On October 3, U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, who is presiding over the case brought by Special Counsel Jack Smith against former President Donald Trump for his efforts trying to overturn the 2020 election results, unsealed a 165-page “GOVERNMENT’S MOTION FOR IMMUNITY DETERMINATIONS” outlining  new evidence against Trump.  Special counsel Jack Smith provides the most detailed description of evidence against Trump outlining his efforts  to interfere with the 2020 presidential election and that his actions were done in his private capacity and not in his official role as president.

A link to review the entire 165-page court filing is here:

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/25182568-usa-v-trump-unsealed-govt-immunity-motion-1022024

The filing comes after the United States Supreme Court ruled that presidents enjoy broad immunity for “official acts” while in office, but not for “unofficial acts” as a candidate or a private citizen. Smith’s court filing  claims Trump actions were done  as a political candidate and not as a president and that therefore he is not entitled to immunity from prosecution for the conduct.

The court filing includes new details of Trump’s frayed relationship with former Vice President Mike Pence, FBI evidence of Trump’s phone usage on January 6, 2021, when rioters overtook the US Capitol,  and conversations with family members and others where the then-president Trump  was fighting his loss to President Joe Biden.

The court filing delineates what witnesses told a federal grand jury and the FBI about Trump, along with other never-before-disclosed evidence investigators gathered about the former president’s actions leading up to and on January 6.  New detail is given about special counsel Jack Smith’s investigation into the former president’s efforts to lean on state officials and paint a narrative of widespread fraud that prosecutors say Trump knew was untrue.

Special Counsel Smith wrote in part:

“When the defendant lost the 2020 presidential election, he resorted to crimes to try to stay in office.  … At its core, the defendant’s scheme was a private one. … He extensively used private actors and his campaign infrastructure to attempt to overturn the election results and operated in a private capacity as a candidate for office.”

The court filing is broken into four main sections:

The first section lays out the case prosecutors said they would attempt to prove at trial, including a summary of evidence.

The second section gives Judge Chutkan a roadmap for how to assess which actions are official, and potentially covered by immunity, and which are not.

The third section identifies how the principles should apply in Trump’s case.

The fourth section is a brief conclusion that asks Judge Chutkan to rule that the actions described are not protected by immunity and that Trump “is subject to trial on the superseding indictment.”

The court filing adds new details of what happened on January 6, 2021, including sensitive testimony from witnesses and notes taken by former Vice President Mike Pence.

In one section, the filing details what Trump was doing on January 6, 2021, as a violent mob of his supporters stormed the U.S. Capitol. It alleges that Trump settled into the dining room off the Oval Office around 1:30 p.m. and spent the afternoon reviewing TWITTER feed on his phone while Fox News played in the background.

At one point, a staffer rushed into the dining room to tell Trump that Pence had been rushed to a secure location because of the rioters. The staffer hoped that Trump would do something to ensure Pence’s safety. Instead, Trump looked at him and said only, “So what?”

The court filing provides a closer look at Trump’s interactions with his former political aide, podcaster Steve Bannon, including a phone call the two men had the day before the Capitol riot. Just a couple of hours later, Bannon told his podcast audience that “all hell” would break loose the following day.

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

https://www.npr.org/2024/10/02/nx-s1-5137303/trump-election-interference-jack-smith-immunity-jan-6

CNN REPORT HIGHLIGHTS NEW EVIDENCE

On October 2, the national news agency CNN published a succinct article summarizing the contents of the 165 page “Government’s Motion For Immunity Determinations”.  The  article is  entitled  “Special counsel Jack Smith provides fullest picture yet of his 2020 election case against Trump in new filing” written by staff reporters  Katelyn Polantz, Tierney Sneed, John Fritze, Hannah Rabinowitz, Devan Cole, Holmes Lybrand,  Marshall Cohen, Kate Sullivan.  The article has been edited herein for brevity to be posted on www.PeteDinelli.com.  Following  is the summary of the major points contained in the 165-page court filing:

FBI KNOWS HOW TRUMP USED HIS PHONE ON JANUARY 6

“FBI experts have mapped out what Trump was doing on his phone while the US Capitol riot unfolded.

An FBI Computer Analysis Response Team forensic examiner can testify about “the news and social media applications” on Trump’s phone, Smith wrote in the filing, “and can describe the activity occurring on the phone throughout the afternoon of January 6.”

Those logs show that Trump “was using his phone, and in particular, was using the Twitter application, consistently throughout the day after he returned from the Ellipse speech.”

Smith said that three unidentified witnesses are also prepared to testify that on the afternoon of January 6, the television in the White House dining room where Trump spent much of the day was “on and tuned into news programs that were covering in real time the ongoing events in the Capitol.”

That testimony would allow prosecutors to show a future jury what Trump saw unfolding on TV while he made comments and posted online that afternoon.”

 PROSECUTORS FRAME TRUMP CONVERSATIONS WITH PENCE AS BETWEEN ‘RUNNING MATES’

“Even as they face a high bar for introducing evidence from Pence, Smith’s team [seeks] to do so by framing a series of interactions between the two as conversations between “running mates,” where Pence tried to convince Trump he needed to accept his electoral defeat.

They include a November 7, 2020, conversation where Pence allegedly told Trump that he should focus on how he revived the Republican Party, as well as Pence’s recollection of a Trump meeting with campaign staff, during which Trump was told the prospects of his election challenges looked bleak.

At a November 12 lunch, Pence told Trump that he didn’t have to concede but he could “recognize process is over,” prosecutors said, and during a November 23 phone call, Trump allegedly told Pence that one of his private attorneys were skeptical about the election challenges.

As part of those private conversations, prosecutors say, Pence “tried to encourage” Trump “as a friend” after news networks called the election for Biden. In other interactions, Pence encouraged Trump to consider running for reelection in 2024. Those interactions, prosecutors argued, were not at all related to Trump’s official duties as president. The Motion states:

“The content of the conversations at issue – the defendant and Pence’s joint electoral fate and how to accept the election results – have no bearing on any function of the Executive Branch.”

TRUMP PERSONALLY TWEETED PENCE ‘DIDN’T HAVE THE COURAGE’ TO OVERTURN ELECTION

 “Trump personally posted the tweet that Pence “didn’t have the courage” to overturn the election results, prosecutors say.  The revelation comes as part of Smith’s argument as to why the tweet, posted after the riot began, should be considered a private act and therefore not protected under presidential immunity.

The post targeting Pence was “a matter of intense personal concern to the defendant as a candidate for office,” Smith writes. At the time he posted the tweet, prosecutors say Trump “knew his request for Pence to block the Electoral College votes was illegal; knew that his supporters gathered in Washington, DC, believed his lies during his speech at the Ellipse that the election had been stolen; and knew that those supporters had now breached the Capitol building.”

Smith wrote “It was at that point — alone, watching news in real time, and with knowledge that rioters had breached the Capitol building — that the defendant issued the 2:24 p.m. Tweet attacking Pence for refusing the defendant’s entreaties to join the conspiracy and help overturn the results of the election.”

The tweet communicated “to his angry supporters that Pence had let him — and them — down,” Smith wrote, adding that it was “not a message sent to address a matter of public concern and ease unrest; it was the message of an angry candidate upon the realization that he would lose power.”

One minute after the tweet was posted, Smith wrote, the Secret Service was forced to evacuate Pence to a secure location in the Capitol.”

TRUMP TOLD FAMILY: ‘IT DOESN’T MATTER IF YOU WON OR LOST THE ELECTION’

 “Prosecutors allege they have a witness who will testify that Trump told family members, “It doesn’t matter if you won or lost the election. You still have to fight like hell.”

The witness, Smith’s team said in the filing, will testify that he was aboard Marine One when then-President Trump made the statement to his wife, Melania Trump, his daughter Ivanka Trump, and his son-in-law Jared Kushner.

Prosecutors did not name the official in the filing, but they said he was the director of Oval Office operations. Prosecutors wrote “He witnessed an unprompted comment that the defendant made to his family members in which the defendant suggested that he would fight to remain in power regardless of whether he had won the election.”

At the time, Ivanka Trump and Kushner were White House employees, serving as advisers to the president, and Melania Trump was first lady.  Prosecutors claim that the conversation aboard Marine One was “plainly private” and had nothing to do with the Trump family’s official government responsibilities. Prosecutors wrote “The defendant made the comment to his family members, who campaigned on his behalf and served as private advisors (in addition to any official role they may have played).”

TRUMP TOLD ADVISERS HE WOULD DECLARE VICTORY

 Prosecutors say that Trump was told by advisers that the 2020 vote likely would not be finalized on Election Day and that he could misleadingly look ahead in the ballot count on election night only to fall behind once all of the ballots were counted. Nonetheless, Trump told his advisers that he would claim victory before the ballots were fully counted, prosecutors say.

One private political adviser, three days before Election Day 2020, described Trump’s plan as: “He’s going to declare victory. That doesn’t mean he’s the winner, he’s just going to say he’s the winner.”  That adviser, not identified by name by prosecutors, also described the Democratic lean of the mail ballot vote as “a natural disadvantage” and said, “Trump’s going to take advantage of it. That’s our strategy.”

TRUMP SOUGHT TO ‘PERPETUATE HIMSELF IN POWER’

“Smith’s office stressed the private and political nature of Trump’s actions around the 2020 election. Prosecutors wrote:

“The executive branch has no authority or function to choose the next president.”

That argument appeared designed for federal appeals courts, including the Supreme Court, that have placed a heavy emphasis in recent years on the historical understanding of the separation of powers. In other words, Smith argues  that Trump’s effort to overturn the election was necessarily private because the Constitution gives a president no official authority for choosing his successor. The motion reads:

“The defendant’s charged conduct directly contravenes these foundational principles. … He sought to encroach on powers specifically assigned by the Constitution to other branches, to advance his own self-interest and perpetuate himself in power, contrary to the will of the people.”

WHITE HOUSE STAFFER DETAILS PLANNING MEETINGS

 “Prosecutors focus in particular in the filing on what Trump learned from a White House staffer referred to in the filings as “P9,” as they try to show that Trump was well aware he had lost the election as he pressed on with the reversal schemes.

The person, identified only as “P9,” appears to have personally had discussions over the phone about the fake electors strategy with Trump, and had repeated text conversations with other people in the campaign about how the strategy was “crazy” or “illegal,” according to the filing.

When Trump told the staffer he would not pay the private lawyer spearheading his legal challenges unless the challenges were successful, the staffer told Trump that the private attorney would never be paid. That prompted a laugh and a “we’ll see” from Trump, the filings said. The private attorney is identified by prosecutors as co-conspirator 1, who CNN has previously identified as Rudy Giuliani. Ted Goodman, a spokesman for Giuliani, told CNN Wednesday night that the brief was “blatant election interference by Jack Smith, a person with a long track record of weaponizing the law for political gain.”

In a follow up conversation, the White House official told Trump that Giuliani would not be able to prove his false claims in a court and Trump told the staffer “The details don’t matter.”

The brief lays out several other interactions between the White House staffer and Trump in which Trump was told that the election fraud claims wouldn’t hold up in court.”

PROSECUTORS SAY THEY WOULD CALL ELECTION OFFICIALS IN BATTLEGROUND STATES AT TRUMP TRIAL

 “In the filing released, prosecutors identify witnesses they hope to call at a trial to testify against Trump – including election officials in battleground states and his White House deputy chief of staff.

The prosecutors say they also want to show a jury at trial Trump’s campaign speech on January 4, 2021, in Georgia, and his campaign speech on the Ellipse on January 6, 2021, just before the riot at the US Capitol.

And, they’d like to show the jury tweets that they say can prove Trump was driving the public campaign of fraud in the election, as he knew there was none that was widespread enough to overturn his loss. They argue those tweets weren’t part of Trump’s official work as president.

At trial, prosecutors say they would like to call the only other adviser to Trump who had access to his Twitter account to testify that Trump was sending tweets on January 6 that would put pressure on Pence to stop the counting of the electoral votes at the Capitol. The person is described as White House deputy chief of staff.

The motions states “The Government will elicit from Person 45 at trial that he was the only person other than the defendant with the ability to post to the defendant’s Twitter account, that he sent tweets only at the defendant’s express direction, and that person 45 did not send certain specific Tweets” – specifically a tweet Trump sent that said Pence didn’t have the courage to block the certification of the vote.”

That type of testimony would allow prosecutors to assert in court they have evidence of a moment like this:

“At 2:24 p.m., Trump was alone in his dining room,” prosecutors write in the filing, “when he issued a Tweet attacking Pence and fueling the ongoing riot: ‘Mike Pence didn’t have the courage to do what should have been done to protect our Country and our Constitution, giving States a chance to certify a corrected set of facts, not the fraudulent or inaccurate ones which they were asked to previously certify. USA demands the truth!’”

SECRET SERVICE WAS WARNED ABOUT PENCE’S SAFETY

 “According to prosecutors, the Secret Service was warned about Trump threatening to criticize Pence if he failed to overthrow the election results.

On January 5, 2021, Trump once again met with Pence to allegedly try to pressure him not to certify the Electoral College votes. In that meeting, the special counsel wrote that Trump threatened to criticize him publicly.

Smith says that Pence told someone identified only as “P8” about that comment, and that P8 was so concerned by the prospect that he alerted Pence’s Secret Service detail.

Prosecutors allege Trump tried again to pressure Pence on the morning of January 6, shortly before driving to deliver his speech at the Ellipse. Pence, however, again refused and Trump “was incensed,” the filing says. [The motion alleges]  it was then that Trump “set into motion the last plan in furtherance of his conspiracies: if Pence would not do as he asked, (Trump) needed to find another way to prevent the certification of Biden as president” … So on January 6, (Trump) sent to the Capitol a crowd of angry supporters, whom the defendant had called to the city and inundate with false claims of outcome-determinative election fraud, to induce Pence not to certify the legitimate electoral votes and to obstruct the certification.”

According to prosecutors, Trump also showed his “desperate conduct as a candidate rather than a President” when rioters stormed the Capitol, forcing Pence to be moved to a secure location.  An unnamed White House aide, according to the filing, ran to Trump when he received a phone call that Pence had been taken to a secure location “in hopes that (Trump) would take action to ensure Pence’s safety.”  Trump, according to prosecutors, looked at the aide and simply replied “So what?”

PROSECUTORS LEAN ON HATCH ACT TO BOLSTER TRUMP CHARGES

 “Smith is again using the Hatch Act – which limits the political activities of federal employees – to bolster the 2020 election subversion charges against Trump. Prosecutors said in the filing that the Hatch Act allows White House staffers to “wear two hats,” separating out their official conduct to serve the public from their political conduct to help a candidate.

Therefore, even if some of Trump’s alleged wrongdoing occurred on White House grounds and in front of White House staff, he doesn’t have immunity because that fell under the “political” umbrella, Smith’s team wrote. [Prosecutors argue]:

“When the defendant’s White House staff participated in political activity on his behalf as a candidate, they were not exercising their official authority or carrying out official responsibilities. … And when the President, acting as a candidate, engaged in Campaign-related activities with these officials or in their presence, he too was not engaging in official presidential conduct.”

‘MAKE THEM RIOT’ AND ‘CREATE CHAOS’

 “Prosecutors describe an effort by Trump operatives to “create chaos” in the immediate aftermath of the 2020 election when the voting looked to be going for Biden.

In Philadelphia, prosecutors allege campaign operatives sought to create confrontations at polling places and then “falsely claim that his election observers were being denied proper access” as a predicate to claim fraud.

Prosecutors also raised the fracas at the Detroit Counting Center, pointing to evidence that a campaign staffer, upon learning a heavy incoming batch of votes leaned Biden, asked for “options to file litigation” even if [it] was [baseless].”

The same campaign operative said “make them riot” when told that protests at the counting center were heading in the direction of the so-called Brooks Brothers Riot that disrupted the 2000 Florida count between Al Gore and George W. Bush.”

BILL BARR DECIDED TO SPEAK OUT AGAINST TRUMP’S ELECTION LIES AFTER SEEING HIM ON FOX NEWS

“Then-Attorney General Bill Barr decided in 2020 to publicly rebut Trump’s false claims that the election was rigged after watching Trump spread these lies on Fox News, prosecutors say. Prosecutors write:

“On November 29, [Barr] saw the defendant appear on the Maria Bartiromo Show and claim, among other false things, that the Justice Department was ‘missing in action’ and had ignored evidence of fraud.”

They continued, “[Barr] decided it was time to speak publicly in contravention of the defendant’s false claims, set up a lunch with a reporter for the Associated Press, and made his statement.”

This was the December 1, 2020, statement in which Barr infamously said the Justice Department had looked into potential election irregularities but didn’t find any widespread fraud that could’ve tipped the results. This was a major move by Barr, a lifelong Republican who at the time was a staunch Trump ally.

Barr’s name is redacted in the filing, and he is referred to as “P52.” But P52 is described as the “attorney general,” and Barr was the attorney general at that time.

Barr resigned just before Christmas 2020.”

https://www.cnn.com/2024/10/02/politics/jack-smith-donald-trump-filing/index.html

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

With the landmark presidential immunity decision by the United States Supreme Court, the Trump 6 Supreme Court disciples of John G. Roberts, Jr., Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito, Jr. Neil M. Gorsuch, Brett M. Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett the United State Supreme Court have done whatever they could do to undermine our federal criminal justice system and attempt to ensure that former President Trump returns to power. The 6 do so at the expense of our democracy.

All six Supreme Court Justices know full well that no one is above the law, yet they carved out a special  exception to benefit Donald Trump claiming the decision is for the benefit of all  future Presidents. They know if the two federal criminal cases against Trump proceed to trial after the election, and he is elected, he will order the Justice Department to simply dismiss the cases or simply pardon himself. They also know if Trump is not elected, he will likely be tried,  convicted and do jail time on the Federal charges.

The 6 appointed Republican Justices have already made a profound difference with their right wing Republican Judicial Activism. The 6 Republican United State Supreme Court Justices have issued 6 major decisions that confirm it has become a far right wing activist court.

The 1st was the court’s  considering an attempt to empower legislatures with exclusive authority to redraw congressional districts without court intervention. The 2nd  struct down decades of affirmative action in college admissions. The 3rd ruled that a Christian business owners can discriminate and withhold services to the LGBTQ+ community based on religious grounds.  The 4th  invalidated President Joe Biden’s student loan debt relief plan. The 5^th strips federal government agencies of all regulatory power and mandates court approval of rules and regulations. The 6^th and most controversial  is the Supreme Court reversing Roe v. Wade and 50 years of precedent and denying a woman’s right to choose an abortion and leaving it up to the state’s.

As the saying goes, elections have consequences. The 2024 presidential election is again shaping up to be one of the most consequential elections in our history where Supreme Court decisions will be on the ballot as well as the control of congress, not to mention our basic right to vote in an election and the Presidency.

A story has been told and retold about founding father Benjamin Franklin. Franklin was walking out of Independence Hall after the Constitutional Convention in 1787, when someone shouted out, “Doctor, what have we got? A republic or a monarchy?” To which Franklin supposedly responded, “A republic, if you can keep it.”

What we have now is a Republican “politcal judicial monarchy” consisting of 6 conservative Republican Justices all dressed up in their black ropes with gavels replacing scepters and a courtroom replacing a royal thrown room as they render their decrees of justice to carry out the will of Donald Trump and his Trump Republican Party

On September 30,  the American Civil Liberties Union of New Mexico and the law firms Smith & Marjanovic Law, LLC (Taylor E. Smith), The Soto Law Office, LLC (Ramón A. Soto), filed a 6 count civil complaint in State District Court on behalf of  Plaintiff Carlos Sandoval-Smith, a man who was wrongfully arrested, charged and jailed for Driving While Intoxicated (DWI) and forced to pay bribes to get the criminal charges dismissed by APD. Plaintiff Carlos Sandoval-Smith is alleged to be one of dozens of people who were “victimized” as part of an APD scheme with private criminal defense attorney Thomas Clear III to wrongfully charge and arrest people and then solicit bribes to get the charges dismissed.

Named as Defendants are the City of Albuquerque, APD Chief Harold Medina, Former APD Officers Joshua Montaño, Honorio Alba, Harvey Johnson, Nelson Ortiz, Justin Hunt, Daren Deaguero, Neill Elsman, Matthew Trahan, and Mark Landavazo. Also named as Defendants are criminal defense attorney Thomas Clear, III  and  Clear’s paralegal  Ricardo “Rick” Mendez.

The Civil Complaint is a 6 count, 17-page lawsuit filed in the Second Judicial District Court alleging the 9 former APD officers exploited DWI arrests they had made to solicit bribes in exchange for dismissal of the charges. The 6 counts allege:

1. Unlawful Detention and Arrest charged against the city.
2. Malicious Abuse of Process (2 Counts) charged against the city.
3. Deprivation of Due Process of Law charged against the city.
4. Negligent Hiring, Training, Supervision, and Retention charged against the city.
5. Racketeering charged against the 9 former APD Police Officers named and attorney Thomas Clear III  and  Clear’s paralegal  Ricardo “Rick” Mendez.

The lawsuit alleged the defendants, including APD Chief Harold Medina, each conspired with and amongst each other to violate New Mexico State law.

EDITOR’S NOTE: The Postscript to this blog article provides a detailed summation of the 6 counts of the civil complaint.

The Plaintiff’s “Prayer For Relief” requests the Court to enter judgment against the Defendants for:

1. Compensatory damages.
2. Hedonic damages.
3. Punitive damages.
4. Pre-judgment interest.
5. Post-judgment interest,
6. Declaratory relief.
7. Treble damages.
8. Reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in bringing the action, including expert fees.
9. Such other and further relief as the Court deems just.

The link to read the civil complaint in full is here:

https://www.krqe.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/12/2024/10/Smith-APD-Lawsuit.pdf

FACTUAL BASIS OF CLAIM

Editor’s Note: The following factual basis of the complaint was gleaned from review of the complaint itself and all 6 counts as well as news accounts.

Plaintiff Carlos Sandoval-Smith’s was initially pulled over for speeding in June 2023 by APD Police Officer Joshua Montaño.  The lawsuit alleges Montaño unlawfully expanded the scope of the traffic stop by initiating a DWI investigation without reasonable suspicion. Plaintiff Sandoval-Smith  willingly took a breath test and blew below the legal limit, but he was still booked and charged with DWI by Montaño.

Sandoval-Smith  said that when he was being booked on the charges at an APD substation, his gold bracelet was taken off to be placed with his personal belongings by Montaño in a property bag for later return after his  booking was completed.  The personal property returns never happened. Montaño later called Sandoval-Smith’s about his property and left a voice message on his phone. Montaño’s voice is heard on Smith’s voicemail saying this:

“I don’t know if you realize, but I’m sure you do, that some of your jewelry was missing from the property from Sunday evening.  … And it looks like the PTC officers didn’t put that in your property bag, but I have it”.

Sandoval-Smith said APD officer Montaño referred him to criminal defense attorney Thomas Clear III’s office.  Sandoval-Smith said he had an uneasy feeling that prompted him to record his interaction with Clear’s Paralegal, Rick Mendez.

A transcript portion of that recording reveals the following discussion:

Paralegal Rick Mendez : So we charge $8,500 and you could do it in payments.

Sandoval- Smith: And with you representing me, that would guarantee that this doesn’t go on my record?

Paralegal Rick Mendez: Yes.

It’s clear from the entire recording the $8,500 up front was part of the scheme to get the case dismissed. In January, Carlos Sandoval – Smith’s DWI case was dismissed.  The same month Attorney Clear’s office was raided by FBI agents and news of the alleged scheme was made public for the first time and Sandoval – Smith saw the news coverage.

The ACLU  law  suite alleges officers with APD’s DWI unit would refer DWI suspects to DWI Criminal Defense Attorney Thomas Clear, III and his paralegal  Mendez for legal services.  The complaint alleges “Defendant Officers would agree not to attend pre-trial interviews or testify in those individuals’ criminal cases in exchange for consideration from Defendants Clear and Mendez.”

The ACLU’s complaint also points to what it describes as negligent hiring, training and supervision by the police department of the police offers involved. It alleges that Police Chief Harold Medina was aware of an agreement between some officers assigned to the DWI Unit and Clear’s office to work together to get cases dismissed in exchange for payment. Complicating things for APD Chief Harold Medina is the fact that the bribery and conspiracy scheme to dismiss DWI cases spans a decade and during some of that time APD Chief Harold Medina was the then Deputy Chief of Field Services where he oversaw and was in charge of the DWI unit  and may have known or should have known and have  been aware of what was his subordinates were doing.

The lawsuit states that federal authorities first informed the police department in June 2022 of an alleged attempt by one of the officers to extort $10,000 from another defendant charged. It goes on to say that in December 2022, the police department’s Criminal Intelligence Unit received a tip that officers in the DWI Unit were being paid to get cases dismissed and were working in collaboration with a local attorney who turned out to be Clear. The ACLU alleges in the complaint that the city and the police chief “did not adequately investigate these allegations, if at all, prior to the involvement of federal authorities.”

REACTIONS BY PARTIES

The ACLU claims Smith’s case deserves its day in court. Attorney Taylor Smith is  working with the ACLU representing  Plaintiff Carlos Sandoval-Smith and he gave extended interviews to the media and  said  this about the case:

“This is essentially a mob-like practice that’s being perpetrated by our officers. …They are taking people’s belongings and forcing them to have interactions with private attorneys in order to facilitate obtaining money for the scheme. … Officer Montaño did not operate in a vacuum, at least based off of his statements made [as] part of his resignation.   We know that this is a pervasive issue. … [Carlos Sandoval-Smith’s] life has been ruined. … He’s now been forced to rebuild his life since all this happened. And our opportunity to do this is through the civil process.”

“The reason to include all the officers is we know that Montaño was not operating in a vacuum. We understand that there are a large number of individuals that were involved. My client lost everything. He’s without a home, he’s without a job, and he’s been trying to put his life back together since then.  … As a result of these allegations and things that were relayed to his family, he was immediately no longer allowed to live with them. He owned a business with his aunt, which evaporated overnight, given the rift that this arrest caused.”

“We’ve brought racketeering claims against the individual officers in this case. It’s a criminal statute that we can use as civil attorneys to figure out what was going on within the conspiracy. … We’re trying to find out exactly each role they played in this scheme. And so when it comes to this, it’s just making sure that our officers are following the law, much like they expect all of us to do.”

“What we know from Officer Joshua Montaño’s interactions with our client [Carlos Sandoval-Smith], as well as our client’s interactions with Mr. Clear’s office, specifically, Mr. Mendez, is that there was a scheme in place to arrest somebody allegedly for DWI through the process of taking them to Metropolitan Detention Center, removing their personal items, taking those personal items and violating all the rules of what we call a chain of custody”

“When you take evidence or items from someone, they stay at APD evidence or at the jail, and then they’re given their belongings. That chain was completely broken here. When Officer Montaño, or whoever did it, took our client’s belongings to the home and office of a private attorney in order to require them to go there for his services to further the scheme by charging a large amount for the DWI, which we assume was shared between the attorney and the officers.”

“We do not believe that Chief Medina was involved with the scheme. What our concerns are regarding his supervision of officers within the department, based off of the reporting that we’ve seen to date, we’re aware that Chief Medina was likely aware of what was going on well before Carlos was ever arrested or Mr. Smith. Our concern there is, if we have this knowledge, why are these officers still allowed to conduct their duties and further harm members of our community, like Mr. Smith?”

“We really hope that this spurs some change and ensures that other people aren’t affected, as well as rectifying what’s happened to Mr. Smith. I don’t think any amount of money could ever compensate somebody for these types of injustices, but we will be seeking everything that we believe we’re entitled to, including the loss of income, being displaced and everything that we can, in order to make him whole.”

Plaintiff Carlos Sandova – Smith’s for his part said this in a statement about his lawsuit:

“This lawsuit isn’t just about getting justice for me, it’s about stopping this abuse so no one else has to suffer the way I did. … I lost my business, my home, and my dignity because of APD corruption. It even caused a deep rift in my family that we may never heal from. … [Joshua Montaño] needs to definitely pay for what he did to me and for anybody else that he did this to.”

ACLU legal director Maria Martinez Sanchez said she hopes the lawsuit results in reforms to dismantle what she described as “systemic corruption” within the Albuquerque Police Department.

APD ISSUES STATEMENT

The Albuquerque Police Department took issue with the allegations in the lawsuit and issued the following statement:

“The lawsuit filed by the ACLU contains knowingly false information. Chief Medina worked closely with the FBI to uncover the DWI scheme and opened an internal investigation to hold all involved accountable and leave no stone left unturned. APD leadership continues to cooperate and work with federal partners as they complete their investigation. APD will share more information with the public when details are permitted to be released.”

CHARGES YET TO BE BROUGHT

Aside from the internal investigation launched in February by APD, the FBI is conducting its own inquiry into allegations of illegal conduct. No charges have been filed against any of those identified as being involved with the scandal.  It will be up to the U.S. Attorney’s Office and the US Department of Justice to determine whether any federal laws were violated.

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

https://www.abqjournal.com/news/aclu-lawsuit-details-dwi-scheme-rocking-albuquerque-police/article_32761b2d-9f59-5645-8d49-7e411fccfad3.html

https://www.krqe.com/news/investigations/aclu-suing-former-officers-apd-over-dwi-corruption-scheme/

https://www.koat.com/article/albuquerque-police-dwi-scandal/62492382

https://www.krqe.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/12/2024/10/Smith-APD-Lawsuit.pdf

APD BRIBERY AND CORRUPTION SCANDAL IN A NUTSHELL

It was on Friday January 19, 2024 that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) executed search warrants and raided the homes of 3 Albuquerque Police officers and the home and law office of prominent DWI criminal defense attorney Thomas Clear, III.  All 6 of those targeted with a search warrant are allegedly involved in a bribery and conspiracy scheme spanning a decade to dismiss DWI cases. Bernalillo County District Attorney Sam Bregman ordered the dismissed 196 DWI cases because of the scandal due to the main witnesses’ credibility being called into question which in all the cases are APD officers.

The FBI searched the homes of APD Officers  Honorio Alba and Harvey  Johnson and the law offices of Thomas Clear III and the home of Clear’s paralegal Ricardo “Rick” Mendez.  The US Department of Justice and US Attorney’s office have confirmed the APD police officers and the criminal defense attorney are at the center of the federal investigation involving the dismissal of hundreds of pending DWI criminal cases by the APD Officers for remuneration to have the cases dismissed by the officers failing to appear for hearings. No one has yet to be charged as the federal investigation is ongoing.

The Albuquerque Police Department opened its own Internal Affairs investigation. APD Chief Harold Medina appointed Commander  Kyle Hartsock of the Criminal Investigations Division to lead the internal investigation into officers’ conduct as well as into whether anyone else at the department knew about wrongdoing but did not report it.

A total of 9 APD Police officers have been implicated in the scandal and 7  have resigned during the Internal Affairs investigation, one is on paid leave  and one has been terminated. One by one, the accused Albuquerque police officers have been turning in their badges and resigning  rather than talking to Internal Affairs investigators about an alleged public corruption scheme involving DWI cases.  The names and dates of those officers who have resigned or who have been terminated are:

• On February 7, 2024  Justin Hunt,who started at APD in 2000, resigned.
• On February 29, 2024, Honorio Alba, who started at APD in 2014, resigned.
• On March 13, 2024, Harvey Johnson, who started at APD in 2014, resigned
• On March 15, 2024, Nelson Ortiz,who started at APD in 2016, resigned.
• On March 20, 2024 Joshua Montaño, who started at APD January 2005, resigned.
• On May 2, 2024 Daren DeAguero, who started with APD in 2009, resigned.
• On May 9, 2024, Matthew Trahan was placed on paid leave as the investigation playsout. Trahan has been with APD since 2006, was with the DWI unit from 2014-16 and recently worked as a detective.
• On July 30, 2024 APD Officer Neill Elsman, who had worked in the DWI unit within the past several years, resigned before returning to work from military leave.
• On August 1, APD announced that it fired Mark Landavazo, the APD Commander of Internal Affairs for Professional Standards, who started with APD in  2007 and was with the DWI unit from 2008 through 2013.

No one has been charged in the case. The FBI is investigating the allegations as a criminal matter. U.S. Attorney Alex Uballez has said the probe focuses on alleged wrongdoing by “certain” APD officers and others.

 COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

It is very disappointing but not at all surprising that federal charges for government corruption have yet to be brought against APD and the identified 9 former APD Police officers. The Feds tend to be very cautious in bringing criminal charges, especially against law enforcement. The delay may also signal the likelihood that the FBI is doing a deep drill into APD and many more of APD’s finest will be charged and may even include present members of APD’s high command. It will likely be over a year before charges are filed. One thing is for certain, the civil lawsuit file by the ACLU has the greatest potential to expose to the public sooner rather than later the extent of the corruption within APD.

There is absolutely no doubt that APD’s reputation has been trashed to a major extent because of this scandal. It’s downright disgusting that the APD Commander for Internal Affairs for Professional Standards was fired who was the very commander who should have caught and perhaps prevented the corruption.  APD will likely be viewed by many as again having just another bastion of “dirty and corrupt cops” who have brought dishonor to their department and to the department’s professed values of “Pride, Integrity, Fairness and Respect”.  

This is so even before any charges have been filed against anyone, before anyone else is fired from APD and before any action is brought against the police officers involved for government corruption and criminal conspiracy to dismiss cases working with a prominent criminal defense attorney.  Should the criminal defense attorney be charged and convicted of the crimes, he is likely facing jail time in prison as well as disbarment from the practice of law.

There is little doubt that this whole DWI dismissal bribery scandal has shaken the public’s faith in our criminal justice system and APD to its core. The only way that any semblance of faith can be restored and for people to begin trusting APD again is if all the police officers involved in this scandal are held accountable and the lawyers involved are held accountable.  That will only happen when there is aggressive prosecutions and convictions, the police officers are terminated and they lose their law enforcement certification and disbarment occurs with the attorney.

Ultimately, it is Mayor Tim Keller and Chief Harold Medina who need to be held accountable with what has happened. Mayor Tim Keller and Chief Harold Medina must ultimately be held accountable and take full responsibility for failed leadership of APD and this most egregious APD scandal.  Mayor Tim Keller and Chief Harold Medina instead have been in full fledge “politcal spin cycle” of “pivot, deflect and blame” since the news broke and since the Albuquerque City Council accused them of failed leadership in dealing with the scandal as they attempted to get ahead of this most recent scandal involving APD.  They both have attempted to take credit for the federal  investigation and for taking action to hold bad cops accountable for the corruption when it was in fact the federal investigation that forced their hand and after they both allowed the problem to fester for 6 years under their watch.

Mayor Tim Keller has already made it known that he is seeking a third four year term as Mayor in 2025. There is no doubt this APD scandal of corruption calls into question Keller’s  management of APD, who he has appointed Chief of Police and if he should be elected to a third term.

__________________________________________________

POSTCRIPT

The civil complaint filed by the ACLU alleges the following 6 counts:

Count One against the City: Unlawful Detention and Arrest in violation of Article II, Section 10 of the New Mexico Constitution.  It is alleged Montaño unlawfully arrested the Plaintiff Carlos Sandoval-Smith with the intent to advance a conspiracy to directly or indirectly defraud Plaintiff and request a bribe from Plaintiff in exchange for a promise not to participate in the prosecution of criminal charges Defendant Montaño intended to bring against Plaintiff. It is alleged  Montaño initiated a DWI  investigation into Plaintiff Carlos Sandoval-Smith without reasonable suspicion that Plaintiff had committed or was committing a DWI and Defendant Montaño arrested Plaintiff without sufficient probable cause.

Count Two against the City:  Malicious Abuse of Process in violation of New Mexico Constitution, Article II, Section 10.  It is alleged that the Defendant Montaño misused the legal process against Plaintiff Carlos Sandoval-Smith and that Montaño did not have a reasonable belief, based on the facts known to him, that the DWI charge against Plaintiff could be established to the satisfaction of a court or jury.  Defendant Montaño’s primary motive in misusing the legal process was to accomplish an illegitimate end and that was to induce Plaintiff to participate in Defendants’ extortion scheme.

Count Three against the City: Deprivation of Due Process of Law in violation of New Mexico Constitution, Article II, Sections 4 and 18. This count alleges Defendant Montaño deprived Plaintiff Carlos Sandoval-Smith of his rights secured by Article II, Section 18 of the New Mexico Constitution by demanding and/or agreeing to receive money from Plaintiff in exchange for not testifying or otherwise participating in the prosecution of criminal charges Defendant Montaño had filed against him. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Montaño’s actions, Plaintiff Carlos Sandoval-Smith suffered and continues to suffer substantial past and future damages, including, but not limited to, loss of liberty, loss of income, severe emotional distress, mental anguish, embarrassment, and humiliation

Count Four against the City: Malicious Abuse of Process. This count alleges Defendant Montaño misused the legal process against Plaintiff Carlos Sandoval-Smith. It alleges Defendant Montaño did not have a reasonable belief, based on the facts known to him, that the DWI charges against Plaintiff could be established to the satisfaction of a court or jury.  Defendant Montaño’s primary motive in misusing the legal process was to accomplish an illegitimate end which was to  induce Plaintiff to participate in Defendants’ extortion scheme.  As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Montaño’s actions, Plaintiff Carlos Sandoval-Smith was arrested and charged with driving while intoxicated with a minor in his vehicle, even though Defendant Montaño did not have probable cause to believe that Plaintiff had committed this crime.  As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Montaño’s actions, Plaintiff spent time in jail and Plaintiff suffered and continues to suffer substantial past and future damages, including, but not limited to, loss of liberty, loss of income, severe emotional distress, mental anguish, embarrassment, and humiliation.

Count Five against the City: Negligent Hiring, Training, Supervision, and Retention. This count alleges the Defendant City owed a duty to Plaintiff Carlos Sandoval-Smith to adequately hire, train, supervise, and retain Defendants Officers to reasonably protect and ensure the safety of the citizens of the City of Albuquerque, including Plaintiff Carlos Sandoval-Smith.  Defendant City breached its duty to the Plaintiff by hiring Defendant Officers, who were not qualified or  competent to work as police officers with APD, by failing to train and supervise Defendant Officers so that they would not extort Plaintiff or deprive Plaintiff of his  civil rights.  By the continued retention of Defendants Officers, Defendant City’s negligent hiring, training, supervision, and retention of Defendant Officers directly and proximately caused injuries to Plaintiff. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Officers’ actions, Plaintiff suffered and continues to suffer substantial past and future damages, including, but not limited to, loss of liberty, loss of income, severe emotional distress, mental anguish, embarrassment, and humiliation.

Count Six: Racketeering against the 9 former Police Officers named and attorney Clear and his paralegal. This count alleges the Defendant Officers collectively and individually engaged in instances of direct and/or indirect bribery by demanding or receiving money with the intent to have their decision or action regarding their participation in the prosecution of a particular DWI  case influenced.

Count 6 alleges the  Defendant Officers collectively and individually engaged in instances of bribery by receiving, agreeing to receive, or soliciting a bribe or anything of value to testify falsely or abstain from testifying to a fact in judicial, administrative, or other proceedings.

Count 6 alleges the Defendant Officers collectively and individually engaged in instances of fraud by taking personal possessions by means of fraudulent conduct, practices, and/or representations, or embezzlement by converting property with which Defendants had been entrusted to Defendants’ own use with fraudulent intent to deprive the owner of property.

Count 6 alleges Defendants Officers, Clear, and Mendez collectively and individually engaged in instances of extortion by communicating or transmitting threats to accuse individuals of a crime with the intent thereby to obtain things of value and/or to wrongfully compel individuals to retain Defendant Clear as an attorney and refrain from retaining any other attorney, against their will.

Count 6 alleges these actions are incidents of racketeering as defined by New Mexico law Defendants Officers, Clear, and Mendez engaged in this pattern of racketeering activity in order to acquire or maintain, directly or indirectly, an interest in or control of an enterprise.

Count 6 alleges the Defendant Officers, as employees of Defendant City, conducted or participated, directly and/or indirectly, in the conduct of Defendant City’s affairs by engaging in a pattern of racketeering activity. It is alleged the Defendants Clear and Mendez, as persons who received the proceeds of a pattern of racketeering activity in which they participated, used or invested some part of those proceeds in the establishment or operation of an enterprise.

Count 6 alleges  Defendants Clear and Mendez, as persons employed by or associated with an enterprise, conducted or participated, directly and/or indirectly, in the conduct of the enterprise’s affairs by engaging in a pattern of racketeering activity.  Defendants, including Defendant APD Chief Harold Medina, each conspired with and amongst each other to violate New Mexico law.

On October 4, the Albuquerque Journal published on its front page  the following news story:

HEADLINE: Journal Executive Director Resigns Following Shoplifting Incident In Rio Rancho

The Journal’s executive editor resigned on Thursday after being released from jail on a shoplifting charge in Rio Rancho.

Publisher William P. Lang announced Thursday that Patrick Ethridge “is no longer employed by the Albuquerque Journal.”

“This has been an unfortunate and confusing time for all of us,” Lang said in a statement. “Patrick is a talented writer and hard-working editor, but given the circumstances, moving forward without him was our only realistic course of action. We are grateful for his significant contributions during his short tenure here.”

Ethridge became executive editor and vice president of the Journal on May 30, 2023. With 26 years of experience with newspapers, Ethridge’s most recent role before the Journal was as editor and publisher of the Beatrice Daily Sun in Nebraska.

Lang placed Ethridge on mandatory leave on Sept. 27 after he pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor shoplifting charge from an Aug. 24 incident at a Walmart in Rio Rancho.

On Sept. 25, a Rio Rancho Municipal Court judge sentenced Ethridge to 90 days in the Sandoval County Detention Center with 80 days suspended.

The Journal was not made aware of the allegations against Ethridge until he had already been booked into jail on a 10-day sentence.

Police said Ethridge allegedly skip-scanned more than $100 worth of items in the Walmart self-checkout — pretending to scan items without paying, according to police. 

Although he initially pleaded guilty, on Thursday Ethridge withdrew that plea and pleaded no contest before being released from jail.

https://www.abqjournal.com/news/journal-executive-editor-resigns-following-shoplifting-incident-in-rio-rancho/article_88b6397e-81cd-11ef-bf52-274d8e0aa3ec.html#tncms-source=home-featured-7-block

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

There is little doubt that the arrest and jailing of Patrick Ethridge was a major embarrassment to the Albuquerque Journal as was the fact that he managed to  keep the matter quiet from the Albuquerque Journal  for at least a month. Over the years there have been news reporters working for papers who were immediately discharged for DWI and even disorderly conduct.  The resignation of Patrick Etheridge and the circumstances surrounding the charges made his departure inevitable. Below is a link to a related blog article that essentially predicted the result.

Criminal Complaint Filed Against Albuquerque Journal Editor Revealed; Defects In Complaint Noted; All Defenses Waived With Guilty Plea; “The Man Who Represents Himself Has A Fool For A Client”

On September 28 and 29, the following news story was published by the Albuquerque Journal:

“The Albuquerque Journal’s editor in chief is on leave after pleading guilty to a shoplifting incident at a Walmart in Rio Rancho last month.

Patrick Ethridge, 47, was charged with misdemeanor shoplifting on Aug. 24.

Ethridge pleaded guilty on Wednesday morning and Rio Rancho Municipal Court Judge Michael Gibson immediately sentenced him to 90 days in jail, with 80 days suspended. 

Ethridge is currently serving a 10-day sentence at the Sandoval County Detention Center. Under New Mexico law, a petty misdemeanor is punishable by up to six months in jail and/or a $500 fine.

Ethridge’s attorney did not respond to a request for comment.

“I am saddened to announce that, effective immediately, I am putting our Executive Editor, Patrick Ethridge, on a mandatory leave of absence,” Journal Publisher William P. Lang said in a statement Friday. “We don’t know or understand all the details yet, but were shocked to learn that he has been charged with shoplifting and sentenced by a Municipal Judge in Rio Rancho, where he is currently serving ten days.”

Lang added, “At the Albuquerque Journal, we believe in being transparent, and holding people to a higher standard, including ourselves. We appreciate your support and concern, and will report more information when it is clear to us.”

Ethridge became executive editor and vice president of the Journal on May 30, 2023.

With 26 years of experience with newspapers, Ethridge’s most recent role before the Journal was as editor and publisher of the Beatrice Daily Sun in Nebraska.

On Aug. 24, Rio Rancho police responded to a shoplifting at the Walmart Supercenter at Unser and Southern, according to a criminal complaint filed in Municipal Court. Store security told police that two boys were “acting disorderly around the store, knocking over displays and concealing items.”

Police said officers identified the boys as Ethridge’s sons and found the family in the self-checkout area and “advised them of the allegations.” Officers watched surveillance video, which showed the boys opening energy drinks, drinking some and putting them on the shelf again.

While reviewing the footage, officers saw Ethridge “skip scanning” items — which means pretending to scan items through self-checkout without paying, according to the complaint. Officers said Ethridge would “scan some items and not others.”

“The sum of all unpaid merchandise, including the energy drinks the boys consumed, was $104.20,” according to police.

On Thursday, Ethridge’s attorney, filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea and said he had initially pleaded guilty “wanting to get this case over with as expeditiously as possible” and “in spite of the fact that he did not intentionally steal any items.”

In the motion, Ethridge said he didn’t know the items had not been scanned and “asked to pay for the unscanned items.”

“The store refused to do this and pressed charges of shoplifting against Mr. Ethridge instead,” according to the motion.”

https://www.abqjournal.com/news/albuquerque-journal-editor-on-leave-after-shoplifting-charge-in-rio-rancho/article_fa04ec36-7d24-11ef-9d33-0bb7c1229ce8.html

REVIEW OF CRIMINAL COMPLAINT FILED

On October 2 the political blog “New Mexico Politics With Joe Monahan” reported that a Criminal complaint was filed on August 26 in Rio Rancho Municipal Court in Sandoval County by Rio Rancho Police Officer Marcus Packer charging Patrick Ethridge with the single crime of SHOPLIFTNG. Monahan corrected his September 29 blog article where he erroneously reported that Rancho Municipal Court Judge Robert Cook sentenced Etheridge to 10 days in jail when it was in fact Rio Rancho Municipal Court Judge Michael Gibson who handled the case and imposed the sentence.

The criminal complaint states in part that on or about August 24, 2024, the defendant committed the crime of SHOPLIFTING.  The criminal complaint provides a detailed factual narrative of what forms the basis of the charge and states:

“On August 24^th, I, Officer Marcus Packer of the Rio Rancho Police Department was notified by RRPD Dispatch to proceed to the location of 901 Unser Blvd SE, in Rio Rancho, New Mexico. Dispatch advised the call for service was in reference to an active shoplifting incident. The calling party was Wal-Mart Asset Protection (AP). AP advised there were two young boys inside of the store, described as approximately 10 years of age, one boy was wearing a black shirt, and the other was wearing a Chicago Bulls jersey over a grey hoodie. The boys were reportedly acting disorderly around the store, knocking over displays and concealing items.

I arrived on the scene and observed the described juveniles to be in the self checkout section, alongside their parents. I made contact with the family and advised them of the ongoing investigation.

Accompanied by the family, I proceeded to the AP office to view surveillance footage of the allegations.

The two boys were identified as [NAME REDACTED BECAUSE OF AGE] and  [NAME REDACTED BECAUSE OF AGE] Etheridge, both born [birthdate redacted]. The farther was identified as Patrick Etheridge.

During my contact with [NAME REDACTED] and [NAME REDACTED] they were not in possession of any merchandise. Asset protection advised the boys were observed taking a can of Monster Energy drink each, drinking from the item and then placing the drinks back on the shelf. (Video footage will be uploaded to Axon Evidence when AP is able to obtain the surveillance).

After reviewing surveillance footage, Patrick was observed to be “skip scanning” items while located at the self check out. Patrick would scan some of the items but not others, leaving several items unpaid for. (Video footage will be uploaded to AXONE Evidence when AP is able to obtain the surveillance).  The sum of all unpaid merchandise, including the energy drinks the boys consumed, was $104.20.”

NO ARRESTS MADE ON DAY OF INCIDENT

Patrick Etheridge and his two sons and spouse were not arrested nor taken into custody on August 24, the day of the incident, but were released by the investigating officer on their own reconnaissance.  The criminal complaint was filed a mere two days later on August 26.

The criminal complaint identifies Patrick Etheridge as the sole defendant charged, giving his home address in Rio Rancho, his height, weight, color of hair, color of eyes. The criminal complaint does not provide an arrest date. The complaint does provide a case number showing the case was filed in Sandoval County, Rio Rancho Municipal Court.

The criminal complaint does not identify leaving blank the lines for  Social Security Number,  STN#, Arrest Date, Drivers License #, Citation #, Arrest #, Docket#. The date of filing is August 26 as reflected by the  Court Stamp with  Valerie Montoya identified  as clerk of the court. There is a handwritten note in the upper right hand corner of the complaint that says “PLEASE SUMMON” ostensibly to indicate to the court clerk to issue a summons ordering the Defendant to appear on a specified date, time and courtroom.

The link to review the criminal complaint is here:

 https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhqE1EU-MweyoopvLcelQqe9Di5TzITeMRU0Q_gUAXb-NZOhB0_bQyUiXPHVD0XJgAHMM-PnLFVmSTA-NfSrsa2r7CIqIG4jJqO4PGGpQLLWIuB6QbN-2W5Ilnpfob-XI162xlX2MrvR5BzZNm3Mn-tIeTLA5UnRbcgtLUxWbtU6MhC_uxhEKJV/s2795/IMG_5541%202.jpg

ARRAIGNMENT,  ENTRY OF GUILTY PLEA AND IMMEDIATE SENTENCING

The criminal complaint indicates that a Summons was issued requiring that Patrick Etheridge appear in Rio Rancho Municipal Court ostensibly for an arraignment on the charges and to enter a  plea of  “not guilty” or “guilty” and determine conditions of release and to set a date for trial or sentencing.

Patrick Etheridge did not retain an attorney to represent him on September 25.  On September 25, Etheridge appeared before Municipal Court Judge Michael Gibson without an attorney and he plead guilty to the single charge of SHOPPLIFTING. No pre-sentence report was ordered by Judge Gibson and the judge immediately sentenced Ethridge to 90 days in jail, with 80 days suspended with 10 days in jail. According to Sandoval County Jail Detention Records, Etheridge was taken into custody at 10:17 AM on Wednesday morning September 25 immediately after the hearing.

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

Attorneys often point to a famous Abraham Lincoln quote when discussing defendants who try to represent themselves in a court of law. Lincoln said: “The man who represents himself has a fool for a client”. This entire news story involving the Albuquerque Journal’s Editor in Chief can be described as somewhat bizarre on a number of levels and it appears to be a classic example of what Abraham Lincoln was talking about when one tries to represent themselves in a court of law even for what many would think is a very minor criminal offense.  Whenever there is even the slightest possibility for jail time, defendants need to seek legal representation.

POLICE OFFICER INVOLVED PROSECUTIONS

Under New Mexico law, shoplifting is a petty misdemeanor and is punishable by up to six months in jail and/or a $500 fine. A law enforcement officer has 100% discretion to make an arrest for a petty misdemeanor that they actually witness occurring in their presence. Where the offense does not occur in their presence, they have the option to gather evidence of the crime and to file a criminal complaint, which was what happened in this case. Such cases as misdemeanor and petty misdemeanor cases are referred to as Police Officer Prosecution cases.

The charging law enforcement officer bears the entire responsibility to prosecute the cases without the assistance of a city attorney or assistant district attorney. The officer must call witnesses, disclose evidence and present the case at trial and  assume  the same  duties and responsibilities as a prosecuting attorney and follow the rules of criminal procedure and rules of evidence. The charging officer is required to attend all court hearing, including arraignment, motion hearings and the trial.

Failure of the officer to appear at any scheduled hearings can result in the case being dismissed for failure to prosecute which happens all the time in Bernalillo County Metro Court. Once a defendant is convicted of a charge, the Court has the authority to request a pre-sentence report from the probation department who make recommendations as to what is an appropriate sentence given the facts and circumstances of the case and the background of the defendant.

DEFECTS IN CRIMINAL COMPLAINT

The criminal complaint filed against Patrick Etheridge appears to be flawed for a number of reasons which would make it subject to a possible dismissal had he sought one.  The criminal complaint does not identify and leaves blank the lines for Social Security Number,  STN#, Arrest Date, Drivers License Number, Citation number, Arrest number and  Docket number.

The overwhelming majority of the charging narrative deals with the disorderly conduct of the minor children, yet they were not charged and no reason was given. The criminal complaint states the officer “arrived on the scene and observed the described juveniles to be in the self checkout section, alongside their parents. I made contact with the family and advised them of the ongoing investigation. … Accompanied by the family, I proceeded to the AP office to view surveillance footage of the allegations.   

It is the very last paragraph of the narrative that describes the alleged criminal conduct of the defendant and it  is based upon a video that could be subject to varying interpretations and  speculation as to what was actually going on.  There is no supporting documentation attached as an exhibit to establish what was and was not scanned at the checkout stand.  There is no representation that the scanner was in full working order.  According to the Journal news report and the motion filed by his attorney, Ethridge initially pleaded guilty “wanting to get this case over with as expeditiously as possible” and “in spite of the fact that he did not intentionally steal any items.” Ethridge said in his motion he didn’t know the items had not been scanned and “asked to pay for the unscanned items.”

The charging officer does not identify the other parent by name, he states the “entire family” was taken to view the surveillance video.  He does not disclose any admissions of guilt or exculpatory comments or explanations made to him by any of the family members or by Etheridge himself. No receipt appears to have been retrieved as what was in fact scanned for  purchase by the family. It appears the officer made no arrest that required giving Miranda Warnings including advising the family of their right to remain silent and that they had the right to an attorney, but they were nonetheless the target of an investigation.

The most glaring defect in the complaint is that it charges Ethridge with shoplifting by alleging “The sum of all unpaid merchandise, including the energy drinks the boys consumed, was $104.20.”  There is no indication that the goods, either food or clothing, were seized nor tagged into evidence by Rio Ranch Police Officer Marcus Packer, yet he alleges a total value down to the penny.  The complaint does not include an inventory of items allegedly taken outlining the cost of each item to arrive at the $104.20 value alleged. Without seizure of the goods, it is sure speculation as to value of what was in fact shoplifted.  Had the case gone to trial, the actual value of what was stolen would have to have be proven as an element of the offense and beyond a reasonable doubt.

There appears to be extenuating circumstances around the incident itself involving a parent or parents unable to exercise full and complete control of 10 year old children who were out of control and who were alleged to have  engaged in disorderly conduct.  The extent to which Etheridge was actually paying attention or distracted by his 10 years old boys as to what merchandise he was purchasing is called into question.

PROPIETY OF SENTENCE

Rarely are people jailed for a first misdemeanor offense, if at all, for shoplifting and they are usually placed on probation with a suspended sentence. Ethridge has no prior convictions, and the offense is a “none violent crime”.  Notwithstanding, the judge imposed a 10 day sentence in jail, suspended the remaining 6 months, and suspended the $500 fine. The court could have ordered “community service” without jail time, or a deferred sentence for a period of probation and imposed a reduced fine.

When Ethridge pleaded guilty to the charge before Rio Rancho Municipal Court Judge Michael Gibson he was sentenced to a shocking 10 days for the petty misdemeanor. Nothing has been reported as to why Judge Gibson did not order a pre-sentence report which would have made recommendations on what type of sentence was appropriate given the defendants criminal record and background.

There is no report that the charging officer appeared in court on August 26 for the arraignment or for trial that would also have allowed plea negotiations with the charging officer which could have included a lesser charge and reduced sentence.  Had the officer not appeared, Etheridge had the right to ask that the case be dismissed.  By simply pleading guilty to the single charge of shoplifting, Patrick Etheridge waived his right to a trial and any and all defenses he had.  He essentially threw himself on the mercy of the court.

ATTORNEY RETAINED AFTER THE FACT

Only after Ethridge plead guilty to the charge and was sentence to 10 days in  jail did he retain the services of an attorney. He is represented by prominent criminal defense attorney Todd Bullion who was co-counsel with criminal defense  attorney Jason Bowles. The attorneys defended Hannah Gutierrez Reed, the armorer on the movie set of Rust who was convicted of involuntary manslaughter and sentenced to 18 months in jail in the fatal shooting of a cinematographer by Alec Baldwin on the Rust western movie set.

No details have been given as to exactly why Patrick Etheridge did not hire an attorney at the time he was charged and why no plea deal was struck for a suspended sentence nor why such a harsh sentence was imposed.  Did he enter a guilty plea to protect his 10-year-old sons and perhaps his spouse to any degree? Did the charging officer make any representations or imply to any extent he would not charge family members in exchange for Ethridge to assume all responsibility?

A “Motion to Withdraw”  the guilty plea has now been filed while Ethridge sits in jail. The 10 day sentence will expire on October 4 and he will be released. It is clear he will stay in jail before the court has time to schedule a hearing on the motion.

A major  question that has been raised is how did the shoplifting arrest of the top editor of the Albuquerque Journal stay secret for so long?  The incident occurred on August 24, but it was not reported on by the Albuquerque Journal until September 28. Additionally, the local TV news stations have yet to post any news story on their internet web pages.

There is little doubt that the arrest and jailing of Patrick Ethridge is a major embarrassment to the Albuquerque Journal. Over the years there have been news reporters working for papers who were immediately discharged for DWI and even disorderly conduct.  The question that remains is will Patrick Etheridge step down or be terminated, or will the Albuquerque Journal accept an apology from Patrick Ethridge and move on as he seeks to clear his name and continue with his employment?

On October 1, Republican Ohio US Senator JD Vance and Democratic Minnesota Governor Tim Walz debated and clashed on everything from economic and gun policy to immigration and school shootings in the only vice-presidential debate of the 2024 election.  The two candidates kept things cordial and civil personally, even appearing friendly at times and saying they could work with each other.  However, they repeatedly savaged each other’s running mates and defended their party policies and tickets.

Following are key takeaways from the debate as reported by the national news organizations  CNN by staff reporters Eric Bradner, Daniel Strauss, Arit John and Gregory Krieg and NBC News staff reporter  Sahil Kapur:

IT WASN’T REALLY ABOUT VANCE OR WALZ

“It was immediately clear the two prominent politicians on stage were merely proxies for their running mates, using the questions as vehicles to attack their top-of-the-ticket rivals and on many occasions going out of their way not to personally attack each other.

Walz used his first question, regarding Iran’s strikes on Israel, to hit at Trump’s age: “A nearly 80-year-old Donald Trump talking about crowd sizes is not what we need in this moment.” He went on to assail “Donald Trump’s fickle leadership” around the world.

Vance replied, “Who has been the vice president for the last three and a half years? And the answer is your running mate, not mine. Donald Trump consistently made the world more secure.”

In the next section, about climate change, Walz hit Trump again: “Donald Trump called it a hoax, and then joked that these things would make more beachfront property to be able to invest in.”

On immigration, Vance sidestepped when asked how Trump would carry out his mass deportation promise, and repeatedly attacking Harris: “I’ve been to the southern border more than our border czar, Kamala Harris, has been.”

Notably, both men said they believed their on-stage rival wants to solve the problem at the border, as well as other areas of policy disagreement.

“I believe Sen. Vance wants to solve this, but by standing with Donald Trump and not working together to find a solution, it becomes a talking point,” Walz said.

Vance replied, “I actually think I agree with you. I think you want to solve this problem, but I don’t think that Kamala Harris does.”

The most tension between them came toward the end, when Walz asked Vance point-blank if Trump lost the 2020 election. Vance wouldn’t give a straight answer, instead throwing a question back at Walz about censorship about the Covid-19 pandemic on Facebook.”

VANCE DEFENDS HIS FLIP ON PAST CRITICISM OF TRUMP

Vance was well-prepared with an answer when asked to explain his past criticisms of Trump, including saying he could be “America’s Hitler” and his critiques of Trump’s economic record as president.

“Sometimes, of course, I disagree with the president, but I’ve also been extremely open about the fact that I was wrong about Donald Trump. I was wrong, first of all, because I believed some of the media stories that turned out to be dishonest fabrications of his record,” Vance said, treading over territory he and his campaign have talked about in media interviews and responses to stories.

Vance continued: “But most importantly, Donald Trump delivered for the American people, rising wages, rising take home pay, an economy that works for normal Americans, a secure southern border… When you screw up, when you misspeak, when you get something wrong, and you change your mind, you ought to be honest with the American people.”

He also partially blamed Congress, saying there “were a lot of things on the border, on tariffs” that “could have done so much more if the Republican Congress and the Democrats in Congress had been a little bit better about how they governed the country.”

WALZ AND VANCE PICK THROUGH THEIR RUNNING MATES’ ECONOMIC RECORDS

Walz came equipped with an argument to attack Trump on the economy, which is one of the GOP nominee’s strongest issues, according to polls that ask voters who they trust to handle it.

“Kamala Harris’ day one was Donald Trump’s failure on Covid that led to the collapse of our economy. We were already, before Covid, in a manufacturing recession — about 10 million people at work, largest percentage since the Great Depression,” Walz said.

Vance responded by attacking the Biden-Harris economic record as “atrocious” and defending Trump.

“Honestly, Tim, I think you got a tough job here, because you got to play Whac-A-Mole,” he said, accusing Walz of having to “pretend” that Trump’s economy improved wages and had lower inflation.

Walz also attacked Trump on taxes and trade policy.

“If you’re listening tonight and you want billionaires get tax cuts,” Trump is your candidate, Walz told voters while looking through the TV screen. “How is it fair that you’re paying your taxes every year and Donald Trump hasn’t paid any federal tax in the last 15 years?”

VANCE’S REVISIONIST HISTORY ON TRUMP’S OBAMACARE REPEAL PUSH

Vance rewrote the history of Trump’s years-long efforts to destroy the Affordable Care Act, or “Obamacare,” instead repeating the campaign’s claim that Trump rescued it.

“Donald Trump could’ve destroyed the program. Instead he worked in a bipartisan way to ensure that Americans had access to affordable care,” Vance said when asked about Trump saying he has “concepts of a plan” to replace the 2010 health care law.

The claim distorts the facts. As president, Trump worked in a partisan way with Republicans to try and destroy ACA, endorsing legislation that would have rescinded the law’s insurance subsidies and prohibitions on charging higher prices to people with pre-existing conditions; the push fell one vote short in the Senate. He used executive actions to cut funding for programs to sign people up for coverage on the law’s marketplaces. He also asked the Supreme Court to wipe out the ACA in its entirety in 2020 — the case failed.

The link to the quoted NBC news source with photos is here:

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/5-takeaways-walz-vance-presidential-debate-economy-health-care-defendi-rcna172591

VANCE DODGES ON JANUARY 6

The clearest divide of the night came when Walz put Vance on the spot during a discussion of the January 6, 2021, insurrection and Trump’s false claims that he won the 2020 election.

“Did he lose the 2020 election?” Walz asked Vance, attempting to force the Ohio senator to acknowledge a reality that Trump himself won’t.

“Tim, I’m focused on the future,” was how Vance began his response.

“That is a damning nonanswer,” Walz shot back.

Vance tried to sidestep the violent attack by Trump supporters on the US Capitol on the day Congress was gathering to officially count Electoral College votes and certify Joe Biden’s victory.

“On January 6, what happened? Joe Biden became president; Donald Trump left the White House,” Vance said.

Walz, though, drilled into the details of the costs of Trump’s efforts to overturn the election results.

“He lost this election, and he said he didn’t. One hundred and forty police officers were beaten at the Capitol that day, some with the American flag, and several later died,” he said. “The democracy is bigger than winning an election.”

Vance tried to redirect the discussion of democracy into a debate about social media censorship. But each time he tried, Walz pushed back, arguing that Trump was already laying the groundwork to reject the outcome of the 2024 race if he loses.

“Here we are four years later, in the same boat,” Walz said. “The winner needs to be the winner. This has got to stop. It’s tearing our country apart.”

MIDWESTERN NICE, UP TO A POINT

In many ways, this vice-presidential debate reflected the way typical Americans argue about contentious issues.

There was no name-calling, few canned zingers and a clear directive for both Vance and Walz not to get personal – unless they were aggressively agreeing that the issues were, in fact, issues. The housing crisis, they agreed, was a crisis. Gun violence, both said, needed to be reduced.

Instead of jousting among themselves, Vance and Walz behaved agreeably in the service of trying to depict the respective presidential candidates as uniquely divisive or misguided.

“I agree with a lot of what Sen. Vance said about what’s happening – his running mate, though, does not,” Walz said when the debate turned to abortion. “And that’s the problem.”

Even after Walz rejected Vance’s claim that housing prices were being driven up by undocumented immigrants, the Republican offered his rival some kind words.

“Tim just mentioned a bunch of ideas. Now some of those ideas I actually think are halfway decent, and some of them I disagree with,” Vance said, before regaining his focus and adding, “But the most important thing here is: Kamala Harris is not running as a newcomer to politics. She is the sitting VP.”

 SPRINGFIELD PET-EATING CLAIMS FEATURE IN IMMIGRATION CLASH

 During a debate over immigration and border security, Walz invoked Vance’s false claims about Haitian immigrants eating the pets of residents in Springfield, Ohio.

“There’s consequences for this,” Walz said, pointing out that Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine, a Republican, dispatched state troopers to Springfield to ensure the safety of children after a series of bomb threats.

Vance shot back, “The people I care most about in Springfield are the American citizens.”

In the Ohio city and others like it, Vance said, because of an influx of migrants, “you’ve got schools that are overwhelmed, you’ve got hospitals that are overwhelmed, you’ve got housing that is totally unaffordable.”

What Vance didn’t say: The 12,000 to 15,000 Haitian migrants in Springfield are in the United States legally.

But Walz didn’t fact-check Vance on that matter. And when he didn’t, CBS moderator Margaret Brennan explained those immigrants’ legal status.

The clash over Springfield came during a lengthy back-and-forth over immigration policy. Vance repeatedly referred to Harris as President Joe Biden’s “border czar,” a label that refers to her 2021 assignment to tackle the root causes of migration from Central American countries. And Walz hammered Trump for his role in thwarting a bipartisan border security bill earlier this year, saying the former president did so in order to keep immigration alive as a campaign issue.

“We could come together and solve this if we didn’t let Donald Trump continue to make it an issue,” Walz said.

WALZ SAYS HE ‘MISSPOKE’ ABOUT HIS PRESENCE AT TIANANMEN SQUARE

New reporting by Minnesota Public Radio News and APM Reports in the lead up to Tuesday’s debate called into question Walz’s claims about how frequently he traveled to China, which he has previously said was as many as “about 30 times.” Reports contradicted those claims and specifically whether the Minnesota governor was in Hong Kong during the Tiananmen Square protests in 1989.

CNN also reported additional information on Walz’s claims earlier on Tuesday.

When asked about the reports and the discrepancy, a Harris campaign spokesperson said it was “likely closer to 15” times.

And when asked directly during the debate Walz filibustered, first describing his upbringing and rise in electoral politics before conceding that he can sometimes get caught up in the moment, be a “knucklehead,” and said he “misspoke.”

Vance didn’t seek to directly capitalize on Walz’s concession, but alluded to it in a different question shortly thereafter, saying, “When you misspeak, you ought to be honest with the American people about that.”

ASSERTIONS OVER ABORTION

As the debate turned to abortion, both candidates were asked to address claims about their ticket’s stances on reproductive rights.

Walz was asked to respond to a false assertion from Trump that the Minnesota governor supports abortion in the ninth month. In one of his stronger moments of the night, Walz brought up the personal stories of women who faced health crises or died due to state abortion bans.

“In Minnesota, what we did was restore Roe v. Wade,” Walz said. “We made sure that we put women in charge of their health care.”

While discussing abortion, the governor incorrectly claimed the Trump campaign and the conservative Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025 would create a “registry of pregnancies.” The organization’s proposal would require the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to collect data on abortions.

Vance was asked if the Trump campaign wants to create a “federal pregnancy monitoring agency,” referencing another past claim by Walz.

“Certainly we won’t,” Vance said. The Ohio senator defended the repeal of federal abortion protections, pointing to a 2023 ballot initiative in his state that enshrined abortion rights in the state constitution. Vance argued that the Republican Party needs to do a better job of advancing “pro-family” policies, including access to fertility treatments and make housing more affordable.

CONVERSATION ON GUN VIOLENCE

Vance and Walz had something approaching a constructive conversation about gun violence in America, agreeing that it is bad, getting worse and needs to be addressed – especially in schools.

That this bears noting underscores just how fruitless past Democratic-led efforts have been in stemming the bloody tide. But the question of how to deal with it, despite the friendly nods between the two onstage, remained unresolved.

Vance at one point even suggested that the current administration’s border policy (or, as he put it, “Kamala Harris’ open border”) was a driving factor – a non sequitur given the length and depth of the crisis. He did, however, also acknowledge it was a more complicated issue.

Walz mostly agreed with that sentiment but fought to keep the conversation from turning into a stalemate. When Vance pointed to mental health and drug use as another cause of gun deaths, Walz sought to refocus the conversation.

“Sometimes it just is the guns,” Walz said. “It’s just the guns.”

The Minnesota governor agreed that lawmakers “should look at all the issues” but stopped there to add a line of caution.

“This idea of stigmatizing mental health – just because you have a mental health issue doesn’t mean you’re violent,” Walz said.

The candidates also shared concerns over how schools were responding to the threat of active shooters. Again, though, Vance treated the issue as something more like a force of nature than a policy question.

“I unfortunately think we have to increase security in our schools,” he said, acknowledging that it was not a pleasant prospect. “We have to make the doors lock better. We have to make the doors stronger. We’ve got to make the windows stronger.”

Walz agreed, in part, but, in urging tighter restrictions, asked viewers, “Do you want your schools hardened to look like a fort?”

The link to the quoted news source with photos  is here:

https://www.cnn.com/2024/10/01/politics/vp-debate-takeaways-vance-walz/index.html

CBS FLASH POLL: THE DEBATE WAS A DRAW

CBA conducted a flash poll to gage public opinion on who won the debate. The following CBS news story was written by CBS staff reporter Steven Shepard:

“Voters who watched the VP debate rendered a split decision in a flash poll conducted by CBS News and YouGov.

Roughly equal shares of debate-watchers scored JD Vance (42 percent) and Tim Walz (41 percent) the winner, the poll showed. The remaining 17 percent called it a tie.

That stands in contrast to the two presidential debates earlier this year. In flash polls conducted by CNN, Donald Trump was seen as a clear victor over Joe Biden in their June debate, while Kamala Harris clearly beat out Trump in last month’s meeting between the two nominees.

And in another turnabout from the top of the ticket, the vast majority of debate-watchers, 88 percent, described the tone of the VP debate as “generally positive.” Only 12 percent said it was “generally negative.”

Both running mates improved their image ratings among voters who watched the debate. Walz entered the night with 52 percent of this sample holding a favorable opinion of him; 60 percent said they did after it was over. Among the same group, Vance’s favorable rating improved by roughly the same margin, from 40 percent to 49 percent.

A reminder: Polls of voters who watched the debate are not representative of the broader electorate. The CBS News/YouGov poll was conducted online among voters who said in advance they planned to watch the debate and has a margin of error of plus or minus 2.7 percentage points.

On issues, debate watchers said Walz gave the better answers on abortion (62 percent to 38 percent) and health care (59 percent to 41 percent). The two candidates were roughly even on the conflict in the Middle East, the economy and immigration.

And a majority of debate watchers said Walz spent most of his time explaining his own views (54 percent) as opposed to attacking the other side (46 percent). Those results were flipped for Vance: 55 percent said he spent most of his time attacking the other side.”

The link to the quoted news source with photos is here:

https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2024/10/01/vance-walz-vp-debate-tonight/cbs-flash-poll-results-00182122

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

The match-up between Walz, 60, and Vance, 40, is expected to be the last debate of the 2024 presidential election cycle. Former President Donald Trump has signaled that he will not debate Vice President Kamala Harris again before the election, which is less than 40 days away.

The Vice-Presidential debate between Vance and Waltz was a stark contrast with the Presidential debate between former President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamal Harris. It was a debate that was amazingly normal given the vitriol of the campaign and the Presidential debate.

Gov. Walz was noticeably less comfortable on stage than Vance but eventually settled in after a nervous start. He cast Trump as a liar who ignores experts and rejects the truth as he offers “alternative facts” that are many times simply made up.

The two VP candidates were cordial and polite to each other concentrating their attacks on the presidential candidates and focusing largely on policy differences. Vance repeatedly hit Vice President Kamala Harris on border security, while Walz lambasted former President Donald Trump on abortion rights.

Both candidates did no harm and did not make a fool of themselves. They acted like adults. It’s unlikely the debate will change the trajectory of the presidential race with the race that is still  considered a toss up. .

On August 22, a petition calling for Mayor Tim Keller to terminate Chief Harold Medina began to circulate on the internet and by email. The petition was started by Citizen of Albuquerque using a free on-line petition organization identified as “change.org.”  

Change.org is a website that allows users to create and sign petitions to raise awareness and influence decision-makers on social causes. Change.org does solicit contributions but does not require them to sign the petition. The site is owned by a nonprofit foundation and is a for-profit public benefits corporation. Change.org claims to be the world’s largest nonprofit-owned platform for social change.  Users can create petitions on a variety of topics, including general justice, economic justice, criminal justice, human rights, education, environmental protection, animal rights, health, and sustainable food.  The link to change.org is here:

https://www.change.org/login_or_join?redirectTo=%2Fu%2F1348170913

The petition has a photo of APD Chief Harold Medina and provides an update on the status of the number of those who have signed the petition. Citizens of Albuquerque can be considered as those who have signed the petition. As of September 30, a total 309 people have signed the petition.

The petition states:

“WHY THIS PETITION MATTERS

Started by Citizen of Albuquerque

As citizens of Albuquerque, New Mexico, we hold our public officials to a high standard of professionalism and integrity. Regrettably, one among them, Harold Medina, current Chief of the Albuquerque Police Department, has recurrently demonstrated his unsuitability for such an esteemed position. Cambridge’s Policing Project highlights that ethical leadership is integral to enhancing departmental functioning and citizen trust, which we believe is currently lacking under Medina’s leadership (International Association of Chiefs of Police, Policing Project).

His admissions concerning his crash, that seriously injured a citizen of Albuquerque, show that he is only concerned for himself and not the citizens he is sworn to serve. He was recorded during a citywide briefing attempting to downplay his actions and said that the investigation was to simply “appease everyone.” Furthermore, he was exposed during an internals affairs investigation saying that he intentionally did not turn on his camera so he would not incriminate himself. Is that really acceptable for someone who is supposed to be the pinnacle of public servant? The citizens of Albuquerque deserve better!

Mayor Keller, our demands rest on a pressing need for the termination of Harold Medina from his role as chief for the greater good of our community. By signing this petition, we take a collective step towards a safer and better governed Albuquerque. Sign this petition today and be part of the change we need.”

The link to the petition and to sign it is here:

https://www.change.org/p/mayor-keller-terminate-chief-harold-medina

OPEN LETTER TO MAYOR TIM KELLER

On September 27 the following email to Mayor Tim Keller was forwarded to www.PeteDinelli.com and ostensibly has been sent to Mayor Keller for his response:

EDITOR’S NOTE: Direct contact was made by www.PeteDinelli.com with the sender of the correspondence to Mayor Keller.  The identity of the author of the correspondence to Mayor Keller has been identified as a retired APD Police Officer who asked to remain anonymous and is considered as a confidential source.  The confidential source stated the media has ignored several requests for news coverage as have the city councilors.

Mayor Keller,

As an elected official it is your responsibility to serve the best interests of the public. Your service as mayor to Albuquerque is a privilege and is not your right. With that said, I wish to address the ongoing concerns many citizens have over the continued appointment of Chief Harold Medina. I am sure you aware that an official Brady complaint was lodged against Medina for “Abuse of Authority.” While this could apply to many instances during his tenure, it stems from his recent chicanery surrounding his admission that he intentionally violated state statutes (New Mexico Statutes Chapter 29. Law Enforcement § 29-1-18) concerning his body camera during his reckless crash that seriously injured a citizen of Albuquerque (the other driver sustained a broken collarbone, broken shoulder blade, eight broken ribs, and a collapsed lung and was taken to the hospital in critical condition). 

Considering the nature of this incident, I find it relevant to point out the many incredulous administrative steps that were taken to allow this travesty of justice to occur. Despite the excuses your administration made for Medina, his crash was preventable. To clarify, even if he and his wife were in danger, that does not authorize him to engage in reckless behavior placing others in peril to protect himself. The fact is that he acted cowardly in a situation he is supposedly trained and experienced to handle (I myself have decades’ worth of law enforcement experience that include multiple situations of being in mortal danger). There was no excuse to recklessly speed through a red light with no regard for anyone else. 

 After this preventable incident occurred, the proper course of action was to have a third-party law enforcement agency conduct the investigation. How is it possible for a subordinate to conduct a fair and impartial investigation into their boss? It is not. Furthermore, Chief Medina was recorded by a member of his own department saying that they were doing this investigation to “appease everyone.” Not only was his attitude irreverent, but it is also demonstrative of his cavalier thoughts and actions toward his responsibilities to the public. 

 When this sham of an investigation was completed, Medina evaded actual consequences with nothing more than two letters of reprimand. If any other officer admitted, in an internal affairs interview, that they intentionally did not turn on their camera to protect themselves, from liability, they would have been facing harsher disciplinary measures up to and including termination. I say this knowing that politically it would be hazardous for the department to allow an admission like this to go unchallenged, considering the DWI scandal hanging over your and Medina’s head. Ultimately, Albuquerque’s “top cop” should have been held to the highest standard and terminated for his behavior.

 Mr. Mayor I would like to remind you that under the city’s current Merit System Ordinance, Section 301.1; it is Chief Medina’s and your responsibility to remember that your “first obligation is to the general public’s safety and well-being.”  Furthermore, under Section 301.3; “Employees shall in all instances maintain their conduct at the highest personal and professional standards in order to promote public confidence and trust in the City.…” Considering the intent of this ordinance, I would argue that these sections have been violated. 

 For the sake of brevity, I have chosen to focus on this incident alone, although there are many others where Medina and his staff have violated other Merit System Ordinances. I believe it prudent that I share a petition that is circulating (and still growing) demanding that you carry out your responsibility to the public and terminate Chief Harold Medina. For your contemplation and consideration, I have included the links to the petition, the Brady complaint, and a news article relevant to your reelection.

  With great concern,

 Citizens of Albuquerque

 [The following links are provided]

Petition – https://www.change.org/terminateharoldmedina

Brady List – https://giglio-bradylist.com/individual/harold-%20medina

Reelection Controversies Article – https://www.koat.com/article/albuquerque-mayor-keller-2025-campaign/62087340

RESULTS OF INTERNAL AFFAIRS INVESTIGATIONS

On April 3 it was reported to the City Council that the APD Crash Review Board voted unanimously to deem Medina’s crash “non-preventable” and therefore Chief Medina was not charge charged with any traffic violations by APD.

On July 18, the city announced that the Internal Affairs investigation and disciplinary review of APD Chief Harold Medina actions during the February 17 car crash 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 as required by APD standard operating procedures. The letters of reprimand were placed in Medina’s personnel file.  No other disciplinary action was taken. APD spokesman Gilbert Gallegos said Medina accepted the discipline and signed the letters of reprimand.

NEW MEXICO STATUTE MANDATING ACTIVATION OF LAPEL CAMERAS BY LAW ENFORCEMENT

Chief Medina publicly admitted in news interviews that he did not have his body camera on during the February 17 incident and car crash and for that reason he referred the matter to APD Internal Affairs.

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:

“A.  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 …. . 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… fail to operate a body-worn camera in accordance with law enforcement agency policies …

B.  Peace officers who fail to comply with the policies and procedures required to be adopted pursuant to Subsection A 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.”

There are serious consequences for a law enforcement officer’s failure to abide by the statute. Under the statute, per Section 29-1-18(C), a law enforcement officer “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.”

 CAR ACCIDENT VICTIM FILE SUIT

On August 26,  Todd Perchert, the victim of the February 17 car crash caused APD Police Chief Harold Medina, filed in the 2nd Judicial District Court in Albuquerque a 20 page personal injury lawsuit naming as Defendants the  City of Albuquerque and APD Chief Harold Medina.  The lawsuit alleges negligence and that “Defendant Harold Medina battered and/or assaulted Todd Perchert by driving at a high rate of speed and violently colliding with Plaintiff’s vehicle.” The civil complaint outlines personal injury damages, alleges violations of the New Mexico Tort Claims Act, and Violations of the New Mexico Civil Rights Act and alleges “Loss of Consortium.” Perchert’s wife, Danielle, is also suing. The Percherts are requesting a jury trial.

The Percherts are claiming Chef Medina violated multiple state laws and department operating procedures when the crash happened. They also say the city is responsible because it was negligent in hiring, training and supervising Medina. The 20-page lawsuit also states Todd Perchert is unable to work, and has “suffered damage to the value and enjoyment of his life” because of his injuries from the crash.

Todd Perchert is seeking damages for the following personal injuries sustained in the car crash:

• Broken collarbone and shoulder blade
• 8 broken ribs (Reconstructed with titanium plates after surgery)
• Collapsed lung
• Lacerations to left ear and head
• Multiple gashes to face
• Seven-hour surgery
• Hospitalized with an epidural painkiller and chest tube for nearly a week

 The civil litigation is pending. If the case is not settled and  proceeds to a jury trial, it’s very likely that a jury will render a significant judgment against the city and Chief Medina. Given all that has been reported in the media, including incriminating statements by Chief Medina, his admissions of liability and admissions against interests, as well as the videos of the car crash, the case will be extremely hard for the city to defend. Medina has caused the city and the citizens of Albuquerque major exposure to financial liability because of his actions, statements and willful failures to follow APD standard operating procedures.  Because his acts were “official” the city and taxpayers will be required under the New Mexico Tort claims act to defend and indemnify him for his liability.

CITY COUNCILOR LOUIE SANCHEZ FILES COMPLAINT AGAINST CHIEF MEDINA

On August 26, 2024, in a press release, it was announced that District 1 City Councilor Louie Sanchez has filed a complaint with the New Mexico Department of Public Safety (DPS) to investigate potential misconduct by Chief Medina at the scene of the Chief’s February 2024 automobile crash.

The press release reads in full as follows:

“For Immediate Release: August 26, 2024

Councilor Sanchez Files Complaint with NM Department of Safety Against APD Chief Medina Chief’s actions on accident scene appear to be in violation of state law.

 “[Albuquerque City] Councilor Sanchez submitted a formal request for a state investigation of the conduct of Chief Medina at the scene of the February accident.  The request, known as a LEA-90, comes in the light of Medina’s admission to APD Internal Affairs that he intentionally and purposefully did not activate his body-worn camera when involved in police action. Such action by Medina appears to violate Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham’s 2020 public safety accountability bill which requires police officers to wear the body worn cameras and record encounters with citizens.

The Law Enforcement Training Act (Section 29-7-1 through 29-7-16), grants the Law Enforcement Academy Board of Directors the power and duty to refuse, suspend, or revoke the certification of a police officer or telecommunicator for just cause as provided for under the Law Enforcement Training Act and Board Rules.

“As the chief law enforcement officer of the state’s largest police department, the chief should hold himself to a higher standard than that of his rank and file, not lower. We are at a crossroads where officer morale is at an all-time low and public trust might even be lower,” Councilor Sanchez stated. “Chief Medina’s actions are the type of actions that brought the U.S. Department of Justice oversight in the first place. Here, he openly disregarded state law.”

It is imperative to uphold the highest standards of integrity and professionalism within our law enforcement agencies, and this investigation aims to address any concerns or allegations with the utmost seriousness.

The request for investigation has been submitted to the Department of Public Safety, Law Enforcement Academy and will be conducted by the LEA Board of Directors. The findings of this investigation will be made public to ensure that our community is kept informed throughout the process.”

The link to the press release is here:

https://www.cabq.gov/council/find-your-councilor/district-1/news/councilor-sanchez-files-complaint-with-nm-department-of-safety-against-apd-chief-medina#:~:text=ALBUQUERQUE%20%E2%80%93%20District%201%20City%20Councilor,Chief’s%20February%202024%20automobile%20crash.

According to former Attorney General Hector Balderas, anyone can submit an LEA-90, or misconduct form, to the LEA Board.

 COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

There is absolutely no doubt that APD Chief Medina still enjoys 100% confidence of Mayor Tim Keller despite all of Medina’s admissions of violating standard operating procedures.  After the accident caused by Medina, both Mayor Keller and Chief Medina had the gall to declare it was Medina who was the victim the car accident Medina caused. Medina declared his 5^th Amendment right against self-incrimination when he was asked about his failure to activate his lapel camera.  Keller went so far to say “[Chief Medina is] arguably the most important person right now in these times in our city.” 

The preferential treatment that Chief Medina has been given by Mayor Keller and Medina’s Internal Affairs management team when it comes to investigating the car accident caused by his reckless driving that almost killed a private citizen is obscene and an embarrassment. Chief Medina violated multiple state laws and department operating procedures when the crash happened that normally would get any other police officer fired.  Chief Medina should have been charged with reckless driving but instead was given a slap on the wrist in the form of letters of reprimand by his Internal Affairs department.

There has been no announcement on the status of the complaint filed against APD Chief Medina by City Councilor Louie Sanchez with the Law Enforcement Academy Board. Should the board in fact find that Chief Medina intentionally violated state law by not activating his lapel camera, the Board could suspend or terminate Medina’s law enforcement certification. Maybe then and only then will Mayor Keller take appropriate action to hold Chief Medina accountable for his conduct, thank him for his service and ask him for his resignation.

The links to related Dinelli blog articles are here:

APD Chief Harold Medina Pleads 5th Amendment Right Against Self Incrimination In Car Crash Investigation; Medina Found He Intentionally Did Not Have Lapel Camera On; Given New $100,000 Ford Expedition; Citizen’s Petition Seeking Medina’s Termination Circulates

https://www.petedinelli.com/2024/07/22/apd-chief-harold-medina-given-slap-on-the-wrist-for-car-crash-he-caused-critically-injuring-another-given-two-written-reprimands-no-charges-filed-despite-elements-of-carel/

https://www.petedinelli.com/2024/08/28/victim-of-car-crash-caused-by-apd-chief-harold-medina-files-personal-injury-lawsuit-to-recover-damages-extent-of-personal-injuries-coupled-with-medinas-conduct-admissions-and-video-of-crash-wi/

https://www.petedinelli.com/2024/08/27/complaint-filed-against-apd-chief-medina-with-nm-department-of-public-safety-by-councilor-louie-sanchez-after-medina-admits-he-intentionally-did-not-turn-on-lapel-camera-after-car-crash-medina-may-be/