons for invading Ukraine in the postscript to this blog article.

BIDEN CALLS UKRAIN “PUTIN’S WAR OF CHOICE”

President Joe Biden vowed in his first State of the Union address delivered on March 1 check Putin’s aggression in Ukraine, tame soaring U.S. inflation and deal with the fading but still dangerous coronavirus. Biden declared that he and all members of Congress, whatever their political differences, are joined “with an unwavering resolve that freedom will always triumph over tyranny.” He asked lawmakers to stand and salute the Ukrainians as he began his speech. They stood and cheered. It was a notable show of unity after a long year of bitter acrimony between Biden’s Democratic coalition and the Republican opposition.

https://www.abqjournal.com/2474721/biden-steps-to-state-of-the-union-lectern-at-fraught-moment.html

In his first State of the Union address, President Biden had this to say about the Ukraine invasion:

“Six days ago, Russia’s Vladimir Putin sought to shake the foundations of the free world thinking he could make it bend to his menacing ways. But he badly miscalculated.

He thought he could roll into Ukraine and the world would roll over. Instead he met a wall of strength he never imagined. He met the Ukrainian people.

From President Zelenskyy to every Ukrainian, their fearlessness, their courage, their determination, inspires the world. Groups of citizens blocking tanks with their bodies. Everyone from students to retirees teachers turned soldiers defending their homeland.

In this struggle as President Zelenskyy said in his speech to the European Parliament “Light will win over darkness.” The Ukrainian Ambassador to the United States is here tonight.

Let each of us here tonight in this Chamber send an unmistakable signal to Ukraine and to the world. Please rise if you are able and show that, Yes, we the United States of America stand with the Ukrainian people. EDITOR’S NOTE: the entire chamber rose and applauded.

Throughout our history we’ve learned this lesson when dictators do not pay a price for their aggression they cause more chaos. They keep moving. And the costs and the threats to America and the world keep rising. That’s why the NATO Alliance was created to secure peace and stability in Europe after World War 2.

The United States is a member along with 29 other nations. It matters. American diplomacy matters. American resolve matters.

Putin’s latest attack on Ukraine was premeditated and unprovoked. He rejected repeated efforts at diplomacy. He thought the West and NATO wouldn’t respond. And he thought he could divide us at home. Putin was wrong. We were ready.

Here is what we did. We prepared extensively and carefully.

We spent months building a coalition of other freedom-loving nations from Europe and the Americas to Asia and Africa to confront Putin. I spent countless hours unifying our European allies. We shared with the world in advance what we knew Putin was planning and precisely how he would try to falsely justify his aggression.

We countered Russia’s lies with truth. And now that he has acted the free world is holding him accountable.

Along with twenty-seven members of the European Union including France, Germany, Italy, as well as countries like the United Kingdom, Canada, Japan, Korea, Australia, New Zealand, and many others, even Switzerland. We are inflicting pain on Russia and supporting the people of Ukraine. Putin is now isolated from the world more than ever.

Together with our allies –we are right now enforcing powerful economic sanctions. We are cutting off Russia’s largest banks from the international financial system. Preventing Russia’s central bank from defending the Russian Ruble making Putin’s $630 Billion “war fund” worthless.

We are choking off Russia’s access to technology that will sap its economic strength and weaken its military for years to come. Tonight I say to the Russian oligarchs and corrupt leaders who have bilked billions of dollars off this violent regime no more.

The U.S. Department of Justice is assembling a dedicated task force to go after the crimes of Russian oligarchs. We are joining with our European allies to find and seize your yachts your luxury apartments your private jets. We are coming for your ill-begotten gains.

And tonight I am announcing that we will join our allies in closing off American air space to all Russian flights – further isolating Russia – and adding an additional squeeze –on their economy. The Ruble has lost 30% of its value. The Russian stock market has lost 40% of its value and trading remains suspended. Russia’s economy is reeling and Putin alone is to blame.

Together with our allies we are providing support to the Ukrainians in their fight for freedom. Military assistance. Economic assistance. Humanitarian assistance. We are giving more than $1 Billion in direct assistance to Ukraine. And we will continue to aid the Ukrainian people as they defend their country and to help ease their suffering.

Let me be clear, our forces are not engaged and will not engage in conflict with Russian forces in Ukraine. Our forces are not going to Europe to fight in Ukraine, but to defend our NATO Allies – in the event that Putin decides to keep moving west. For that purpose we’ve mobilized American ground forces, air squadrons, and ship deployments to protect NATO countries including Poland, Romania, Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia.

As I have made crystal clear the United States and our Allies will defend every inch of territory of NATO countries with the full force of our collective power. And we remain clear-eyed. The Ukrainians are fighting back with pure courage. But the next few days weeks, months, will be hard on them.

Putin has unleashed violence and chaos. But while he may make gains on the battlefield – he will pay a continuing high price over the long run. And a proud Ukrainian people, who have known 30 years of independence, have repeatedly shown that they will not tolerate anyone who tries to take their country backwards.

To all Americans, I will be honest with you, as I’ve always promised. A Russian dictator, invading a foreign country, has costs around the world.

And I’m taking robust action to make sure the pain of our sanctions is targeted at Russia’s economy. And I will use every tool at our disposal to protect American businesses and consumers. Tonight, I can announce that the United States has worked with 30 other countries to release 60 Million barrels of oil from reserves around the world.

America will lead that effort, releasing 30 Million barrels from our own Strategic Petroleum Reserve. And we stand ready to do more if necessary, unified with our allies. These steps will help blunt gas prices here at home. And I know the news about what’s happening can seem alarming.

But I want you to know that we are going to be okay. When the history of this era is written Putin’s war on Ukraine will have left Russia weaker and the rest of the world stronger.

While it shouldn’t have taken something so terrible for people around the world to see what’s at stake now everyone sees it clearly. We see the unity among leaders of nations and a more unified Europe a more unified West. And we see unity among the people who are gathering in cities in large crowds around the world even in Russia to demonstrate their support for Ukraine.

In the battle between democracy and autocracy, democracies are rising to the moment, and the world is clearly choosing the side of peace and security. This is a real test. It’s going to take time. So let us continue to draw inspiration from the iron will of the Ukrainian people.

To our fellow Ukrainian Americans who forge a deep bond that connects our two nations we stand with you. Putin may circle Kyiv with tanks, but he will never gain the hearts and souls of the Ukrainian people.
He will never extinguish their love of freedom. He will never weaken the resolve of the free world.

A link to the entire Biden State of the Union address is here:

https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/politics/bidens-2022-state-of-the-union-address-annotated/2987689/

COMMENTARY

President Trump is no better than the dictators he praises and admires such as Russian President Vladimir Putin, North Korean President Kim Jung Un and Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman of Saudi Arabia who the CIA say personally ordered the killing of journalist Jamal Khashogge.

One thing is for certain is that both Trump and Putin are definitely on the prowel. One fascist invades and wages war on peaceful Ukraine Democracy while the other runs around essentially plotting to return to power feeding bitterness and hatred where ever he can to his cult like followers formerly known as the Republican Party now know as the “Der Führer” Trump Party.

__________________________

POSTSCRIPT

WHY PUTIN INVADED UKRAIN

“Putin’s clearest answer for the invasion was revealed on Monday, February 21, in a speech he delivered. Putin proclaimed that Ukraine is an illegitimate country that exists on land that’s historically and rightfully Russian and he said: “Ukraine actually never had stable traditions of real statehood. ” For the past few years, Ukraine has made overtures to the West and wanting to join the North Atlantic Treaty Organizations (NATO) of European Country.

NATO provides that war on one member country is a declaration of war on all. Putin believes the Ukraine democracy is anti-Russian regime in what Putin views as rightfully Russian territory populated by rightfully Russian people and it is totally unacceptable to him. The Russian invasion is yet another step of recreating the Soviet Union. Putin’s expressed belief’s about Ukraine goes back since the USSR dissolved and the 20 years he has been the Russian President. In a 2005 speech Putin proclaimed:

“The collapse of the Soviet Union was a major geopolitical disaster [in which] tens of millions of our co-citizens and compatriots found themselves outside Russian territory.”

The central contention of Putin’s speech on February 21 is that Ukraine and Russia are essentially inseparable from a historical standpoint. Putin said this:

“Ukraine is not just a neighboring country for us. It is an inalienable part of our own history, culture and spiritual space. … Since time immemorial, the people living in the south-west of what has historically been Russian land have called themselves Russians. … [ Ukraine] was entirely created by Russia or, to be more precise, by Bolshevik Communist Russia.”

The history according to Putin is that the early Soviet leaders of Lenin, Stalin, and Khrushchev carved land away from Russia and several nearby nations to create a distinct and ahistorical republic called Ukraine. The creation of Ukraine and the other Soviet republics was an attempt to win the support of “the most zealous nationalists” across the Soviet Union at the expense of the historical idea of Russia.

Putin proclaimed that Ukraine represents “the virus of nationalism.” In his view Ukraine is an infection introduced to the Russian host by the Bolsheviks. When the Soviet Union collapsed, and republics from Ukraine to Estonia to Georgia declared independence, the virus killed its host.”

In reality, these countries have longstanding ethnonational identities distinct from Russia. But Putin does not accept this as reality, treating the former Soviet republics and, above all, Ukraine as parts of Russia stolen from the motherland as a result of communist machinations. According to Putin:

“Radicals and nationalists, including and primarily those in Ukraine, are taking credit for having gained independence. As we can see, this is absolutely wrong. … The disintegration of our united country was brought about by the historic, strategic mistakes on the part of Bolshevik and Soviet leaders … the collapse of the historical Russia known as the USSR is on their conscience.”

Putin does not see post-Soviet Ukraine as a real country. He sees it as having no real history nor national tradition to unite it. Instead, he sees it as a playground for oligarchs who deploy anti-Russian demagoguery as a smokescreen for their corruption. Putin said:

“The Ukrainian authorities, I would like to emphasize this, began by building their statehood on the negation of everything that united us.”

Russian control over Ukraine, he argues, has been replaced by a different kind of foreign rule: that of the West. After the 2013 Euromaidan protests, which toppled pro-Russian leader Viktor Yanukovych, “Ukraine itself was placed under external control … a colony with a puppet regime.”

The ominous implication of this historical narrative is that the Ukrainian government, in its current form, is both illegitimate and intolerable. Putin warned in his February 21 that a Western-backed government Ukraine threatens the very survival of the Russian state. In the speech’s most paranoid passages, Putin warned of Ukraine acquiring nuclear weapons with Western assistance, joining NATO, and ultimately serving as a launching pad for an American assault on Russia. Putin said:

“This is the source of America’s traditional policy towards Russia.”

Links to quoted source material are here:

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2022/2/23/22945781/russia-ukraine-putin-speech-transcript-february-22

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/why-putin-invaded-ukraine-russia-war-explained-rcna16028

https://www.wsj.com/articles/why-is-russia-invading-ukraine-11645570205

https://www.wsj.com/articles/why-is-russia-invading-ukraine-11645570205

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/24/world/europe/trump-putin-russia-ukraine.html

Ever since the creation of the Police Oversight Board and the Police Oversight Commission in 2014, both have been plagued by political turmoil, resignations and membership and staffing turnover. Both have been plagued with constant resistance from the Albuquerque Police Department management and all too often completely ignored by the APD Chief and executive staff as well as the Mayor and City Council. Within the last 6 months, the Police Oversight Agency and its civilian police oversight board has seen the resignation of its Executive Director the Chairman of the CPOA board and 3 members of the civilian oversight board.

The Albuquerque City Council began efforts to try and fix the Police Oversight Agency ordinance by amending the ordinance creating the agency and the board. On February 23, 2022, the Albuquerque City Council voted to defer all action on amending the Civilian Police Oversight Agency Ordinance for two weeks to allow consideration of other changes. Amendments to the CPOA ordinance will be heard at the next regular meeting of the City Council on March 7, 2022. The blunt truth is that the Albquerquerqu City Council is attempting to fix the unfixable.

GUEST OPINION COLUMN BY JIM LARSON

JIM LARSON is a long-term resident of Albuquerque. Mr. Larson has an extensive and diversified career in law-enforcement both on the Federal and State levels. His law enforcement career includes being a former United States Secret Service Agent, a Dallas Texas Police Officer, and Investigator with the New Mexico Attorney General’s Office and working at Sandia National Laboratories. After retiring from Sandia National Laboratories, Mr. Larson served as a Court Appointed Special Advocate for abused and neglected children. He has been involved with APD civilian police reform including serving a short period of time on the Civilian Police Oversight Board. He has not been compensated for his article. Larson offered the following:

“So here we are seven years later, with the City Council continuing their futile efforts to establish effective civilian police oversight to fulfill their constituent’s demand.

Recently the Chairperson of the Civilian Police Oversight Agency (CPOA) Board resigned in frustration citing the City Council has designed a bad process. From the Council’s poorly conceived Board member appointment process to the list of far too ambitious training requirements for a Board of unpaid volunteers, and of course, the long list of responsibilities delegated to the Board, the Civilian Police Oversight Ordinance in Albuquerque is broken. He noted some Board members appointed by the Council clearly show they cannot and will not devote the minimum of 20 hours per week required to be a fully functional and well-informed member of this Board.

Here is a summary of some of the City Council’s proposed amendments (O-21-78) supposedly designed to finally establish a functioning police oversight system necessary to promote accountability of the police officers and protect the rights of civilians…

Since the inception of the Civilian Police Oversight Agency Board (Board), the Director directs and oversees the investigation of all civilian complaints and reviews of officer-in-volved shootings and serious use of force. He then makes findings and recommendations for review and approval by the Board.

Not for long! If the City Council O-21-78 proposed amendments are approved on March 7, 2022, the Board has no authority to review and approve the results of CPOA civilian complaint investigations and reviews of officer-in-volved shootings and serious use of force. The Board is provided the results for information only. Only when disciplinary recommendations are in the results does the Board have to approve them, and this is only because the CASA requires their approval.

This amendment is designed, as are the others, to finally establish a properly conceived and functioning police oversight system necessary to promote accountability of the police officers and protect the rights of civilians. Instead, this specific amendment reverts to the relationship between the for Police Oversight Commission and Independent Review Officer that the U.S. Department of Justice Albuquerque Police Department Findings Letter of April 10, 2014, exposed as contributing to the overall systemic problems with the Police Department’s use of force in encounters with civilians and which the CPOA ordinance was adopted to remedy.

The CPOA’s Administrative Office was previously required to receive and process all civilian complaints. The Council’s amendments now limit complaints to officer misconduct directed only against sworn police officers employed by the Albuquerque Police Department. This amendment would appear to be a violation of stipulations contained in the Court Approved Settlement Agreement (CASA) that the City Council agreed to in 2015.

The complainant or complaint’s authorized representative in a Civilian Police Complaint (CPC) has always been afforded a minimum of five minutes to address the Board relating to the complaint and investigation when it was presented to the Board.

Now that the Board does not have the authority to review and or approve complaints and the City Council has removed this option and in so doing will deny the complainant’s access to the Director who is the new sole decision-maker with respect to their complaint and not the Board prior to the amendment.

If at any point during an investigation the investigator determines that there may have been criminal conduct by any APD personnel, the CPOA investigator shall immediately notify the APD Internal Affairs Bureau commanding officer and transfer the administrative investigation to the Internal Affairs Bureau.

Previously the CPOA was able to review the IA investigation and continue processing the complaint at any time upon the conclusion of any criminal proceeding. That is now deleted from the ordinance with the amendments.

The CPOA’s Administrative Office was previously required to audit and monitor all incidents of use of force by police and all matters under investigation by APD’s Internal Affairs (IA) or other APD personnel tasked with conducting administrative investigations related to a use of force incident. CPOA records reflect that the audit and monitoring process never happened. Resolving the noncompliance was achieved by an amendment limiting matters under investigation to a “representative sampling” which means a subset of a population that seeks to accurately reflect the characteristics of the larger group.

Apparently, to compensate for this elimination of its review and approval authority, the Board, which previously had the option of performing an annual audit, now is required to perform semi-annual audits on a random sample of up to 10% of individual civilian police complaint investigations involving allegations of use of force or in exceptional circumstances, for the purpose of promoting an enhanced measure of quality assurance in the most challenging cases the Board may, by a vote of two-thirds (2/3) of the members of the Board, perform an additional audit, or direct that an audit be performed, on any individual Citizen Police Complaint Investigation.

Now, after seven years, the Board shall draft a job description that informs members of their roles, responsibilities, and specific expectations of a CPOA Board member. The Board shall present the job description to the City Council for final approval. Each member of the CPOA Board shall sign the job description to affirm their understanding of their obligations to the Board. This requirement may help filter applicants who do not fully grasp the commitment and requiring a new member’s signature may make it easier to remove members who fail to meet that commitment. That will not address the Board problems in turnover because the model is flawed as evidenced by the many nice to do ordinance requirements that have not been met vs those that are essential, even though all are just advisory just advisory.

There are numerous clarifications to the Board’s training requirements and compliance reporting requirements to the City Council by the Director. The issues of the Board’s failure to comply with required training have been noted for about two years. The extensive training requirements, some dependent on being conducted by APD, are not addressed in any of the new amendments but penalties for failure to complete the training are implemented.

Filling and maintaining Board vacancies has consistently been a significant problem. Efforts to address this are amendments for the reduction of the Board size from nine to seven and for the City Council staff shall establish written policies and procedures for its administration of the process to formulate recommendations for appointments based on evaluation of the qualification criteria and submit recommendations for appointment(s) to the City Council for its approval.

The Director shall notify the President of the City Council of a forthcoming vacancy on the Board at least sixty days prior to the expiration of a Board Member’s term, and within five days of the resignation of a Board member. The City Council shall act on an appointment to fill the vacancy within sixty days of the Council President’s receipt of notice from the Director.

The qualifications for the position of Director no longer minimally include the requirement of law degree but now have been expanded to include masters and relevant experience in criminal investigations. The position clearly requires demonstrated prior management experience and leadership skills to successfully navigate the organizational structures of not only the Board and CPOA, but also the Albuquerque Police Department, City Council, Mayor’s Office, and the Albuquerque Police Officers Association.

The number of full investigative files requested by the Board to fulfill its review function is the primary source of disagreement between the CPOA office and the Board. In the past, the Board has varied its approach to achieving its oversight of the CPOA investigative work product, utilizing at times a Case Review Committee (CRC) to perform due diligence on each case. The CRC then moved to more of an audit function, whereby only a randomly selected number of cases involved a CRC review of the entire investigative file whether warranted or not. The CRC met seven times in 2020, but during the IMR-14 period met only in January and April.

The Independent Monitor’s 14 report opines that it appears that the audits use may have been discontinued, with the Board now requiring that the full investigative case be made available for every complaint is not supported by a review of Board agendas. Yes, there are full investigative files requested, but they are officer-involved shooting and serious use of force cases, not civilian complaints.

The monitoring team emphasizes that this is a matter to be worked out by the Board and the CPOA investigative office. A process is envisioned that allows the Board to fulfill its review function while allowing it adequate time to address issues not being addressed such as requiring deeper analysis, such as policy and training recommendations, the requesting and analysis of data, and long-term trend analysis, as well as a process that does not unnecessarily burden the investigative function of CPOA.

The City Council’s wisdom reflected in the proposed amendments takes a hatchet to the allowing the Board to fulfill its review function by removing the function and ignoring any concerns about the quality of some CPOA investigations. It addresses the continued understaffing of the Board by reiterating excessive training requirements for a volunteer Board and instituting a monitoring and discipline regime. It also reduces the Board size to 7 from 9 with support from the Board and Interim Director suggesting it will be easier to have a quorum and for subcommittees to function.

The Executive Director has always been selected by and works under the supervision of the Board in accordance with CASA stipulations. The history of the Director’s relationship with the Board has been unsettled. The former Director resisted and at times defied those to whom he directly reported and under whose supervision he worked. Some of the unease arose from the varied views of the Board’s role and authority. For example, some members wanted to see documented investigation process manuals and procedures, while others viewed this as none of the Board’s business which the former Director supported in his rejection of the value of input from the Board, and the result was the Board still does not know if such documents exist.

An example of how the Board allows the process to be corrupted was when a Board member and the former Director both voted and supported a change to language in the APD use of force policy “near-final draft.” The language represented a return to issues the community clearly did not support from their comments at public meetings and which the Board also strongly opposed. They did not report their supporting votes at several opportunities, which some believed was evidence of attempts to evade accountability. When finally forced to acknowledge their votes because of public protest when the revision language was published, the two opined that the re-introduction of Graham vs Conner language did not significantly change the policy, their personal opinions and not the Boards. Only after communication with the monitor revealed his adamant disagreement with the inclusion of the Graham language was there agreement that a special meeting was needed. The Board took no corrective action or reproaching either their direct report Director or the long-time board member who frequently espoused his policy expertise.

Each citizen should be aware of significant changes to the Police Oversight Ordinance and form their own opinion of the amendment’s value in enhancing civilian police oversight or is it another ill conceived quick fix to problems that require more independent analysis.

CHARLES ARASIM COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

Freelance reporter Charles Arasim has submitted the following guest column for publication on this blog. He has not been compensated for the article. He is a citizen police oversight advocate, and as such was recognized by the Department of Justice when the Court Approved Settlement Agreement was negotiated. Mr. Arasim has scrutinized the process and usefulness of the Police Oversight Ordinance and Agency.

Soon after the Albuquerque Civilian Police Oversight (CPOA) Board, and City Council approved Executive Director Edward Harness’ (2018) second three-year contract, the CPOA began having serious issues culminating in the Director’s (2019) secret – backed by sitting Board member Bill Kass and Albuquerque Police Officer Union’s demands… eventually dismissed by the Federal Court – unauthorized approval of adding the Graham v. Conner standard to the near-final draft of the Albuquerque Police Department’s use of force policy.

Instead of terminating the Director and demanding member Kass’ resignation, the Board went into several months of closed-door sessions to rewrite the Director’s job description – not an exception to the New Mexico Open Meetings Act – while ignoring the resignations of the CPOA’s most experienced investigators.

In the second half of 2020 the CPOA Administrative office, still under the control of an insubordinate Director, completed investigations in only 13% of the Civilian Complaints received. The City Council received this information, did nothing, but, again behind closed doors, secretly discussing amendments to the CPOA Ordinance.

Months later, the CPOA Board publicly announced that the Executive Director’s position was open to all comers which resulted in 3 things:

1. The Director’s fiery public resignation,

2. The Independent Monitoring team reporting to the Federal Court that the CPOA had failed to meet the Court Approved Settlement Agreement (CASA) in providing meaningful, independent review of all citizen complaints, serious uses of force, and officer-involved shootings by APD or reviewing and recommending changes to APD policy and monitor long-term trends in APD’s use of force, and

3. CPOA Board Chairman Eric Olivas resigning, along with 3 other Board members, saying the City Council had “[D]esigned a bad process. From the appointment process, training, and of course the long list of responsibilities delegated to the Board, the Civilian Police Oversight Ordinance in Albuquerque is broken. Efforts are underway to nibble at the edges of the problem, but frankly, the proposed amendments to the ordinance hit at the low-hanging fruit and do nothing to give a meaningful role to Civilian Oversight of Police in Albuquerque.”

Fast forward to February 2022.

The City Council comes out of the shadows to reveal their proposed amendments to the CPOA ordinance. Those amendments will not bring the CPOA into compliance with the CASA. The amendments will in fact give more, if not all, power to the office of the Executive Director proven to be accountable to no one The amendments will make the CPOA a virtual carbon copy of the abolished Police Oversight Commission and the Independent Review Officer system of independent civilian police oversight that in 2014 the United States Department of Justice determined had contributed to the Albuquerque Police Department’s pattern and practice of unconstitutional use of deadly force.

It is obvious the City has failed in correcting APD structural and systemic deficiencies of insufficient oversight, inadequate training, and ineffective policies that contributed to the 2014 DOJ Investigative Report findings that APD engaged in a pattern and practice of excessive use of force, including deadly force, in violation of the Fourth Amendment.

In the most recent report Independent Monitors Report, IMR-14, dated November 12, 2021, the Federal Monitor reviewed the CASA requirement that the city shall implement a civilian police oversight agency … that provides meaningful, independent review of all citizen complaints, serious uses of force, and officer involved shootings by APD and shall also review and recommend changes to APD policy and monitor long-term trends in APD’s use of force. The Federal Monitor reported the CPOA failed to meet the requirements and is in “non-operational compliance,” meaning the adherence to policies is not apparent in the day-to-today operation of the agency.

Seven years of existence has not resulted in quality, rigor, or consistency in processes by the Board or the Executive Director’s office when conducting civilian complaint investigations or review of APD findings in serious uses of force or officer involved shooting incidents.”

DINELLI COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

After the passage of a full 7 years of the court approved settlement as well as the tumultuous history of the Citizen’s Police Oversight Commission that was mandated by the Court Approved Settlement Agreement, it has become painfully obvious that CPOA and its board of voluntary citizens has become so dysfunctional as to be irreparable and irrelevant. It is not at all likely any of changes or amendments to the CPOA ordinance will have any impact on any of the numerous problems identified by Eric Olivas, the former Chairman Of Civilian Police Oversight Agency.

It is personalities and hidden agendas that make both the agency and the civilian volunteer board dysfunctional. Adding to the disfunction is more than a little politics thrown into the mix by the Mayor, the City Council, the Chief and his high command and union opposition to any and all kind of civilian police oversight. The civilian board has never had any ability to persuade APD to change policies or improve their training given the extent the Mayor and APD ignore it and undercut it.

The investigation of police misconduct cases and all use of force cases and serious bodily harm cases should be done by “civilian” personnel investigators not by Internal Affairs nor by the Citizens Police Oversight Agency or the Board. The function and responsibility for investigating police misconduct cases and violations of personnel policy and procedures by sworn police should be assumed by the Office of General Council in conjunction with the City Human Resources Department and the Office of Internal Audit where necessary. The Office of Independent Council would make findings and recommendations to the Chief of Police for implementation and imposition of disciplinary action.

Link to former APOA Executive Director Ed Harness’ resignation:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qvE37sN–dM

Link to Former CPOA Board Chairman Eric Olivas’ resignation letter:

https://www.abqraw.com/post/civilian-police-oversight-agency-board-chairman-eric-olivas-quits-post

A link to a related blog article is here:

External Force Investigation Team Will Deal With 660 APD Backlog Of Use Of Force Cases; EFIT Confirms APD Unable To Police Itself; Abolish APD Internal Affairs And Civilian Police Oversight; Allow Inspector General To Takeover Functions; Make EFIT Permanent

EDITOR’S NOTE: On Saturday, March 5, the New Mexico Democratic Party will be holding their State Convention in Roswell, New Mexico and will be nominating candidates for statewide offices and officially placing candidates on the ballot who have already secured the required number of nominating petition signatures.

On Monday, May 17, Democrat Bernalillo County District Attorney Raúl Torrez announced that he is running for New Mexico Attorney General. He joins Democrat New Mexico State Auditor Brian Colon who announced on May 14. Current New Mexico Attorney General Hector Balderas is term limited and is finishing up his second term.

Both Colon and Torrez have secured enough nominating petitions and will appear on the June primary ballot. Gallup-based attorney Jeremy Michael Gay is seeking the Republican nomination for Attorney General. No Republican has been elected Attorney General since 1986.

TORREZ ANNOUNCEMENT FOR ATTORNEY GENERAL

In his announcement, Torrez, 45, had this to say:

“New Mexicans are looking for somebody who’s a fighter in the attorney general’s office and someone who has real experience to take on the job. If you look at the work that we’ve done inside the district attorney’s office, we’ve been able to secure additional resources, modernize that office, transform how it operates, bringing frankly new capabilities that no one had ever envisioned.

I think New Mexicans want bold leadership and tested leadership inside the AG’s Office. … I think they want someone who isn’t afraid to take on some of the toughest challenges we’ve got in the state.

Fundamentally, I believe we don’t have a system right now that provides adequate protections for the general public. … It’s undeniable that we’ve got a very serious public safety challenge in Albuquerque. … Violent crime is unacceptably high, murders are extraordinarily high.

But what we need right now are individuals with experience in different systems, and who have worked as prosecutors and police leaders, who can draw on ideas from around the nation and try and move this community in a new direction. And I think I bring that to the table.”

Links to news sources are here:

https://www.krqe.com/news/politics-government/district-attorney-raul-torrez-to-run-for-attorney-general/

https://www.abqjournal.com/2391604/district-attorney-torrez-enters-race-for-ag.htmlbI

PERSONAL BACKGROUND

Raúl Torres was born and raised in Albuquerque. He is the son of long time Assistant United States Attorney for New Mexico Pres Torres. He is married to Nasha Torrez, who is also an attorney, and the couple have two teenage children.

Raul Torrez went to Sandia Preparatory School, graduated from Harvard University, went on to receive a master’s degree from the London school of Economics, and attained his law degree from Stanford University and went on to be a White House Fellow under President Barrack Obama before coming back to New Mexico to become an Assistant United States Attorney. In 2016, Torrez ran to for Bernalillo County District Attorney and succeeded District Attorney Kari Brandenburg who served as DA for 16 years. Torrez was elected to second term on November 5, 2020.

EXAMINNG THE RECORD OF RAUL TORREZ AS DISTRICT ATTORNEY

District Attorney Raul Torrez is very well known for his attacks on the criminal justice system to get elected to office proclaiming that it is “broken”,that he knows how to fix it and blaming others for his failures.

During his first term as Bernalillo County District Attorney, Raul Torrez attacked the New Mexico criminal justice system and judges on 3 major fronts:

FIRST: TORREZ BLAMED THE COURTS FOR “REVOLVING DOOR” HIGH VIOLENT CRIME RATES

Soon after being elected DA, Torrez began to blame the courts for the rise in violent crime rates saying that the “revolving door”is the courts fault. Four years ago, Torrez accused the District Court and the Supreme Court’s case management order (CMO) for being the root cause for the dramatic increase in crime and the dismissal of cases. The Supreme Court issued the order mandating disclosure of evidence within specific time frames and to expedite trial. Torrez challenged the case management order before the New Mexico Supreme Court and also took action against an individual judge claiming the judge was requiring too much evidence to prove that a defendant was too violent to be released with bond.

Less than six months after being sworn in as Bernalillo County District Attorney, Torrez had the DA’s Office issue a report that outlined the problems he perceived since the issuance by the Supreme Court of the Case Management Order (CMO). The main points of the DA’s 2016 report were that defense attorneys were “gaming”the systems discovery deadlines, refusing to plead cases, demanding trials or dismissal of cases when not given evidence entitled to under the law. The District Court did their own case review of statistics and found that it was the DA’s Office that was dismissing the majority of violent felony cases, not the courts.

SECOND: 65% COMBINED DISMISSAL, ACQUITTAL AND MISTRIAL RATES

In mid-2015 the Bernalillo County 2nd District Court began shifting from grand jury use to implementing “preliminary hearing” schedule. Raul Torrez was sworn in as District Attorney on January 1, 2017 and from day one he opposed the shift to preliminary hearings.

District Attorney Raul Torrez and Albuquerque Mayor Tim Keller wrote a joint letter to the New Mexico Supreme Court requesting it to intervene and stop the plans of 2nd Judicial District Court (SJDC) to shift away from the use of grand jury system to a preliminary hearing system.

The District Court provided an extensive amount of statistics, bar graphs and pie charts to the New Mexico Supreme Court to support the decision to shift from grand jury hearings to preliminary hearing showing it was necessary. The statistics revealed the Bernalillo County District Attorney’s Office under Raul Torrez had a 65% combined dismissal, acquittal and mistrial rate with cases charge by grand juries. The data presented showed in part how overcharging and a failure to screen cases by the District Attorney’s Office was contributing to the high mistrial and acquittal rates.

The Supreme Court responded to the Torrez-Keller letter refusing to intervene but urging District Attorney Torrez to work with the Bernalillo County Criminal Justice Coordinating Council (BCCJCC) to resolve his concerns about ongoing cuts to the grand jury system.

https://www.kob.com/albuquerque-news/da-wants-nm-supreme-court-to-review-grand-jury-changes/5012558/?cat=500

THIRD: SHIFTING THE BURDEN OF PROOF

Bernalillo County District Attorney Raúl Torrez proposed a constitutional amendment that would create a “presumption” that a defendant is a threat to the public when charged with a violent crime and that they should be jailed until pending trial without bond or conditions of release. The presumption would shift the burden of proving dangerousness from the prosecution and require defendants accused of certain crimes to show and convince a judge that they should be released on bond or conditions of release pending their trial on the charges.

According to Torrez, the cases where a defendant would be required to show they do not pose a threat to public and should be released pending their trial would include “the most violent and serious cases” such as murder, first-degree sexual assault, human trafficking, first-degree robbery, crimes involving a firearm and defendants who are on supervision or parole for another felony. Such a shift of burden of proof could conceivably require a defendant to take the stand during a detention hearing before their trial and a waiver of their 5th Amendment Constitutional Right against self-incrimination.

https://www.abqjournal.com/1318399/da-to-unveil-new-pretrial-detention-proposal-ex-some-defendants-would-have-to-prove-they-should-be-released-pending-trial.html

UNM STUDY OF “PRESUMPTION OF NO BAIL” CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT

It was in July, 2019 that The University of New Mexico Institute for Social Research studied and reviewed the proposal by DA Torrez to change by constitutional amendment the way pretrial detention is handled in New Mexico. The final report was prepared by Paul Guerin the director of UNM’s Center for Applied Research and Analysis. The study called into serious question the effectiveness and outcomes to change the way pretrial detention is handled in New Mexico thereby discrediting the arguments made by District Attorney Raul Torrez.

The UNM study found no evidence that Torrez’s proposal would improve public safety. Based on a review of cases in which a defendant was released despite the DA’s requesting detention, Guerin found that preventive detention motions filed by the District Attorney’s office did not have “substantively” improved public safety as opposed to those cases in which no detention motions were filed.

Guerin’s study report recommends that the rebuttable presumption proposal be scaled way back by saying:

“If rebuttable presumption use is limited to cases in which defendants are charged with offenses punishable by life imprisonment, and other pretrial detention decisions are left to judges’ discretion and informed by risk assessment tools like the PSA, they can ensure reputation protection [for the criminal justice system] and align with national standards without undermining public safety. ”

Guerin cited research showing that a defendant’s current charge alone does not predict involvement in future dangerous crimes. He reported that some of the offenses or statutes the DA lists in his pretrial detention proposal “are arguably questionable indicators of dangerousness.”

The UNM study looked at more than 7,000 cases filed from July 2017 to August 2018 as part of the review. There were 1,500 cases that had preventive detention motions filed by the District Attorney’s Office. Of those preventive detention motions, 46% were granted and 54% were denied.

The review found no substantial differences in failure to appear and in new criminal activity rates between defendants for whom the DA did not request detention and those who were released despite the DA’s requesting detention. In all, the study found that 17% of those denied cases picked up a new charge. Only 2.9% more of those defendants in denied motions failed to appear in court, and only 2% more picked up new charges.

EMBOLDEN BY BEING ELECTED TO SECOND TERM

On November 2, 2020, Bernalillo County District Attorney Raul Torrez was elected to a second term. He ran unopposed in the Democratic Primary and in the general election. Torrez became embolden with his election to a second term to the point of deciding to run for Attorney General. He also renewed his advocacy of a “rebuttable presumption of violence” system for pretrial detention. He lobbied heavily for the New Mexico legislature to enact enabling legislation and securing the support of Governor Michell Lujan Grisham and Mayor Tim Keller.

LEGISLATIVE FINANCE COMMITTEE REVIEWS “REBUTTABLE PRESUMPTION OF DANGEROUSNESS”

In preparation of the 2022 legislative session, the highly influential Legislative Finance Committee (LFC) released a 14-page memo analysis of the proposed “rebuttable presumption of violence” system and pretrial detention. LFC analysts found that low arrest, prosecution and conviction rates have more to do with rising violent crime rates than releasing defendants who are awaiting trial.

The LFC report called into serious question if violent crime will be brought down by using a violent criminal charge to determine whether to keep someone accused of a crime in jail pending trial. According to the LFC report, rebuttable presumption is “a values-based approach, not an evidence-based one.” The LFC report said that while crime rates have increased, arrests and convictions have not. The LFC went on to say the promise of “swift and certain” justice has a more significant impact on crime rates that rebuttable presumption does not.

A major result of the Legislative Finance Committee report was that legislators rejected all “pretrial detention” legislation which would have created a “rebuttable presumption of dangerousness” for defendants charged with certain violent crimes to be held in jail pending trial . Rebuttable presumption shifted the burden of proof from state prosecutors, who must prove a case “beyond a reasonable doubt” to convict, to the defendant who would have to show they are not a danger to the public in order to be allowed to be released pending trial. The “rebuttable presumption of being violent” legislation was substituted with legislation and then incorporated in House Bill 68 and that focuses on ankle-monitoring data of defendants released from custody as they await trial.

https://www.abqjournal.com/2471031/tax-cuts-crime-package-sent-to-governor.html

https://www.abqjournal.com/2468840/pretrial-monitoring-bill-surfaces-in-house-advances-quickly.html

DISTRICT ATTORNEY TORREZ POUTS LIKE A CHILD NOT GETTING WHAT HE WANTS

During the 2022 New Mexico 30-day session that ended on Thursday, February 17, all legislation failed to enact the rebuttable presumption of being violent to permit jailing until trial. However, as a substitute, the legislature enacted a bill that requires the courts to turn over GPS monitoring data to police and prosecutors during a criminal investigation to allow better tracking of pretrial defendants on electronic monitoring. The goal of the GPS monitoring is keep close tabs on a charged defendant to prevent them l from committing another crime.

After the session ended, Torrez expressed no confidence in the bill. Torrez went out of his way to make the rounds with the media to say his biggest disappointments was the failure to pass the pre-trial detention bill. Torrez pouted like a child after not getting what he wanted and had this to say:

“The [legislature failed] to address the problem of the revolving door, specifically with regard to some of the most violent and dangerous defendants that we’ve got. People accused of murder, sexual assault, child abuse. Individuals who have been armed with firearms. … I’m concerned that we will once again see individuals who we have sought to have detained who have been released who will then go on to commit very serious crimes.”

The bottom line is the provision on GPS actually makes our jobs more difficult. It narrows the categories of defendants we can seek information on and it creates a privacy right for defendants who are considered to be in custody while they’re on GPS.”

When Torrez complains about the “GPS” monitoring system, he is complaining about the crime bill passed where the courts are required to turn over GPS monitoring data to police and prosecutors during a criminal investigation to allow better tracking of pretrial defendants on electronic monitoring in an effort to prevent a charged defendant awaiting trial from committing another crime. It mandates that prosecutors must prove “reasonable suspicion”, the very lowest burden required, before data can be turned over. Torrez and DA’s throughout the state demanded the the Governor veto the language in the bill.

The reaction of DA Torrez to the “reasonable suspicion” language contained in the enacted legislation, can only be characterized as “pathetic pouting” like not getting what he wanted in the first place. Instead of giving any effort to try and make it work, DA Torrez simply wanted the Governor to veto it, His lobbying effort is an acknowledgement that he does not know how to do his job. He was upset with the legislature’s refusal to enact his coveted “rebuttable presumption of violence” legislation.

Prosecutors like Torrez are always looking for ways to blame their failures on the courts and finding ways to allow them to ignore constitutional rights that will make their job the easiest without having to go to court. This coming from a supposedly experienced trial attorney whose primary job is to go to court. It’s obvious that the District Attorneys like Raul Torrez want to be able to conduct “fishing expeditions” on the whereabouts of any and all defendants on ankle bracelets and on any and all types of cases not just those charged with violent crimes. They do not want any court involvement as is required with “reasonable suspicion” language in the bill.

DA Torrez’s argument that the legislation “creates a privacy right for defendants” is about as bogus as it gets. The truth is that as written, no “privacy rights” are being created. What is being created is a system where prosecutors and law enforcement must give very bare minimum reasons why they want the information in the first place.

TORREZ FALSE CLAIMS OF LACK OF RESOURCES

The Bernalillo County District Attorney Office is the largest prosecuting firm in the State of New Mexico employing 315 full time employees including attorneys, paralegals, administrative assistants, victim advocates, investigators, IT managers and personnel and finance divisions. Since being elected District Attorney the first time in November, 2016 Torrez each year has strongly complained to the New Mexico legislature about the lack of resources his office has.

It was in August, 2018, DA District Attorney Raul Torrez strongly complained about and aggressively opposed reducing the grand jury time available by the District Courts and its shifting to more preliminary hearing arguing it would make launching new criminal cases far more challenging and far more resource intensive.

https://www.abqjournal.com/1202062/court-plans-major-cuts-to-grand-jury-system.html

According to Torrez, preliminary hearings are more financially and administratively burdensome for the District Attorney’s office and a drain on resources the office does not have to channel more cases through the process. District Attorney Raul Torrez’s went so far as to proclaim that his office simply did not have the resources to do preliminary hearings and said at the time:

“You’re still not tackling the fundamental resource question … This is not the time to mess with a good thing”.

The blunt truth is that Torrez was and has always has been a failure in tackling the resource problem himself, even after he secured significant funding increases for his office by shaming the New Mexico Legislature for not doing their part in adequately funding his office.

2018 FUNDING INCREASE REVISTED

During the 2018 legislative session, DA Torrez lobbied for and received a $4.2 million increase in total funding for the office with legislator’s buying into Torrez claims of lack of resources. Effective July 1,2018, Torrez was given a $21.5 million-dollar budget to run the office. The office was budgeted fully and funded 315 full time positions. At the time, more than half of the District Attorney’s $21. 5 million budget was dedicated to salaries with the budget for salaries at $13,523,842.35. The problem is of the 315 full positions funded, only 260 positions were actually filled by Torrez. Despite the spike in funding and DA Torrez’s constant complaining that his office did not have enough resources, Torrez had 55 fully funded vacant positions.

http://sunshineportalnm.com/sample/#section=Employee

2022 FUNDING AND PERSONNEL RESOURCES

Fast forward to January, 2022. As of January 11, 2022 Bernalillo County District Attorney Raul Torrez has a $27,778,800 million operating budget, a whopping $6.2 million more than in 2018. Of the $27,228,800, $16,890,059, well over half, is dedicated to salaries. The office employs attorneys, paralegals, administrative assistants, victim advocates, investigators, IT managers and personnel and finance divisions. As of January 11, 2022, the office is budgeted for 332 full time positions with 285 of those positions “active”, meaning filled, and with the office having an alarming 47 vacancies. The number of vacancies Torrez has in his office is larger than some other DA’s offices in the state that could use the resources.

All attorneys within the office are “at will” at serve at the pleasure of the District Attorney. As of January 11, 2022, the Bernalillo County District Attorney’s office employs the following number of attorneys:

27 Deputy District Attorneys paying $91,561.60 yearly
28 Senior Trial Attorneys paying $82,867.20
25 Trial Attorneys paying $75,004.80 a year
12 Assistant Trial Attorneys paying $67,891.210 a year

47 VACANCIES IDENTIFIED

According to the New Mexico State Government Sunshine Portal, there are 16 vacant attorney positions within the DA’s Office. Those fully funded, Vacant paying positions and salaries are as follows:

1 Chief Deputy District Attorney position paying $101,171 yearly
2 Deputy District Attorney positions paying $91,561 yearly
2 Senor Trial Attorney position paying $82,867 yearly.
8 Trial Attorney positions paying $75,004 yearly salary
6 Assistant Trial Attorney positions paying $67,891 yearly

In addition to the vacant attorney positions, other noteworthy positions fully funded but vacant are as follows:

1 Lead Investigator position paying $75,004 yearly
1 Program Administrator $67,891 yearly
2 Senior Investigator positions paying $56,929
1 Program Specialist $51,521
1 legal assistant supervisor $51,521
6 legal secretary positions vacant each paying $34,569

The link to the New Mexico State Government Portal to review all filled positions with names and salaries paid and all vacant positions is here:

https://ssp3.sunshineportalnm.com/#

http://sunshineportalnm.com/sample/#section=Employee

https://www.petedinelli.com/2018/08/28/da-torrez-fails-to-tackle-resource-problem-for-preliminary-hearings/

MIXED REVIEWS ON CASE MANGEMENT

During his 5 years as District Attorney, Raul Torrez has had a number of major negligent management issues relating to cases his office has handled.

GETTING SCAMMED

According to a February 20, 2019 Channel 4 Investigates Report, an imposter “scammed the Bernalillo County District Attorney’s Office” falsely claiming she was a victim in a case. The imposter demanded the charges dropped against the violent defendant and that he be released from jail. Below is the link to the Channel 4 report:

https://www.kob.com/investigative-news/4-investigates-imposter-tricks-bernalillo-darsquos-office-inmate-released/5253378/?cat=504

According to the news report, the Defendant Freddie Trujillo pled guilty in a 2017 aggravated assault case. Originally, Trujillo was placed on probation but in December 2018, Trujillo was jailed for violating his probation. Trujillo violated his probation when he physically attacked his estranged relatives, David and Mary Ann Baca. Trujillo was arrested after the attack on his relatives and jailed. One month later Trujillo was released from jail after the District Attorney’s Office dropped the charges against him.

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE CASE BACKLOG

According to a February 14, 2019 Channel 13 news story, an anonymous tipster within the District Attorney’s office sent News 13 pictures of stacks of domestic violence cases piled up on a table in the Bernalillo County District Attorney’s Office.

Below is the link to the story:

https://www.krqe.com/news/investigations/domestic-violence-victims-left-in-limbo-for-months-after-reporting-crimes/1776417417?fbclid=IwAR2h1vFytK-efAL-ldfY8TpC1iz-eVKDnDal0qB-Lv5jSM2pOrsUFjAltFY

The photos were of 3 stacks of roughly 500 domestic violence case reports. Each one of the domestic violence reports were linked to a domestic violence victim left waiting from 2 to 5 months without hearing anything after calling police reporting misdemeanor domestic violence crimes including assault, theft and restraining order violations. Torrez went on camera with Channel 13, but only after a week had passed giving him time to clear out the backlog. District Attorney Raul Torrez explained the stacks of reports were made up of “criminal summons” cases where police did not arrest anyone for various reasons such as suspects had already left the scene of the crime.

INDICTING AN INNOCENT MAN

In March, 2017, Bernalillo County District Attorney Raul Torrez announced and took credit for his office indicting 15 young people, ages 20 to 28, on gang related racketeering and other charges in the spring 2017. The RICO indictment was based upon an investigation of an alleged gang which APD said had started out tagging the area around West Central and escalated to committing violent crimes. District Attorney Raúl Torrez held a news conference calling the defendants “members of one of Albuquerque’s more notorious street gangs.”

On Sunday, August 18, 2019 the Albuquerque Journal reported on its front page that one of the young men indicted was 20-year-old Adan Perez-Macias. It was reported he was not a member of the gang APD was investigating or any other gang. It turns out Adan Perez Marcus did not know and never met the others indicted. Perez Marcus was not even in New Mexico at the time the crime he was accused of committing.
District Attorney Raul Torrez labeled the wrongful indictment of Perez-Macias as “unfortunate” and said it could have happened in any case his office handled.

When discussing the wrongful indictment of Perez Marcus, Torrez said “We can be smart and be effective as institutions. We make mistakes and we learn from these mistakes and improve.” Torrez had no apology, no expression of empathy and no offer of help to 20-year-old Adan Perez Marcus. When DA Raul Torrez says it’s all about justice for victims, he apparently does not believe innocent people are entitled to justice nor any kind of an apology for being wrongfully accused by his office for crimes.

VICTORIA MARTENS MURDER

The most egregious mishandling of a prosecution case by District Attorney Raul Torrez involved the August 24, 2016 murder of ten-year-old Victoria Martens whose was killed and her body dismembered and then burned in the apartment bathtub where she was killed in an apparent attempt to dispose of her body. Initially, Jessica Kelly and Michelle Martens, Victoria’s mother, and Michell’s boyfriend Fabian Gonzales, were arrested and charged for the rape, murder and dismemberment of 10-year-old Victoria. District Attorney Raul Torrez personally took over the prosecution of the case.

On June 29, 2018 District Attorney Raul Torrez announced he negotiated a plea agreement where Michelle Martens plead guilty to child abuse of her daughter Victoria Martens. The plea agreement negotiated was to 1 count of child abuse, recklessly caused, resulting in the death of a child under 12. The plea agreement guaranteed a 12 to 15-year prison sentence and dropped the most egregious charges of murder and rape. With the plea deal, Michelle Martens faced a possible sentence of 12-15 years, and with good time she could be out of jail within 6 to 7 years.

https://www.abqjournal.com/1191031/michelle-martens-pleads-guilty-to-child-abuse-faces-12-to-15-years.html

Torrez also announced several charges against Fabian Gonzales were dismissed. District Attorney Raul Torrez said that much of the initial facts of the case were “simply not true”, yet Torrez had previously persisted in holding news conferences. The murder charge was dropped, but Gonzales is still charged with child abuse and tampering with evidence. He was released from jail in November, 2019. The trial for Fabian Gonzales is now set to begin on January 3, 2022, according to court documents filed on May 17, 2021. His trial is expected to last three weeks from January 3 through January 21, 2022.

https://www.kob.com/albuquerque-news/fabian-gonzales-trial-set-for-january-2022/6112178/?cat=500

The initial APD police investigation and reports alleged that it was Jessica Kelley that stabbed 9-year-old Victoria Martens and that Fabian Gonzales strangled her while Michelle Martens watched the murder. During a press conference, Torrez stated that his office’s investigation found Michelle Martens falsely admitted to committing the crimes when forensic evidence revealed she and her boyfriend Fabian Gonzales were not even in the apartment at the time of the murder and did not participate in the murder.

Raul Torrez had held a press conference after press conference after press conference in the case, including private meeting with the Journal Editors and reporters at the Journal Center. He had more than 3 front page Journal stories on the case and was interviewed by Chanel 4 on the “Eye on Albuquerque” Sunday program on plea agreements he has negotiated in the case.

https://www.petedinelli.com/2018/07/09/da-torrez-political-damage-control-mission-accomplished/

District Attorney Raul Torrez in his various media interviews shared extensive details of the case and prosecution strategy on the pending criminal prosecution against two other defendants, two identified and one yet to be found. During a January 4, 2019 pretrial motion hearing, District Judge Charles Brown determined District Attorney Raúl Torrez had been “reckless” in his December 10, 2018 statement he made to the media about defendant Jessica Kelley’s absence of cooperation before her no contest plea.

On January 4, 2018, District Judge Brown said that Torrez should not have issued the December 10, 2018 statement at all. Judge Brown admonished Raul Torrez for the statement by stating from the bench in open court:

“I don’t know if it was [intentionally done] to deprive the defendant of a fair trial, or if the goal was to shift the light away from the District Attorney’s Office or to move light to the Albuquerque Police Department … I find it to be woefully inaccurate in its ambiguity. It could be interpreted in many ways – all of them positive to the District Attorney’s office, some to the detriment of others. The District Attorney also has an obligation to protect the due process right of the defendant. … [The District Attorney] … represents the state, which is everyone including the defendant and the defendant’s families … The District Attorney’s obligation is to the system.”

https://www.kob.com/albuquerque-news/qanda-bernalillo-county-rauacutel-torrez-on-30-day-legislative-session/6402099/?cat=500

FEDERAL JUDGE FINDS PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT BY TORREZ

District Attorney Raul Torrez is constantly emphasizing that he is a career prosecutor and not a career Politian. He emphasizes that in addition to serving as an Assistant U.S. Attorney for New Mexico for 2 and a half years, he has worked a prosecutor in the Valencia County District Attorney’s Office and the state Attorney General’s Office and served one year stint as a White House fellow. He repeatedly talks about the experience he has in both state and federal courtrooms.

One thing for certain is that Torrez avoids talking about is the fact that in 2012, United States Federal Judge Cristina Armijo accused him as Assistant U.S. attorney prosecuting a drug case of trying to “unfairly alter” a transcript of a recorded encounter between drug agents and an Amtrak train passenger suspected of carrying a large quantity of crack cocaine.

In ruling in the drug case Torrez was prosecuting, Chief U.S. District Judge M. Christina Armijo found that the charged defendant had been “coerced” into submitting to a search by federal two drug agents. But heeding the U.S. Attorney’s Office request, she removed a paragraph that appeared in her original order:

“Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that the Government attempted to unfairly alter the content of the official transcript and thus the substance of what is purported to be represented on the audio recording in the case. Specifically, the Court finds that the Government attempted to take advantage of the obviously poor quality of the audio recording and the chaotic environment in the train car by having its witnesses … make substantive changes to the official transcription of the recording in a manner that favored the government’s case.”

She also deleted other language that faulted the testimony of the two drug agents during the suppression hearing as being “colored or influenced by the government’s efforts.”

The day after Armijo filed her amended ruling in January 2013, the United States Attorney office dismissed the felony drug possession case against the Defendant.

It is unknown if Chief U.S. District Judge M. Christina Armijo referred the matter to the State of New Mexico Disciplinary Board in that such a referral is strictly confidential.

ALTERING A TRANSCRIPT

At the center of the transcript controversy was that Torrez asked 2 Federal law enforcement agents to review a transcript of a recording that was found “inaudible”. Instead of calling them as witnesses to testify under oath, Torrez asked the federal agents to make changes to the transcript based on their recollection of what was said and what occurred. Torrez then made a new transcript that combined their changes and informed the judge during the hearing that he wasn’t offering it as evidence but an “aid” for listening to the recording. Defense counsel objected, telling the judge “They’re trying to make an illegal search legal by making changes in the transcript.” The court agreed and entered the order. Torrez ultimately withdrew the revised transcript from consideration.

Torrez in a May 9, 2016 Albuquerque Journal report said he there was a “misunderstanding” of a transcript he initially offered at the hearing on a defense motion to suppress evidence. He said he never intentionally tried to mislead anyone. He had this to say:

“I could have done a better job … but I had no idea there were going to be any kind of findings [from Judge Armijo] … I was pretty surprised and upset [at Judge Armijo’s’ ruling] … I’m pretty protective of my professional reputation. I’ve worked extremely hard both in school and my professional life. And the idea that I would jeopardize all of that, and my law license, for a drug case? That, frankly … doesn’t make any sense.”

As for the problems in preparing the evidence, Torrez gave the excuse that he “had 50 other cases going on [at the time].”

UNCONFIRMED VOLUNTARY RESIGNATION OR TERMINATION

Torrez resigned six months after the incident in 2013 to work as a civil attorney in private practice in Albuquerque. Torrez then became a candidate in 2016 for Bernalillo County District Attorney. Torrez said he was never disciplined nor asked to leave the U.S. Attorney’s Office and said his departure was unrelated to the case.

The United States Attorney’s Office for its part has never disclosed the reasons why Torrez left and the office has declined to make any comment, saying it was a “personnel matter”.

Kenneth Gonzales, who was U.S. attorney in New Mexico at the time of the case and is now a U.S. district judge, referred the Journal to “the publicly-filed briefs” and the U.S. Attorney’s Office. Steve Yarbrough, who was first assistant U.S. attorney and signed the court motion asking the judge to withdraw her remarks about Torrez, declined to comment. He became a U.S. magistrate.

One thing that is for certain is that if Torrez really wants to eliminate any and all questions regarding his departure from the Department of Justice, he could request a copy of his personnel records and then release his personnel records for examination by the public.

https://www.abqjournal.com/770736/candidate-for-district-attorney-drew-ire-of-judge.html

COMMENTARY

Every state elected official must take an oath of office that they “will support the constitution of the United States and the constitution and laws of this state, and that they will faithfully and impartially discharge the duties of their office to the best of their ability”.

The Office of New Mexico Attorney General historically is considered by many as the “people’s attorney.” Elected Attorney Generals have gone onto higher office including Toney Anaya who was later elected Governor, Jeff Bingaman who was later elected United States Senator and Tom Udall who was also later elected United States Senator. All three emphasized and took great pains to look out for the little guy and especially the consumer and the less fortunate. Attorney Generals Paul Bardacke, Patsy Madrid and Hector Balderas during their tenures as Attorney General all took great pains to advocate for the general good of the public.

As the “people’s attorney”, an Attorney General must do all that is possible to “preserve, protect and defend” our constitutional rights including civil rights and voting rights among them. The Office of attorney general should never be used to undermine the rights of “presumption of innocence until proven guilty and due process of law”. An Attorney General must be fully committed and dedicated to proving guilt based on hard evidence and not speculation in order to put violent offender behind bars.

Raul Torrez advocating “rebuttable presumption” in order to hold a charged defendant in jail pending trial is nothing more than Torrez preying on the worst fears of the general public to get elected. Torrez ostensibly doe not see the problem that “rebuttable presumption” and his very biased advocacy is an affront to the oath of office he took. Torrez’s repeated attacks on the judiciary for the last 6 years and constant harping that the judicial system is broken reflects political opportunism at its very worse.

The criminal justice system in this country and this state has never been perfect, nor will it ever be, but it is not broken. The criminal justice system does have its flaws and a number of inequities, but to say that it is a broken system is just plain ignorance or political opportunism at its worst. The criminal justice system at all levels is only as good as those who are responsible to make it work and succeed. It is way too easy to declare the system “broken” when problems identified within the criminal justice system would go away if the stakeholders would just do their own jobs and concentrate on doing their jobs in a competent manner.

When it comes to Bernalillo County District Attorney Raul Torrez, he has been a failure at doing his own job as District Attorney not only in prosecuting cases but managing the resources he has been given. Torrez now says he wants to take his “blame game career” state wide.

Simply put, Raul Torrez is a very bad fit to be the next “people’s attorney” for the State of New Mexico.

On February 23, it was reported that 49-year-old Mario Perez was street racing in his white Ford Mustang, racing a blue mustang up Gibson at more than 100 mph when he slammed into the back wheel of the bus causing it to flip on its side. School officials said there was a camera inside the bus. Police said witnesses told them the blue Mustang kept on going after the crash.

APD reported that 11 people were hospitalized, including 9 middle school students and the driver of the car that hit the bus. According to an Albuquerque Public Schools spokeswoman, the bus driver, an employee of the school district, was also hospitalized.

It was reported that Mario Perez and at least 1 other person had “significant” injuries but none of the injuries are considered life-threatening. The school bus and car crash came just a few hours after Albuquerque police held a news conference announcing a proactive traffic enforcement plan to cut down on speeding and crashes after 2021 saw a record number of traffic deaths in the city.

https://www.koat.com/article/apd-man-street-racing-school-bus-flipping-abq/39213729

https://www.krqe.com/news/albuquerque-metro/apd-investigating-west-side-crash-school-bus-roll-over/

https://www.abqjournal.com/2472995/students-injured-after-school-bus-rollover-in-sw-abq.html

SOBERING STATISTICS

In 2021, there were 85 traffic deaths on the streets of Albuquerque, the highest number ever recorded. APD Deputy Chief Michael Smathers said recently there is “a recklessness and wanton disregard kind of came to light during COVID” adding that APD Officers have clocked drivers going 80, 90, 100 mph on residential streets. At the same time, APD’s perennial staffing challenges led fewer traffic citations.

APD Commandry Joseph Viers of the Traffic Division believes that there is a direct correlation between the drop in traffic citations from 55,819 in 2019 to 39,219 in 2020 to 36,431 last year and the rise in fatal traffic crashes from 55 in 2019 to 76 in 2020 to the record number of 85 last year.

APD Deputy Chief Smathers had this to say:

“We don’t want to set another [fatality] record. It really troubles us to have those numbers. [ APD officers have to] make those family notifications, [and it’s] really heartbreaking.”

According to annual reports from the Governors Highway Safety Association, New Mexico has also had the highest pedestrian death rate in the country 5 years in a row. Updated data from the N.M. Department of Transportation reveals that 100 pedestrians were killed last year. In the Albuquerque area, drivers struck at least 324 people in 2021, resulting in a record-high 49 fatalities. Twenty were the result of hit-and-run incidents.

The links to news source materials are here:

https://www.abqjournal.com/2473390/suspected-racerbus.html

https://www.abqjournal.com/2472280/traffic-enforcement-in-abq-gets-real-with-more-tickets.html

APD ISSUING MORE TRAFFIC CITATIONS

In response to the increase in fatalities, APD is picking up the pace over the last month to deal with traffic enforcement. According to an APD spokesperson, the department is focusing on problem areas like Central Avenue from 8th Street to Coors. It was the hit and run killing of 7-year-old Pronoy Bhattacharya in a crosswalk as his family left the River of Lights in December that in part prompted the crack down.

As APD continues to work on increasing the number of sworn police within its ranks, APD command staff in the field and traffic units are working together with other divisions within APD overlaying crash and crime data to identify problem areas for traffic enforcement and writing a lot more citations.

From January 1 to the first week of February, APD wrote 7,485 tickets 2,534 more tickets from January 1 to February 7 this year compared with last, for a total of 7,485.

The number of citations is up 30% from an average five-week span in 2019 when the department wrote 55,819 that year, before the pandemic. Still, it’s down from about a decade ago when the department was writing more than 10,000 tickets a month.

An APD spokesperson said they’ve been doing more targeted operations recently. A targeted operation on Central was considered successful. The APD spokesperson said it led to a change in drivers’ behavior and fewer calls reporting traffic violations. The department said it’s now bringing similar operations to other parts of the city in high traffic areas prone to speeding by drivers.

APD Deputy Chief Michael Smathers had this to say about targeted enforcement:

“Any traffic enforcement that we do is always intelligence driven, data driven. Any of the locations that we emphasize, any of the operations and the tac plans that we do, are always driven by data. [The data includes fatalities, speeding and DWI.] … we are breaking down our problematic corridors into more manageable sections [ and have] added a second squad of our motorcycle officers working in the mid- to late-evening hours to specifically address issues we’ve seen.”

The Traffic Division of 20 and Motors Unit of 7 DWI officers are making traffic citations a priority. On February 15, the Motors Unit ran a traffic operation at Montaño and Renaissance that resulted in 81 stops, 54 speeding citations and 135 other tickets, which included citations for no seat belt, no insurance, expired tags, talking on a cellphone, and other type of citations.

Motors Unit Lt. Nick Wheeler said since the beginning of the pandemic Coors is now known as “the racetrack of Albuquerque.” Wheeler reported that the speed limit is posting on Coors is 45 mph, but APD has seen vehicles traveling in excess of 80 mph. Wheeler said:

“Every day [we see cars] going 80, 90, 100 mph on Gibson, Paseo del Norte, Unser, Montgomery and even residential streets on a very regular basis.”

APD Police Commander for the traffic and motor units said speeding remains the No. 1 citation. However, Viers said racing and loud exhaust have become bigger issues since 2020, affecting safety and quality of life. Viers said:

“We’ve really stepped it up on enforcement [and] buckled down on traffic safety. We’ve also increased careless and reckless driving [citations].”

Links to quoted news source material are here:

https://www.krqe.com/news/albuquerque-metro/apd-writing-more-traffic-tickets-so-far-in-new-year/mbers to having too few officers

https://www.kob.com/albuquerque-news/apd-launches-operation-to-crack-down-on-dangerous-drivers/6402922/?cat=500

https://www.petedinelli.com/2021/06/21/keller-wants-camera-vans-to-combat-speeding-kellers-apd-seriously-underperforms-in-traffic-law-enforcement-by-the-thousands-speeding-merits-criminal-charges-not-civil-fines-to-change/

METRO TRAFFIC COURT ARRAIGNMENT PROGRAM

Traffic citations are criminal misdemeanor citations and can only be given when a police officer actually witnesses the offense, such as speeding or running a red light. Traffic cases are “officer prosecuted”, meaning sworn police officers on their own have to present the case to the court.

In 2006, the Metropolitan Traffic Court Arraignment Program was created by an agreement between the City Attorney, the Bernalillo County District Attorney and the Bernalillo County Metropolitan Court. Despite the historical and designated role of the Bernalillo County District Attorney’s office as the chief law enforcement office for the prosecution of criminal cases, misdemeanor or felony cases, the City Attorney’s office was tasked with the program. Then Deputy City Attorney Pete Dinelli was given the assignment to create the program with the hiring of Assistant City Attorneys and paralegals and to manage and oversee the attorneys and para legals.

Two Assistant City attorneys and 4 paralegals were hired because of the volume of traffic cases. Assistant City Attorneys are cross deputized or appointed “special prosecutors” by the Bernalillo County District Attorney with the sole authority to negotiate plea agreements in traffic cases at the time of arraignments, thereby negating the need for sworn APD personnel to appear at arraignments.

The rationale for the city attorney’s office to be involved with traffic arraignments is twofold:

1. To provide a major accommodation to the Metropolitan Court
2. To eliminate the need of sworn APD officers to go to court for arraignments on traffic offenses.

The traffic court arraignment program reduces police overtime where APD sworn personnel are entitled to a minimum of 2 hours of overtime charged at time and a half under the union contract.

HOW IT WORKS

When a person is stopped and issued traffic citation, the citing sworn officer determines if the driver will contest the citations. If the driver wants to contest the citations issued, an arraignment date and time is immediately scheduled by the citing officer. The Metropolitan Traffic arraignment program streamlines the process, saves time and money and negates the appearance of police officers at arraignments.

There are upwards of 170 different traffic violation citations that can be issued by sworn law enforcement. The most common traffic citations include speeding, reckless driving, careless driving, failing to stop, improper lane change, no registration, no insurance, suspended driver’s license, failing to yield, and open container. On any given day, between 250 and as many as 500 cases can be negotiated, resolved and approved by the Metro Court. The average Metropolitan Traffic Court arraignment case results in court fees and fines anywhere from $65 to upwards of $250.

TRAFFIC ARRAIGNMENT CASES AND PLEA AND DISPOSITION

Review of the City of Albuquerque approved budgets for the last 12 years reveals just how effective the Metroplan Arraignment program has been, but also reflects the major decline in traffic citations by APD. The budgets approved for the City Attorney’s office contain performance measures and lists the number of traffic cases that went to arraignment as well as the percentages of cases disposed of by plea agreements. Following are the statistics:

MAYOR RICHARD BERRY YEARS

Fiscal Year 2009: 46,940 cases, 83 % disposed of by plea agreements
Fiscal Year 2010: 55,750 cases, 82 % disposed of by plea agreements
Fiscal Year 2011: 57,094 cases, 74 % disposed of by plea agreements
Fiscal Year 2012: 51,222 cases, 72 % disposed of by plea agreements.
Fiscal Year 2013: 39,169 cases, 92% disposed of by plea agreements.
Fiscal Year 2014: 24,600 cases, 70% disposed of by plea agreements.
Fiscal Year 2015: 39,541 cases, 50 % disposed of by plea agreements.
Fiscal Year 2016: 34.077 cases, 59% disposed of by plea agreements.

MAYOR TIM KELLER YEARS

Fiscal Year 2017: 28,643 cases, 58% disposed of by plea agreements
Fiscal Year 2018: 13,053 cases, 57 % disposed of by plea agreements
Fiscal Year 2019: 26, 544 cases, 56 % disposed of by plea agreements
Fiscal Year 2020: 19,650 cases, 59% disposed of by plea agreements

NUTSHELL COMPARISON WITH FIELD SERVICES SWORN OFFICERS

Traffic citation cases in Metro Court dropped from 36,161 in Berry’s last fiscal year he was in office to 26,106 in Keller’s first fiscal year in office with the numbers dropping each year thereafter during the Keller years to a paltry 4,044 mid year in 2022 fiscal year.
From the foregoing, a nutshell comparison of the second term of Mayor Berry Compared to the Mayor Keller’s term is as follows:

MAYOR BERRY YEARS OF TRAFFIC ARRAIGNMENT CASES AND APD PERSONNEL:

Traffic Arraignment Cases Under Berry:

2014: 39,169
2015: 49,200
2016: 39,541
2017: 34,077
2018: 36,161

APD Sworn Field Services And Total Sworn Under Berry:

2014: 429 field
2015: 411 field
2016: 420 field
2017: 833 (total sworn)
2018: 861 (total Sworn)

MAYOR KELLER YEARS OF TRAFFIC ARRAIGNMENT CASES AND APD PERSONNEL

Traffic Arraignment Cases under Keller:

2019: 26,106
2000: 26,544
2021: 19,650
2022: 4,044 mid year with 47% pleas, 8,088 projected for year with 50% pleas

APD Sworn Field Services And Total Sworn APD Personnel Under Keller:

2019: 867 total sworn
2020: 972 total sworn
2021: 957 sworn police
2022: 1,100 total sworn budgeted.

APD STATISTCLY UNERPEFORMS IN TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT BY THE THOUSANDS

Review of the hard numbers during the last 12 years reflects that enforcing traffic laws has never been a major priority of APD under Keller’s appointed APD Chief’s Michael Geier and now Chief Harold Medina. Things deteriorated with APD performing a basic law enforcement function of patrolling the streets and issuing traffic citations.

In 2009, there were 86,175 traffic arraignment cases in Metro Court. In 2015 traffic cases dropped to 31,163, or over 55,000 fewer traffic citations. Between 90% and 95% of the traffic cases are APD cases with the remainder being BCSO and State Police cases, which is one reason city personnel were used.

https://www.petedinelli.com/2016/12/26/dwi-and-traffic-enforcement-dangerously-down/

In 2009 the City Attorney’s traffic court arraignment program consisted 2 full time Assistant City Attorneys and 4 full time para legal. As of June 18, 2021, the City Attorney’s traffic court arraignment program consists of just 1 Assistant City Attorney, 1 full time paralegal and 2 half time paralegals. The dramatic decline in city attorney personnel is directly attributed to the decline by the thousands of traffic citations.

ANALYSIS AND COMMENTARY

It’s common driving the streets of Albuquerque to see others speeding, be cut off by another driver, see someone run a red light, watch drivers barrel through school zones, use corner businesses to drive into and out as a shortcut to avoid a red light, vehicles with cracked windshields or broken taillights, people using their cell phones while driving ignoring traffic in front or on the side of them. You can often see people driving without their seat belts on, drivers swerving in and out of lanes at high speeds and engaging in careless driving, driver’s looking in their rearview mirror checking out their teeth, hair or makeup.

Then there are drivers yelling at each other in road rage or drivers being totally oblivious to pedestrians and people on bikes or motorcycles, drivers that are obviously in a haze or driving under the influence based on their weaving in and out of traffic. You can also see drivers that have been in a car accident patiently waiting lengthy periods of time for a police officer to show up to take an accident report.

The real problem is that APD sworn police are seriously underperforming by choice and traffic enforcement was not a priority for APD. City Attorney statistics reveal a dramatic decrease by the thousand in the number traffic citations being issued by APD. When you review the City’s budget for each of the past 8 years, the statics reveal that thousand more traffic citations were issued with a smaller number of APD sworn police on the force during Mayor Berry’s second term compared to Mayor Keller’s years in office. A dramatic drop in the thousands of traffic citation began to occur in Keller’s first year in office, even when there were more sworn APD officers in field services patrolling the streets.

What you do NOT see are Albuquerque Police Officers (APD) making traffic stops all over the city, issuing traffic citations or warnings, at least until now. It’s the sure presence of police on the road that changes people’s driving habits. The only time you hear or see an APD mark unit on the streets of Albuquerque is when they are traveling far in excess of the speed limit with their red lights on and sirens blazing no doubt to get to the next homicide or violent crime scene.

One of the very basic functions of any municipal police department is traffic law enforcement. APD is the largest funded department with a $212 million budget with 1,678 full time positions that includes 578 civilian staff and funding for 1,100 sworn police.

According to the city budgets from the last 8 years, traffic court cases handled by the City Attorney dropped from 36,161 in Berry’s last fiscal year he was in office to 26,106 in Keller’s first fiscal year in office with the numbers dropping each year thereafter to a paltry 4,044 mid year in 2022 fiscal year.

POWER OF THE COURTS REASON THAT CRIMINAL TRAFFIC CITATIONS REDUCE SPEEDING

When a police officer issues a misdemeanor criminal citation for speeding or other traffic offenses, the crime must occur in the presence of the officer where the officer has witnessed the crime. Automated red light camera citations are civil because the crime is a recorded image.

There is a major reason that traffic citations are criminal misdemeanor charges with fines and not civil. It’s because traffic citations issued by police officers and backed up with the authority of the courts, it has a major impact on the general public to deter conduct and reduce speeding and other traffic violations.

In addition to the criminal aspect, there is also a civil aspect to the misdemeanor charges. Automatic driver’s license revocation can occur with traffic citations. The more citations are issued, the more impact it has to threaten the suspension of a person’s driver’s license because of points assessed. Auto insurance companies also monitor their client’s traffic record and will increase insurance rates or even cancel coverage.

FINAL COMMENT

Police presence and visibility on the streets is the most effective way to change people’s driving habits, especially with speeding. Now that APD is making traffic enforcement a priority, the citizens of Albuquerque should see safer streets so long as the effort is made permanent which would mean that APD is getting back to the basics.