NIMBY stands for “Not In My Back Yard” relating to proposed projects opposed by home owners, property owners, and business owners.

Two of the biggest issues that generate public outcry are the location of methadone clinics and homeless shelters.

It was announced by the County and City that 6 sites out of 30 suggested have been identified to locate a village of tiny homes to provide transitional housing for the homeless.

The full story can be read here:

https://www.abqjournal.com/1204367/proposed-sites-for-tiny-homes-narrowed-to-six.html

The 6 locations identified as possible sites are:

8207 Central Avenue, NW
202 – 230 Louisiana, BLV, NE
7600 Southern Ave., NE
540 Paisano St., NE
12900 Central Ave., SE
12910 Central Avenue, SE

Five of the sites are south of Interstate 40 and east of Louisiana, Blvd.

One location is on the far west side on Central off of Unser boulevard.

Three of the locations are South of Central and Tramway as you travel west in proximity to established businesses and homes.

Two of the locations are on or just off of Louisiana and South of Central.

The initial list of 30 locations were suggested by neighborhood associations, individuals and city and county officials.

The project is a collaboration between Bernalillo County Government and the City of Albuquerque.

WHEN THEY SAY TINY, THEY MEAN TINY

The tiny home village will be on one acre.

The village will have 25 to 35 homes in a gated community design.

The cost will be $17,000 to $20,000 for each tiny home.

The money to build them, along with the infrastructure, will come from a $2 million general bond county voters approved in November 2016.

Each tiny home will be a mere 116 square feet, constructed on a chassis to save money and make it portable.

The homes will be insulated, have heating and cooling, contain a bed, a desk, a chair and storage space.

Each tiny home will be wired for electricity but the structures will not have plumbing and no running water.

Restrooms, showers, laundry and a kitchen will be in communal buildings that will be built on the site.

Residents will be tenants, not owners, who will be selected through a referral system used by city and county agencies that provide homeless services.

Tenants will pay a nominal rent of about $50 a month which will be applied to the yearly operational costs estimated to be $150,000 to $200,000 a year.

Residency will be open only to adults, individual or couple and children will not be allowed to live there.

One goal will be for village residents to be provided with life and skills training and support for employment.

While there is no time limit for how long residents will be allowed live in the village, it was reported that it was expected that tenants will stay for about two years before moving into permanent affordable housing when available.

SELF GOVERNANCE FOR A GOVERNMENT OWNED FACILITY

As proposed, the village will be self-governed by the residents and actively managed with oversight from Bernalillo County.

Albuquerque City Councilor Diane Gibson who is a strong proponent of the village, self-governance will foster unity and pride of the tenants saying:

“[Self-governance] feeds a sense of protection and well-being of the village itself … [and] encourages a relationship with surrounding business owners, neighborhood associations and homeowners. … The village will require residents to agree to follow rules and regularly engage in village meetings … Their obligations will include maintenance and security and ensuring the village is a good neighbor and an asset to the community.”

According to Gibson, the tiny home village will result in “an actual savings to taxpayers by significantly decreasing the number of calls for service to police, fire, rescue, ambulance, emergency room visits, as well as reducing the overall costs for health care for this population. …”

County Commissioner Debra O’Malley who is a strong proponent of the project says that one reason that there are so many homeless is “wages have not kept up with the cost of housing. … [and] if you’re next to transportation and if you’re paying $50 a month for housing you can get a part time job and still make a living instead of just surviving”

According to Commissioner O’Malley, by giving the homeless a safe place to live and an address, it makes it easier for case workers and service providers to more easily locate them.

According to news accounts, tiny home villages have been operated successfully in other states around the country and have a good track record for being cost-effective

COMMENTARY

For lack of a better description, measuring at 116 square feet, the tiny homes are akin to large, single room “tuff shed” storage units with electricity.

The major reason or advantage for “portable” units built on a chassis is that building and construction codes for fixed residential homes do not apply.

The tiny home units can be constructed off site and easily moved or relocated at any time.

There were 30+ sector development plans that provided protections to neighborhoods but have been pretty much gutted with the enactment of the new city compressive zoning code that makes development such as the tiny homes village a lot easier.

The fact that this is city council backed initiative also means that any special use zoning if required will be very easy to secure. (Holding office has its privileges).

What is surprising is that it is expected that tenants will stay for about 2 years before moving into permanent affordable housing when available.

Two years is a very long time to expect someone to live in a 116 square foot room, especially if it’s a couple living there which will be allowed.

A six-month period at the most is what should be allowed as a motivating factor for a transition into more permanent living accommodations.

A troubling aspect of the “tiny home” project is the “self-governance” proposal of a government owned facility.

“Self-governance” usually applies to homeowners’ associations for developments where people live and actually own and have title to the structure or properties.

Homeowner associations usually have authority over an entire development and deal with covenant’s that limit property usage to an extent and mandating care, maintenance and even security measures at times.

Tenants who pay rent to reside on residential properties are not owners and it is the property owner with title that has the authority to dictate terms and conditions of residency.

“Self-governance” normally does not exist in large rental residential complexes like apartment complexes with security provided by the property owner, not the tenants.

Paying rent, no matter how much, creates a binding “landlord-tenant” relationship under New Mexico law.

New Mexico has enacted the Owner-Resident Relations Act (47-8-1 through 47-8-52).

The Owner-Resident relations act governs the rental of dwelling units and the rights and obligations of owner and renter.

Under the state law, the obligations of an owner include:

“(1) Substantially comply with requirements of the applicable minimum housing codes materially affecting health and safety;
(2) Make repairs and do whatever is necessary to put and keep the premises in a safe condition as provided by applicable law and rules and regulations …
(3) Keep common areas of the premises in a safe condition;
(4) Maintain in good and safe working order and condition electrical, plumbing, sanitary, heating, ventilating, air conditioning and other facilities and appliances, … , if any, supplied or required to be supplied … .”

According to news reports, the tiny homes will have “self-governance” authority which will include maintenance and security and ensuring the village is a good neighbor and an asset to the community.

A “Self-Governance” provision will in all likely increase the city’s liability to individual tenants and surrounding property owners for any negligence relating to the failure to maintain the property and provide adequate security, an obligation required under New Mexico law of owners, not renters.

Councilor Diane Gibson’s comments that the tenants “obligations will include maintenance and security and ensuring the village is a good neighbor and an asset to the community” reflects a sad ignorance on her part of the very population that will be occupying the tiny homes.

Gibson no doubt expects or wants residents to provide some degree of armed security or patrols during the day or night to protect a very vulnerable population.

The biggest challenge is that the tenants themselves may not be able to govern and provide maintenance and security for each other if they are suffering themselves from drug addiction or mental illness which is very common among the homeless population.

Gibson presumably believes the homeless will be up to the challenge after living on the streets, perhaps drug addicted or suffering from mental illness, to assume maintenance and security responsibilities and ensuring the village is a good neighbor.

Gibson’s assertion that the village will result in an “actual savings to taxpayers by significantly decreasing the number of calls for service to police, fire, rescue, ambulance, emergency room visits” is pathetic and laughable given the nature of the community population you are dealing with.

The tiny home village is akin to a multi dwelling unit area such as an apartment complex, and apartment complexes are notorious for having hundreds of calls for service to police and fire.

The fact that restrooms, showers, laundry and a kitchen will be in communal buildings suggests that safeguards must be taken to prevent crime, especially violent crime and illicit drugs.

Recently, the city attempted to shut down the Sierra Motel alleging it was nuisance when it needed repairs and had hundreds if not thousands of call for service to police and fire.

It is likely the only difference with the tiny homes village is that the calls for service will be concentrated to one area, the village itself.

Another consequence from the tiny home development will be reduced property values to nearby residential homes and businesses.

Locating the tiny home village in an area visible from the freeway after coming or going through Tijeras Canyon does not appear to be a very bright idea nor the type of image the city needs to portray to the visiting tourist.

A financial “impact study”, environmental impact study and traffic study should be a minimum requirement to determine how property values and the surrounding area will be affected with the construction of the tiny homes project.

I have no doubt this is one project that will get considerable public attention.

Make no mistake, the tiny homes project is noble with intent.

It is a project that should be seriously considered as a viable solution to the city’s homeless situation and helping the approximately 1,500 homeless in the Albuquerque area.

However, any location and the chances of success at that location must be looked upon with great skepticism and strongly justified.

The fact that the 6 locations were among 30 locations suggested by neighborhood associations, individuals and city and county officials is very encouraging.

Notwithstanding, the effects on what the village will have on where it is located must be examined with a critical eye.

This is one project that will get considerable public attention.

The public hearings should not be rushed, more public hearings than 3 need to be done, and it is a project that should not be rammed down people’s throats like the ART Bus project.

The tiny homes project has the potential of ending the political careers of a city councilor or a county commissioner.

But then again, all the City Councilor’s, especially Diane Gibson, supported the ART Bus project and were reelected last October, 2017.

For more see July 7, 2018 blog article “Out of Sight, Out of Mind Solution To Homelessness Proposed”:

https://www.petedinelli.com/2018/07/27/out-of-sight-out-of-mind-solution-to-homelessness-proposed/

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

POST SCRIPT: PUBLIC HEARINGS TO BE HELD

Property owners within 1,000 feet of the various sites have been sent letters inviting them to attend and a series of public meetings.

The scheduled hearing are open to the public are as follows:

• August 9 @ 6 p.m., Manzano Mesa Multgenerational Center, 501 Elizabeth SE

• August 16 @ 6 p.m., African American Performing Arts Center, 310 San Pedro NE (on the grounds of Expo New Mexico)

• August 18 @ 10 a.m., Patrick J. Baca Library, 8081 Central NW.

A website, www.tinyhomes4bc.com, will be launched August 8 to provide updated information and allow people to offer comments on each of the 6 proposed sites.

The term “Dialing for Dollars” is used to refer to the amount of time candidates for office spend on the phone to solicit huge amounts of campaign contributions.

It is not uncommon for candidates to block off hours every day to make calls for donations.

A new version of “Dialing for Dollars” is being proposed called “Democracy for Dollars” where candidates and their campaigns will likely spend hours on the phone to collect $25 vouchers issued by the city to city voters as well as to solicit the $5.00 qualifying donations to run for Mayor.

A petition with more than 27,000 signatures has been submitted to the City Clerk in an effort to place a revamped City of Albuquerque public financing proposal for voter approval on the November general election ballot.

The full Albuquerque Journal story can be read here:

https://www.abqjournal.com/1204893/new-public-financing-plan-may-be-on-november-ballot.html

The City Clerk’s Office is in the process of certifying a minimum of 19,480 signatures as being registered voters before the initiative can be put on the ballot.

The proposal would amend the Albuquerque City Charter by adding “Democracy Dollars” to the city’s election code.

The passage of the measure would direct the Albuquerque City Council to establish an ordinance providing for issuance and a redemption process of coupons to secure public financing.

Registered city voters and voting-eligible residents would be given the “Democracy Dollars” coupons that they would use to contribute to their choice of qualified candidates.

Candidates for Mayor and City Council would then redeem the coupons with the city clerk, up to a limit, for funds to spend in support of their campaigns.

The program would be funded by the city’s public financing fund that is already set up for candidates who qualify for public finance with the fund currently at about $3.5 million.

Heather Ferguson, co-director of ABQ Democracy Dollars that organized the petition drive explained in an August 5, 2018 Journal Guest column how “Democracy Dollars” will work:

“The basics of the public financing program remain the same – candidates who are willing to not accept private donor monies, and who qualify by collecting enough signatures along with small $5 contributions, get a block grant from the city’s Open & Ethical Election Fund for their campaign.
…
“Each Albuquerque voter will be mailed a $25 coupon, or “Democracy Dollar,” from the city clerk to contribute to a participating candidate of his or her choice. Candidates receiving the new kind of contributions can then redeem them for their face value for their campaign. The vast majority of citizens who are not able to make a monetary contribution under the present system will now have a new role – as small donors, with a new way to have their voices heard, and a new stake in our democratic system.”

You can read the full Journal guest editorial comment here:

https://www.abqjournal.com/1205099/public-campaign-financing-can-work-in-abq.html

Seattle, Washington has had a similar system is in place for the past 3 years and for that reason few elections have been held using the system.

In 2015, Seattle voters passed a citizen-led initiative known as “Honest Elections Seattle.”

The Seattle Ethics and Elections Commission distributes what are known as “Democracy Vouchers” to eligible Seattle residents to give to candidates to qualify for public finance.

ALBQUERQUE’S EXISTING PUBLIC FINANCE SYTEM

Since 2005, Albuquerque has had a voter approved “public finance” system.

It was enacted with a 70% vote.

Under the existing system, candidates for Mayor and City Council who elect to take public financing must collect a specified number of $5.00 donations from registered voters and must agree to a spending cap of not more than they are given in public financing by the city.

City Council candidates are required to collect upwards of 850 to 900 $5.00 donations and Mayor candidates are required to collect 3,000 $5.00 donations.

City Council candidates are given $1 per voter in their district, or approximately $30,000 to $45,000, while Mayoral candidates are given around $380,000 and if in the runoff an additional $118,000.

All candidates for Mayor or City Council are given three months to collect nominating petition signatures from registered voters.

In the 2016 election only 8 of 16 candidates secured the required number of qualifying signatures from registered Albuquerque voters.

Collecting the $5 qualifying donations is extremely difficult because candidates are only given six weeks to collect the donations yet are given far more time to collect the nominating petition signatures.

Theoretically, a candidate for Mayor could gather the required number of qualifying donations and yet fail to collect the required number of nominating petition signatures.

Candidates are given more than double to time to collect qualifying signatures and just six weeks to collect $5 qualifying donations.

Candidates for Mayor are required to collect at least 3,000 qualifying cash donations of $5 to the City of Albuquerque from Albuquerque registered voters over a six-week period, which is a daunting and very difficult task for anyone.

If a candidate seeking public financing donations does not secure the 3,000 qualifying $5 donations, all the money reverts to the city and cannot be kept by the candidate that collected the donations.

With public financing, paper receipts have to be used and issued and copies of paper receipts and the cash must be turned over to the city clerk for approval.

As a condition to receiving public financing from the City, a public financed candidate must agree to a spending cap and agree not to spend any more than the amount given in public financing and agree not to raise and spend any more cash to financed their campaign.

MEASURED FINANCE COMMITTEES

Individual candidates that decide to go with private financing can solicit unlimited cash donations from any source including out of city and state contributions.

Measured Finance Committees are also allowed under the city campaign finance ordinance and election code.

Measured finance committees are allowed to be organized to promote an individual candidate.

Measured finance committees can raise and spend unlimited amounts of money to promote and individual candidate so long as there is no coordination between the individual candidate and the measured finance committee.

PRIVATE AND PUBLIC FINANCED CANDIDATES FOR MAYOR

It was in the 2005 municipal election that the city’s current public financing laws were adopted by city voters.

In 2005, there were 3 candidates for Mayor: incumbent Mayor Martin Chavez, City Councilor Eric Griego and City Councilor Brad Winter and all three were privately financed candidates.

In 2005, incumbent Mayor Martin Chavez was re elected having raised and spent $1.2 million dollars from private donations showing the power of his incumbency.

An interesting side note fact is that it was then City Councilor Eric Griego who wrote and sponsored the public finance law and he ran and lost to Martin Chavez.

In 2009, all three mayoral candidates, Martin Chavez, Richard Berry and Richard Romero, qualified for and used the city’s public finance system and each given and spending the exact amount of approximately $340,000 in public financing.

In 2009, then-incumbent Mayor Martin Chávez was defeated by Richard Berry without a need for a runoff.

Political observers believed that Richard Romero and Martin Chavez split the Democratic vote and that Chavez made the mistake of taking public financing

Political observers felt that Chavez needed far more to spend to fend off the constant attacks from Berry and Romero.

In 2013, Richard Berry raised private donations and outspent yours truly by well over a two-to-one margin.

Mayor Berry raised and spent $904,623.00 in cash and in-kind contributions of $5,176 for a total of $909,799 spent compared to my $360,000 in public financing.

In the 2017 Mayoral election, there were only 8 candidates out of an original field of 16 that made the ballot for Mayor and collecting the required number of nominating signatures.

In 2017, then-State Auditor Tim Keller was the sole candidate that qualified for public financing.

For the first election, Keller was given $342,952 in public financing and then another $118,000 for the runoff.

Notwithstanding being a public finance candidate, Keller had three (3) measured finance committees that either raised money directly to spend on his behalf or that indirectly spent money and supported his campaign with campaign commercials.

ABQ Forward Together was a measured finance committee that was formed specifically to raise money to promote Tim Keller for Mayor and raised over $663,000 for Keller.

ABQ Forward Together was chaired by a former political campaign consultant for Mr. Keller when he ran successfully for New Mexico State Senate.

City campaign finance records reveal that $1,358,254 was actually spent on Tim Keller’s successful campaign for Mayor ($506,254 public finance money + $663,000 ABQ Forward + $67,000 ABQFIREPAC + $122,000 ABQ Working Families = $1,358,254.)

Republican Dan Lewis raised more than $847,000 in cash contributions for the October election and the November Mayoral runoff election.

Democrat Brian Colón raised and spent nearly $824,000 for his unsuccessful mayoral run.

Republican Wayne Johnson privately raised and spent approximately $250,000.

Republican Ricardo Chavez finance his own campaign by contributing and loaning his campaign $1 million dollars, but when he dropped out of the race all of the money was repaid to him after he spent approximately $200,000.

The remaining three (3) candidates for Mayor raised and spent less than $50,000 combined after failing to qualify for public financing.

COMMENTARY

There are approximately 360,000 registered voters in Albuquerque.

To print and implement a voucher system will result in a minimum financial exposure to this city of $9 million dollars. (360,000 registered voters X $25 voucher = $9 million).

A real unintended consequence of “Democracy Dollars” will be to add yet another difficult layer of campaign solicitation effort by candidates on top of an already very cumbersome process to collect $5.00 qualifying donations that sets up most candidates for failure.

Candidates will be soliciting not only the $5.00 donations but the $25 city issued coupons that are in reality a city subsidized contribution being called a “block grant” from taxpayers.

Enforcement to prevent violations of campaign finance laws will also be a major hurdle and costly to the city.

The $25 voucher system being proposed can be very easily abused and undermined by anyone who decides to go around and just buy the voucher’s outright from voter at a lesser cost of say $5 to $10 for an example and then turn the purchased voucher into the city to collect the full $25.

It is very misleading to call citizens who are not able to make monetary contribution under the present system to be referred to as “small donors” when giving their $25 voucher to a candidate when the funding source for the voucher is the city.

Albuquerque’s public finance laws are way too difficult to qualify for public financing in that in the very last 2 Mayor elections, only 2 candidates out of 19 candidates actually qualified for public financing.

The “Democracy for Dollars” plan has absolutely no impact on the affects of measured finance committees and the unlimited amount of money they can raise and spend on behalf or even against a candidate.

The one successful public finance candidate in the last two elections for Mayor, Tim Keller, received approximately $852,000 from measured finance committees in addition to his public financing of $506,254 of representing final campaign spending of $1,358,254.

Keller very effectively held himself out as the only public finance candidate in part to get the progressive vote and get elected when he said with a wink in his eye and a smile on his face he was “walking the walk” and not just “talking the talk” when it came to his support of public financing and getting the $5 qualifying donations.

It is going to take a hell of a lot more than a voucher system and significantly more changes to put public financing directly in the hands of voters, especially with the existence of Citizens United in order to level the political donation playing field.

The “Democracy Dollars” are really “free vouchers” provided by the city to voters in an apparent attempt to supplement the $5.00 qualifying donations to the city that are now required to secure public financing.

Free vouchers defeat the intent and purpose of public finance campaigns.

Every effort should be made to make Albuquerque’s public financing laws for municipal elections to legally provide for a “dollar for dollar” match to privately raised funds by candidates, thereby providing a real level playing field.

The influence of big money in elections allowed by the US Supreme Court decision in Citizens United is destroying our democracy.

Many highly qualified candidates for office all too often do not bother to run because of the inability or difficulty raising the necessary money to run.

Political campaign fundraising and big money influence are warping our election process.

Money spent becomes equated with the final vote.

Money drives the message, affects voter turnout and ultimately the outcome of an election.

Albuquerque municipal elections need campaign finance reform and enforcement.

2018 should be the year the City Council and the Mayor Keller act on campaign finance reform in anticipation of the 2019 municipal election.

However, the “Democracy for Dollars” initiative is a pathetic attempt at campaign finance reform.

During his campaign for Mayor, Tim Keller strongly condemned the Supreme Court decision of Citizens United saying that was why he chose public financing because he believed in it.

Perhaps now that Tim Keller was elected mayor by a landslide, he will use some of his political capital to advocate for true campaign finance reform in municipal elections to reduce the impact of measures finance committees.

Then again, now that he is the incumbent, Keller just may give campaign finance reform another wink of the eye with a smile on his face, seeking public financing and rely upon measured finance committees to get reelected as Mayor and again spend over $1 million dollars.

*************************************************************************************

POST SCRIPT:

On January 2, 2018, I posted my blog article with recommendations for changes to the City’s public finance and election code laws.

Following is a listing of the recommendations:

1. Allow four (4) months and two (2) weeks, from January 1 to May 15, to collected both the qualifying donations and petition signatures, and private campaign donation collection.
2. Allow the collection of the qualifying donations from anyone who wants, and not just residents or registered voters of Albuquerque. Privately finance candidates now can collect donations from anyone they want and anywhere in the State and Country.
3. Once the allowed number of qualifying donations is collected, the public financing would be made immediately available, but not allowed to be spent until starting May 15.
4. Permit campaign spending for both publicly financed and privately financed candidates only from May 15 to the October election day.
5. Return to candidates for their use in their campaign any qualifying donations the candidate has collected when the candidate fails to secure the required number of qualifying donations to get the public financing.
6. Mandate the City Clerk to issue debit card or credit card collection devices to collect the qualifying donations and to issue receipts and eliminate the mandatory use of “paper receipts”.
7. Increase from $1.00 to $2.50 per registered voter the amount of public financing, which will be approximately $900,000, and allow for incremental increases of 10% every election cycle keeping up with inflation.
8. Allow for additional matching public financing available for run offs at the rate of $1.25 per registered voter, or $450,000.
9. Albuquerque should make every effort to make municipal elections partisan elections to be held along with State and Federal elections by seeking a constitutional amendment from the legislature to be voted upon by the public.
10. Any money raised and spent by measured finance committees on behalf a candidate should be required to first be applied to reimburse the City for any taxpayer money advanced to a public finance candidate or deducted from a publicly financed candidates account and returned to the city.
11. City of Albuquerque campaign reporting and finance ordinances and regulations need to define with absolute clarity that strictly prohibit the coordination of expenditures and campaign activities with measured finance committees and individual candidate’s campaigns in municipal elections.
12. A mandatory schedule of fines and penalties for violations of the code of ethics and campaign practices act should be enacted by the City Council.

You can read the complete blog article here:

https://www.petedinelli.com/2018/01/02/2018-year-to-reform-city-public-campaign-finance-laws-revised-article/

APD announced four top commanders are either leaving the department, getting transferred or getting demoted.

Full news accounts can be reviewed here:

https://www.kob.com/albuquerque-news/apd-announces-leadership-changes/5015547/#.W2O_u0wYqIA.facebook

https://www.abqjournal.com/1204341/apd-announces-changes-in-leadership-positions.html

Changes were announced to the Valley Area Command and the Southwest Area Command.

The Valley Area Command is getting a new commander because it’s previous commander retired.

The Southwest Area Command is also getting a new commander because its previous commander is going to APD’s Compliance Bureau.

Normally, such changes would go totally unnoticed, but one demotion and one forced retirement are raising more than a few eyebrows and smacking of politics and that nothing has changed at APD when it comes to holding people truly accountable for their actions.

INTERNAL AFFAIRS COMMANDER JENNIFER GARCIA

Internal Affairs Commander Jennifer Garcia has been demoted to Lieutenant and now assigned to the Field Services Bureau.

What the press does not report and what the general public is probably is not fully aware of is that Jennifer Bell Garcia is not only a high ranking cop but is also the wife APD Deputy Chief Eric Garcia.

Deputy Chief Garcia is a holdover from the previous administration and is now in charge of implementation of the DOJ mandated reforms.

In 2015, Jennifer Bell Garcia became the Lieutenant in charge of Internal Affairs and then her position was upgraded to Commander of Internal Affairs by Chief Michael Geier.

Internal Affairs is responsible for providing fair, thorough, and comprehensive administrative investigations of claims relating to police misconduct and evaluation of department policies, practices, procedures, and training.

All sworn police officers assigned to the Internal Affairs Unit are supposed to be held to a higher standard in order to have any credibility investigating police misconduct cases.

A few months ago, the City of Albuquerque hired a private agency to investigate allegations of wrongdoing against APD Internal Affairs Commander Jennifer Bell Garcia.

Because of the conflict, the city was forced to hire an outside private investigation agency to do the investigation no doubt costing upwards of $5,000 if not more.

APD is refusing to release the private investigation report to news agencies, even though it is considered a public record.

It was found that Jennifer Bell Garcia altered documents during the course of an internal affairs investigation to comply with a deadline spelled out in the APD union agreement.

Under New Mexico law, it is a fourth-degree felony for any public officer or public employee to knowingly tamper with or falsify any record or file. (30-26-1. Tampering with public records.)

Normally, altering public documents is considered a very serious felony offense for any police officer to do and would be grounds for termination and revocation of a police officer’s law enforcement certification.

An APD internal memo said APD Chief Mike Geier sustained the findings of the private investigation agency.

Initially, confidential sources said that Chief Geier was going to suspend Garcia for 15 days and allow her to keep her job as head of Internal Affairs and keep her $95,000 a year salary.

In announcing his decsion, Chief Geier said that aside from altering documents, Garcia has had a clean 15-year career with APD.

Instead of a 15-day suspension, Chief Geier decided to demote Jennifer Garcia to the position of Lieutenant in the Field Services Bureau.

The Field Services Bureau oversees the job performance of patrol officers and includes making sure that police offense reports are prepared in a timely manner, are complete and adhere to standard operating procedures and would include making sure the reports do not contain any falsehoods or alterations.

APD ACADEMY COMMANDER SULLIVAN FORCED TO RESIGN

APD also announced that APD Training Academy Commander John Sullivan has retired.

Sullivan was replaced by Commander Angela Byrd, the former Chief of the Bosque Farms Police Department.

Byrd had been the Chief of the Bosque Farms Police Department for a mere 8 months.

There was no national search conducted for a new director of the APD academy which is normally done.

The Bosque Farms Police Department is one of the smallest law enforcement departments in New Mexico employing less than 20 officers.

According to Byrd, APD reached out and recruited her because of her experience in law enforcement training.

http://www.news-bulletin.com/news/chief-byrd-resigns-to-work-at-apd/article_425c98f2-8aac-11e8-9cc2-ef4f85681f40.html

Byrd has been a certified law enforcement officer since 1994, with her job experience being mostly teaching.

Byrd was the Deputy Director of the Southeastern New Mexico Law Enforcement Academy in Hobbs, New Mexico from 2008 to 2016.

APD revealed the reason behind the leadership shakeup at the Albuquerque Police Academy.

Geier was going to demote John Sullivan for “failing to meet performance standards” that were connected to implementing DOJ reforms and changing the culture at APD.

The problem is that Sullivan had only been on the job as Academy Director for a few months.

APD gave no specifics on Sullivan’s failures to meet his job performance standards.

Instead of accepting the demotion, Sullivan chose to retire.

On July 12, 2018, Commander John Sullivan submitted a two-sentence retirement letter to Geier that said:

“Per your directive, I am involuntarily retiring from the City of Albuquerque without waiving rights to any legal action I may pursue in the future. I will be moved to early retirement status effective July 21, 2018.”

It is clear from the resignation letter that Sullivan was forced to retire by Police Chief Michael Geier.

The forced resignation of Sullivan came just one month after Sullivan testified before U.S. District Court Judge Robert Brack presiding over the DOJ consent decree reforms that he had ended what he called a “good-ol’-boy” testing practice at the academy where cadets were told what questions would be on the tests.

Sullivan told the Court APD Academy cadets were allowed to take tests in a group and pretty much every cadet passed with a 95%.

During the June 12, 2018 status conference, Sullivan told Brack that Court Appointed Independent James Ginger found an unusually high rate pf passing grades for the academy’s cadets.

Sullivan testified:

“We were doing the good-ol’-boy testing. The instructor would say, ‘This could be something you might see later,’ and everybody was allowed to kind of sit there and do the testing with each other and a group test environment took place.”

…

“They [Ginger’s team] found it interesting that everybody received a 95 percent or higher. … And when I looked at that, I found it kind of interesting, too. And being a police officer now for almost 20 years with the Albuquerque Police Department, I knew in my mind exactly why it was happening; however, I chose to create a completed staff work to address that issue. I did some research, looked at some of the best practices nation-wide and found out what I think we all knew already, but the Academy wasn’t doing testing correctly.”

https://www.abqreport.com/single-post/2018/07/26/Ex-APD-Training-Director-Says-Geier-Forced-him-to-Retire

COMMENTARY

By virtue of the high-ranking positions held by Deputy Chief Eric Garcia and his wife now Lieutenant Jennifer Bell Garcia, it is difficult to comprehend how APD Chief Michael Geier does not understand nor appreciate the appearance of a decision that smacks of politics and the way things have been done in the past at APD.

Geier must now deal with the ramifications of taking disciplinary action that normally would be a lot more severe than a demotion against one of his appointed Commanders that is the wife of one of his appointed Deputy Chief’s in charge of implementing the Department of Justice mandated reforms.

Based on Jennifer Bells Garcia’s conduct of altering documents which resulted in her demotion, you would think the Field Services Bureau, which is in charge of reviewing police offense reports for accuracy, would be one of the last places she would be reassigned.

Chief Geier’s argument that Jennifer Bell Garcia has a clean 15-year career with APD may be true, but it rings very hollow.

There is no guarantee that this was the first and only time it happened, especially when it comes to Internal Affairs investigations which are done in secrecy, but that it was the first time she got caught.

The reasons for Commander John Sullivan being forced out a mere month after reporting to the Federal Court irregularities at the APD Academy reflects on Chief Geier’s true motivations and his reasons for asking Sullivan to retire are difficult to accept.

Sullivan had only been on the job as Academy Director for a few months and nothing specific was given regarding his failures to meet performance standards.

The way Sullivan was forced out raises serious concerns that he was not terminated for job performance deficiencies but rather for his testimony regarding irregularities in APD academy testing.

Commander Angela Byrd was Chief of the Bosque Farms Police Department for only 8 months and she claims APD recruited her.

Arguably, Geier recruited Byrd so he could replace Sullivan quickly with someone he could control.

Ultimately, it will be Mayor Tim Keller who promised reform and change at APD who will be held accountable for not exercising more management and control over his appointed Chief and allowing APD to be mismanaged once again with reliance on a “good ol boy” system of discipline.

In characteristic style, Bernalillo County District Attorney Raul Torrez is once again picking a fight with the 2nd Judicial District Court by going to the New Mexico Supreme Court.

The 2nd Judicial District Court told Torrez that effective October 1, 2018, the 2nd Judicial District Court will be reducing the number of grand jury panel days from 20 days a month to six days a month.

Instead of using grand juries, the District Court is requesting the Bernalillo County District Attorney’s Office start using preliminary hearings before the District Judges instead of grand juries to determine probable cause and to charge defendants with felonies.

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

The District Court claims it will save between $75,000 to $150,000 a year in grand jury costs and the “preliminary hearings” are a best practices approach.

The grand jury system and preliminary hearings both have advantages and disadvantages.

A “grand jury” hearing is a probable cause hearing, done in secret, that decides to charge a defendant when 8 out of 12 jurors find probable cause to charge.

The grand jury is viewed by many as pawn of the District Attorney, it is conducted in secrecy and the prosecution can present evidence and hearsay without objection or knowledge of the defendant to be charged.

https://www.petedinelli.com/2018/07/30/easy-for-district-attorney-to-indict-a-ham-sandwich-for-murder/

A “preliminary hearing” is a probable cause hearing, conducted in open court, and it is a District Court Judge, not a grand jury, that decides whether there is probable cause to support formal felony charges against a defendant.

On July 19, 2018, the New Mexico Legislative Finance Committee (LFC), released a report entitled “Program Evaluation: Review of the Criminal Justice System in Bernalillo County.”

https://www.petedinelli.com/2018/07/24/bernalillo-county-criminal-justice-system-evaluation/

The LFC report was a detailed review of Bernalillo County’s criminal justice system and cites the National Center for State Courts’ recommendation that the District Attorney’s Office should consider prosecuting more felony cases using preliminary hearings as opposed to grand juries.

DEFENSE BAR POSITION

The New Mexico Criminal Defense Lawyers Association as well as the State Public Defender’s Office are voicing support for the change from a grand jury system to a preliminary hearing system.

Jonathan Ibarra of the New Mexico Criminal Defense Lawyers Association had this to say supporting the change:

“It’s easier in grand jury because they can rely on hearsay for things, so in a grand jury, they can have one officer speak for five minutes instead of actually calling witnesses in the case”.

According to Ibarra preliminary hearings are a better way to vet a case before formal charges are filed when he said:

“There’s still a much better idea of making sure we know exactly what evidence the state does or doesn’t have right away. … We want to know if alleged victims are going to be cooperative, if people are actually going to show up for court, instead of letting a case linger for months just to find out they can’t prove it after all.”

The States Chief Public Defender Bennet Baur also strongly supports the move towards more preliminary hearings and believes it will lead to earlier resolution of cases sending fewer cases on a path to trial and a way to “clear the underbrush. … It allows us to, I think, spend more time looking at the serious cases later on.”

NOT FIRST TIME FOR TORREZ

DA Torrez has ordered his office to prepare a challenge to the District Courts plans for the grand jury and appeal to the New Mexico Supreme Court.

The New Mexico Supreme Court has administrative authority over the District Court and can order a halt to the plan, but that is not likely going to happen.

DA Raul Torrez should not expect any sympathy from the New Mexico Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court tends to allow the District Courts to manage their own caseloads without micromanaging them to the point of allowing the District Court to adopt their own “local rules” applicable to their districts only and not all the others.

A little over a year ago, Torrez accused the District Court and the Supreme Court’s case management order (CMO) for being the root cause for the dramatic increase in crime and the dismissal of cases.

Torrez challenge the case management order before the New Mexico Supreme Court and also took action against an individual judge claiming the judge was requiring too much evidence to prove that a defendant was too violent to be released with bond.

Torrez had his office prepare a damaging report showing it was the District Court dismissing cases and contributing to high crime rates.

Torrez’s claim was later discredited by a District Court report reviewing all dismissals and it showed it was the DA’s office that was dismissing the majority of cases on its own.

Torrez also accused criminal defense attorneys of “gaming the system” to avoid trials and get cases dismissed.

COMMENTARY

By objecting to a preliminary hearing system, District Attorney Raul Torrez is leaving himself open to the charge that he is the one who is actually gaming the system with use of grand juries and resisting preliminary hearings.

When Torrez ran, he proclaimed the judicial system was broken in Bernalillo County and he was the guy who could fix it and he demanded more resources.

Torrez to his credit was able to secure another $4.5 million from the legislature to hire more prosecutors and he now has a $21.5 million dollar budget and more resources he could dedicate to preliminary hearings.

Now that the District Court wants to do more preliminary hearings, Torrez objects to it saying it will be too labor intensive for his office and crime rates will go up.

Going from grand jury time scheduled 20 or more times in a month to only 6 days a month in a two month period is probably way too drastic and it should be phased in over a years’ time.

The District Court is being somewhat penny wise and pound foolish by trying to save $75,000 to $150,00 a year in grand jury costs to gut a system that is proven to be effective to dispose of lower priority crimes.

Complicating things is that APD has a shameful record with homicide investigations such as the murder of 9-year-old Victoria Martins who was raped, murdered, dismembered and burned.

Torrez was forced to dismiss a number of charges in the Martens case, with another unidentified defendant at large, and a lot of mistakes in the investigation could have been avoided had the scientific evidence been tested sooner, but there was a rush to indict.

Preliminary hearings should be the mandatory approach to charge all homicide cases by the District Attorney and APD.

On the morning of July 27, 2016, Donald Trump encouraged Russian hackers to find emails that had been deleted from Hillary Clinton’s private server that she used while serving as secretary of state.

“I will tell you this, Russia: If you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing … “I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press.” Trump said at a press conference in Florida.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-russia-clinton-hack_us_5b48d9d0e4b0e7c958faf810

Putin and Russian intelligence were listening and heeded Trump’s request for help to get elected President.

According to the federal indictment of the 12 Russian intelligence officers charge for hacking the Democratic National Committee during the 2016 election, the Russian hacking occurred on July 27, 2016 and hours after Trump gave his press conference encouraging Russian hackers to find Clinton’s emails.

The indictment states that on July 27, 2016, the same day as Trump’s press conference, Russian hackers, “for the first time,” attempted to break into email accounts, including those used by Clinton’s personal office.

Notably, the indictment is very specific that the hack happened in the evening, meaning the Russian officials did it all after Trump’s press conference.

TRUMP’S REPEATED DENIALS OF NO COLLUSION

Despite his very public requst to Russia to interfere with the election, Donald Trump has repeatedly asserted that there was “no collusion” between his campaign and Russia during the 2016 U.S. presidential election.

In 2016 when federal investigators started to look into the Russian meddling in the 2016 election, including any role the Trump Campaign might have played, candidate Trump strenuously argued that there was no evidence of collusion.

Trump then falsely claimed that the evidence proved there was no collusion.

Finally, without evidence, Trump stated that the real collusion was with the Clinton campaign.

Since March of 2017, Trump has tweeted that there was “no collusion” no less than 90 times!

Trump has also claimed that “the real Russian collusion has occurred on the Democrats side”.

http://time.com/5352628/donald-trump-rudy-giuliani-collusion-crime/

President Donald Trump has made at least 207 separate arguments about the Russia investigation.

Since the first questions were raised about the Russian influence operation in 2016, Trump has put forward defenses, raised doubts and thrown out attacks and counter-claims at a rate that could make any one’s head spin like Beetlejuice.

Trump has also waged a very public war against his detractors to try and undermine the investigation and discredit people.

Trump has called former FBI Director James Comey “incompetent,” “shady,” “slippery,” “corrupt,” “sanctimonious,” “showboating” and “grandstanding” “slimeball,” who is “either very sick or very dumb” an he has branded Comey and others as “liars.”

http://time.com/5290531/donald-trump-robert-mueller-russia-investigation-arguments/

Trump also likes to use buzz words like Witch hunt!, No collusion!, Fake news!

As recently as July 20, 2018, President Trump took to Twitter to repeat the claim of no collusion.

CHANGE IN CRIMINAL DEFENSE

After over two years of saying that there was no collusion with the Russian intelligence operatives by him or his campaign, Trump and his criminal defense lawyer are now saying that even if there was collusion with Russia, it was not a crime.

President Donald Trump’s criminal defense lawyer Rudy Giuliani is now saying that “collusion is not a crime” when he said in an interview on “Fox & Friends”:

“I have been sitting here looking in the federal [criminal] code trying to find collusion as a crime. Collusion is not a crime.”

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/30/trump-lawyer-rudy-giuliani-collusion-is-not-a-crime.html

https://www.msnbc.com/brian-williams/watch/giuliani-says-collusion-s-not-a-crime-but-that-might-not-matter-1288822851876

Giuliani expanded on his remarks in an interview with CNN when he said:

“The hacking is the crime. … The president didn’t hack.”

Following the interview on CNN, Giuliani responded to a post on Twitter that suggested the media was “nitpicking and twisting” his comments.

Giuliani said the post an “excellent observation” and went on to tweet:

“You can investigate an innocent person forever and forever and find nothing. When do we say enough is enough … No collusion, no obstruction. President Trump did nothing wrong.”

TRUMP TOWER MEETING DENIALS

Trump has always maintained he knew nothing about the June, 2016 Trump Tower meeting with Russian operatives with his son Don. Jr. and others until he was approached about it by The New York Times in July, 2017.

The obvious reason for the change in criminal defense from “No collusion, BUT IF THERE WAS, no crime” by Trump is what Trump’s former personal attorney, referred to as Trump’s “fixer”, Michael Cohen is now claiming.

Cohen is claiming candidate Trump knew in advance about the June 2016 meeting in Trump Tower in which Russians were expected to offer his campaign dirt on Hillary Clinton.

Sources with knowledge are now telling CNN that Cohen is willing to make the assertion to special counsel Robert Mueller.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/26/politics/michael-cohen-donald-trump-june-2016-meeting-knowledge/index.html

Cohen’s claim contradicts the repeated denials by Trump, Donald Trump Jr., son in law Jared Kushner and their criminal defense lawyers and other administration officials who have said that the President knew nothing about the Trump Tower meeting.

PENDING TRIALS AND CHARGES

A few months ago, Special Counsel Robert Mueller announced that 20 people and three companies had been charged in his investigation of Russian interference with the 2016 presidential election to help Trump get elected.

The charges included four former Trump campaign and White House aides.

On Friday, July 13, 2018, the Justice Department announced charges against 12 Russian intelligence officers for hacking offenses during the 2016 presidential election.

https://www.abqjournal.com/1196225/12-russians-accused-of-hacking-democrats-in-2016-us-election.html

The Russians are accused of hacking into the computer networks of the Democratic National Committee, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and the presidential campaign of Hillary Clinton.

Stolen emails were then released on the internet in the months before the election.

Our U.S. intelligence community has developed substantial evidence that state websites or voter registration systems in seven states were compromised by Russian-backed covert operatives prior to the 2016 election, but the intelligence agencies never told the states involved.

Three senior intelligence officials said the intelligence community has found clear evidence that Russia did indeed compromise or interfere with voter registries in the states of Alaska, Arizona, California, Florida, Illinois, Texas and Wisconsin, and there are probably more.

(February 28, 2018 NBC News report: “U.S. intel: Russia compromised seven states prior to 2016 election”.)

COMMENTARY

On July 24, 2018, Trump made one of the most astounding comments that will go down as an absolute classic when he said at the Veterans of Foreign Wars National Convention in Kansas City, the following:

“This country is doing better than it’s ever done before, economically. … But it’s all working out. Just remember: What you’re seeing and what you’re reading is not what’s happening.”

Trump also added in his speech that voters should “just stick with us” and said:

“Don’t believe the crap you see from these people, the fake news” as he pointed to where members of the press were gathered.”

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/398606-trump-what-youre-seeing-in-the-news-is-not-whats-happening-inbox-x

His words to his followers remind me of one of the classic ending scenes in the Wizard of Oz.

When Toto pulls the curtain to the side, the Wizard of Oz realizes he’s been found out, and tries to cover it up by shouting over the loudspeaker:

“Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!”

The Wizard of Oz was just a fraud operating a bunch of controls behind a green curtain controlling smoke, fire and false images.

With his words, denials and actions, Trump no doubt wants to hide as much as he can about the Russian investigation.

Special Counsel Robert Mueller is no fiction, no fraud and neither are the 2O indictments of Russian intelligence operatives.

One question that prosecutors always like to ask people like Trump who commit perjury:

“Were you lying then, are you lying now or do you just lie all the time?”

On July 28, 2018, U.S. District Judge James Browning’s filed his expected and highly anticipated ruling relating to the city’s 26-year-old DWI vehicle forfeiture ordinance where the city seizes vehicles used in DWI incidents.

The ruling should have come as no surprise to anyone given a prior ruling.

https://www.abqjournal.com/1202685/federal-judge-abqs-dwi-seizure-program-unconstitutional.html

The Judge found unconstitutional the city’s policy of making vehicle owners prove their innocence when their car was seized after being driven by someone else.

The court wrote: “The forfeiture program … violates procedural due process, because owners have to prove that their cars are not subject to civil forfeiture.”

The Court further ruled that it was improper that the money the city collected from the program was used to pay the salaries of employees who work in the program.

The federal lawsuit was brought by a woman whose car was seized by the city after her son was arrested for driving it while intoxicated.

On March 31, 2018, the same federal judge in the case found that the city’s 26-year-old civil vehicle forfeiture ordinance violated the woman’s right to due process of law and the state’s property forfeiture law requiring a criminal conviction before government seizure.

The federal court found the state’s 2015 amended forfeiture law “was strong evidence of the New Mexico Legislature’s intent to preclude municipalities from creating a civil forfeiture scheme.”

The Keller Administration issued the following press release in response to the recent court ruling:

“This ruling confirms our concerns with the past approach and the need to protect the constitutional rights of people in our community. … At the Mayor’s direction, the City’s Legal department has been working to update the program, including limiting it to cases where there has been a conviction based on the new state law. … The City’s legal team will analyze the impact the ruling will have … Meanwhile, APD is focusing efforts on effectively combating drunk driving by doubling the number of traffic stops and increasing DWI checkpoints and saturation patrols.”

POLICY CHANGES TO CITY’S VEHICLE FORFEITURE PROTOCOL

It is clear from the ruling that the city DWI vehicle forfeiture ordinance needs to be updated and modified to provide innocent owners a quick way to get their vehicles back if they were seized when being driven by somebody else and with no costs to the innocent owner.

On April 16, 2018, city attorney’s office temporarily suspended vehicle seizure program while it started to craft a new policy for dealing with people who have had their cars seized.

The Keller administration originally announced policy changes to the City’s DWI vehicle forfeiture program but changes to the ordinance have yet to be approved by the Albuquerque City Council.

https://www.abqjournal.com/1159270/cases-in-limbo-as-city-changes-auto-confiscation-policy.html

Under the new policy, more protections will be given those who were not driving when their vehicle was seized after a DWI incident.

The new policy is proposing to shift the burden of proof to the city to prove an owner knew the driver was going to break the law while driving the vehicle.

What the changes in the new policy means is that unless the actual owner is sitting in the front seat of their car drunk, the city will probably not be initiating vehicle forfeiture proceeding nor seeking boot agreements from the car owner.

A major change in policy is that the city will not seek to take ownership of the vehicle and sell it at auction unless the suspect is convicted.

NEW MEXICO NUISANCE ABATEMENT STATUTES

The New Mexico legislature has granted municipalities with broad powers including “the power to sue or be sued, protect generally the property of its municipality and it inhabitants and to preserve peace and order within the municipality.” (3-18-1, NMSA, 1978, General Powers of Municipality)

New Mexico statute defines a “public nuisance” as consisting “of knowingly creating, performing or maintaining anything affecting any number of citizens without lawful authority which is either:

A. Injurious to public health, safety and welfare; or
B. Interferes with the exercise and enjoyment of public rights, including the right to use public property. (30-8-1, NMSA 1978, Public Nuisance defined).”

New Mexico statutory law provides that any action for the abatement of a public nuisance shall be governed by the general rules of Civil Procedure. (30-8-8, NMSA 1978 Abatement of a public nuisance.)

Under New Mexico law, “a civil action to abate a public nuisance may be brought, by verified complaint by any public officer or private citizen, in state district court of the county where the public nuisance exists, against any person, corporation or association of persons who shall create, perform or maintain a public nuisance.” (30-8-8, B, NMSA 1978, Abatement of a public nuisance, emphasis added)

Assistant City Attorneys are public officials and are assigned to initiate administrative actions and enter into settlements agreements and boot agreements or file civil court actions in state district court.

A drunk driver behind the wheel of a car is clearly a threat to the public health, safety and welfare.

A drunk driver behind the wheel of a car interferes with the general public’s right to use public city streets free from any threat of great bodily harm or lethal bodily injury caused by a drunk driver.

CITY DEFINES DWI VEHICLES AS A NUISANCE

Under the city ordinance, a vehicle is subject to immediate seizure and forfeiture by the city if the vehicle is operated by a person in the commission of a DWI offense and has, on at least one prior occasion, been arrested or convicted of a previous DWI, or has a suspended or revoked driver’s license for DWI.

The “one prior conviction rule before seizure” will probably have to be changed to require a DWI conviction after the most recent arrest.

The New Mexico legislature has specifically empowered municipalities with broad authority when it comes to “nuisance abatement”.

Under New Mexico statutory law, a municipality may by ordinance “define a nuisance, abate a nuisance and impose penalties upon a person who creates or allows a nuisance to exist.” (3-18-17, NMSA, 1978, Nuisances and Offenses; Regulation or prohibition)

In 1993, the city council exercised its authority granted to it by the New Mexico legislature to define and abate a nuisance and impose penalties to abate a nuisance by declaring any motor vehicle to be a nuisance and subject to immediate seizure and forfeiture when an arrest is made for driving while intoxicated (DWI). (Article 6: Motor Vehicle Seizure; Forfeiture, section 7-6-1 City of Albuquerque Ordinances, 1992)

Under the existing ordinance, the city specifically defines vehicles used by arrested drunk drivers with prior convictions a nuisance endangering public health, safety and welfare and interfering with the public’s right to public rights of way. (Article 6: Motor Vehicle Seizure; Forfeiture, section 7-6-1 City of Albuquerque Ordinances, 1992)

The city has also enacted a nuisance abatement ordinance that allows civil actions to be filed for injunctive relief against owners of real property which is used to commit, conduct, promote, facilitate, or aide in the commission of crime. (City Nuisance Abatement Ordinance, Section 11-1-1-1 et seq.)

An option the city should consider is to amend the city’s existing nuisance abatement ordinance to add civil nuisance abatement actions against vehicles and owners who have a history of prior DWI convictions without relying on the conviction of a pending DWI charge.

The forfeiture of an asset by court order is a penalty when dealing with the abatement of a nuisance that is affecting public health, safety and welfare.

Penalties to abate a nuisance include the inherent authority to exercise civil forfeiture authority with court orders to eliminate a nuisance.

COMMENTARY

Robert Frommer an attorney for the Institute for Justice that brought the lawsuit said in a statement:

“Civil forfeiture is one of the most serious assaults on private property rights in the nation today. … For decades, civil forfeiture has lured officials away from impartial enforcement of the law and toward policing for profit. Today’s ruling striking down Albuquerque’s forfeiture program is a major step towards ending forfeiture across not only New Mexico, but throughout the United States.”

Fair enough in light of the court ruling

A much bigger and far more serious assault occurs when a person who is seriously injured or killed by a drunk driver who is a danger to public safety.

The victim of any DWI is deprived of ultimate rights that overshadow property rights.

The media regularly reports about drunk drivers with 9, 10, 11 and 12 convictions who are still driving and then arrested again for DWI after killing someone and at times having killed entire families.

Albuquerque and New Mexico have some of the highest DWI rates and alcohol-related crash fatalities in the country.

In 2016, there were 171 alcohol-related crash fatalities in this state due to crashes involving alcohol with 51 of the fatalities occurring in Bernalillo County.

In 2017, there were 146 alcohol-related crash fatalities in New Mexico with 37 of the fatalities occurring in Bernalillo County.

Its painfully obvious that our DWI criminal penalties are having little effect.

Too many drunk drivers are not being held criminally or for that matter civilly responsible for their actions and all too often are cut free to offend or even kill.

The city needs to request the federal court to reconsider or appeal the ruling on the grounds that the court is denying the city of its authority given to it by the New Mexico legislature to define, abate, and impose penalties for nuisance abatement.

Another option is to work with the Plaintiffs attorneys and rewrite the ordinance subject to the Federal Court’s final approval.

The Albuquerque City Council should approve the proposed changes being made by the Keller Administration to the vehicle forfeiture ordinance.

https://www.abqjournal.com/1159353/theres-a-middle-ground-to-booting-dwi-seizures.html

https://www.abqjournal.com/1203343/for-safetys-sake-abq-must-revamp-dwi-seizures.html

The city needs to amend the city’s existing nuisance abatement ordinance to add civil nuisance abatement actions against vehicles and owners who have a history of prior DWI convictions without relying on the conviction of a pending DWI charge.

The New Mexico legislature should grant statutory authority to District Courts, Metro Courts, magistrate courts and municipalities to take away from DWI defendants the very instrument they have used to violate the law and perhaps injure or even kill someone.

The message now is you drink, you drive, you walk away from being held accountable.

The message needs to be you drink, you drive, you lose your vehicle.

For more information on the ruling and DWI statistics see:

https://www.petedinelli.com/2018/04/12/citys-dwi-vehicle-forfeiture-program-disarms-drunks-of-weapons/