On July 17, Bernalillo County District Attorney Sam Bregman testified and gave an update on juvenile crime in Bernalillo County to the Courts, Corrections and Justice Interim Committee.  The Committee is one of the most influential committees of the legislature and consists of 36 House and Senate members and meets year round and vets proposed legislation.

Bernalillo County District Attorney Sam Bregman gave very sobering insight into the extent of juvenile crime being committed within New Mexico’s most populated county.  Bregman reports that an alarming 19 minors are confined in the Bernalillo County Detention Center on first-degree murder charges. According to Bregman, they are the failed products of a juvenile justice system that has taught them they can be arrested, prosecuted and face little to no consequences. Until the day they kill someone. And then it’s too late.

Bregman reported to the committee that in the past 18 months, the Bernalillo County District Attorney’s office has charged 20 juveniles with murder, 19 of whom are facing first-degree murder charges. He also said a total of 1,221, mostly  felony cases involving juveniles, have been referred to his office, of which 319 involved a handgun.  Bregman told legislators this:

“I can assure you that this was not the first time these 19 children committed a crime. But rather, it may be the first time there will be consequences for their behavior. And now, the consequences will likely be life in prison. We currently have, as of yesterday, 61 juveniles in the detention center in Bernalillo County. Half are charged with murder. More than 90% are charged with gun crimes. … There’s so many of these young people that end up committing violence that we’ve seen before in our system. … I can tell you overall that I believe the adult criminal justice system is starting to see some progress. … But juvenile crime is going in the absolute wrong direction.”

Bregman presented this scenario to the legislators to highlight the crisis in juvenile crime:

“Today, a 15-year-old can be driving around with his friends in a stolen car with 10 fentanyl pills and an AR-15. … [U]under the current system in Bernalillo County, the way it operates, that juvenile will face little to no consequences. They know you will not spend one single night in detention, you will likely be placed on probation, where there’s not even the requirement under probation that he continue his schooling or that he has a curfew. … [That child will likely continue criminal behavior with] little to no consequences. Not until, and only if, that child commits a crime where a firearm is discharged in the commission of a crime will he spend any time in detention.”

With an increase in the severity of juvenile crimes, the proliferation of firearms, and a short-staffed detention center in Bernalillo County that has to turn away holding minors that officers arrest, Bregman said many young offenders laugh when they are caught and say, “nothing’s going to happen to me.”

To emphasize his point, Bregman recounted that as recently as July 16,  he was contacted by a law enforcement agent who detained 3  minors in a stolen car. The juveniles then ran, but were later apprehended. After finally being caught, Bregman said, “One of them was laughing.” Another wouldn’t give his name, and Bregman said the detention center “won’t even consider accepting the person because they don’t [give]… a name.” Bregman told lawmakers that the Bernalillo County Juvenile Detention Center on Second Street NW is so understaffed that officials turn away minors charged with serious crimes. When that happens,  law enforcement has little choice but to take them home to their parents.

DA Bregman is former criminal defense attorney. He had harsh words for our juvenile justice system and told lawmakers this:

“[The] pendulum has swung so far, we can never have harsh consequences on children when they commit crimes.  … [W]hat we’re left with is that, at the end of the day, they don’t see any consequences until, God forbid, they kill somebody. … I respectfully submit that waiting until that happens is simply too late.

I’m not into locking up children and throwing away the key. I don’t want to charge another child with first-degree murder. … The juvenile system does nothing. ‘Don’t commit another crime; don’t commit another crime.’ That’s what probation is right now. Well, you shouldn’t be committing one to begin with.”

A BROKEN JUVENILE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM

Bregman told the Courts, Corrections and Justice interim committee that “The juvenile criminal justice system in New Mexico is broken. I do not say that lightly, nor do I cast blame on anyone or branch of government”. He said  the flaws in the juvenile justice system center around laws that have not been updated since 1978.  When asked if the current juvenile code is the biggest problem in the justice system, Bregman’s response was “[yes] because of the laws and how it all works right now.”

Bregman told lawmakers many minors escape punishment because the current juvenile code prevents law enforcement from holding a minor in custody. He said minors only face consequences when they commit a violent crime and that has got to change where they face consequences much earlier.  Bregman explained it this way:

“It’s not actually until they pull the trigger in a crime that they are accepting them into the D-home [detention center]. … That’s just got to change. …  I want to get these children when they first see the criminal justice system. … Get them the help they need, and get them an understanding that what they are doing is unacceptable. If we do that, maybe we are not going to see as many people indicted for first-degree murder at the age of 17.”

PUBLIC DEFENDER DISPUTES BREGMAN

Not at all surprising, the Law Offices of the Public Defender strongly disputed  DA Bregman’s assessment the juvenile criminal justice system in New Mexico is broken.  Dennica Torres, District Defender for the Law Offices of the Public Defender disputes that kids are not being held accountable and said recidivism in youth is low because they are given services rather than being locked up.  Torrez told the Courts, Corrections and Justice interim committee this:

“I do not agree [with DA Bregan]. I think that everybody has to keep in mind that these are children, they’re not adults.”

The public defender’s office did tell legislators they’d like to see some revisions in the children’s code. Torres said one challenge, for example, is the fact that there is no competency facility for the youth in New Mexico.  Torrez said this:

“We really need to funnel the money toward education and creating these services that the kids need. …  If we can figure out core issues and address those issues, we focus more on the rehabilitation than the punishment, right?”

PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE CHILDRENS CODE

It was on June 11, 2024 that Bernalillo County District Attorney Sam Bregman began calling for  reform of  the state’s Children Code after APD   arrested an 11-year-old boy for a series of violent crimes.  APD said at the time the child is a member of a gang calling itself “the Kia Boys.” APD said  the 11 year old  and at least 3 others were  caught on camera crashing into a convenience store and hopping over the counter to steal alcohol and cigarettes.   Bregman said this:

“The law doesn’t provide any specific consequences for a judge to be able to hand out to an 11-year-old doing the kinds of things they’re doing. … And in fact, the law basically affirmatively says you can’t incarcerate an 11-year-old. … If there are super young like this 11-year-old alleged offender, then we will continue to be in uncharted territory. If they’re older, they’re 15 and over, we know how to handle those cases. It is a real concern under the children’s code, what we can what we can’t do at the District Attorney’s office, and we’re doing everything possible to focus on the safety of our community, but also the wellbeing of an 11-year-old. … I’m not someone who’s advocating out there throwing the book and throwing the key away on 11-year-olds. But I am saying we have to have some more tools in the toolbox.”

https://www.kob.com/new-mexico/bernalillo-county-district-attorney-calls-for-reform-after-arrest-of-11-year-old-suspect/

Bregman is asking the New Mexico Legislature to revise the state’s Children’s Code during the upcoming 2025 regular session which is a 60 day session that begins on January 21 and ends on  March 22, 2025.

DA Bregman told the Courts, Corrections and Justice Interim Committee of the major changes he’d like to see to the juvenile justice system. One major change is expanding the definition of “serious youthful offender” so more types of crimes could lead to children being tried as adults.  Bregman supports expanding the types of offenses for which a juvenile over 15 can be charged as an adult. Right now, that can only happen for first-degree murder.  He wants to include crimes like armed robbery with a firearm, and child abuse resulting in death.  He’d also like to fix a law that currently allows a teenager to wield an assault rifle, though handguns are still illegal.

Other proposals Bregman is promoting include transferring a child to an adult detention center when they turn 18, unsealing more juvenile records, lengthening supervision of youthful offenders from 21 to 25, and including more firearms like rifles in the law banning from people under 19 from having a gun on them. Bregman said this about his proposed changes:

 “I’m not talking about throwing the key away on children. I’m talking about at an early age, showing them some consequence for bad behavior, criminal behaviors, so that they don’t end up facing life in prison because I’ve indicted them for first-degree murder.”

Bregman said of the changes that it’s just not about being tough, but it’s about stopping children from living a life of crime before they kill someone and he said this:

“It’s not that I want to get tough on kids and throw away the key. No, I want to have some consequences just like every one of you had with your parents when you were growing up, ‘If you do this, there’s going to be a consequence.”

The public defender’s office disagrees with the change on expanding the definition of “serious youthful offender” so more types of crimes could lead to kids being tried as adults.  The Public Defender argues that’s what grand juries and preliminary examination hearings are for. District Public Defender Dennica Torres put it this way:

“Removing that mechanism and just saying they are accused of first-degree homicide, we’re going to automatically route them to downtown court, adult court is not, they’re taking away protections from them. They have that right to be presented to the grand jury as well.”

District Public Defender Dennica Torres responded to the proposed changes saying this way:

“DA Bregman was thoughtful with these proposed changes and I know that he would welcome all criminal justice partners to come to the table and work together. That’s all we ask.”

Links to relied upon and quoted news sources are here:

https://www.koat.com/article/new-mexico-crime-juvenile-bernalillo-county/61629156

https://www.krqe.com/news/crime/bernco-da-state-public-defenders-office-talk-about-juvenile-justice-system/

https://www.kob.com/new-mexico/da-sam-bregman-urges-lawmakers-to-reform-juvenile-justice-system/

https://www.abqjournal.com/news/da-most-juvenile-offenders-face-few-consequences-after-arrest/article_54c42b62-4488-11ef-be60-9368ee68a93e.html#tncms-source=home-featured-7-block

https://news.yahoo.com/news/bernalillo-county-da-calls-youth-233400526.html

CHILDRENS’S COURT

A Children’s Court is established in each of the 13 Judicial Districts in the state with the Children’s code establishing Court’s known as the Children’s Court. The Children’s Court jurisdiction is not exclusive to criminal charges filed against a child. The court has exclusive original jurisdiction of all proceedings under the Children’s Code in which a person is 18 years of age or older and was a child at the time the alleged act in question was committed or is a child alleged to be:

1. A delinquent child;
2. A child of a family in need of court-ordered services or a child in need of services.
3. A neglected child;
4. An abused child;
5.  A child subject to adoption; or
6. A child subject to placement for a developmental disability or a mental disorder.
7. The court has exclusive original jurisdiction to emancipate a minor.

PURPOSE OF  CHILDREN’S CODE

State law establishes the purpose of the Children’s Code to be as follows:

• “ To provide for the care, protection and wholesome mental and physical development of children coming within the provisions of the Children’s Code and then to preserve the unity of the family whenever possible. A child’s health and safety shall be the paramount concern. Permanent separation of a child from the child’s family, however, would especially be considered when the child or another child of the parent has suffered permanent or severe injury or repeated abuse. It is the intent of the legislature that, to the maximum extent possible, children in New Mexico shall be reared as members of a family unit;
• To provide judicial and other procedures through which the provisions of the Children’s Code are executed and enforced and in which the parties are assured a fair hearing and their constitutional and other legal rights are recognized and enforced;
• To provide a continuum of services for children and their families, from prevention to treatment, considering whenever possible prevention, diversion and early intervention, particularly in the schools;
• To provide children with services that are sensitive to their cultural needs;
• To reduce overrepresentation of minority children and families in the juvenile justice, family services and abuse and neglect systems through early intervention, linkages to community support services and the elimination of discrimination;
• To provide for the cooperation and coordination of the civil and criminal systems for investigation, intervention and disposition of cases, to minimize interagency conflicts and to enhance the coordinated response of all agencies to achieve the best interests of a child victim; and
• To provide continuity for children and families appearing before the children’s court by assuring that, whenever possible, a single judge hears all successive cases or proceedings involving a child or family.”

CATEGORIES OF CHILD OFFENDERS AND CRIMES

The Children’s code defines an “adult” as a person who is 18 years of age or older and defines a “child” as person who is less than 18 years old and the Children’s Code deals exclusively with the prosecution those who are less than 18 years of age.  There is a sperate and distinct legal process from what is done for adults under the Children’s Code to charge a child with crimes.

Petitions are filed charging a child as a “Deliquent Offender” and in need of supervision and once adjudicated delinquent by the court, the child is placed on probation with terms and conditions imposed and enforced by probation authorities.

Petitions or complaints are filed charging a child as “Youthful Offender” or “Serious Youthful Offender” and in such cases the child is afforded all the rights of an adult including representation by and attorney, due process of law and a jury trial with rights of an appeal.

In all cases begun pursuant to the provisions of the Children’s Code, when a child is taken into custody, the child must be released to the child’s parent, guardian or custodian and a child subject to the provisions of the Children’s Code is entitled to the same basic rights as an adult. Arrests of a child are also handled differently as is incarceration.

Children charged with a crime are divided into 3 distinct categories under the Children’s Code according to the crimes committed. Those categories are Delinquent Offender, a Youthful Offender and a Serious Youthful offender.

A “Delinquent Offender” is a delinquent child  who has committed a delinquent act and who is subject to juvenile sanctions only and who is not a youthful offender or a serious youthful offender.

A “Delinquent Act”  is defined as an act committed by a child that would be designated as a crime under the law if committed by an adult, not including the crime of  prostitution (Section 30-9-2 NMSA 1978), and  includes  the following:

(1)   any of the following offenses pursuant to municipal traffic codes or the Motor Vehicle Code [66-1-1 NMSA 1978]:

•  driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or drugs;
•  failure to stop in the event of an accident causing death, personal injury or damage to property;
•  unlawful taking of a vehicle or motor vehicle;
• receiving or transferring of a stolen vehicle or motor vehicle;
• homicide by vehicle;
• injuring or tampering with a vehicle;
• altering or changing of an engine number or other vehicle identification numbers;
•  altering or forging of a driver’s license or permit or any making of a fictitious license or permit;
• (eckless driving;
• driving with a suspended or revoked license; or
•  an offense punishable as a felony;

(2)  buying, attempting to buy, receiving, possessing or being served any alcoholic liquor or being present in a licensed liquor establishment, other than a restaurant or a licensed retail liquor establishment, except in the presence of the child’s parent, guardian, custodian or adult spouse. … .

(3)  a violation of Section 30-29-2 NMSA 1978, regarding the illegal use of a glue, aerosol spray product or other chemical substance;

(4)  a violation of the Controlled Substances Act [Chapter 30, Article 31 NMSA 1978];

(5)       escape from the custody of a law enforcement officer or a juvenile probation or parole officer or from any placement made by the department by a child who has been adjudicated a delinquent child;

(6)       a violation of Section 30-15-1.1 NMSA 1978 regarding unauthorized graffiti on personal or real property;

(7)       a violation of an order of protection issued pursuant to the provisions of the Family Violence Protection Act [Chapter 40, Article 13 NMSA 1978]; or

(8)       trafficking cannabis as provided in Section 26-2C-28 NMSA 1978;

(See 32A-2-3. Definitions, Delinquency Act )

A “Youthful Offender” is defined as a delinquent child subject to adult or juvenile sanctions who is 14  to 18  years of age at the time of the offense and who is adjudicated as committing at least one of the following offenses:

• second degree murder, as provided in Section 30-2-1 NMSA 1978;
• assault with intent to commit a violent felony, as provided in Section 30-3-3 NMSA 1978;
• kidnapping, as provided in Section 30-4-1 NMSA 1978;
•  aggravated battery, as provided in Subsection C of Section 30-3-5 NMSA 1978;
• aggravated battery against a household member, as provided in Subsection C of Section 30-3-16 NMSA 1978;
•  aggravated battery upon a peace officer, as provided in Subsection C of Section 30-22-25 NMSA 1978;
• shooting at a dwelling or occupied building or shooting at or from a motor vehicle, as provided in Section 30-3-8 NMSA 1978;
• dangerous use of explosives, as provided in Section 30-7-5 NMSA 1978;
• criminal sexual penetration, as provided in Section 30-9-11 NMSA 1978;
• robbery, as provided in Section 30-16-2 NMSA 1978;
• aggravated burglary, as provided in Section 30-16-4 NMSA 1978;
• aggravated arson, as provided in Section 30-17-6 NMSA 1978; or
• abuse of a child that results in great bodily harm or death to the child, as provided in Section 30-6-1 NMSA 1978;

(See 32A-2-3. Definitions, Delinquency Act )

A “Serious Youthful Offender” is a child 15  to 18  years of age who is charged with and indicted or bound over for trial for first degree murder. Note that there are no other crimes other than first degree murder and the child is sentenced as an adult for the crime.

(See 32A-2-3. Definitions, Delinquency Act )

THE DELINQUENCY ACT

The Delinquency Act is part of the Children’s Code. A child subject to the provisions of the Delinquency Act is entitled to the same basic legal rights as an adult. According to the Delinquency Act, its purposes are:

1. Consistent with the protection of the public interest, to remove from children committing delinquent acts the adult consequences of criminal behavior, but to still hold children committing delinquent acts accountable for their actions to the extent of the child’s age, education, mental and physical condition, background and all other relevant factors, and to provide a program of supervision, care and rehabilitation, including rehabilitative restitution by the child to the victims of the child’s delinquent act to the extent that the child is reasonably able to do so
2. To provide effective deterrents to acts of juvenile delinquency, including an emphasis on community-based alternatives;
3. To strengthen families and to successfully reintegrate children into homes and communities;
4. To foster and encourage collaboration between government agencies and communities with regard to juvenile justice policies and procedures;
5. To develop juvenile justice policies and procedures that are supported by data;
6. To develop objective risk assessment instruments to be used for admission to juvenile detention centers;
7. To encourage efficient processing of cases;
8. To develop community-based alternatives to detention;
9. To eliminate or reduce disparities based upon race or gender;
10. To improve conditions of confinement in juvenile detention centers; and
11. To achieve reductions in the number of warrants issued, the number of probation violations and the number of youth awaiting placements.

Ultimately, a District Court Judge has the discretion to impose some confinement or juvenile sanctions on a youthful offender, but the court only has jurisdiction over the child until he reaches the age of 18.  The children’s court attorney must give notice of intent to invoke and seek an adult sentence.  A preliminary hearing by the court or a hearing before a grand jury must be held after the filing of the intent to invoke an adult sentence, to determine whether probable cause exists to support the allegations contained in the petition.

The link to review the entire children’s code is here:

https://nmonesource.com/nmos/nmsa/en/item/4389/index.do#!fragment/undefined/BQCwhgziBcwMYgK4DsDWsBGB7LqC2YATqgJIAm0A5AMwBMAggLQCMj1lAlADTJYAuAUwgBFRAMIBPKpS4QBRBKPFTKMuQpABlLIT4AhKQCUAogBljANXoA5AMLGufMBmh8scDhyA

JUVENILE CRIME

Crime within the juvenile population has been the subject of recent news reports where it is being said crime among the juvenile population is rising. However, the data that is available doesn’t paint a clear picture one way or another. From 2018 through 2022, there was a steady DECLINE in the number of children referred to juvenile justice services. 80% of those each year were delinquent referrals, meaning it was a crime committed under the law if committed by an adult.

While the trend of juvenile referrals has fallen, so have the number of referrals for detention.  In 2018, there were 3,012 children referred for detention. That number fell to 1,185 in 2022. But that doesn’t paint the whole picture. While the total number of referrals has fallen, the percentage of referrals approved for detention has risen.

Despite the downward trend of juvenile justice referrals, crime amongst juveniles was a focus of the governor following the issuance of the public health order in 2023. Since Sept. 2023, 160 juveniles have been detained where a gun was present. Each month since the governor’s directed focus on juvenile crime, the number of juveniles detained has fallen.

The link to the quoted news source is here:

https://www.koat.com/article/new-mexico-crime-stats-town-hall/6051353

PARENTAL RESPONSIBILITY LAWS 

Parental responsibility laws are designed to hold parents legally accountable for the actions of their minors. These laws are predicated on the belief that parents have a legal and moral obligation to ensure that their children do not engage in behavior harmful to society.

https://www.shotlaw.com/blog/are-parents-responsible-for-their-childs-crimes/#:~:text=A%3A%20While%20parents%20are%20not,to%20prevent%20the%20child’s%20actions.

The Delinquency Act part of the Children’s Code  has two separate parental responsibility provisions:

Section 32A-2-27 of  the Delinquency Act, entitled “Injury to person or destruction of property; liability; costs and attorney fees; restitution”, and  provides as follows:

A.  Any person may recover damages not to exceed four thousand dollars ($4,000) in a civil action in a court or tribunal of competent jurisdiction from the parent or guardian having custody and control of a child when the child has maliciously or willfully injured a person or damaged, destroyed or deprived use of property, real or personal, belonging to the person bringing the action.

B.  Recovery of damages under this section is limited to the actual damages proved in the action, not to exceed four thousand dollars ($4,000) taxable court costs and, in the discretion of the court, reasonable attorney fees to be fixed by the court or tribunal.

C.  Nothing contained in this section limits the discretion of the court to issue an order requiring damages or restitution to be paid by the child when the child has been found to be within the provisions of the Delinquency Act.

D.  Nothing contained in this section shall be construed so as to impute liability to any foster parent.

https://law.justia.com/codes/new-mexico/chapter-32a/article-2/section-32a-2-27/

Section 32A-2-28 of  the Delinquency Act, entitled “Parental Responsibility” states as follows:

A.  In any complaint alleging delinquency, a parent of the child alleged to be delinquent may be made a party in the petition. If a parent is made a party and if a child is adjudicated a delinquent, the court may order the parent or parents to submit to counseling, participate in any probation or other treatment program ordered by the court and, if the child is committed for institutionalization, participate in any institutional treatment or counseling program including attendance at the site of the institution. The court shall order the parent to support the child committed for institutionalization by paying the reasonable costs of support, maintenance and treatment of the child that the parent is financially able to pay. The court may use the child support guidelines set forth in Section 40-4-11.1NMSA 1978 to calculate a reasonable payment.

B.  If a fine is imposed against a child by a court of this state, the parent of the child is not liable to pay the fine.

C.  The court may enforce any of its orders issued pursuant to this section by use of its contempt power.

https://www.mwl-law.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/PARENTAL-

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

It is very disappointing that Bernalillo County District Attorney Sam Bregman would declare “The juvenile criminal justice system in New Mexico is broken.” His conclusion is understandable and no doubt out of frustration  given the uptick in the serious violent crimes children are committing.  Simply put, New Mexico’s children are committing more and more violent crimes and where guns are involved, but this does not mean the juvenile system is broken.  The state’s Children Code and our Juvenile Criminal Justice System has not kept up with changing times to deal with what now can only be considered a crisis.  Part of the problem is just how complicated the children’s code really is and its application.

It is very clear that the primary emphasis and purpose of the Children’s Code is not punishment in the form of confinement of child for crimes committed but on rehabilitation, services, counseling and social services with the goal of keeping the family unit intact and what is in the best interest of the child. Such an approach is wise whenever you are dealing with delinquency types of cases and children of tender age.

Under the children’s code there is no mandatory sentencing and confinement when delinquency is found and when it does happen it can only be up and until the child reaches 18.  However, things do get very complicated when gun violence is involved and when it comes to sentencing a child as an adult when charges are brought against the child as a “youthful offender” or “serious youthful offender.”

DA Bregman’s proposals to expand the definition of “serious youthful offender” so more types of crimes could lead to children being tried as adults is reasonable. The legislature should expand the types of offenses for which a juvenile over 15 can be charged as an adult. Right now, that can only happen for first-degree murder.  What should be included are all violent crimes involving a weapon and should include the crimes of aggravated assault, aggravated battery armed robbery with a firearm, and child abuse resulting in death.  The legislature should also fix the law that currently allows a teenager to wield an assault rifle, though handguns are still illegal.

ENFORCE PARENT RESPONSIBILITY STATUTES

The District Attorney should take full advantage of New Mexico’s Parental Responsibility Act.  In any complaint alleging delinquency the parent of the child alleged to be delinquent should  be made a party in the petition filed by the state.  As provided by the statute, if a child is adjudicated a delinquent, the court should order the parent or parents to submit to counseling, participate in any probation or other treatment program ordered by the court. Where the the child is committed for institutionalization, the parent or guardians should be ordered to participate in any institutional treatment or counseling program including attendance at the site of the institution.

Another option that should be considered by the legislature is increasing the amount of damages a victim may recover from the parent of a delinquent for damages from $4,000 to at least $15,000, or all actual or provable damages.  Further, such recovery actions for monetary damages against a parent or guardian should be made mandatory and not be discretionary with the filing any Petition for Delinquency

The message must be sent loud and clear to both children and their parents that if a child commits crimes, there will be consequences were both the child and the parent will be held responsible.

There is a very serious and reoccurring problem throughout the city with the unhoused taking over and squatting in the city alleyways behind businesses and residential homes. All too often, city alley ways become magnets for crime resulting in repeated calls for service to the Albuquerque Police Department and to the Community Safety Department.

There  currently exists 3 major options that the City, its residents and businesses have  to deal with and to prevent  the unhoused taking over and squatting in the city’s alley ways:

1. Permanently closing off alleyways known to be problematic.
2. Neighborhood beatification of alley ways increasing neighborhood use and security measures.
3. Aggressive enforcement of existing state laws and city ordinances to prevent trespass and unauthorized outdoor camping.

This blog article is a discussion and update of all 3 options.

 PERMANENT CLOSURE AND FENCING OFF ALLEYWAYS

The City of Albuquerque is in the process of implementing a program of permanently closing off alleyways known to be problematic resulting in  high volumes of calls for service to the Albuquerque Police Department and to the Albquerquerqu Fire and Rescue Department.  The problem alleyways have become magnets for crime for illegal activity such as open drug use and areas where large numbers of the homeless congregate.

Three alleyways have been identified in the South East Heights International District for closure by means of fencing. Those alley ways are:

1. The alleyway behind the Circle K gas station on Central Avenue and San Pedro Drive in the International district
2. The alleyway at Central Avenue and Louisiana Boulevard behind the KFC
3. The Alleyway at California Street and Linn Avenue near the New Mexico State Fairgrounds.

The alleyway closure is part of a City plan being advocated by first term Progressive Democrat City Councilor Nichole Rogers to permanently close off known problem alleys to deal with the homelessness, drugs, and crime in the area.  Rogers is hoping to have the same success at the 3 alleys in the International District  as the closure of an alley at Lomas and Louisiana behind Buffets Candies.

City Councilor Rogers had this to say:

“There’s not one magic fix to any of these issues. … We’re dealing with lack of housing, lack of mental health resources, lack of substance abuse resources. There’s so many layers to this so this is just one idea—we have to try something! …  [Closing alleyways] is something that we’ve done in other areas like behind Buffett’s Candies on Lomas and Louisiana and it had a huge effect on deterring crime in the area. … Am I for every alley being shut down or closed? No. But we have to do something because people are suffering. …  And so we know, if we can beautify this alley, we can put lighting, we can do things like that it will also deter activity that people don’t want to do in the light.”

“I say to the critics, ‘roll up your sleeves and come help us figure out solutions,’ because we’re open to that.  This is an all hands on deck crisis and we need to be thinking of it that way and we need to be thinking about it, how do we alleviate suffering? Regardless of why someone is suffering, if you’re unsheltered you’re suffering.”

Donna Buffett, one of the co-owners of the family owned business  of Buffett’s Candies, said the alley behind their business’s fenced-in parking lot was a constant source of concern.  Buffet said this:

“The [homeless] started using the fence; they would hang their tents on them, they were making campfires. We would come in the morning, there would be ten to 15 folks. They would have everything set up. … We were calling the fire department a couple times a week because once it started getting cold, they were building fires.”

The city permanently fenced off the alley in early May after Buffet’s spend thousands of dollars to install a high-end fence with an electric gate to close the business off after hours.  Buffett said everything changed almost overnight because of the fencing.  Buffett said this:

 “They’re moving along and going to other places …  I don’t think it’s completely solved the problem, but it has definitely alleviated the issues here. … I think [the fencing is] a great idea, I think it is helping the businesses in the area to lower the crime, to lower the loitering. All of the trash that’s left behind, the drug paraphernalia, I think it is making it cleaner. … I do still hope that the leadership of the city realizes that it is going to help that specific area but until the problem is dealt with at a higher level, it’s just moving folks on down the road.”

According to the city, the  cost to install  the high grade  permanent fencing varies depending on the size of the alley.  The cost varies from anywhere from  between $30,000  to $90,000 depending on how wide and how big they area fenced off is.  The money comes from capital outlay dollars set aside for public safety and community enhancement. The fencing allows only businesses and residents who use the alley access to it while keeping everyone else out.

Albuquerque Deputy Chief Administrative Officer Matthew Whelan confirmed the dramatic impact the closure of alleyway behind Buffett’s Candies had and he said this:

“[W]e’re expanding this program because … when we closed that alley and it went from Planning and Code Enforcement getting over 100 calls to around ten calls. We’re already spending resources in that area so we want to collaborate with [Councilor Rogers], so she’s using about $100,000 of her set-aside to close off three areas and we’re looking forward to seeing how it works out.”

Whelan said the city  notifies  people in these alleys before they close them and try to connect them with the city’s many resources. Whelan said this:

“We’re not just trying to push anybody anywhere. What we’re trying to do, address these people experiencing homelessness and give them the resources. Albuquerque has plenty of resources, we have the Westside Shelter, the Gateway Center will be opening soon. So we’re trying to get people enacted into that. But we’re also trying to address the neighborhoods to ensure safety so that everybody knows that one of the number one priorities of this administration is homelessness but it’s also addressing public safety.”

The link to the quoted and relied upon news story is here:

https://www.krqe.com/news/albuquerque-metro/city-of-albuquerque-begins-permanently-closing-off-alleys-in-the-international-district/

THE REVITALIZE SAN PEDRO PARTNERSHIP AND SAN PEDRO ALLEY INITIATIVE

The Revitalize San Pedro Partnership (RSPP) is a 501 (c) (3) charitable corporation that was incorporated effective January 1, 2024. It is a coalition of 4 neighborhoods bordering or to the north of the New Mexico State Fair grounds, The 4 neighborhoods are the Mark Twain Neighborhood, the Fair West Neighborhood, Alvarado Park neighborhood and Mile High neighborhood. The San Pedro Alley initiative is one of 5 alley projects in Bernalillo County with funding already in place.

The goal of the Revitalize San Pedro Partnership (RSPP) is to revitalize the San Pedro corridor from Central north all the way to I-40.  One project is the San Pedro Alley initiative. Quarterly meetings are held to discuss projects. The San Pedro Alley Initiative represents neighborhood and business clean up and beatification of alley ways, including ongoing and scheduled clean ups and mural painting and increasing use of alleys for events such as neighborhood association meetings, social events and block parties.

The Revitalize San Pedro Partnership initiative works with the City, the County and State officials and find ways to improve and make more attractive the corridor. The group works with the UNM School of Architecture to come up with innovative ways to improve alleyways with designs. It also  addresses what can be done to make alley use safer, including installation of surveillance cameras, lighting and fencing.

On July 17, the Revitalize San Pedro Partnership held a town hall focusing on the 3 major San Pedro Corridor alleys between Lomas and Constitution. The townhall meeting focused on reviewing concerns of residents and businesses adjacent to the alleys and to share examples of improvements to alleyways from other neighborhoods.

SURVEY OF BUSINESSES AND RESIDENTS

The Revitalize San Pedro Partnership did a survey of businesses and residents along the 3 alleys that run parallel to San Pedro, NE, from Marble Street and Constitution. Feedback was received from both residents and business from both sides of the ally’s. The survey was revealing.

In general terms, residents and businesses said they do not feel safe in the alleys, many actively remove trash and weeds from the alleys themselves and assuming the cost. Those surveyed supported public safety measures such as better lighting, including solar lights with motion sensors and patrols by the Albuquerque Police Department and the Albuquerque Community Safety Department to deal with the homeless.  The most popular beatification improvements supported are murals and landscaping.

Following are the results of the survey:

Those who took the survey were asked about alleyway use and they said this:

• 1% said they used the alleyways daily.
• 8% said they used the alleyways weekly.
• 5% said they used the alleyways monthly.
• 5% said they used the alleyways every 3 to 6 months.
• 1% said they never use the alleyways.

Those who took the survey were asked what was their primary reason for using the alleyway and those that responded said this:

• 8% said use was for access to business premises.
• 6% said to get access to their residence.
• 5% said used for recreational uses such as walking, jogging or dog walking.
• 1% said storage,
• 50% did not respond or said the alleyway was not used by them.

Activities observed and disclose by residents and businesses responding to the survey were:

• Littering and excessive trash (88%)
• Overnight camping (81%)
• Illegal dumping (75%)
• Graffiti (69%)
• Suspicious Activity (59%)
• Drug use or drug sales (56%)
• Campfires/fires set (47%)
• Speeding vehicles (38%)
• Personal Assaults, sexual activities, police presents responding (22%)

Those surveyed were asked if they feel safe using the alleyway behind their residences or business:

• 50% said no, they did not feel safe using the alley.
• 5% said they felt “somewhat safe”.
• 5% said they felt safe.

Actions listed as taken to improve the alleys for use and  safety included “clearing weeds, removing trash and debris, calling APD or other enforcement agency or contacting the Albuquerque Fire and Rescue Department.”

Preventative or protective measures supported by residents and businesses in the survey were:

• More or better lighting (78%).
• Increase law enforcement (63%).
• Cameras (41%).
• Permission to construct higher barriers (34%).
• Locked gates (28%).

Those surveyed were asked what beautification improvements or amenities would they be interested in improving alleyways and the responses were as follows:

• Murals and landscaping (56%).
• Trash bins and permeable pavement (34%),
• Dog waste stations (22%).
• Rainwater collection (19%).
• Little library, benches, community garden (16%).
• Water stations (6%).

ALBUQUERQUE ORDINANCES AND STATE STATUTES

On June 28, the United State Supreme Court announced its ruling in the case of Grants Pass v. Johnson where the court held that local laws effectively criminalizing homelessness do not violate the U.S. Constitution and do not constitute cruel and unusual punishment. The case challenged a municipality’s ability to bar people from sleeping or camping in public areas, such as sidewalks, parks and alleyways. The case came from the rural Oregon town of Grants Pass, which appealed a ruling striking down local ordinances that fined people $295 for sleeping outside after tents began crowding public parks.

The United States Supreme Court considered whether cities can enforce laws and take action against or punish the unhoused for sleeping outside in public spaces when shelter space is lacking. The case is the most significant case heard by the high court in decades on the rights of the unhoused and comes as a rising number of people in the United States are without a permanent place to live.

In a 6-3 decision along ideological lines, the Supreme Court  reversed a ruling by a San Francisco-based appeals court that found outdoor sleeping bans amount to “cruel and unusual punishment” under the United States Constitution. The majority found that the 8th Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment does not extend to bans on outdoor sleeping in public places such as parks and streets.  The Supreme Court ruled that cities can enforce bans on homeless people sleeping outdoors in public spaces.

The City of Albuquerque and the New Mexico legislature have enacted laws that have the intent to prohibit trespassing and unauthorized camping on private and public open space. All the laws have been on the books for decades and are applicable and are enforced against all citizens and not just the unhoused. The specific statutes and ordinances are: NMSA 1978, Section 30-14-1 (1995), defining criminal trespass on public and private property.

1. NMSA 1978, Section 30-14-4 (1969), defining wrongful use of property used for a public purpose and owned by the state, its subdivisions, and any religious, charitable, educational, or recreational association.
2. Albuquerque City Ordinance 12-2-3, defining criminal trespass on public and private property.
3. Albuquerque City Ordinance 8-2-7-13, prohibiting the placement of items on a sidewalk so as to restrict its free use by pedestrians.
4. Albuquerque City Ordinance 10-1-1-10, prohibiting being in a park at nighttime when it is closed to public use.
5. Albuquerque City Ordinance 12-2-7, prohibiting hindering persons passing along any street, sidewalk, or public way.
6. Albuquerque City Ordinance 5-8-6, prohibiting camping on open space lands and regional preserves.
7. Albuquerque City Ordinance 10-1-1-3, prohibiting the erection of structures in city parks.

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

Generally speaking, it is the adjoining property owners, city residents and businesses, that have the primary responsibility for the  clean up and maintenance of existing alleyways even though the alleys are city and county rights of ways. The city and the county should commit far more  financial resources for the regular clean up of alleyways, including regularly scheduled street sweeper dispatched to the alleys and assume the cost of regular clean ups.  The city and the county should also assume the financial responsibility for the securing of alleys to include adequate lighting and surveillance cameras along with regularly scheduled law enforcement patrols. Such security measures would have a dramatic impact on curtailing and reducing crime.

The City’s program of fencing and closing off of alleyways as solution to homeless encampments and to eliminate magnets for crime and locations for the crimes of drug use, drug sales and prostitution is long overdue and taxpayer money well spent.  The closure of alleyways can be easily prioritized by surveying APD calls for service and only those that have become chronic nuisances to homeowners and businesses should be fenced off and closed by the city.

The Revitalize San Pedro Partnership and the San Pedro Alley Initiative represent a viable alternative to closing and fencing off of alleys. Neighborhoods and businesses will become empowered and find new and additional uses of alleyways.

With the United State Supreme Court decision in the case of Grants Pass v. Johnson where the court held that local laws effectively criminalizing homelessness do not violate the U.S. Constitution and do not constitute cruel and unusual punishment, the city should not have any reservations about enforcing the existing laws preventing and prohibiting unauthorized camping and trespassing in the city’s alleyways.

The 3 approaches of closing and fencing off alleyways that become magnets for crime, neighborhoods finding new and additional uses of alleyways and aggressive enforcement of existing laws combined can be characterized as “taking back our neighborhood” initiatives.  All 3 approaches will have a direct impact on reducing crime in neighborhoods and preventing the homeless from taking over and camping in public rights of ways.

The link to a related news story is here:

Neighbors come together to make alleys cleaner and safer

https://www.kob.com/new-mexico/neighbors-come-together-to-make-alleys-cleaner-and-safer/

On July 22, U.S. District Judge James Browning of Albuquerque, in an 104-page ruling, refused to grant a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) barring enforcement of New Mexico’s new 7 day waiting period for purchasing firearms in New Mexico. Judge Browning sided with attorneys for Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham and state Attorney General Raùl Torrez and ruled against two-gun owners who contended the state’s Waiting Period Act violated their Second Amendment right to bear arms. The National Rifle Association (NRA) and Mountain States Legal Foundation, an advocacy group for gun rights, filed the lawsuit on behalf of the two New Mexico residents, citing concerns about delayed access to weapons for victims of domestic violence and others. The US Supreme Court in June upheld a federal gun control law that is intended to protect victims of domestic violence. Judge Browning’s ruling follows a hearing held on the TRO in June.

The new law establishes a statewide 7-day waiting period for the purchase of firearms, double the current waiting period required by the federal government. The Waiting Period Act makes it a misdemeanor to buy or sell a firearm before the required waiting period.  The law provides for   exemptions for concealed carry permit holders, Federal Firearms Licensees, and transactions between law enforcement officers, law enforcement agencies, and immediate family members. Proponents say the law closes a loophole allowing guns to be sold before a buyer’s federal background check has been returned.

The 7 day waiting period was enacted during the 2024 New Mexico legislative session.  It was on February 12, 2024 that the New Mexico State Senate passed House Bill 129, Firearm Sale Waiting Period Crimes, on a 36-32 vote after the House passed amended legislation. On March 4, Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham signed the legislation into law and it went into effect April 15. A gun owner from Albuquerque joined a Farmington woman who owns guns in filing the lawsuit on April 15, the day the law went into effect. Their attorneys argued in part that in order to keep and bear arms, a prospective gun owner needed to acquire the firearm in the first place and therefore purchasing a gun was covered by the Second Amendment United States Constitution providing for the right to bear arms. Ultimatley,  Judge Browning found their arguments “unpersuasive.”

Browning denied the NRA’s effort to secure a TRO on three grounds:

1. That the case would not succeed on its merits because the Second Amendment does not cover firearm sales.  The waiting period is not “presumptively Unconstitutional” because it is a condition or qualification on firearm commercial sales and the waiting period is “consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of commercial firearms regulations, which licensed and prohibited the sale of firearms to sections of the populace out of a concern that a purchaser might use the firearm to harm the public.”
2. The NRA and it’s fellow plaintiffs did not show Browning that “they are likely to suffer irreparable injury if the Court does not temporarily enjoin the Waiting Period Act… and the harm that they stand to suffer should they seek to purchase another firearm is slight.”
3. That the plaintiffs did not “establish that the balance of the equities weighs in their favor nor that an injunction is in the public interest, because the Plaintiffs’ interest in purchasing a firearm without delay is minimal compared to the public’s interest in keeping the Waiting Period Act in effect.”

EVIDENCE PRESENTED AND COURT’S LEGAL ANALYSIS

During the TRO hearing to prevent the state from enforcing the new law, experts on the history of guns in America testified on both sides.  The 7 day waiting period was presented as a way to curb impulsive gun violence, such as suicides, and address New Mexico violent crime rates.

Judge Browning found that while gun-related deaths in the United States were higher in 2022 than in any other year on record, he found “the situation is worse” in New Mexico with gun death climbing significantly in the last few years. Judge Browning wrote the age-adjusted gun death rate increased by 87% between 2010 and 2021.  Judge Browning found that “The Defendants adduce significant evidence that waiting period laws may help reduce this tidal wave of gun violence.”  The judge noted that testimony given during the hearing that the Waiting Period Act is likely to save about 37 lives per year.

Browning wrote in part:

“On balance … the harm that the Defendants stand to suffer if the Court were to enjoin the Waiting Period Act — the loss of New Mexican lives — significantly outweighs the Plaintiff’s threatened injury. Moreover, the public’s interest in the preservation of dozens of New Mexican lives cannot be understated.”

Browning wrote that having to wait 7 days, as required by the new law, to purchase a handgun is “minimally burdensome” on the plaintiffs’ ancillary right to acquire firearms.  Browning wrote the waiting period is a “commercial firearm regulation” that is “presumptively Constitutional.”

Although the lawsuit challenging the law is still pending, Judge Browning found the plaintiffs are not likely to succeed on the Second Amendment claims which was a major factor in his ruling to deny a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction. Browning wrote this:

“The central question the Court must address here is whether the right … to keep and bear Arms’ encompasses the right to obtain firearms. … In concrete terms, the Waiting Period Act does not limit an individual’s ability to keep firearms in their home nor carry those firearms with them in public for self-defense.”

According to the ruling, to obtain a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction, a plaintiff must also make “a clear and unequivocal showing it will likely suffer irreparable harm absent preliminary relief”.  Judge Browing wrote that waiting a week to buy a handgun “is insufficient to qualify as irreparable harm.”  Browing added that “there is divergence of opinion among United State District Courts regarding whether the Second Amendment’s plain text includes only a right to keep and bear arms, not a right to buy them.”  The Ninth Circuit Court and the 5th Circuit Court appellate courts found that right didn’t cover “the conduct of purchasing a firearm”.

Judge Browning wrote in part:

“… [T]he Court concludes that the Plaintiff’s Second Amendment Claims fails because it doesn’t cover the conduct of purchasing a firearm. … The Supreme Court has repeatedly instructed that the ‘most important rule in constitutional interpretation is to heed the text — that is, the actual words of the Constitution — and interpret that text according to its ordinary meaning as originally understood. …  Today and in 1791, the normal and ordinary meaning of ‘keep’ is to possess and the normal and ordinary meaning of ‘bear’ is to carry. … [The historical understanding of the Second amendment] provides further confirmation that the Second Amendment was not drafted to protect the right to purchase arms.”

According to the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, only three states have longer waiting periods:  California, Hawaii and Washington, along with the District of Columbia — that range up to 14 days. Rhode Island also has a seven-day waiting period.

GOVERNOR MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM REACTS

New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham applauded the ruling as an indication that the waiting period is constitutional and will be able to remain in effect. Lujan Grisham issued the following statement on Browning’s decision:

“The judge’s decision confirms that New Mexico’s waiting period is likely constitutional and allows it to remain in effect. … This 7-day cooling-off period makes our community safer by providing a critical buffer against impulsive firearms purchases and ensuring comprehensive background checks are completed. This law is a commonsense measure designed to reduce impulsive gun violence and address a federal background check gap.”

The links to a relied upon and quoted news sources are here:

https://www.krqe.com/news/politics-government/federal-judge-upholds-new-mexicos-gun-waiting-period-law/

https://www.koat.com/article/new-mexico-gun-waiting-period/61687266

https://www.abqjournal.com/news/nm-federal-judge-refuses-tro-on-gun-waiting-period/article_e7f0614e-487a-11ef-817a-3f661ac0f1dd.html

https://nmpoliticalreport.com/quick-reads/federal-judge-upholds-firearm-waiting-period-requirement/

COMPREHENSIVE REPORT ON GUNSHOT VICTIMS

Simply put, New Mexico is  suffering a major crisis when it comes to gun violence and gun deaths. Judge Browning was very insightful and absolutely correct when he found that while gun-related deaths in the United States were higher in 2022 than in any other year on record, “the situation is worse” in New Mexico with gun death climbing significantly in the last few years.

New Mexico’s  gun violence crisis was laid to bear for all to see on September 28, 2023 when  the New Mexico Department of Health released its “Comprehensive Report on Gunshot Victims Presenting at Hospitals in New Mexico.”  The report spans the time period from 1999 to 2023. The report provides a detailed analysis of firearm-related violent deaths and injuries in New Mexico. It encompasses data from various sources, including New Mexico’s surveillance systems, state behavioral risk factor surveys, and the Center for Disease Control (CDC) data.

The key findings and conclusions detailed in the report are as follows:

INCREASE IN FIREARM-RELATED DEATHS

• Over the past two decades, New Mexico’s firearm death rates rose from 7^th highest nationwide in 1999 to 3^rd highest in 2021 with the age-adjusted firearm death rate increasing by 87% between 2010 and 2021.
• While suicide remains the predominant cause of firearm-related deaths, a notable surge of 70% in the homicide rate is driving the overall increase in firearm fatalities.

DEMOGRAPHIC AND GEOGRAPHIC DISPARITIES

• Men of all age groups were found to be at highest risk for firearm-related injuries and deaths.
• Racial/ethnic inequities: Non-Hispanic American Indian, Non-Hispanic Blacks, and Hispanics, experienced substantial increases in firearm injury death rates between 2017 and 2021.
• The Northeast and Metro Health Regions experienced a substantial increase in firearm injury emergency department (ED) visits over the past two years (Northeast: +30%; Metro: +22%).

INCREASED SEVERITY OF HEALTH OUTCOMES OF FIREARM INJURY

Between 2019 and 2022, there was a 16% increase of patients being admitted to intensive care and a 61% increase in patients being transferred to the operating room.

SIGNIFICANT INCREASE IN ALCOHOL AND SUBSTANCE USE CONTRIBUTING TO INCREASED FIREARMS DEATHS

• Between 2019 and 2020, there was an 89% increase in alcohol dependence for homicides involving firearms. Additionally, from 2018 to 2020, there was a 475% increase non-alcoholic substance dependence for homicides involving a firearm.
• Between 2018 and 2020, there was an 85% increase in alcohol dependence and a 120% increase in non-alcoholic substance abuse for suicides involving a firearm.

LOADED AND UNLOADED FIREARMS AS RISK FACTOR FOR FIREARM INJURY AND DEATH

• In 2022, 37% of New Mexican households have a firearm, 15% of New Mexican households have a loaded firearm, and 8% have a loaded and unlocked firearm.
• In 2022, households with a firearm and a child less than 18 years old, 38% have a loaded firearm and 15% have a loaded and unlocked firearm.

RISING ECONOMIC IMPACT OF FIREARM INJURY TO NEW MEXICO HEALTHCARE SYSTEM

• The annual estimated overall cost of firearms injuries and deaths in New Mexico is $6 billion or $2818 per capita.
• Medicaid claims for firearm injuries in New Mexico increased by 85% from $6.5 million in 2018 to $12 million in 2022 (Figure 12).
• Between January 2023 and September 2023, Medicaid expenditures totaling $5.6 million have been spent on firearm injuries in New Mexico.
• Medicaid was the primary payer for 76% of gun injury hospital discharges in 2022 In 2021, the Department of Health with support of the CDC, developed a Statewide Strategic Plan for the Prevention of Firearm Injury (FASTER Report FINAL (unm.edu)) which is an important supplement to this document. Demographic Data on Firearm Injury.

HEALTHCARE OUTCOMES FOR GUNSHOT VICTIMS

Gunshot injuries have wide-ranging and severe implications on individual well-being, often necessitating immediate and extensive medical care. Delving into the healthcare outcomes for gunshot victims reveals a concerning picture:

SEVERITY OF INJURIES

• Between 2019 and 2022, the number of patients in New Mexico’s trauma centers with firearm injuries has increased by 39%.
• The number of trauma center patients with firearm injuries being discharged from the ED to the intensive care unit has increased by 16%
• There has been a concerning 61% increase in gunshot injuries that required surgical interventions
• New Mexico ranked seventh highest in the U.S. in 1999 and 2011. The rank increased to third highest in the U.S. in 2021
• New Mexico has consistently had a larger age adjusted1 firearm death rate than the rest of the country. Moreover, the age adjusted firearm injury death rate for New Mexico has also increased at a higher rate compared to the U.S. For example, New Mexico’s firearm injury death rate was 48% higher than the U.S. in 2010, compared to being 90% higher in 2021.

TYPE OF FIREARM AND AMMUNITION INVOLVED IN FIREARM DEATHS

The following data was pulled from pooled data in the New Mexico National Violent Death Reporting System (NM VDRS) from 2018 to 2020:

TYPE OF FIREARM IN DEATHS

• Handguns were implicated in 77% of violent firearm-related deaths (Figure 6).
• Rifles and shotguns were involved in 7% and 6% of such incidents.

COMMON FIREARM MANUFACTURERS IN DEATHS

• An unknown manufacturer was noted in 61% of cases of the New Mexico National Violent Death Reporting System (NM VDRS) pooled data from 2018 to 2020.
• Smith & Wesson firearms were linked to 8% of violent deaths, followed by Ruger (6%), Glocks (5%), and Taurus (4%).

AMMUNITION CALIBERS IN VIOLENT DEATHS

• The 9-millimeter (mm) caliber was the most prevalent, associated with 25% of violent firearm deaths. PAGE 7
• Other notable calibers included .38 (10%), .22 (9%), .45 (8%), and .40 (7%)

NUMBER OF VIOLENT CRIMES IN NEW MEXICO

According to FBI statistics, the number of violent crimes in New Mexico for the last 11 years has been reported as follows:

• 2012: 11,660
• 2013: 12,990
• 2014: 12,465
• 2015: 13,672
• 2016: 14,585
• 2017: 16,300
• 2018: 17,637
• 2019: 17,302
• 2020: 16,393
• 2021: 17,373
• 2022: 16,494

According to data released by the New Mexico Department of Health and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, from 2010 to 2021, the age-adjusted death rate from firearms rose by 87%. In the same time span, New Mexico rose from the 7th to the 3rd highest rate of firearm deaths in the country.

Overall, there was a 34% increase in overall firearm fatalities from 2018 to 2021, with a 70% increase in homicides with a firearm in the same time period.

Not only has death from firearms in New Mexico increased, but so have injuries related to firearms. From 2018 to 2022, the rate of people visiting the emergency room from firearm related injuries rose 35%.

According to the latest stats from the FBI, there were 11,550 instances of shoplifting In New Mexico. It’s a trend that’s been increasing since 2018.

FIREARM INJURY – EMERGENCY ROOM VISITS

Emergency room firearms injuries are on the uptick in New Mexico  and are reported as follows for 5 years of available data:

• 2018: 968
• 2019: 914
• 2020: 1,129
• 2021: 1,263
• 2022: 1,306

 https://www.koat.com/article/new-mexico-crime-stats-town-hall/60513537

Following the death of a child near Isotopes Park in 2023, Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham issued a public health order that was aimed to reduce gun violence. Data released by the governor’s office from September 2023 – March 2024 is as follows:

• TOTAL ARRESTS: 7,649
• FELONY ARRESTS: 4,701 (61.46%)
• MISDEMEANOR ARRESTS/ WARRANTS:  2,948 (38.54%)
• FIREARMS SEIZED: 614
• TRAFFIC CITATIONS: 9,669

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

Given New Mexico’s gun culture and the crisis in gun violence crimes occurring in the State, the significance of Judge Browning granting the Temporary Restraining Order and allowing enforcement of the 7-day waiting period cannot be understated. It will make a difference and it will save lives. The seven day waiting period is the first step in reducing the proliferation of guns in a state that is suffering a crisis in gun violence.

Notwithstanding, much more must be done by the New Mexico legislature to curb and reduce the proliferation of guns in the state of New Mexico to reduce gun violence. Historically, most gun control legislation has failed over too many years in the legislature.  In the last two years there have been 4 major times where responsible gun control measures have past the New Mexico legislature:

1. The 7-day waiting period.
2. The Bennie Hargrove Gun Safety Act making it a crime to store a firearm in a way that negligently disregards the ability of a minor to access it.
3. Prohibiting the buying a firearm for another person who is legally banned from purchasing it on their own.
4. Prohibiting the carrying a firearm within 100 feet of a polling place during an election.

Notwithstanding the 4 measures past, they are still baby steps in the right direction and far more must and can be done.

The July 18 Special Session of the New Mexico legislature that the governor convened for public safety was a total bust with the legislature refusing to enact any of the legislature she wanted. There was a failure of leadership by the governor and legislatures to reach a consensus on the legislation with the argument made that the legislation was too complicated to be handled in a special session.

If Governor Lujan Grisham and the New Mexico Legislature are truly concerned about the New Mexico’s violent crime crisis, both need to regroup and take and even more aggressive approach as they prepare for the 2025 New Mexico legislative session. They should take the next 6 months and work on building a consensus on the enactment of “Omnibus Violent Crime Sentencing And Gun Control Act.”

The message that must be sent out loud and clear by our elected officials to violent criminals is that New Mexico has a zero tolerance of violent crimes committed with firearms and the only way to do that is with enhanced sentencings. Also, the availability and proliferation of guns must be recognized as a big part of the state’s violent crime problem.

CRIME AND PUNISHMENT MEASURES

The following crime and sentencing provisions should be included in the “Omnibus Gun Control And Violent Crime Sentencing  Act”:

As was originally proposed for the Special Session, strengthen penalties for a felon convicted of possessing a firearm, making the crime a second-degree felony, punishable by a minimum of nine years in prison.

As was originally proposed for the Special Session, enact the changes proposed to the mental health commitment process and include funding for mental health facilities and services to create a statewide mental health court for mandatory  civil mental health commitment hearings.

Allow firearm offenses used in a drug crimes to be charged separately with enhance sentences.

Making possession of a handgun by someone who commits a crime of drug trafficking an aggravated third-degree felony mandating a 10-year minimum sentence.

Increase the firearm enhancement penalties provided for the brandishing a firearm in the commission of a felony from 3 years to 10 years for a first offense and for a second or subsequent felony in which a firearm is brandished 12 years.

Create a new category of enhanced sentencing for use of a lethal weapon or deadly weapon other than a firearm where there is brandishing  of a deadly weapon in the commission of a felony with enhanced sentences of 5 years for a first offense and for second or subsequent felony in which a lethal weapon other than a firearm is brandished 8 years

Increase the penalty of shooting randomly into a crowded area a second-degree felony mandating a 9-year sentence.

Increase the penalty and mandatory sentencing for the conviction of the use of a fire arm during a road rage incident to a first-degree felony mandating a life sentence.

Update the Children’s Code to deal with charges, increasing penalties and prosecutions of minors as adults as consequences of children using firearms in the commission of violent crimes and aggravated assaults with use of deadly weapon.

Change bail bond to statutorily empower judges with far more discretionary authority to hold and jail those pending trial who have prior violent crime reported incidents without shifting the burden of proof from the prosecution to the defense.

GUN CONTROL MEASURES

Gun control measures that should be included the “Omnibus Gun Control And  Violent Crime Sentencing  Act” would include the legislation that failed in the 2023 legislative session.  That would  include  an assault weapons ban lawfully regulating the manufacture, possession and sale of weapons of war, most often the gun used in mass casualty events and  prohibiting guns in parks and playgrounds making  it illegal to carry a firearm in county or municipal parks, playgrounds, and their accompanying parking lots.

Call for the repeal the New Mexico Constitutional provision that allows the “open carry” of firearms. This would require a public vote and no doubt generate heated discussion given New Mexico’s high percentage of gun ownership for hunting, sport or hobby, but what is the real rational for allowing side arms and rifles to be carried down the street other than to intimidate others?

Restrict the sale, manufacture and possession of AR-15-style rifles along with semiautomatic firearms and make it a second-degree felony to purchase, possess, manufacture, import, sell or transfer assault weapons in the state.

Prohibited magazines with more than 10 rounds.

Prohibited the possession of semiautomatic firearm converter that allows the weapon to fire more rapidly.

Expand the  14-day waiting period for the purchase of any firearm and requiring  a prospective seller who doesn’t already hold a valid federal firearms license to arrange for someone who does to conduct a federal background check prior to selling a firearm.

Established a minimum age of 21 for anyone seeking to purchase or possess an automatic firearm, semiautomatic firearm or firearm capable of accepting a large-capacity magazine.

Ban the manufacture, sale, trade, gift, transfer or acquisition of semiautomatic pistols that have two or more defined characteristics.

Revised the state’s Unfair Practices Act to target the sale of illegal firearms and parts, allowing the filing of lawsuits to enforce the act.

Prohibit in New Mexico the sale of “ghost guns” parts. Ghost guns are guns that are manufactured and sold in parts without any serial numbers to be assembled by the purchaser and that can be sold to anyone.

Require in New Mexico the mandatory purchase of “liability insurance” with each gun sold as is required for all operable vehicles bought and driven in New Mexico.

Mandate the school systems and higher education institutions “harden” their facilities with more security doors, security windows, and security measures and alarm systems and security cameras tied directly to law enforcement 911 emergency operations centers.

The Omnibus Gun Control And Violent Crime Sentencing  Act Omnibus Gun Violence And Sentencing  Act  must include funding for the criminal justice system. This would include funding District Attorney’s Offices, the Public Defender’s Office, the Courts and the Corrections Department and law enforcement departments across New Mexico.

CONCLUSION

Until the Governor and the New Mexico legislature get serious about New Mexico’s gun violence crisis and enact reasonable gun control measures in conjunction with crime and punishment measures, we can expect our violent crime rates to continue to increase and the calling Special Sessions a waste of time.

During the 30 day 2024 New Mexico Legislative session that ended February 16, the legislature passed Senate Bill 87 which allows retired law enforcement officers to return to work in law enforcement without affecting their pension. Beginning July 1, 2024,  the Albuquerque Police Department (APD) is encouraging retired law enforcement officers to return to work that retired prior to December 31, 2023 and have been retired for at least 90 consecutive days.

In July 2023, Mayor Keller and Chief Harold Medina announced the longevity pay incentive to help recruit more officers. Return to work officers will begin at $31.89 an hour for their first year back including longevity pay.  After one year of probation is completed, officers will receive title and pay based on years of service for the longevity incentive.

Salary including the longevity incentive is as follows:

• $60,008.00 a year as a cadet
• $62,982.40 a year for first year of service
• $74,692.80 a year for 1 to 4 years of service
• $80,002.00 a year for 5 years of service
• $80,678.00 a year for 6 years of service
• $83,408.00 a year for 7 to 9 years of service
• $85,462.00 year 10 to 12 years of service
• $86,840.00 year 13 to 14 years of service
• $90,708.80 year 15 years of service
• $93,438.80 year 16 to 17 years of service
• $97,520.80 year 18+ years of service

https://www.newsradiokkob.com/2024/05/30/apd-launching-rehire-program-for-retired-officers/

https://www.aol.com/apd-launch-program-aimed-bringing-030100000.html

https://www.koat.com/article/albuquerque-police-rehire-program-retired-officers/60942339

https://www.krqe.com/news/albuquerque-metro/albuquerque-police-launch-program-to-bring-back-retired-officers/

https://www.newsradiokkob.com/2024/05/30/apd-launching-rehire-program-for-retired-officers/

https://www.newsradiokkob.com/2024/05/30/apd-launching-rehire-program-for-retired-officers/

POLICE LONGEVITY PAY

It was on July, 14 2023, the Mayor Tim Keller Administration announced the “longevity pay” for APD sworn police officers as part of a two year negotiated APD Union Contract.  APD sworn qualify for longevity pay in their fifth year of service. Under the police union contract terms, longevity pay starts at $2,730 per year and increases to a whopping  $16,380 annually for those who have served 17 or more years. The longevity pay scale bi-weekly annual amounts are as follows:

Beginning Year 5 through 5, $105 paid bi weekly, $2,730 annually
Beginning Year 6 through 6, $131 paid bi weekly, $3,406 annually
Beginning Year 7 through 9, $236 paid bi weekly, $6,136 annually
Beginning Year 10 through 12, $315 paid bi weekly, $8,190 annually
Beginning Year 13 through 15, $368 paid bi weekly, $9,568 annually
Beginning Year 16 through 17, $473 paid bi weekly, $12,298 annually
Beginning Year 18 and above, $630 paid bi weekly, $16,380 annually

 https://www.cabq.gov/humanresources/documents/apoa-jul-9-2016.pdf/view

RETENTION PAY BONUSES

It was on October 7, 2022 that APD announced retention  pay  bonuses for  police officers who have been on the force 19 years or more,  and who are eligible for retirement.  They are paid as  much as $18,000 more per year, or $1,500 more a month.   In addition, the department pays 100% of the officers’ medical benefits.  In addition to $18,000 more a year in incentive pay to 19 year veterans, police officers with 18 years or more of police service are paid  $16,380 annual longevity pay resulting in a combined  $34,380 of incentive pay and longevity pay in one year

PERFORMANCE BASED BUDGET

The entire City of Albuquerque budget is what is referred to as a performance-based budget. The City’s budget is formulated in two parts: 1. A financial plan and 2. Performance plan.

The Financial Plan is organized by department budgets and funds, and program strategy. Funds are groupings of related accounts that are used to maintain control over resources that have been segregated for specific activities.

The Performance Plan is organized by goals, desired community conditions, and program strategy. A goal is a long-term result that is further defined by desired community conditions that would exist if the goal were achieved.

https://www.cabq.gov/dfa/budget

When it comes to the Albuquerque Police Department (APD), statistics are compiled in areas that reflect performance and outcomes aimed at influencing the larger outcomes and goals that APD is striving to achieve. The performance measures capture APD’s ability to perform the services at the highest level achieved from the previous year and the “target” level for the new fiscal year. Target levels and percentages are merely goals that may or may not be achieved.

The performance measures are absolutely critical in order for the City Council to understand fully the shortcomings and strengths of APD and make critical budget decisions. Without such statics, budget review and decisions are done in the dark and in a real sense become useless, become an exercise in futility and the city council is relegated to rubber stamping whatever budget is presented to them.

APD’S PERFORMANCE BASED BUDGET

The Albuquerque Police Department (APD) continues to be the largest funded department budget and it is about a fifth of the total General Fund Operating Budget. The Fiscal Year 2025 General Fund budget for the Albuquerque Police Department is $271.5 million, which represents an increase of 5.2% or $13.4 million above the Fiscal Year 2024 budget.  1,840 full time positions will be funded which includes funding for 1,010 sworn police positions.

The budget includes full funding for 1,010 sworn police officers which is identical to last year. However, the city has yet to hit its goal of 1,000 sworn police.  APD had 856 sworn officers last year and this year the highest number achieved was a 880 sworn police officers in the department and 50 cadets are currently going through the police academy.

The 2024-2025 approved budget includes the following specific funding:

• Funding for 1,010officers positions across the Albuquerque Police Department, including, with an increase in Police Service Aides and civilian support staff, with a targeted total of 1,100 sworn police
• $22 million for the use of crime-fighting technology through the Real-Time Crime Center and the APD Crime Lab
• $800,000 is allocated for support for the Office of the Superintendent of Police Reform and the Independent Monitoring Team for federal oversight and consent decree related expenses so that APD can reach reform goals.
• Funding for the Automated Speed Enforcement program, including hearing officers.

PERFORMANCE MEASURES

The following performance measures can be gleaned from the 2024-2025 proposed budget as they related to APD sworn personnel. The data reflects how effective APD has been with its budget over the last two years.

NUMBER OF SWORN APD OFFICERS:

Actual Fiscal Year 2022: 894 
Actual Fiscal Year 2023: 877
Mid- Fiscal Year 2024: 856
Target for Fiscal Year 2025: 1,100

NUMBER OF CADET GRADUATES:

Actual Fiscal Year 2022: 95
Actual Fiscal Year 2023:  85
Mid- Fiscal Year 2024: 54
Target for Fiscal Year 2025: 120

NUMBER OF 911 CALLS RECEIVED:

Actual Fiscal Year 2022: 459,720
Actual Fiscal Year 2023:  434,083 (Calls down 25,637)
Mid- Fiscal Year 2024: 215,492
Target for Fiscal Year 2025: 400,000

NUMBER OF 242-COPS CALLS RECEIVED:

Actual Fiscal Year 2022: 527,472
Actual Fiscal Year 2023:  448,100 (Calls down 79,372)
Mid- Fiscal Year 2024:  247,536
Target for Fiscal Year 2025: 550,000

NUMBER OF CALLS FOR SERVICE:

Actual Fiscal Year 2022: 512,394
Actual Fiscal Year 2023:  537,276   (24,882 INCREASE)
Mid- Fiscal Year 2024: 247,536
Target for Fiscal Year 2025: 550,000

EDITOR’S NOTE: Note the dramatic decline in calls to both emergency 911 calls and 242-COPS, but there was an increase in overall “calls for service” which is where sworn police are dispatched.

NUMBER OF VIOLENT CRIMES PER 100,000 RESIDENTS:

Actual Fiscal Year 2022: 2,312
Actual Fiscal Year 2023: 2,646 (334 INCREASE)
Mid- Fiscal Year 2024: 1,120

NUMBER OF PROPERTY CRIMES PER 100,000 RESIDENTS:

Actual Fiscal Year 2022: 7,229
Actual Fiscal Year 2023: 7,624 (395 INCREASE)
Mid- Fiscal Year 2024:  3,127

CLEARANCE RATE OF CRIMES AGAINST PERSONS  (e.g. murder, rape, assaults)

Actual Fiscal Year 2022: 44%
Actual Fiscal Year 2023:  40% (Clearance Rate Down 4%)
Mid- Fiscal Year 2024:  44%

CLEARANCE RATE OF CRIMES AGAINST PROPERTY  (e.g. robbery, bribery, burglary)

Actual Fiscal Year 2022: 9%
Fiscal Year 2023: 8% (Clearance Rate Down 1%)
Mid- Fiscal Year 2024:  8%

% OF STOLEN VEHICLES RECOVERED

Actual Fiscal Year 2022: 47%
Fiscal Year 2023: 67%
Mid- Fiscal Year 2024:  57%

CLEARANCE RATE OF CRIMES AGAINST SOCIETY  (e.g. gambling, prostitution, drug violations)

Actual Fiscal Year 2022: 57%
Actual Fiscal Year 2023: 44%  (Clearance Rate Down 13%)
Mid- Fiscal Year 2024:  55%

% HOMICIDE CLEARANCE RATE

Actual Fiscal Year 2022: 71%
Actual Fiscal Year 2023:  83%  (Up 12%)
Mid- Fiscal Year 2024:  93%

NUMBER OF FELONY ARRESTS

Actual Fiscal Year 2022: 6,122
Actual Fiscal Year 2023:  8,034  (Up 1,912)
Mid- Fiscal Year 2024:  4,633

NUMBER OF MISDEMEANOR ARRESTS

Actual Fiscal Year 2022: 9,799
Actual Fiscal Year 2023:  11,293 (Up 1,494 arrests)
Mid- Fiscal Year 2024:  5,883

NUMBER OF DWI ARRESTS

Actual Fiscal Year 2022: 1,287
Actual Fiscal Year 2023:  1,385   (Up 98 arrests)
Mid- Fiscal Year 2024:  674

PERCENTAGE OF CASES SUBMITTED TO THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY

Actual Fiscal Year 2022: 96%
Actual Fiscal Year 2023:  85% (Down 9%)
Mid- Fiscal Year 2024:  86%

APD’S WORKLOADS INCREASE AND DECREASE OVER 4 YEARS

Despite being severely understaffed, APD’s performance measure reveal that the department’s workload has increased and decreased over the last 4 years.

The number of calls for service increased by 24,882 going from 512,394 in 2022 to 537,276  in 2023 with the projected targeted number at 550,000 for 2025

APD’s felony arrests went up by 1,912 going from 6,122 in 2022 to 8,034 in 2023  with 4,633 felony arrests by midyear 2024.  Notwithstanding felony arrests going up over the last 2 years, APD felony arrest were much higher in 2020 with 10,945 felony arrests and in 2021 with 6,621 felony arrests.

APD’s misdemeanor arrests  also went  up 1,494 going from 9,799 in 2022 to 11,293 in 2023 with 5,883 misdemeanor by midyear 2024. Notwithstanding  misdemeanor arrests going up over the past 2 years, misdemeanor arrests were much higher in 2020 with 19,440 misdemeanor arrests and in 2021 with 16,520 misdemeanor arrests.

The number of DWI arrests has increased by a mere 98 arrests going from 1,287 in 2022 to 1,385 in 2023.  DWI arrests were much higher in 2020 with 1,788 DWI arrests and in 2021 with 1,230 DWI arrests.

The percentage of cases submitted to the District Attorney for prosecutions has gone down by 9% with 96% submitted in 2022 and 85% submitted in 2023. The lack of personnel to complete investigations in full contributes to the decline in case submitted.

CLEARANCE RATES DOWN IN ALL THREE MAJOR CATEGORIES

Clearance rates are where the “rubber hits the road” when it comes to law enforcement. The ultimate goal is to solve a case, apprehend a perpetrator and prosecute.  APD uses the National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS) as required by the FBI and there are 3 major broad categories of crime. The 3 major categories are then broken down into 52 sub-categories.

NIBRS counts virtually all crimes committed during an incident and for that reason alone NIMRS is far more sophisticated than the “most serious incident-based” reporting SRS reporting system which list only 8 major categories of crime.

Over the past 2 years, APD’s clearance rates have gone down in all 3 major categories of crime:

CRIMES AGAINST SOCIETY include gambling, prostitution, and drug violations, and represent society’s prohibition against engaging in certain types of activity and are typically victimless crimes. APD’s clearance rate in Crimes Against Society went down 13%, going from 57% in 2022 to 44% in 2023.

CRIMES AGAINST PERSONS include murder, rape, and assault, and are those in which the victims are always individuals. APD’s clearance rate in Crimes Against Persons went down 4% going from 44% in 2022 to 40% in 2023.

CRIMES AGAINST PROPERTY include robbery, bribery, and burglary, or to obtain money, property, or some other benefit. APD’s clearance rate in Crimes property went down by 1% going from 9% in 2022 to  8% in 2023.  APD Spokesperson Franchesca Perdue said property crime clearance rates are generally low because there are usually no witnesses or offender information after the crime has been committed.

According to the proposed 2024-205 budget, APD’s goal is to more than double the clearance rate for property crimes setting a goal to clear 20% of property crimes. The department had the same goal last year but fell far short. APD Spokesperson Franchesca Perdue said this about APD’s low clearance rates in property crime:

“The most common way to overcome this is the use of surveillance videos, better lighting, and neighbors working together to report suspicious activity. … There is increased lab personnel to assist in processing evidence such as fingerprints and the number of crime scene specialists is the highest it’s been at the department. …  The hope is that more evidence will be gathered and processed, which will lead to more cases being solved and a higher clearance rate.”

The link to the relied upon and quoted news source is here:

https://citydesk.org/2024/more-than-90-of-property-crimes-in-albuquerque-arent-solved/?utm_medium=email&mc_cid=40922ff3e7&mc_eid=001367acf1

RECRUITMENTS UP BUT OFFSET BY DEPARTURES

Note that the approved APD budget of $271.5 million includes proposed funding for 1,100 sworn police officers and 725 civilian employees. APD acknowledges the 1,100 figure for sworn police officers is a goal established by previous administrations.  The last time APD reached the goal of 1,100 police officers was in 2009 under the third term of Mayor Martin Chavez. The Keller Administration now says that the 1,100 figure is an unrealistic goal.  According to the 2024-2025 proposed budget, by mid-fiscal year 2024, APD had 856 sworn officers. The 856 number is fewer than in fiscal year 2023 when there were 877 and in and 2022 when there were 894 officers.

APD Spokesperson Rebecca Atkins said this:

[The 1,100] goal is from the past and is unrealistic. … If the department reaches more than 1,000 officers, there is an administrative plan to request additional resources in order to fund the additional officers.   APD is focused on a [comprehensive approach to public safety] …That includes a multitude of things including civilianizing many areas of the department as well as advancements in technology, which have been a force multiplier for APD.”

City Councilor Dan Champine is a former APD Police Officer. He said  he thinks reaching 1,100 officers  and going  from 875 to 1,100 officers isn’t an unrealistic expectation, but it will  take time to reach that goal.

City Councilor Champine said this:

“You have an academy class that’s six months long and you put 50 people in the class, so you do two of those, that’s 100 people that are going to graduate in a year and put out on the streets. … And during that one year at a time, you lose 60 people because of retirement or moving or life, so now your net gain is 40.”

 APD Spokesperson Rebecca Atkins said in the last year, APD has seen a record number of recruits and some of the largest cadet classes in a decade.  However, 80 officers separated from the department during the last fiscal year with 40 sworn officers resigning, 35 retiring, and 5 terminated.

The city’s targeted number of recruits for next year is 120, although it has not yet broken 100 in previous years. In fiscal year 2023, there were 85 recruits and in 2022 there were 95. By mid-year of fiscal year 2024, APD had 54 recruits.

APD has ramped up its recruiting presence on social media platforms, television and in movie theaters. APD Spokesperson Rebecca Atkins said a plan was put into place in 2022 to ramp up recruiting efforts for the Police Service Aide program because they’re a pipeline to future officers. Police Service Aides are tasked with handling minor traffic crashes, writing reports, managing traffic control and assisting with other administrative duties. Atkins said this:

“There will always be retirements and separations year to year, but, the growing number of cadets in our academy and PSAs who will become future officers continue to add to the department’s growing numbers. … We will continue our recruiting efforts…which have been successful in reaching qualified candidates who want to join the department. Just in the last two years, nearly two dozen PSAs have become police officers at APD. … We also currently have nearly 100 PSAs in the department, which is the highest number in the department’s history.” 

Once PSAs are qualified to become officers which is usually when they turn 21  they can apply to become sworn officers.

https://citydesk.org/2024/mayors-proposed-budget-includes-5-more-funding-for-  police/?utm_medium=email&mc_cid=608fffdc41&mc_eid=001367acf1

ANALYSIS AND COMMENTARY

When it comes to the Albuquerque Police Department and the performance measure contained in the 2024-2025 it is painfully obvious that APD is falling short in getting its job done of public safety and when it comes to recruitment and retention of sworn police officers. The blunt truth is that there has been 15 years of zero progress on increasing sworn personnel numbers.

On December 1, 2009 when Mayor Richard Berry was sworn into office succeeding Mayor Marty Chavez, the Albuquerque Police Department (APD) was the best trained, best equipped, best funded police department in its history. In 2009, APD was fully staffed with 1,100 sworn police officers.  APD response times had been brought down below the national average and violent and property crime rates in Albuquerque were hitting historical lows.

During the 8 years Mayor Richard Berry was in office, the city’s violent crime and property crime rates hit historical highs and APD went into a personnel meltdown going from 1,100 sworn police officers to 853 sworn police, a loss of 247 sworn police. Since taking office on December 1, 2017 Mayor Tim Keller has made Public Safety his number one priority over the last 7 years because of the city’s spiking crime rates.

Notwithstanding all of Mayor Keller’s efforts to recruit and expand APD, the department is still seriously short staffed despite the millions being spent on salary increases, sign on bonuses and being the best paid law enforcement agency in the state and the region.

According to the 2024-2025 proposed budget, by mid-fiscal year 2024, APD had 856 sworn officers which is only 3 more sworn police than the day Keller took office in 2017.  Given the volume of arrests and cases, APD is critically understaffed to complete its mission.

MULTIPLE REASONS FOR THE SWORN PERSONNEL MELT DOWN

It’s no too difficult to pin point the multiple reasons for the sworn personnel melt down over the last 15 years.

First, APD’s poor reputation has made it difficult to attract a new generation of police officers.  The Department of Justice civil rights investigation in 2013 contributed to APD’s poor reputation when it found that APD engaged in a pattern of “excessive use of force” and “deadly force” and found a “culture of aggression” with numerous judgments entered against the city for civil rights violations. The killing of homeless camper James Boyd in the Sandia Foothills by APD in 2014 expedited the city and APD entering into a consent decree that mandated 271 reforms and constitutional policing practices.  2 APD Officers were charged with murder  of Boyd, but the jury was unable to reach a verdict and the city settled the case for $5 Million. The consent decree was suppose to last only 4 years and be dismissed, but it lasted 9 years after APD management and the police union engaged repeatedly in obstruction tactics and failed to come into compliance with the reforms. On May 13, 3024, it was announced APD has come into compliance and it likely the case will be dismissed after 2 more years of being in full compliance.  A more recent scandal that has now rocked APD is the Bribery and Conspiracy Scandal to dismiss DWI cases where 9 police officers have now been implicated as the investigation expands.

Second, respect for law enforcement deteriorated all over the country as departments came under intensive scrutiny for civil rights violations and repeated killings of African Americans and other minorities. That intense scrutiny culminated with the killing of George Floyd and the conviction of 5 Minneapolis Police  Officers and the Black Lives Matter movement in the United States.

Third, violent crime,  property crime, and  the proliferation of drugs because of the drug cartels has  spiked dramatically all over the country  making it difficult to be a police officer. Murders in the United States reach an all time high, especially during the Covid-19 pandemic and law enforcement agency resources were stretched to historical levels.

Fourth, this countries obsession with guns and resistance to any and all gun control has resulted in even more guns being available to the criminal element in the United States endangering law enforcement.

Fifth, simply put, becoming a police officer has become less and less attractive making it difficult to attract a new generation of police officers. The workloads and pressures of being in law enforcement makes it unattractive profession on many levels.

FINAL COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

The biggest danger in hiring and returning retired APD officers is the danger of bringing back officers who created, contributed or did not stop the culture of aggression found by the Department of Justice and that contributed to the $62 million dollars in settlements for police use of excessive force and deadly force.

It may make financial sense for a retired APD cop to return to work, but you cannot rebuild a “new APD” by recruiting the “old APD”. APD needs to attract a new, younger generation of cop and even engage in a national recruiting program. Hiring incentives for young new recruits, such as paying off college debt, paying  relocation costs, providing home mortgage down payment or even  providing  major sign  on bonuses for  as much as $20,000 for a 4 year commitment to join APD should be explored.

On July 18, the city announced that the internal affairs investigation and disciplinary review of APD Chief Harold Medina for the February 17 car crash where he ran a red light critically injuring another has resulted in two “letters of reprimand” issued to Medina by Superintendent of Police Reform Eric Garcia.  Chief Harold Medina was found to have violated APD policy by failing to safely operate his vehicle while on duty and not turning on his lapel camera.  The letters of reprimand will be placed in Medina’s personnel file.  No other disciplinary action will be taken. APD spokesman Gilbert Gallegos said Medina accepted the discipline and signed the letters of reprimand.

APD spokesman Gallegos said in Medina’s 28 years in law enforcement, he was disciplined one other time also with a written reprimand in 2006. He said that was also for a traffic crash but did not give any further details on that incident. It turns out the 2006 reprimand was also issued by then Lieutenant Eric Garcia who was Medina’s supervisor at the time.

APD Chief Medina released a statement and said this:

“Obviously, I never intended to cause a crash. … I am grateful that Mr. Perchert is recovering from his injuries. All of our officers are held to the same standards and policies, I am no different.”

REFERRAL MADE TO NM DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

For the first time it was revealed that the Medina car crash was referred to New Mexico Department of Justice and the Attorney General’s Office to review the Medina car crash “for potential prosecution” and determine if criminal charges should be brought.  APD announced that the New Mexico Department of Justice decided not to charge Medina with careless driving after reviewing the crash. Deputy Attorney General Greer Staley released a statement and said this:

“Based on our review of all available evidence, we conclude that, although Chief Medina’s actions might satisfy the elements of careless driving, a prosecution would not be warranted because of substantial evidence showing that Chief Medina’s actions were the result of duress. … We decline prosecution and consider this matter closed.”

VICTIM OF CAR CRASH REACTS

Todd Perchert, the victim of the car crash Medina caused, is suing the city and Chief Medina to recover personal injury  damages from the February 17 car crash. Perchert has said the crash left him seriously injured, with titanium plates across his rib cage, deformed bones in his upper arm and stitches in his ear. Perchert says his life has changed and that he is in constant physical pain from the injuries sustained. Perchert said his classic gold Mustang was totaled by the insurance company, and he isn’t sure if he will try to fix it.

Perchert’s attorney, James Tawney, said they are seeking compensatory damages for Perchert’s injuries and the “damage he is going to have for the rest of his life.”  Personal injury attorney Tawney said this in a statement:

“The findings [of the Internal Affairs investigation and the reprimands confirm Medina’s] complete disregard for the rules designed to ensure the safety and well-being of all citizens.  Such breaches of protocol are unacceptable, especially from an individual in a position of authority and trust.  [This is the] first step toward achieving justice and ensuring accountability. … A written reprimand pales in comparison to the lifelong physical, psychological and emotional trauma he caused our client.  We will continue to pursue all legal avenues to secure the justice our client deserves.”

https://www.abqjournal.com/news/albuquerque-police-chief-reprimanded-for-crash-that-injured-man/article_48c6c9de-455d-11ef-a7de-77dd5b86acc9.html#tncms-source=home-featured-7-block

https://www.koat.com/article/albuquerque-police-chief-crash-disciplined/61640705

REVISITING FEBRUARY 17 CAR CRASH

Given the extreme weakness of the discipline imposed on APD Chief Harold Medina over the February 17 car crash, the facts and circumstances of what happened that day merit review.

On February 17 APD Chief Harold Medina and his wife were in a city unmarked APD truck on their way to a press conference with Mayor Tim Keller. Medina decided to stop and call APD to clear a homeless encampment. Medina witnessed two people fighting, a gun was pulled and pointed at Medina and a shot was fired.

In response Medina fled from the scene and drove through a red light and he T-boned a 1966 Ford Mustang driven by Todd Perchert who sustained a broken collarbone, shoulder blade, eight broken ribs, and a collapsed lung and was taken to the hospital in critical condition where he underwent 7 hours of surgery for his injuries. Chief Medina admitted he ran a red light. Medina and his wife were unharmed.

MAYOR KELLER AND CHIEF MEDINA PROCLAIM MEDINA WAS VICTIM

On February 17 during a news conference after the crash, Mayor Tim Keller reacted to the car crash by heaping highly questionable claims and praises on Chief Medina by saying this in part:

 [Chief Medina is] arguably the most important person right now in these times in our city. … [The shooting incident is an example of] why we are never quitting when it comes to trying to make our city safer. … But it’s hard. It is extremely hard. It affects everyone, including our chief of police on a Saturday morning. … This is actually him on a Saturday morning, disrupting an altercation, a shooting, trying to do what’s right, trying to make sure that folks are okay after on scene. This is above and beyond what you expect from a chief, and I’m grateful for Harold Medina.

Keller made no mention of the injured victim of the car crash.   A full week after the crash, Mayor Keller was interviewed and said the driver of the Mustang “happened to be at the wrong place at the wrong time … and it was also a beautiful gold Mustang.” Again, Keller makes mention of the serious injuries inflicted on Todd Perchert  the driver of the clsassic mustang. 

CHIEF’S CORNER ADMISSIONS  

On Tuesday, February 20, Chief Medina did a “Chief’s Corner” video briefing which was sent to all APD personnel.  He announced that it was a “special edition” of his Chief’s corner to discuss the February 17 car crash with APD personnel. Medina said this this in part:

“I was the victim of this traffic accident, and it’s a direct impact of what gun violence is doing to our community. And we need to continue to work at it. I did call out I did submit to a drug test, as any officer would.”

 Medina said on the video he thought the oncoming Mustang would pass through intersection before he got there.  Medina said in his video statement “I looked to my left, and the intersection was cleared. … And I thought that the car was going to pass before I got there, and it did not, and unfortunately, I struck a vehicle.”

Medina admitted he was the one responsible for the crash. He  admitted he ran a red light and that he did not have the right away. Medina also admitted as before he did not have his body camera on at the time of the accident.

Chief Medina admitted that his wife has not been certified for police ride along with him. Medina said the SOP on police ride along has been relaxed by Mayor Keller where ride along forms to allow relatives to ride along with patrol officers and for personal use are no longer required.  In the video Medina says this:

“…we are not going to change processes or policies related to take home cars…the mayor fought hard in 2018 to make sure that we could have a life work balance…I’m going to make sure that uh you don’t have to fill out ride-along forms…”

The written APD standard operating procedures do not reflect any changes that unauthorized Patrol Ride-Along are allowed for family members.

APD RELEASES VIDEO OF CHIEF MEDINA’S CRASH REVEALING MAJOR DISCREPENCIES IN MEDINAS VERSION OF EVENTS

On February 21, APD released a surveillance video that shows Chief Harold Medina running a red light and crashing into the Ford Mustang seriously injuring the driver of the Mustang.  The surveillance video reveals two major falsehoods in Chief Medina’s version of events that he gave in his “Chief’s Corner” video statement:

1. That the intersection was clear when Medina ran the red light.
2. That Medina talked to the victim of the shooting.

The surveillance video starts with the usual Saturday morning traffic on East Central. One man walks into the frame heading east while another man crosses Central, heading west. Within seconds they meet on the corner of Central and Alvarado and then you see the two men start fighting.  The two men can be seen fighting outside the Tewa Lodge motel, swinging their arms as the scuffle moves down the sidewalk. At the same time, Medina’s APD-issued unmarked truck can be seen inching out into Central and into oncoming traffic.

Medina’s truck drives into oncoming westbound traffic without his emergency equipment lights on nor ostensibly the siren, between two vehicles, one of which appears to stop to avoid a crash. Medina’s truck then accelerates to a high rate of speed and quickly across three lanes of Central and crashes into the classic Mustang headed east. One man who was involved with the fight appeared to watch the crash unfold before running down the sidewalk. Another man rushes to Medina’s truck, appears to look into the truck and immediately rushes off.

Medina said in his Chief’s Corner video statement “I looked to my left, and the intersection was cleared. … And I thought that the car was going to pass before I got there, and it did not, and unfortunately, I struck a vehicle.”  Even though Medina said in his Chief’s Corner video that the traffic was clear on the North Lane on Central traveling West, the video shows it was not clear at all and there was oncoming traffic and he did not have his emergency equipment engaged.

The surveillance video shows Medina cutting in front of another car before accelerating at a fast rate of speed through the intersection. The video shows oncoming traffic with Medina first slowly inching between two vehicles traveling West on the North side lanes of Central and Medina then accelerating to cross to the South traveling lanes of Central at a high rate of speed and crashing into the Mustang that was traveling East on the South lanes of Central.

APD Chief Harold Medina could have totally avoided the entire crash by simply turning right to go West on Central as opposed to flooring his vehicle to go forward going South and attempting to turn left to go East. This would also have the immediate effect of driving the vehicle out of the line of fire with a motel building providing an extent of obstruction.

The crash resulted in both vehicles doing a half circle turn in a counterclockwise direction. Medina’s truck came to rest against the southeast corner of the intersection with front end and rear end damage including a collapsed rear wheel reflecting an apparent broken axle. The Mustang was struck on the driver’s side with the door ripped opened and it also struck the south curb just east of the intersection and skid east before coming to rest, facing west, in the eastbound lane.

REFERRAL MADE TO INTERNAL AFFAIRS

After the car crash, Medina supposedly passed a breath and drug test, but the results have  never been disclosed when and where and if it was done within the time frame required by APD standard operating procedures after the accident.  Medina referred the car crash to APD Internal Affairs and the Superintendent of Police Reform Eric Garcia for investigation due to his admission of not having his lapel camera on, an APD policy violation as well as a state law violation.

On April 3 Superintendent Garcia gave an update to the Albuquerque City Council on the Internal Affairs investigation of Chief Medina.  He said the APD Fatal Crash unit conducted an investigation, prepared a final report and forwarded it to the Crash Review Board.  The report concluded that while Chief Medina “did enter an intersection failing to obey the traffic control devise (sic) without activating his emergency lights and sirens … resulting in a vehicle crash causing injury”  the car crash was “non preventable”.  The APD Crash Review Board voted unanimously to deem Medina’s crash “non-preventable.”  APD said that Chief Medina would not be charged with any offense.

Notwithstanding APD’s decision not charge APD Chief for the car crash he caused, Superintendent of Police Reform Eric Garcia continued with his Internal Affairs investigation to determine what disciplinary action, if any, would be imposed on Chief Medina.

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

The APD Crash Review Board voting  unanimously to deem Chief Medina’s crash as “non-preventable” was  an absolute farce. They ignored that Chief Medina’s car crash put another driver in the hospital in critical condition. It was ruled “unavoidable” by APD officers who are under Medina’s command.

It’s a no brainer that an independent, outside investigation should have been ordered immediately by Mayor Tim Keller and that Medina should have been placed on administrative leave pending that investigation. Instead, we have a sham of an investigation by police officers who work for Medina.

Simply put, the crash was preventable and could have been avoided by simply stopping at Central, or turning right to go West on Central.  Instead, Medina ran through a red light in a panic and floored the gas pedal of his vehicle and went forward.  The APD Crash Review Board voting unanimously to deem Medina’s crash “non-preventable” and the issuance of letters of reprimand by Superintendent of Police Reform Eric Garcia are nothing more than a cover up calling it a preventable accident that gives Chief Medina a defense and APD an excuse not to charge Medina with reckless driving. The finding will allow the City to argue the other driver was contributorily negligent as to crash responsibility.

NEW MEXICO STATUTORY LAW

There are two New Mexico Statutes that can be said that Chief Medina violated:

1. The Reckless Driving statute
2. The statute requiring the use of body cameras by police.

RECKLESS DRIVING VERSUS CARELESS DRIVING

The New Mexico Department of Justice decided not to charge Medina with careless driving after reviewing the crash proclaiming a prosecution would not be warranted because of substantial evidence showing that Chief Medina’s actions were the result of duress. … We decline prosecution and consider this matter closed.”  The car crash was not the result of “careless driving” but was the result of  “reckless driving” which is a far more serious offense than “careless driving.”

It is Section 66-8-114 of the New Mexico Statutes that defines Careless Driving as follows:

1. Any person operating a vehicle on the highway shall give his full time and entire attention to the operation of the vehicle.
2. Any person who operates a vehicle in a careless, inattentive or imprudent manner, without due regard for the width, grade, curves, corners, traffic, weather and road conditions and all other attendant circumstances is guilty of a misdemeanor.

https://law.justia.com/codes/new-mexico/chapter-66/article-8/part-2/section-66-8-114/#:~:text=Any%20person%20who%20operates%20a,is%20guilty%20of%20a%20misdemeanor.

It is Section 66-8-113 that defines and prohibits Reckless Driving and it states as follows:

1. Any person who drives any vehicle carelessly and heedlessly in willful or wanton disregard of the rights or safety of others and without due caution and circumspection and at a speed or in a manner so as to endanger or be likely to endanger any person or property is guilty of reckless driving.
2. Every person convicted of reckless driving shall be punished, notwithstanding the provisions of Section 31-18-13 NMSA 1978, upon a first conviction by imprisonment for not less than five days nor more than ninety days, or by a fine of not less than twenty-five dollars ($25.00) nor more than one hundred dollars ($100), or both and on a second or subsequent conviction by imprisonment for not less than ten days nor more than six months, or by a fine of not less than fifty dollars ($50.00) nor more than one thousand dollars ($1,000), or both.
3. Upon conviction of violation of this section, the director may suspend the license or permit to drive and any nonresident operating privilege for not to exceed ninety days.

 https://law.justia.com/codes/new-mexico/2018/chapter-66/article-8/section-66-8-113/

Surveillance video shows Medina cutting in front of another car before accelerating at a high rate of speed through the intersection. Medina’s actions and the car crash fit the very definition of reckless driving by a person who “drives any vehicle carelessly and heedlessly in willful or wanton disregard of the rights or safety of others and without due caution and circumspection and at a speed or in a manner so as to endanger … any person or property.”  Medina could have totally prevented the accident by turning right on Central but instead drove into oncoming traffic driving between 2 other vehicles and the accelerating over 3 lanes of traffic and plowing into Todd Perchert.

APD policy for responding to calls says when officers are responding to a call they must “exercise due regard for the safety of all persons and property.” It adds that they have right of way while responding to a call, but it does not relieve them from the duty to drive with due regard for the safety of all others.

MEDINA VIOLATED BODY CAMERA MANDATE

Chief Medina admitted that he did not have his body camera on during the February 17 incident and car crash and he has now been given a written reprimand for it.

It was in 2020 that the New Mexico legislature enacted New Mexico Statute § 29-1-18 which mandates the use of body cameras by law enforcement.  The statute reads as follows:

1. A law enforcement agency shall require peace officers the agency employs and who routinely interact with the public to wear a body-worn camera while on duty, except as provided in Subsection B of this section.

Each law enforcement agency subject to the provisions of this section shall adopt policies and procedures governing the use of body-worn cameras, including:

(1) requiring activation of a body-worn camera whenever a peace officer is responding to a call for service or at the initiation of any other law enforcement or investigative encounter between a peace officer and a member of the public;

(2) prohibiting deactivation of a body-worn camera until the conclusion of a law enforcement or investigative encounter;

(3) requiring that any video recorded by a body-worn camera shall be retained by the law enforcement agency for not less than one hundred twenty days; and

(4) establishing disciplinary rules for peace officers who:

(a) fail to operate a body-worn camera in accordance with law enforcement agency policies;

(b) intentionally manipulate a body-worn camera recording; or

(c) prematurely erase a body-worn camera recording in violation of law enforcement agency policies.

B.The provisions of Subsection A of this section shall not apply when a peace officer:

(1) conducts an undercover operation sanctioned by a law enforcement agency; or

(2) conducts an explosive recovery and disposal operation to render safe or disassemble an explosive or incendiary device and materials.

2.  Peace officers who fail to comply with the policies and procedures required to be adopted pursuant to Subsection 1 of this section may be presumed to have acted in bad faith and may be deemed liable for the independent tort of negligent spoliation of evidence or the independent tort of intentional spoliation of evidence.

Chief Medina failed to comply with the statute by not having his body camera activated to record the encounter he had.  There are serious consequences for Chief Medina’s failure to abide by the statute. Under the statute, per Section 29-1-18(C), he “may be presumed to have acted in bad faith and may be deemed liable for the independent tort of negligent spoliation of evidence or the independent tort of intentional spoliation of evidence.”

Now that the victim of the February  17 Todd Perchert is suing the city, you can expect that a count for “bad faith” by Medina  will be included in the civil complaint filed  that will compound and inflate damages and perhaps allow for punitive damages that Medina will expect the city to pay. 

STANADARD OPERATING PROCEDURES VIOLATED BY MEDINA

Based on all the news accounts and the comments, statements and the admissions against interest and admissions of liability made by Chief Harold Medina, it is clear Medina violated more than two of  APD’s Standard Operating Procedures, with Superintendent of Police Reform Eric Garcia ignoring all but two of those Standard Operating Procedures with his letters of reprimand.

Medina has admitted he did not have his police radio on in his truck which is a standard operating procedure violation.  Medina also admitted he did not turn his body camera on in a timely manner which is a violation APD Standard Operating procedures. At no point did Medina have any emergency equipment on during or after the event which is another violation.

Medina violated the following APD Standard Operating Procedures:

1. Chief Medina did not activate his “on body recording device” (OBRD) in a timely manner(Standard  Operating Procedure Section 2-8-4, “Use of On Body Recording Devices” and  2-8-5 “Mandatory Recordings”)
2. Chief Medina involved his wife in a patrol and enforcement action when he decided to stop and investigate the homeless encampment and it escalated involving a felony resulting in her being placed in harm’s way. Chief Medina’s wife is  not certified for APD ride along. (Standard Operating Procedure 1-6-4 Unauthorized Patrol Ride Along)
3. Chief Medina  did not take his wife to a safe and convenient location before he attempted to take action and investigate. (Standard Operating Procedure 2-5, 2-5-4)
4. Chief Medina did not have his vehicles emergency warning equipment engaged when he made the initiate stop to investigate nor when he took off to flee from the scene. (Standard Operating procedure 2-6, 2-6-4)
5. Chief Medina did not drive his vehicle with due regard for the safety of others and drove with reckless disregard for the safety of others by running a red light and driving his vehicle without the vehicle’s emergency equipment on and when he ran the red light. (Standard Operating Procedure 2-6, 2-6-4)
6. Chief Medina did not follow Standard Operating Procedures dealing with the investigation of “Crashes Involving Department Issued Vehicles. (Standard Operating Procedure 2-47 deals with “Crashes Involving Department Issued Vehicles”)
7. Upon information and belief, Chief Medina has not prepared a Uniform Incident Report as required by Standard Operating Procedure. (Standard Operating Procedure 2-7, 2-7-4)

CHIEF NOT EXEMPT FROM STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES

No sworn law enforcement officer, including APD Chief Harold Medina, is above enforcement of police standard operating procedures. A chief must follow standard operating procedures and be held accountable for any violations just like he holds all those officers of lesser rank he manages and even disciplines.

If this was a patrol officer making these same mistakes and violating Standard Operating Procedures, Chief Medina would most likely give them hours of suspension without pay or even flat out terminate them.  That is exactly what happened when a few years ago an APD officer ran a red light traveling at a high rate of speed and crashed into another vehicle seriously injuring himself and critically injuring a mother and her two children.   The case resulted in a multimillion-dollar judgement against city.

https://www.krqe.com/news/police-officer-mother-and-two-children-injured-in-crash-at-eubank-indian-school/

SLAP ON THE WRIST

It is downright obscene and an insult to the general public’s intelligence that APD Chief Harold Medina was given nothing but a mere “slap on the wrist” for almost killing someone and causing permanent and lifelong injuries to that person.  The issuance of 2 letters of reprimand to Chief Median by the Superintendent of Police Reform Eric Garcia is a disgrace and so very wrong and means Chief Harold Medina will not be held accountable nor disciplined in any meaningful way for serious violations of APD standard operating procedures and state law.

Given the seriousness of the infractions, Mayor Tim Keller should set aside the 2 letters of reprimand and terminate Chief Medina for cause or at least suspend Chief Medina and place him on administrative leave without pay for a period of time.  Mayor Keller should also refer for investigation the car crash to the Bernalillo County District Attorney office where it belongs for possible charges of Reckless Driving.

The link to a related Dinelli blog articles are here:

https://www.petedinelli.com/2024/02/19/apd-chief-medina-and-wife-in-car-crash-while-fleeing-gunfire-in-city-vehicle-driver-of-other-car-sent-to-hospital-in-critical-condition-chief-medina-likely-violated-numerous-standard-operating-proce/

https://www.petedinelli.com/2024/02/22/released-video-of-chief-medinas-car-crash-contradicts-medinas-version-of-events-medina-and-keller-claim-medina-victim-apd-launches-internal-affairs-investigation-and-motor-unit-inv/

Injuries Inflicted To Mustang Driver By APD Chief Medina In February 17 Car Crash Revealed; Medina Admits Liability; Reckless Driving Law, Body Camera Law and SOP’s Violated By Medina; Chief Medina Should Be Charged With Reckless Driving And Terminated For Cause For Violating APD Standard Operating Procedures

President Joe Biden announced Sunday,  July 21, that he will end his presidential re-election campaign, bringing an abrupt and humbling conclusion to his half-century-long political career and scrambling the race for the White House just four months before Election Day.

Biden, 81, could not reverse growing sentiment within his party that he was too frail to serve and destined to lose to Donald Trump in November. He backed Vice President Kamala Harris in no uncertain terms to replace him as the Democratic nominee.

President Biden has been diagnosed with COVID and is self isolating and recovering at his home in Delaware.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/president-joe-biden-drops-2024-presidential-race-rcna159867

Following is President Joe Biden’s letter:

July 21, 2024

“My Fellow Americans,

Over the past three and a half years, we have made great progress as a Nation.

Today, America has the strongest economy in the world. We’ve made historic investments in rebuilding our Nation, ion lowering prescription drug costs for seniors, and in expanding affordable health care to a record number of Americans. We’ve provided critically needed care to a million veterans exposed to toxic substances. Passed the first gun safety law in 30 years. Appointed the first African American woman to the Supreme Court. And passed the most significant climate legislation in the history of the world. America has never been better positioned to lead than we are today.

I know none of this could have been done without you, the American people. Together, we overcame a once in a century pandemic and the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. We’ve protected and preserved our Democracy. And we’ve revitalized and strengthened our alliances around the world.

It has been the greatest honor of my life to serve as your President. And while it has been my intention to seek reelection, I believe it is in the best interest of my party and the country for me to stand down and to focus solely on fulfilling my duties as President for the remainder of my term.

I will speak to the Nation later this week in more detail about my decision.

For now, let me express my deepest gratitude to all those who have worked so hard to see me reelected. I want to thank Vice President Kamala Harris for being an extraordinary partner in all this work. And let me express my heartfelt appreciation to the American people for the faith and trust you have placed in me.

I believe today what I always have: that there is nothing America can’t do — when we do it together. We just have to remember we are the United States of America.”

— Joseph R. Biden, Jr.

https://www.indystar.com/story/news/politics/2024/07/21/read-joe-bidens-letter-announcing-his-decision-to-drop-out-2024-election-president/74490492007/

In addition to the letter, President Biden also tweeted as follows:

“My fellow Democrats, I have decided not to accept the nomination and to focus all my energies on my duties as President for the remainder of my term. My very first decision as the party nominee in 2020 was to pick Kamala Harris as my Vice President. And it’s been the best decision I’ve made. Today I want to offer my full support and endorsement for Kamala to be the nominee of our party this year. Democrats — it’s time to come together and beat Trump. Let’s do this.”

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

President Joe Bidens decision to withdraw from the race is about as big a bomb shell as it gets and happened a mere 21 days since his disastrous debate performance, one month before the Democratic Party Nominating Convention and a little more than 4 months before the election. Now all eyes are on Kamala Harris and if she can in fact mount a successful campaign to secure the nomination, who she will select as her Vice President nominee and if former President Donald Trump can keep up his momentum.

The New York Times reported the news in part as follows:

“The president’s decision upended the race and set the stage for a raucous and unpredictable campaign unlike any in modern times, leaving Ms. Harris just over 100 days to consolidate support from Democrats, establish herself as a credible national leader and prosecute the case against Mr. Trump.

Although Democratic convention delegates must ratify the choice of Ms. Harris to take over as standard-bearer next month, Mr. Biden’s endorsement meant the nomination was hers to lose and she appeared in a powerful position to claim it. While Mr. Biden, 81, remained president and still planned to finish out his term in January, the transition of the campaign to Ms. Harris, 59, amounted to a momentous generational change of leadership of the Democratic Party.

The president’s decision meant that a nomination will be settled at a convention rather than through primaries. Ms. Harris starts the truncated process in the strongest position. Within minutes of Mr. Biden’s announcement, one potential rival, Gov. Gretchen Whitmer of Michigan, announced she would not run. Another, Gov. Gavin Newsom of California, had previously said he would not challenge Ms. Harris.”

The link to the full unedited New York Times report is here:

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/21/us/politics/biden-drops-out.html