On Thursday June 23, KOB-4 ran a story where Mayor Tim Keller claimed that when it comes to the homeless, his hands are tied. Keller claimed the homelessness crisis that plagues Albuquerque is not unique to New Mexico and said “federal protections” have made some criminal enforcement difficult.

With footage of the illegal homeless encampment at Coronado Park as an introduction backdrop to the KOB 4 report, Keller said this:

“But those people are there [at Corando Park] by choice, a 100% by choice and they are protected federally. Otherwise, this problem would have been gone in all American cities. … The law is the law and you know you want to see someone a lot more powerful than a Mayor to talk to a federal judge.”

Mayor Keller said people at Coronado Park have turned down services offered by the city.

Channel 4 reported that during the June 22 meeting of the Albuquerque City Council’s meeting a city attorney explained the federal pressures the city is operating under. The city attorney cited federal cases arguing that they place limitations on the city. The main case cited by the city attorney when it comes to enforcing the law and the homeless was McClendon v. City of Albuquerque. The city attorney said this

“[When it comes to] “quote, unquote” homeless crimes, those offenders are not allowed to be arrested as a primary intervention”.

The case of McClendon v. City of Albuquerque had absolutely nothing to do with the rights of the homeless. It is a class-action lawsuit filed on January 10, 1995 in the United States Federal District Court by detainees at the Bernalillo County Detention Center (BCDC) in Albuquerque. The 1995 class-action lawsuit alleged that gross overcrowding and racial discrimination at the jail violated the constitutional rights of inmates.

The federal class action lawsuit sought injunctive and declaratory relief enjoining the operation of the jail exceeding its capacity and operating it with deplorable living conditions. At the time the lawsuit was filed, the downtown 8 story Bernalillo County detention center, torn down late last year, had a maximum capacity of 800, but the jail was repeatedly overcrowded with as many as 1,400 inmates who were often doubled up and living conditions were abhorrent. The overcrowding became so bad that the federal court would hold weekly and monthly status conferences and order the release of nonviolent defendants to reduce the overcrowding at the jail.

It was explained to the city council that in 2017 the city entered in to a stipulated settlement agreement in the McClendon federal case where the city agreed that people accused of nonviolent misdemeanors will not be arrested where there is no circumstances requiring an arrest. The primary reason for the settlement was to prevent jail overcrowding.

The city attorney explained that when it comes to “homeless crimes”, ostensibly meaning illegal camping, criminal trespassing and loitering, those offenders are not to be arrested as the primary intervention. Under the settlement terms, police still have the option to issue citations and still have the discretionary authority to make felony and misdemeanor arrests as they deemed appropriate and where the circumstances warrant.

The city attorney said this:

“We are trying to advise the best we can [of] the least expensive means to be the most productive and respect people’s civil rights. ”

KOB 4 interviewed UNM law professor Joshua Katzenberg and asked how much power does the city and APD really have when it comes to enforcing the law against the homeless. Professor Kastenberg had this to say:

“The City’s hands and the Police hands are tied to a certain extent, that’s true. … Coronado Park you could put in any major city and we would be having this discussion right now. … I have talked to police officers and there is a fear of lawsuits, there is a sort of sense of hopelessness. That’s the sad state of affairs. … There should be a multi-tiered approach to this. One is increasing bed space the other is increasing mental health services. Another one is making it possible so that when you can get enough people to be where they’re supposed to be, those that don’t go can be prosecuted, you know, cited and prosecuted under the law by the police.“

KOB 4 contacted APD and asked them to quantify how they are enforcing the law when it comes to the low-level, nonviolent offenses committed by the homeless. An APD spokesman told KOB that since the beginning of 2022 there have been issued 2,308 citations to the homeless and issued 614 trespassing notices with 3 trespassing stops revealing outstanding warrants.

The link to the full 3 minute, 34 second unedited KOB story is here:

https://www.kob.com/new-mexico/unm-law-professor-weighs-in-on-mayors-claims-about-homelessness/

HOUSING FIRST POLICY

The City of Albuquerque has adopted the Housing First policy as mandated by the Homeless Emergency Assistance and Rapid Transition to Housing Act (HEARTH Act) in order to secure federal funding. The HEARTH Act provides that in order to receive federal dollars, cities must adopt a “housing first” policy and, crucially, that homeless organizations had to work together in “continuums of care” under a single lead agency, coordinating their programs and sharing data.

On May 16, the Albuquerque City Council voted to approve the 2022-2023 fiscal year city budget which will begin on July 1,2022 . The 2022-2023 approved city budget provides major funding of upwards of $60 Million to deal with the homeless. The largest budgeted items for the homeless or near homeless in the approve the 2022-2023 fiscal year city budget are as follows:

• $24 million in Emergency Rental Assistance from the federal government, which the City will make available in partnership with the State.

• $4 million in recurring funding and $2 million in one-time funding for supportive housing programs in the City’s Housing First model. In addition, as recommended by the Mayor’s Domestic Violence Task Force, the budget includes $100 thousand for emergency housing vouchers for victims of intimate partner violence.

• $4.7 million net to operate the City’s first Gateway Center at the Gibson Medical Facility, including revenue and expenses for facility and program operations.

• Full funding for the Westside Emergency Housing Center which is operated close to full occupancy for much of the year.

On October 23, 2019, it was announced that Albuquerque’s West Side Emergency Housing Center was expanded to provide a coordinated approach to homelessness. The homeless use that facility to get medical care, treatment for addiction and behavioral health, job placement and case management services. The west side shelter now has the University of New Mexico Health Sciences Center, Presbyterian Hospital and Alburquerque Health Care for the Homeless providing medical services two days a week. It also has case management services being provided by Centro Savila, funded by Bernalillo County. Job placement opportunities are being provided by workforce connections.

KELLER’S STATE OF THE CITY ADDRESS

On Saturday, June 25, Mayor Tim Keller gave his “State of The City” address. Not at all surprising, Keller bought up the city’s homeless crisis. Keller noted that homelessness is “on display in so many areas in our city.”

“Keller said the city needs an all-of-the-above approach, citing rental-assistance vouchers, affordable housing development, hotel-to-apartment conversions, and the long-awaited Gibson Health Hub. Located in the old Lovelace hospital on Gibson, the city has begun work to create an on-site medical respite facility and medical sobering center, plus a Gateway Center homeless shelter, though the shelter component – which voters in 2019 approved funding for – remains tied up in neighborhood appeals.’

“We will stand up against shallow ideas that will neither work, nor are remotely humane … We will not round up people; we will not force people on to a bus; we will not arrest people who have not committed an arrestable crime; we will not pull your officers off your 911 calls for somebody passed out under a tree.”

The link to quoted news source material is here:

https://www.abqjournal.com/2511525/keller-city-holding-the-line-during-difficult-times.html

SPECIAL ORDER 17-53 AND SOP 2-80

It was on May 10, 2018 in a memo addressed by then APD Chief Gorden Eden to all sworn APD personnel that Department Special Order 17-53 was issued. Special Order 17-53 and 2-80 were the result of the settlement of the 20-plus year McClendon Lawsuit. As noted, the lawsuit filed against the City of Albuquerque and Bernalillo County was filed by an inmate arrested for a non-violent misdemeanor. The lawsuit primarily focused on civil rights violations and the conditions within the City/County lockup.

Special Order 17-53 states:

“[A]ll officers shall issue citations when appropriate in lieu of arrests on non-violent misdemeanor offenses. … officers shall issue citations when appropriate in lieu of arrest on non-violent misdemeanor offenses when there are no circumstances necessitating an arrest.”

The misdemeanor offenses affected by Special Order 17-53 include criminal trespass, loitering, criminal damage to property under $1,000, shoplifting under $500, shoplifting under $250, prostitution, receiving or possessing stolen property under $100. Note that the homeless are not mentioned. When I citation is issued for trespass or loitering, the officer can instruct the nonviolent offender to move on under the threat of arrest. The policy remains in place to this day.

The memo makes it clear that officers may make an arrest if it is necessary, and if they do, an incident report must be prepared, and the incident report must include the reasons why an arrest was made. The special-order states that officers have the opportunity to take offenders wanted for non-violent misdemeanor offenses to Metropolitan Court to resolve warrants or fines instead of hauling them off to jail. However, the arrested individual must have the full amount of the fine or bond in cash. Those arrested also cannot go through a bonding agency.

APD OFFICERS CAN MAKE ARRESTS

At the time the Special Order was issued, City and police officials pointed out that it made no changes to police policy. APD Chief Jerry Galvin in 2001 issued a similar order, and since then the department policy has been to advise officers to issue citations for non violent crimes where appropriate, and officers have discretion in deciding when to issue a citation or to arrest someone. According to then City Attorney Jessica Hernandez:

“If there is any part of a situation that makes an officer think an arrest is warranted, they’ll make the arrest.”

At the time the special order was issued, then Assistant Chief Robert Huntsman issued the following statement:

“This order in no way restricts officers’ discretion to make arrests when necessary to protect the public. Citations have always been an available option for certain non-violent misdemeanor offenses. This special order … remind officers to issue citations ‘when appropriate’ and ‘when there are no circumstances necessitating an arrest.’ We are still aggressively pursuing repeat offenders, and this order does not change an officer’s ability to arrest.”

APD further made it clear the order would not affect DWI arrests.

STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE ORDER 2-80

Special Order 17-53 was made into SOP 2-80 that deals with felony and misdemeanor arrests. SOP 2-80 is very succinct and provides as follows:

2-80 ARRESTS, ARREST WARRANTS AND BOOKING PROCEDURES

“2-80-1 Police Department policy is to arrest a felony violator of laws which its officers are empowered to enforce. Officers shall issue citations when appropriate in lieu of arrest on non-violent misdemeanor offenses (not to include DWIs) when there are no circumstances necessitating an arrest. In all cases, officers shall follow correct legal procedures required in arresting, booking, and filing charges against such violators.”

2-80-2 Rules Procedures

A. Felony Arrest Authority.

1. Felony arrests may be made through the authority of a warrant, or on probable cause when there are exigent circumstances preventing the officer from obtaining a warrant. …

a. When the offender has no community ties to the Albuquerque metropolitan area, e.g. transient, out of town resident, etc.; or
b. When one or more prior felonies or multiple offenses have been committed by the offender; or
c. When the arrest is approved by a supervisor based on extenuating circumstances; and
d. One or more exigent circumstance as described under A. 3 (1) through (4) above must be present.

B. Petty Misdemeanor/Misdemeanor Arrest Authority

1. Officers shall issue citations when appropriate in lieu of arrest on non-violent misdemeanor offenses (not to include DWIs) when there are no circumstances necessitating an arrest. Whether or not the person has a permanent address may not be the sole factor in determining to arrest the person rather than issuing a citation. If the officer issues a non-traffic citation, the officer must complete an incident report. If an arrest is necessary, the officer will include the reason in the narrative of the corresponding incident report.

… .

The link to review to review online all of APD’s Standard Operating Procedures is here:

https://documents.cabq.gov/police/standard-operating-procedures/2-80-arrests-arrest-warrants-and-booking-procedures.pdf

The link to quoted source material is here:

https://www.krqe.com/news/officers-to-issue-citations-instead-of-making-arrests-for-non-violent-misdemeanors/

https://www.koat.com/article/apd-no-longer-to-make-arrests-for-non-violent-misdemeanor-crimes/9662869

https://www.abqjournal.com/1006784/apd-citations-ok-for-some-crimes.html

STATE LAW AND CITY ORDINANCE DEFINING A PUBLIC NUISANCE

Both New Mexico state law and city ordinance define a public nuisance.

Under state law, a public nuisance is define as follows:

30-8-1 Public Nuisance (Defined)

A. public nuisance consists of knowingly creating, performing or maintaining anything affecting any number of citizens without lawful authority which is either:

Whoever commits a public nuisance for which the act or penalty is not otherwise prescribed by law is guilty of a petty misdemeanor.

Under City ordinance, a public nuisance is defined in terms of use of property as follows:

11-1-1-10 PUBLIC NUISANCES PROHIBITED

“(A) It shall be unlawful for any owner, manager, tenant, lessee, occupant, or other person having any legal or equitable interest or right of possession in real property …or other personal property to intentionally, knowingly, recklessly, or negligently commit, conduct , promote, facilitate, permit, fail to prevent, or otherwise let happen, any public nuisance in, on or using any property in which they hold any legal or equitable interest or right of possession.

(B) … .”

ENVRONMENTAL HEALTH STUDY OF CORONADO PARK SOUGHT

Confidential sources with APD have said that an environmental health study or ground testing has been performed either by the APD crime lab or the city’s Environmental Health Department on the Coronado Park grounds. According to the APD source, the study revealed a highly toxic level of contaminates, including drugs, human waste and fluids and dangerous levels of molds to the extent that the park grounds are dangerous and where exposure can affect a person’s health.

According to the APD source, a final report was provided to the Mayor’s Office and APD Chief Harold Medina and once reviewed, orders were issued that the study was not to be released to the general public for fear that the City would have to permanently close the park. Upon information and belief, a request for Inspection of Public records has been made by media outlets for the Coronado Park environmental study, but no response by the city has been reported.

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

Research shows that housing is the most effective approach to end homelessness with a much larger return on investment than offering temporary housing such as government sanctioned encampments. When Mayor Keller in his State of the City address advocated rental-assistance vouchers, affordable housing development, hotel-to-apartment conversions, and the long-awaited Gibson Health Hub and Homeless Shelter on Gibson he was advocating a “housing first” policy which is sound policy that will solve the city’s homeless crisis in the long run.

APD POLICE RELUNCTANCE TO ARREST MORE OUT OF FEAR THAN REALITY

What has been a common public relations ploy of the APD police union for the past 3 years is that APD officers feel their hands are tied and they are afraid to do their job for fear of being disciplined or that the DOJ reforms are the cause of the city’s high crime rates and officers being shot. It is not that their hands are tied. The blunt truth is that APD police officers reluctance to do their jobs and enforce the law is more out of fear as opposed to the reality.

If an APD officer adheres to their training in constitutional policing practices and APD standard operating procedures, the likelihood of any lawsuit being filed against them or discipline being imposed is not at all likely or for that matter remote at best. The fact that police are required to file offense reports with nonviolent misdemeanor arrests justifying the arrest more likely than not contributes to an officer’s reluctance to act given the high volume of calls for service police are dispatched to on any given day. The time it takes to write and offense report detailing the facts and circumstances of a nonviolent crime can be time consuming with time better spent dealing with more urgent emergency 911 calls.

THE LAW IS NOT THE LAW KELLER SAYS IT IS

It was false for Keller to say “the law is the law” and “those people are there [at Corando Patk] by choice, a 100% by choice and they are protected federally.” Keller admitted in his State of the City address that he and city policies are what is standing in the way of APD enforcing the law when it comes to the homeless.

Keller in his state of the city address objected to criticism that the city does not do enough to clean up encampments by saying crews “legally” disband dozens each week, but he will not allow the city to pursue what he deemed “simplistic” and inappropriate solutions.

Keller essentially went off the rails for dramatic effect in his State of the City Adress when he became animated and said:

“We will stand up against shallow ideas that will neither work, nor are remotely humane … We will not round up people; we will not force people on to a bus; we will not arrest people who have not committed an arrestable crime; we will not pull your officers off your 911 calls for somebody passed out under a tree.” This coming from Mayor Keller who embraced “safe outdoor spaces” and “living lots” which are as simplistic and inappropriate a solution as one can get. Both are city sponsored homeless encampments that are temporary tent encampments.

No one is advocating rounding up people or forcing people onto a city bus and taking them where they do not want to go. No one is advocating arresting people who have not committed a crime.

Keller on the other hand has no problem advocating “grouping”of the homeless, as he put it, Coronado Park, which is just as simplistic and cruel as to what he is condemning. What Keller has allowed at Coronado Park is not working and it’s not “remotely humane”.

The are no state or federal laws nor court rulings that say if you are homeless, you are given immunity to break the law and you cannot be arrested for violating the law. Keller knows damn well that being homeless is not a crime but his attempt to blame the federal courts and saying “the law is the law” is pathetic and a lie. Being homeless is not a crime, but that does not mean the homeless are allowed to violate the law.

It is a dereliction of his duty for Mayor Keller to allow APD to ignore the city’s anti-camping ordinances, vagrancy laws, civil nuisance abatement laws and criminal laws, and for him to pretend those laws do not exist to accommodate the homeless.

CORONDO PARK KELLER’S SYMBOL OF FAILURE

It was an astonishing admission of failure when Mayor Tim Keller said this about Coronado Park:

“[The federal courts] will not allow us to just walk in and arrest someone because they’re homeless and the current situation beats the alternative. … It is not lost on me that we created Coronado Park because Wells Park said, ‘We don’t want these folks in our neighborhood,’ and we agree with them. And that’s why they were all grouped to one area. … So you also got to remember the alternative. You can’t have it both ways — you want to close Coronado Park, you are going to open all of Wells Park neighborhood to something none of us want to see.”

Link to quoted news source:

https://www.abqjournal.com/2508302/man-fatally-shot-at-abq-park.html

Grouping the homeless, as Keller says, in a city park should not be an alternative given all the resources the city is spending to help the homeless. This so called “grouping” coming from a mayor who for his entire first term made dealing with the homeless crisis a corner stone of his administration. A Mayor whose administration spent $40 million in 2022 and will spend $60 million in 2023 to provide assistance to the homeless. A Mayor who saw to it that the city purchased the 529,000 square-foot Lovelace Hospital facility on Gibson for $15 million to have it converted into a Gateway Shelter and who made the westside shelter a 24-7 facility.

It was disingenuous for Keller to say “[The federal courts] will not allow us to just walk in and arrest someone because they’re homeless and the current situation beats the alternative. … .“ The current situation does not beat the alternative of having a zero tolerance of allowing illegal encampments and allowing the homeless to squat all over the city and not enforce the law.

There have been 4 homicides at Coronado Park since 2020. How many more killings, rapes, aggravated assaults and how many more crimes have to be committed at Coronado Park before the Mayor Keller and the City realize the mistake made to allow the park to become overrun with the homeless and allow them to camp illegally?

The city has allowed a once beautiful and pristine park dedicated to public use to become a festering blight on the community. Simply put, it has become an embarrassment with the city violating its own ordinances and nuisance laws by allowing overnight camping and criminal conduct in the park thus creating a public nuisance both under state law and city ordinance. Coronado Park has now become a symbol of Keller’s failure as Mayor to deal with the homeless crisis.

Mayor Tim Keller could use the inherent authority of his office and issue executive orders to clean up and remove unlawful encampments and permanently close Coronado Park. After a full term in office, Keller is reluctant to do just that out of fear of being accused of being insensitive to the plight of the homeless. What Keller has now shown is that he has been a failure dealing with the homeless crisis and he is being insensitive to the needs of the general public and to public safety.

CORONADO PARK IS A PUBLIC NUISANCE

It is clear from the plain meaning of the state statute and the city ordinance defining a public nuisance that Coronado Park is being operated as a unlawful encampment that is “injurious to public health, safety and welfare … and interferes with the exercise and enjoyment of public rights, including the right to use public property. The city is violating its own public nuisance law when it comes to Corondo Park by “intentionally, knowingly, recklessly, or negligently commit, conduct, promote, facilitate, permit, fail to prevent, or otherwise let happen, any public nuisance in, on or using any property in which they hold any legal or equitable interest or right of possession.”

Now that Mayor Keller has ignored and condoned a festering problem that is known as Coronado Park for 4 years affecting a public facility, the City Council needs to fill the leadership gap. The city council needs to enact forthwith a resolution calling for the immediate and permanent closure of Coronado Park, order its cleanup and “decommission” the open space as a public park and order the fencing off of the park. The city council resolution needs to order the Parks and Recreation Department to conduct a study as to how the open space can be better utilized within the city’s park system.

As for Mayor Tim Keller, before he says “the law is the law”, he may want to try and become a licensed attorney or at least hire city attorneys that have a practical understanding of both civil and criminal law who can advise him what the law really is and not what he thinks it is.

On June 27, the New Mexico Sun published the following guest column provided by www.PeteDinelli.com:

HEADLINE: Godfather-like shake down by Keller for police protection

By Pete Dinelli
Jun 27, 2022

“On June 21, Mayor Tim Keller and APD Chief Harold Medina held a news conference to announce a new law enforcement initiative they dubbed “Targeted Enforcement Action Monitoring” (TEAM). The new program is tailored specifically for the Central Downtown Business area. Extra police officers will be assigned to focus on traffic enforcement, DWIs, modified car exhaust citations, illegal firearms and to patrol parking lots where after parties and violence break out after the numerous bars close. The city is planning to open a new substation on Central between Third and Fourth in the Rosenwald Building.

Instead of kissing Keller’s ring and paying more for police protection, Downtown business owners should demand Keller and Medina deliver on the police protection they are already paying for.”

Pete Dinelli is a native of Albuquerque. He is a licensed New Mexico attorney with 27 years of municipal and state government service including as an assistant attorney general, assistant district attorney prosecuting violent crimes, city of Albuquerque deputy city attorney and chief public safety officer, Albuquerque city councilor, and several years in private practice. Dinelli publishes a blog covering politics in New Mexico: www.PeteDinelli.com.

The link to the New Mexico Sun guest column is here:

https://newmexicosun.com/stories/627861998-godfather-like-shake-down-by-keller-for-police-protection

ALBUQUERQE JOURNAL EDITORIAL

On June 28, the Albuquerque Journal published the following editorial repeating many of the argument made in the Dinelli blog article above:

Editorial: ABQ’s Downtown police OT scheme like TV mob plot
BY ALBUQUERQUE JOURNAL EDITORIAL BOARD
PUBLISHED: TUESDAY, JUNE 28TH, 2022 AT 12:02AM
UPDATED: TUESDAY, JUNE 28TH, 2022 AT 10:40AM

It sounds a lot like a deal they can’t refuse: Pay police a little extra and they’ll protect your Downtown business. If it sounds somewhat shady, that’s because it’s the stuff of gangster movies and TV shows.

This editorial first appeared in the Albuquerque Journal. It was written by members of the editorial board and is unsigned as it represents the opinion of the newspaper rather than the writers.

https://www.abqjournal.com/2512102/webhedline-96.html

POSTSCRIPT

ABOUT THE NEW MEXICO SUN

The New Mexico Sun is part of the Sun Publishing group which is a nonprofit. The New Mexico Sun “mission statement” states in part:

“The New Mexico Sun was established to bring fresh light to issues that matter most to New Mexicans. It will cover the people, events, and wonders of our state. … The New Mexico Sun is non-partisan and fact-based, and we don’t maintain paywalls that lead to uneven information sharing. We don’t publish quotes from anonymous sources that lead to skepticism about our intentions, and we don’t bother our readers with annoying ads about products and services from non-locals that they will never buy. … Many New Mexico media outlets minimize or justify problematic issues based on the individuals involved or the power of their positions. Often reporters fail to ask hard questions, avoid making public officials uncomfortable, and then include only one side of a story. This approach doesn’t provide everything readers need to fully understand what is happening, why it matters, and how it will impact them or their families.”

The home page link to the New Mexico Sun is here:

https://newmexicosun.com/

When Benjamin Franklin was asked after a session of the Constitutional Convention, “What kind of a government have you given us?” he is said to have replied “A democracy, if you can keep it.” From recent events, the United States is on the verge of losing its democracy.

The United Sates House Committee hearings probing the January 6, 2021 attack on the United States Capitol to stop the certification of Joe Biden as President and 2 United States Supreme Court decisions reveals without any doubt that elections have consequences. What is even more sinister is that the radical conservative right has a strangle hold over the United States Supreme Court and the Republican party that has now become a threat to our Democracy.

ROE V. WADE OVERTURNED

On June 24, the United States Supreme Court in the case of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization overturned the landmark decision of Roe v. Wade. The Supreme Court ruling takes away a woman’s constitutional right to an abortion, abandoning almost 50 years of precedent, and paves the way for individual states to ban abortion. It is a decision rendered by the 6-3 conservative majority. The ruling is expected to lead to abortion bans in roughly half the states. According to opinion polls, the Roe v. Wade reversal puts the court at odds with a majority of Americans who favored preserving a woman’s right to choose.

The decision was the culmination of 50 years of efforts by abortion opponents. It was made possible by an emboldened, very conservative United States Supreme Court that has been fortified by 3 appointees of former President Donald Trump. Those conservative judges are Justices Brett Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett and Neil Gorsuch. The ruling came a month after the leak of a draft opinion by Justice Samuel Alito saying the court would reverse Roe v. Wade.

Supreme Court Justice Alito wrote that Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the 1992 decision that reaffirmed the right to abortion, were wrong the day they were decided and must be overturned. Alito wrote the authority to regulate abortion rests with the political branches, the individual states, not the courts. Alito wrote:

“We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled. The Constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision.”

Joining Alito in the majority opinion were Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett with the latter three justices appointed by Donald Trump.

Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan dissented. The dissenting justices wrote:

“With sorrow–for this Court, but more, for the many millions of American women who have today lost a fundamental constitutional protection–we dissent.”

https://www.abqjournal.com/2510997/supreme-court-overturns-roe-v-wade-states-can-ban-abortion.html

SUPREME COURT JUSTICE CLARENCE THOMAS

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas is a “strict constructionist” in interpreting the United States Constitution. “Strict constructionist” stands for the proposition that that a constitutional right does not exist if it is not specifically provided for in the constitution and such rights are reserved for the states to decide. Such rights include same sex marriage, access to birth control, the right to privacy and perhaps even inter racial marriage.

Justice Thomas writes that the Supreme Court should reconsider rights like birth control and same sex marriage in future decisions. Thomas agreed that the Roe v. Wade reversal ruling itself does not apply to other cases saying “the court’s abortion cases are unique” because they involve protecting a life and justices only considered this one set of circumstances, rather than rights granted through “substantive due process” as a whole.

However, Justice Thomas wrote in his concurring opinion:

“In future cases, we should follow the text of the Constitution, which sets forth certain substantive rights that cannot be taken away, and adds, beyond that, a right to due process when life, liberty, or property is to be taken away. … Substantive due process conflicts with that textual command and has harmed our country in many ways. Accordingly, we should eliminate it from our jurisprudence at the earliest opportunity.”

Justice Thomas specifically said the court “should consider” reversing other precedents and he wrote:

“In future cases, we should reconsider all of this court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell. … After overruling these demonstrably erroneous decisions, the question would remain whether other constitutional provisions guarantee the myriad rights that our substantive due process cases have generated.”

Thomas argued that using the due process clause to uphold these rights is a “legal fiction” that’s “particularly dangerous” and believes the court should issue a ruling saying the court cannot grant civil rights using that legal argument.

Thomas’ concurring opinion tracks with an argument abortion rights groups made for months leading up to the court’s abortion decision to reverse Roe v Wadesaying that the Constitution doesn’t protect a right to an abortion. The reversal will likely jeopardize other rights the court established under the 14th Amendment. Thomas referred to landmark opinions that blocked states from banning contraception, sex by same-sex couples and gay marriage.

The Constitution doesn’t explicitly guarantee a right to abortion, but a 7-2 majority opinion in Roe v. Wade held that the 14th Amendment’s protection of “liberty” includes the right to terminate a pregnancy. Several of the justices in Roe v. Wade drew on another landmark opinion decided eight years earlier that legalized contraception for married couples.

With his dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas invites a reversal of many constitutional rights not found in the constitution, including gay marriage. The United States Constitution also does not contain any provision that marriage is a constitutional right. Thomas is married to a white woman and the question is if he will also want to reverse the case of Loving v. Virginia where the United Sates Supreme Court case struck down state laws banning interracial marriage in the United States.

The plaintiffs in the case were Richard and Mildred Loving, a white man and Black woman whose marriage was deemed illegal according to Virginia state law. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously that “anti-miscegenation”statutes were unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment. The decision is often cited as a watershed moment in the dismantling of “Jim Crow” race laws.

STATES TO DECIDE

With the reversal of Roe v. Wade, the issue of a woman’s right to choose must now be decided by each individual state.

“More than 90% of abortions take place in the first 13 weeks of pregnancy, and more than half are now done with pills, not surgery, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a research group that supports abortion rights.

In roughly a half-dozen other states, including West Virginia and Wisconsin, the fight will be over dormant abortion bans that were enacted before Roe was decided in 1973 or new proposals to sharply limit when abortions can be performed, according to the Guttmacher Institute.”

The link to quoted source material is here:

https://apnews.com/article/abortion-supreme-court-decision-854f60302f21c2c35129e58cf8d8a7b0

ABORTIONS STILL LEGAL IN NEW MEXICO BUT IMPACTS STATE HEALTH CARE

In 2021, the New Mexico Legislature repealed a 1969 abortion ban which made abortion a crime to end a pregnancy except if the pregnancy endangered the health of the mother or incest. The 1969 criminal law had been unenforceable because of the Supreme Court’s 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade, but the law would have been reinstated with the Supreme Court’s reversal.

The reversal of Roe v. Wade will result in a health care crisis and have a major impact on New Mexico’s woman’s health care system. Of the four states sharing a border with New Mexico, 3 have already placed or will soon place restrictions on abortions. In September, Arizona enacted a law that bans abortion after 15 weeks with no exceptions for rape or incest. Since Texas passed a law banning most abortions after six weeks, New Mexico’s abortion providers have been dealing with an increase of Texan patients seeking abortions.

“About 1,700 patients from Texas have accessed abortion services at Planned Parenthood clinics in New Mexico since the restrictions were enacted. Previously, the clinics saw about 400 Texas patients each year. At the University of New Mexico Center for Reproductive Health, wait times increased from 24 hours to two to three weeks after the enactment of the Texas legislation in September, according to Dr. Lisa Hofler, clinical vice chair of the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology and chief of the division of Complex Family Planning at the University of New Mexico. This resulted in a 150% increase in patients seeking abortion care services over the previous year.”

The link to quoted news source material is here:

https://www.abqjournal.com/2511574/roe-v-wade-reversal-could-have-ripple-effect-on-nm-health-care.html

GAY RIGHTS’S IN NEW MEXICO

One case specifically cited by Justice Clarence Thomas as one he wants to revisit and reverse is Obergefell v. Hodges. On April 28, 2015, the United State Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Obergefell v. Hodges over whether or not gay marriage is a right guaranteed by the US Constitution, and whether or not gay marriages performed in states where it has been legalized must be recognized in states which ban the practice. On June 26, 2015, the Court ruled 5-4 that gay marriage is a constitutional right, meaning that all 50 states must allow it and that all existing bans are invalid. The decision concluded a decades-long battle over whether gay marriage should be legalized.

Even if in the future the United States Supreme Court revisits gay marriage, the reversal will likely be one where the United Sates Supreme court rules that it an issue, like abortion, to be decided by the states. On December 19, 2013, the New Mexico Supreme Court ruled that the state must provide same-sex couples with the same marriage rights as different-sex couples, making New Mexico the 17th U.S. state to recognize same-sex marriage. In 2019, the New Mexico legislature enacted legislation that codified same-sex marriage legislation. The same sex marriage bill passed unanimously in the New Mexico House and Senate and was signed into law by Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham. Although the NM Supreme Court upheld same sex marriage in its 2013 ruling, the added protection was viewed as essential and a protection to court reversal.

WOMANS’ RIGHT TO CHOOSE FRONT AND CENTER IN NM GOVERNORS RACE

With the reversal of Roe v. Wade, a woman’s right to choose for now will be the dominate issue in the New Mexico Governor’s race. Both Democrat Governor Michell Lujan Grisham and Republican nominee Mark Ronchetti quickly staked out their positions on the issue.

New Mexico Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham characterized the decades-long fight to roll back abortion rights as a “war on women”. Lujan Grisham had this to say:

“The moment we have long dreaded has arrived, and our nation will be the worse for it. … This ruling will destroy both lives and livelihoods. Make no mistake: this is a war on women. The effort is not to protect life but to diminish it, to control women and relegate them as second-class citizens. Today, a new generation of women will be forced to face a future where they cannot seek safe, legal abortons. A future where they must navigate an increasingly draconian patchwork of restrictions to get care; a future where they live in perpetual fear that they may be required to carry a pregnancy against their will — conceived under horrific circumstances like rape or incest, or that may risk their very life; a future where they fear that their neighbor might report them or their doctors to the police if they attempt to seek care in another state.”

Republican nominee for Governor Mark Ronchetti had this to say:

“Today’s court ruling paves the way for a measured dialogue on the issue of abortion that will save lives and should result in policies that are more mainstream and reflect our shared values. As governor, I would seek a middle ground with our legislature that ends the practice of late-term and partial-birth abortion.”

SUPREME COURT EXPANDS GUN RIGHTS

On June 23, the United States Supreme Court expanded gun rights and ruled that Americans have a right to carry firearms in public for self-defense. The decision came out as Congress and states debate gun-control legislation. About one-quarter of the U.S. population lives in states expected to be affected by the ruling, which struck down a New York gun law. The high court’s first major gun decision in more than a decade split the court 6-3, with the court’s conservatives in the majority and liberals in dissent.

The US Supreme Court decision struck down a 100 year old New York law requiring people to demonstrate a particular need for carrying a gun in order to get a license to carry a gun in a concealed way in public. The justices said that requirement violates the Second Amendment right to “keep and bear arms.”

Justice Clarence Thomas wrote for the majority that the Constitution protects “an individual’s right to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home.” That right is not a “second-class right,” Thomas wrote. “We know of no other constitutional right that an individual may exercise only after demonstrating to government officers some special need.”

President Joe Biden said in a statement:

[I am]“deeply disappointed … [the Supreme Court ruling] contradicts both common sense and the Constitution, and should deeply trouble us all.”

About one-quarter of the U.S. population lives in states expected to be affected by the ruling, which struck down a New York gun law.

https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-guns-decision-58d01ef8bd48e816d5f8761ffa84e3e8

UNITED SATES HOUSE COMMITTEE HEARINGS PROBING THE JANUARY 6, 2021 CAPITAL RIOTS TO OVERTURN 2020 ELECTION

The United States House Committee hearings investigating the January 6 attack on the United States capitol to stop the congressional certification of President Joe Bidden is laying out sufficient evidence that should allow prosecutors to indict former President Donald J. Trump.

The 5 hearings have also made it abundantly clear how close the country came to a coup but for the actions of dedicated public servants that put the country, the constitution and their oaths of office over the interest of fascist Donald Trump.

The main themes that have emerged so far:

“AN UNSETTLING NARRATIVE: During the first hearings, the committee described in vivid detail what it characterized as an attempted coup orchestrated by the former president that culminated in the assault on the Capitol. At the heart of the gripping story were three main players: Trump, the Proud Boys and a Capitol Police officer.

STRONG ARMING THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT: During the fifth hearing, the panel explored Trump’s wide-ranging and relentless scheme to misuse the Justice Department to keep himself in power. The panel also presented evidence that at least half a dozen Republican members of Congress sought pre-emptive pardons.”

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

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/23/us/politics/jan-6-hearling-takeaways.html

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

In 2016, this country elected a President who after he lost reelection in 2020, lied that the election was rigged and stolen and tried to overturn the election. The same President appointed 3 Supreme Court Justices who were hell bent on overturning a woman’s right to choose and who ruled the second amendment gun rights are far more important than woman’s right to choose. A Republican President who was impeached but who Republican Senators put party loyalty and loyalty to Trump over loyalty to their country and refused to vote to confict.

United Sates House Committee hearings probing the January 6, 2021 and the two Supreme Court decisions, one abolishing the constitutional right to choose and one expanding gun rights, reveal in no uncertain terms that the conservative radical right are in full control of the Supreme Court and in turn our democracy and that we are on the verge of losing it. It appears that the only way to stopping it is to vote, and even then there remains doubt in we can keep it.

On June 21 and June 22, the United Sates House committee held its fourth and its 5th day of hearings probing the January 6, 2021 attack on the United States Capitol to stop the certification of Joe Biden as President. The hearings focused on President Donald Trump’s pressure campaign on state, local and Department of Justice officials to aide him in overturn the 2020 election results, along with Trump’s “fake electors” plot.

JUNE 21 HEARING TAKEAWAYS

On June 21, the Washington Post published its report providing an analysis by staff writer Aaron Blake. Following are the 4 major takeaways reported:

1. ARIZONA HOUSE SPEAKER RUSTY BOWERS’S COMPELLING TESTIMONY: MORE EVIDENCE THE TRUMP TEAM KNEW ITS EFFORT WAS ILLEGAL

“Arizona House Speaker Russell “Rusty” Bowers (R) provided some of the most compelling testimony at Tuesday’s hearing — and of any hearing thus far. In doing so, he added to the growing volume of evidence that Trump’s team was told its plot to overturn the election was illegal.

He also said that, as late as the morning of Jan. 6, Rep. Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.) called and asked him to sign a letter supporting decertification of Arizona’s electors.”

2. RNC CHAIR LINKS TRUMP TO FAKE-ELECTOR PLOT

“At one point in Tuesday’s hearing, the committee shared evidence that Trump was pretty directly involved in the fake-elector plan.

Johnson’s office responded to the committee evidence by saying Johnson himself “had no involvement in the creation of an alternate slate of electors and had no foreknowledge that it was going to be delivered to our office.”

3.OFFICIALS TALK ABOUT INTENSE PRESSURE, PROTESTERS NEAR FAMILIES

“The Jan. 6 committee on June 21 showed a produced video of President Trump’s efforts to pressure election officials to unlawfully undo his loss

This all drove home that it wasn’t just Jan. 6, and it wasn’t just Sterling. Officials, including some Republicans, were under intense pressure at the time — the kind of pressure that could be compelling to those who weren’t dug in or didn’t have to abide by certain laws by virtue of their positions.”

4. ANOTHER MEMBER OF THE GOP TESTIFIES ABOUT TRUMP’S FALSE STATEMENTS

“On top of the evidence that Trump and his team were told that their voter-fraud claims were false and made them anyway, we now have evidence that they have not told the truth about what their own GOP allies were saying.

On Tuesday, Bowers called out another example. Shortly before Bowers’s testimony, Trump put out a statement attacking him. Trump claimed that Bowers told him in November 2020 that the Arizona vote was “rigged” and that he won the state. Bowers said it never happened. “I did have a conversation with the president; that certainly isn’t it,” he said, calling the allegation “false.”

The link to the quoted full, unedited Washington Post news report is here:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/06/21/fourth-january-6-hearing-takeaways/

JUNE 22 HEARING TAKEAWAYS

On June 22, the New York Times published its report on the June 22 hearing providing an analysis written by staff writer Michael S. Schmidt. Following are the 7 major takeaways reported:

1. IT WAS THE MOST BLATANT ATTEMPT TO USE THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT FOR POLITICAL ENDS AT LEAST SINCE WATERGATE

“Mr. Trump aggressively pursued a plan to install as acting attorney general a little-known Justice Department official, Jeffrey Clark, who was prepared to take actions to reverse the election results. As they fought to head off the move, a group of White House lawyers and the leadership of the Justice Department feared that the plan was so ill-conceived and dishonest that it would have spiraled the country into a constitutional crisis if it had succeeded.

The president came so close to appointing Mr. Clark that the White House had already begun referring to him as the acting attorney general in call logs from Jan. 3, 2021. Later that day, Mr. Trump had a dramatic Oval Office showdown with top Justice Department officials and White House lawyers, who told Mr. Trump that there would be a “graveyard” at the Justice Department if he appointed Mr. Clark because so many top officials would resign.”

2. TRUMP LEANED ON JUSTICE DEPARTMENT TO INVESTIGATE ELECTION FRAUD CLAIMS

“The House Jan. 6 committee painted a picture of how President Donald J. Trump schemed to pressure the Justice Department into overturning the 2020 election.

In the meeting, Mr. Trump chastised the acting attorney general, Jeffrey A. Rosen, for refusing to do more to help him find election fraud. Only after hours of argument — partly about the lack of substance behind Mr. Trump’s claims of election fraud but also about the political ramifications for him if he took action that led to the exodus of top Justice Department officials — did Mr. Trump relent and back off his plan to replace Mr. Rosen with Mr. Clark.”

3. THE HEART OF THE SCHEME WAS A DRAFT LETTER TO OFFICIALS IN GEORGIA

“At the center of the plan was a letter drafted by Mr. Clark and another Trump loyalist that they hoped to send to state officials in Georgia. The letter falsely asserted that the department had evidence of election fraud that could lead the state to rethink its certification of Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s victory there. The letter recommended that the state call its legislature into session to study allegations of election fraud and consider naming an alternate slate of electors pledged to Mr. Trump.

“For the department to insert itself into the political process this way, I think would have had grave consequences for the country,” Mr. Donoghue said. “It may have spiraled us into a constitutional crisis.”

4. TRUMP WOULD NOT GIVE UP ON HIS CLAIMS OF FRAUD

“Time after time, the White House brought baseless and sometimes preposterous claims of election fraud — including internet conspiracy theories — to Justice Department officials so that they could use the nation’s law enforcement powers to investigate them. And time after time, the department and the F.B.I. found the claims had no validity.

About 90 minutes after Mr. Donoghue had helped persuade Mr. Trump not to install Mr. Clark as acting attorney general, Mr. Trump would still not let go, calling Mr. Donoghue on his cellphone with another request: to look into a report that an immigration and customs agent in Georgia had seized a truck full of shredded ballots. There turned out to be nothing to it, Mr. Donoghue testified.”

5. TRUMP CONSIDERED NAMING A LOYALIST LAWYER AS A SPECIAL COUNSEL

As Mr. Trump searched for any way to substantiate the false fraud claims, he tried to install a loyalist as a special counsel to investigate them. One of Mr. Trump’s personal lawyers, Sidney Powell — who had become a public face of Mr. Trump’s attempts to overturn the election — said in testimony played by the committee that Mr. Trump discussed with her the possibility of taking on that position in December.

Mr. Kinzinger added: “All of President Trump’s plans for the Justice Department were being rebuffed.”

6. MEMBERS OF CONGRESS SOUGHT PARDONS — AND TRUMP CONSIDERED THE REQUESTS7.

In the days after Jan. 6, several of Mr. Trump’s political allies on Capitol Hill, who had helped stoke the false election claims and efforts to overturn the results, sought pardons from Mr. Trump, who considered granting them, according to testimony on Thursday.

“The only reason I know to ask for a pardon is because you think you’ve committed a crime,” he said.

7. MAKING A CRIMINAL CASE AGAINST TRUMP

The House committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack appears to be laying out evidence that could allow prosecutors to indict former President Donald J. Trump, though the path to a criminal trial is uncertain.

STRONG ARMING THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT: During the fifth hearing, the panel explored Mr. Trump’s wide-ranging and relentless scheme to misuse the Justice Department to keep himself in power. The panel also presented evidence that at least half a dozen Republican members of Congress sought pre-emptive pardons.

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

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/23/us/politics/jan-6-hearling-takeaways.html

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

Any and all doubts that Donald Trump is a fascist should be laid to rest by the evidence presented by the United State House Committee investigating the January 6, 2021 attack on the US Capitol. There is little doubt that the testimony presented by member’s of Trump’s own administration revealed a man so desperate to hold onto power that he attempted to interfere with the peaceful transition of power and to overthrow the United States democracy. It is could and will happen again if Der Führer Trump runs for President again, unless of course he is indicted and convicted for the crimes he committed with his failed attempt to overthrow our democracy.

The link to a related blog article is here:

Take Aways From 3rd Day of January 6 Capitol Riot Congressional Hearinings; Der Führer Trump Lashes Out And Claims January 6 Riot “A Simple Protest That Got Out Of Hand”; Trump: The Once Future Fascist Who Wants To Be President Again

On June 20, the New Mexico Sun published the following guest column provided by www.PeteDinelli.com:

HEADLINE: “APD two step on DOJ reforms justify need to remove sergeants and lieutenants from police union”

By Pete Dinelli
Jun 20, 2022

“APD is struggling mightily with implementation of 271 mandated reforms to eliminate APD’s “culture of aggression” found by the Department of Justice in 2014. APD has now taken 2 major steps forward and 2 major steps backwards in its continuing 7-year saga to come into compliance with the Court Approved Settlement Agreement (CASA).

Police sergeants and lieutenants cannot serve two masters of APD management and union that are in conflict when it comes to the reforms. To achieve compliance, sergeants and lieutenants need to be removed from the police union and made at will employees. The removal will allow APD management to take appropriate measures to ensure the reforms are accomplished and hold those who resist the reforms accountable.”

Pete Dinelli is a native of Albuquerque. He is a licensed New Mexico attorney with 27 years of municipal and state government service including as an assistant attorney general, assistant district attorney prosecuting violent crimes, city of Albuquerque deputy city attorney and chief public safety officer, Albuquerque city councilor, and several years in private practice. Dinelli publishes a blog covering politics in New Mexico: www.PeteDinelli.com.

POSTSCRIPT

ABOUT THE NEW MEXICO SUN

The New Mexico Sun is part of the Sun Publishing group which is a nonprofit. The New Mexico Sun “mission statement” states in part:

“The New Mexico Sun was established to bring fresh light to issues that matter most to New Mexicans. It will cover the people, events, and wonders of our state. … The New Mexico Sun is non-partisan and fact-based, and we don’t maintain paywalls that lead to uneven information sharing. We don’t publish quotes from anonymous sources that lead to skepticism about our intentions, and we don’t bother our readers with annoying ads about products and services from non-locals that they will never buy. … Many New Mexico media outlets minimize or justify problematic issues based on the individuals involved or the power of their positions. Often reporters fail to ask hard questions, avoid making public officials uncomfortable, and then include only one side of a story. This approach doesn’t provide everything readers need to fully understand what is happening, why it matters, and how it will impact them or their families.”

The home page link to the New Mexico Sun is here:

https://newmexicosun.com/

On Tuesday, June 21, Mayor Tim Keller and APD Chief Harold Medina held a news conference at Central and Third to announce a new law enforcement initiative they are calling “Targeted Enforcement Action Monitoring” or “TEAM” program. The new program will begin after July 4.

According to Don Tim Keller, extra police officers will be assigned to focus on traffic enforcement, DWIs, modified car exhaust citations, illegal firearms and to patrol parking lots where after parties and violence break out after the numerous bars close. The city will also be adding more streetlights and is planning to open a substation on Central between Third and Fourth in the Rosenwald Building by the end of the summer.

THERE’S A CATCH

Keller and Medina’s message to downtown businesses is that if you are concerned about crime and public safety issues and you want police protection, you need to pay extra for it. Mayor Tim Keller and APD Police Chief Harold Medina announced that they want businesses to contribute to a fund to pay for a program modeled after “chief’s overtime.”

Due to the officer shortage in Albuquerque, officers participating in this program will do so on a volunteer basis at first through the chief’s overtime program. Main Capo Chief Harold Medina explained that the TEAM program will build and expand off the Chief’s overtime program. Medina had this to say:

“The TEAM concept will build off of our Chief’s overtime program. What’s different about this is, in the past, we’ve always gone out and allocated resources to big box stores and protected one industry or one location. In a way it was hampering our ability to put the resources where we wanted to, to protect the whole city. So we did make adjustments to our chief’s overtime program earlier this year and we cut out our involvement at so many big box stores to ensure we would be prepared for this next step.”

According to Medina, this TEAM program will also be of no cost to the taxpayer. Instead, it will be funded by the city, downtown business owners, and private donations. Medina said he has noticed that the big box stores are hiring private security instead.

Typically, chief’s overtime consists of private businesses, organizations or event organizers paying for officers to be stationed in certain areas. In anticipation of the implementation of the plan, APD Chief Harold Medina began moving officers off assignments at big box stores.

Don Tim Keller had this to say:

“What we are announcing today Downtown is that we are going to do something very different. We are going to treat Downtown, essentially, like a neighborhood that has an acute crime problem. … Now I want to mention not all of the businesses are supporting this. … We want them to, we need them to. We have enough funding to get started and try this out this summer. That’s all the funding we have. But we hope we’re going to demonstrate how important this is and then we’ll get enough funding to run this year round.

The challenge is we are in a resource-constrained environment. … Downtown has to take control of their own future, too [ by creating a business improvement district.] … We’re there to help them and we’re going to get it started but they cannot be dependent on the City of Albuquerque to continue to do everything for them every year. … Because that is exactly why we’ve gotten into this spot right now.

Chief Capo Harold Medina was asked during the press conference why private businesses should be asked to pay for extra police presence instead of the city itself. Capo Medina said he must choose where to spend public funds and have to be fair to the rest of the city. Chief Capo Harold Medina had this to say:

“This is a way for people to fund Downtown, specifically, and not us devoting all our resources and money to just one specific part of town. … Because the moment I devote our resources and funding to Downtown, I guarantee there’s going to be another part of town asking ‘where’s my cut?’”

The use of the term “where’s my cut?” by Capo Medina is embarrassing but reflects that he thinks police protection is some sort of ill gotten gain a person in not entitled to.

Officials said PNM has contributed $15,000. So far there is a total of $90,000 pledged. President of the Greater Albuquerque Chamber of Commerce Terri Cole said the chamber supports the plan. Cole had this to say:

“We think this proposal helps level the playing field for smaller businesses in the Downtown area, which we’re obviously supportive of. … Right now businesses like Home Depot and Lowe’s pay chief’s overtime during the day and it seems reasonable to us that Downtown businesses ought to be able to use the same model.”

https://www.abqjournal.com/2510241/officials-announce-new-plan-to-address-downtown-crime.html

https://www.ksfr.org/criminal-justice/2022-06-21/downtown-albuquerque-gets-a-new-t-e-a-m-to-combat-crime

ALBUQUERQUE POLICE DEPARTMENT BUDGET

On May 16, the Albuquerque City Council voted 7 to 2 to approve the 2022-2023 city budget that will commence on July 1, 2022 and runs through to June 30, 2023. The overall budget approved by the Albuquerque City council is for $1.4 Billion and with $857 million in general fund Appropriations. The budget approved by the council was increased by 20% over the current year’s budget which ends June 10, 2022.

The Keller administration projected that the city will have over $100 million more in gross receipts tax to spend in 2023 than it budgeted for this year. Gross Receipts Tax is the tax assessed on the sale of most goods and services and GRT revenues have been much stronger than expected creating a balance of funding that can be applied to the 2022- 2023 budget cycle.

The Albuquerque Police Department (APD) is the largest city budget out of 27 departments. The fiscal year 2023 approved General Fund budget is $255.4 million, which represents an increase of 14.7% or $32.8 million above the fiscal year 2022 level. The approved General Fund civilian count is 665 and sworn count is 1,100 for a total of 1,765 full-time positions.

APD’s general fund budget of $255.4 provides funding for 1,100 full time sworn police officers, with the department fully funded for 1,100 sworn police for the past 3 years. However, there are currently 875 sworn officers in APD. The APD budget provides funding for 1,100 in order to accommodate growth.

APD PROJECTED TO HAVE $12,390,000 IN UNSPENT SWORN POLICE SALARIES AT END OF FISCAL YEAR 2023

On Thursday, April 28, the City Council “Committee of the Whole” held its budget hearing on the 2022-2023 proposed Albuquerque Police Department Budget. Capo APD Chief Harold Medina presented the budget for his department to the Council.

The link to the proposed 244-page 2022-2023 budget it here:

https://www.cabq.gov/dfa/documents/fy23-proposed-final-web-version.pdf

During the budget hearing, the city council was told that as of the week of April 15, APD had a mere 878 sworn officers. During each of the last 4 years, APD’s budget has provided full funding for 1,100. In an interview, Medina had this this to say:

“It’s going to be very difficult for us to get to 1,100 [sworn officers] … But we want to start laying the groundwork with extra PSAs and helping find proper support for our officers.”

Over the last 4 years of city budgets under Keller, the City’s Finance Department that prepares the yearly budget has budgeted enough money to pay for 1,100 officers in APD. During the April 28 budget hearing APD Chief Harold Medina acknowledged for the very first time that APD employing 1,100 sworn police is likely unrealistic. Medina told the city council that APD estimates that it will finish the fiscal year 2023 that begins on July 1, 2022 and ends on June 30, 2023 with just 982 officers.

According to City officials, budgeted sworn officer positions carry a price tag of upwards $105,000 apiece when you include base salaries and add benefits such as the city’s portion of retirement pay. That means if by next year’s end there are only 982 officers as Medina told the city council, and APD is budgeted for 1,100 sworn positions, 118 salaries will go unspent.

That translates into $12,390,000 in unspent salaries calculated as follows: 118 vacant positions at $105,000 a piece equals $12,390,000 salaries will accrue as unspent.

MEDINA WANTS TO USE $12.4 MILLION FOR OTHER PERSONNEL

APD Chief Harold Medina told the City Councilors he intends to use some of the money to hire more Police Service Aides (PSAs). Medina told the counselors:

“We know that’s the best pipeline for us to add officers to this department. The vast majority of our police service aides become officers.”

During the April 28 budget hearing, Republican City Councilor Dan Lewis questioned APD for more information on its budgeting strategy on using unspent sworn police officers’ salaries for other priorities. Lewis said this:

“I think it’s good for us to understand this is not a budget that [actually] funds 1,100 police officers. … We’re going to give you [funding for] 1,100 officers this year. We’re going to fund [the amount] just like we did last year. We’re continuing to do that, but I think at the very least what this council is going to need and want is a very specific breakdown of where those salary savings went because we didn’t hire those officers.”

The link to a related blog article is here:

https://www.petedinelli.com/2022/05/01/apd-projected-to-have-12390000-in-unspent-sworn-police-salaries-at-end-of-fiscal-year-2023-apd-has-20-fewer-sworn-police-officers-than-when-keller-and-medina-took-over-in-2017-13-pay-raises-fo/

CHIEF’S OVERTIME EXPLAINED

APD “Chief’s Overtime” is an APD overtime program where APD police officers work off-duty security assignments at businesses locations as Walmart, Target, gas stations and other local businesses or work special events. APD officers wear their APD uniforms and use city equipment to perform their security duties. The overtime can only be worked if approved by the Chief. The city receives between $57 and $77 an hour for each chief’s overtime shift worked, depending on the officer’s rank. Police officers from patrolman first class to lieutenants are paid between $31.32 an hour to $45.36 which is taken out of the Chief’s overtime paid with the balance kept by the city, with city essentially making a profit.

The arguments made in favor of Police Overtime include that it place officers out in the community while giving them an opportunity to make extra income using the valuable training and experience city taxpayers have invested in them. And the cost of their extra presence on the streets is more than covered by the businesses footing the bill. Arguments against Chief’s overtime is that the APD Force Review Board has found that officers working chief’s overtime are using force nearly 3 times more often. Further, working consecutive shifts of city shifts followed by Chief’s overtime shifts is a dangerous combination contributing to “burn out”.

The biggest problem with Chief’s Overtime is that it is essentially a program where city resources are being used to make a profit for the city. Any city program that uses public funded resources to make a profit is dangerous and is a ripe for corruption and severe public criticism and scrutiny. The now defunct city “red light camera” program and the defunct “vehicle forfeiture “ programs were two such programs.

DE JA VUE ALL OVER AGAIN

Almost 4 years ago on September 13, 2018, Mayor Tim Keller and the Albuquerque Police Department (APD) announced the creation of a “Downtown Public Safety District.” The creation of the “Downtown Public Safety District ”was in response to a petition drive by Downtown businesses and residents demanding such a substation. The substation for the Downtown Public Safety District is located at the Alvarado Transportation Center at First and Central SW. The location is a conversion of a prisoner transport holding area that required remodeling to remove jail cells.

The goal was to have more of a permanent police presence in Downtown Albuquerque. The congregation of the homeless in the area have been a chronic problem especially around the Alvarado Transportation Center. Consequently, a Crisis Intervention Team (CIT) was to be assigned to the district to address homelessness and behavioral health needs.

According to the City website, the Downtown Public Safety District is committed to the principles of community policing. The officers walk, bike and drive the streets and alleys of the core downtown (Lomas to Coal, Broadway to 12th Street). The don’t drive by, they walk in and know the business owners, residents, office workers, service providers and people on the streets. They partner with the community to increase safety, address problems, provide training, assist with medical or mental health transport, de-escalate situations, find solutions and create a positive downtown environment.

https://www.cabq.gov/echo

https://www.abqjournal.com/1219908/keller-unveils-new-downtown-public-safety-district.html

https://www.koat.com/article/mayor-we-re-trying-to-move-beyond-the-notion-of-a-band-aid-solution-for-downtown/23109157

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

The “Targeted Enforcement Action Monitoring” program requiring private funding is as about as messed up as any Mayor can get with police department. It is a program that will uses public funded resources, sworn police, to make a profit by charging the private sector for services rendered that it is already entitled to. The proposal to charge the public and private sector for law enforcement services they are entitled to is dangerous and is a ripe for corruption.

Simply put, APD is awash with unused funding that is dedicated to funding sworn police positions never filled. Public Safety and police protection are probably the most important city essential service that any city provides it citizens and which they pay for with taxes, yet Keller and Medina want private funding, telling Downtown business owners they need to take “control of their own future” which means in their eyes paying for police protection.

APD’s general fund budget of $255.4 provides funding for 1,100 full time sworn police officers, with the department fully funded for 1,100 sworn police. For the past 4 years at least, APD has been fully funded for 1,100 but APD has fallen short of that goal each year by 100 sworn police or more . At the time the 2023 budget was enacted there are were 875 sworn officers. During the budget hearing for APD, Capo APD Chief Medina said there was no way APD would end the 2023 fiscal year with 1,100 sworn police and that he intended to use the savings from not hiring upwards of 100 sworn police for other priorities. This excessive unused funding from police vacancies should be used to fund the “Target Enforcement Action Monitoring”.

Don Keller and his Capo Chief Medina telling downtown business that if they are concerned about crime and public safety issues and they want police protection, they must pay extra for it amounts to nothing more than a godfather like “shake down.” In making the request for donations to fund police, both essentially concede that they are failures in managing the personnel resources of the largest budgeted department in the city despite a 14.7% increase in APD’s annual budget which is $255.4 million.

With the enactment of a $1.4 Billion Budget, and with a $857 million general fund appropriations budget containing a $255.4 million APD budget, Keller and Medina should be ashamed of themselves asking for private funding for their “Targeted Enforcement Action Monitoring” program. It is projected that the city will have over $100 million more in gross receipts tax to spend in 2023 than it did last year, yet Keller and Medina proclaimed they are working in a resource-constrained environment.

The only constraint that really exists is in the inability of Mayor Tim Keller and Chief Harold Medina to manage APD resources. The fact that APD has a shortage of police officers is Keller’s and Medina’s fault, not the taxpayer’s fault, and is a result of their failure, some would say, incompetence to staff APD at the levels that have been fully funded.

Instead of kissing Keller’s ring and paying more for police protection, Downtown business owners should demand Keller and Medina deliver on the police protection they are already paying for.

________________________________________

POSTSCRIPT

On June 28, the Albuquerque Journal published the following editorial repeating many of the argument made in the Dinelli blog article above:

Editorial: ABQ’s Downtown police OT scheme like TV mob plot
BY ALBUQUERQUE JOURNAL EDITORIAL BOARD
PUBLISHED: TUESDAY, JUNE 28TH, 2022 AT 12:02AM
UPDATED: TUESDAY, JUNE 28TH, 2022 AT 10:40AM

It sounds a lot like a deal they can’t refuse: Pay police a little extra and they’ll protect your Downtown business. If it sounds somewhat shady, that’s because it’s the stuff of gangster movies and TV shows.

This editorial first appeared in the Albuquerque Journal. It was written by members of the editorial board and is unsigned as it represents the opinion of the newspaper rather than the writers.

https://www.abqjournal.com/2512102/webhedline-96.html