On April 10, 2014, the Civil Rights Division of the United States Department of Justice (DOJ), issued its report of the 18-month civil rights investigation of the Albuquerque Police Department (APD). The DOJ reviewed excessive use of force and deadly force cases and found that APD engaged in a “pattern and practice” of unconstitutional “use of force” and “deadly force” and found a “culture of aggression” within APD. On November 27, 2014, the City and the Department of Justice entered into the Court Approved Settlement Agreement (CASA) mandating 276 reforms. APD is one of 18 municipalities in the United States under a Federal Court consent decree for excessive use of force and deadly force. The link to the CASA is here:

https://www.cabq.gov/mental-health-response-advisory-committee/documents/court-approved-settlement-agreement-final.pdf

Within months after being sworn in on January 1, 2018, Mayor Tim Keller affirmed his commitment to implement all the DOJ mandated reforms agreed to under the CASA. Mayor Keller began implementing an $88 million-dollar APD police expansion program over a four-year period over increasing the number of sworn police officers from 898 positions filled to 1,200, or by 302 sworn police officers. The massive investment was ordered by Mayor Tim Keller to full fill his 2017 campaign promise to complete all the CASA reforms, increase the size of APD and return to community-based policing as a means to reduce the city’s high crime rates.

“DEFUND THE POLICE” MOVEMENT

On Monday, May 26, African American George Floyd, 46, was arrested in Minneapolis, Minnesota for passing a counterfeit $20 bill. He was unarmed and was killed when a police officer used a police suppression move to subdue him by placing his knee on Floyd’s neck and he used his full body weight to suppress George Floyd. The killing started a movement.

Across the country peaceful protest over the killings by police of unarmed African Americans, started in city’s large and small. Many of the protests burst into violence with looting and vandalism. Mayors and Governors took action to deal with the protesters. As days past, the movement against systemic racism by police went global as millions took to the streets during a pandemic to protest. The protests have continued daily but by and large have turned peaceful.

A Black Lives Movement is now sweeping cities across the country and is referred to as “defund the police”. The movement has emerged in the wake of the killing of African American George Floyd, 46, who was killed by Minneapolis police officer who knelt on Floyd’s neck to subdue him. “Defund the Police” can be defined in simple terms as meaning taking funding away from police forces and invest or reallocate those funds into social programs to address the real causes of crime.

ABQ CITY COUNCIL GETS INTO THE ACT OF REFORMING APD AFTER OVER 5 YEARS OF MANDATED REFORM EFFORTS

On Friday, June 13, Albuquerque City Council President Pat Davis announced that he and the city council have come up with their own plan to overall the Albuquerque Police Department by not “defunding the police.” Davis does not think the council’s reform plan will mean fewer police officers for the Albuquerque Police Department (APD). Davis said police officers should not be responding to many calls involving a mental health crisis, homelessness and other behavioral health-related issues.

The City Council proposal would change multiple levels of the department, from reorganizing the police budget and officers’ jobs on the street to emphasizing behavioral health assistance and studies to determine the best route for community engagement. Davis said he believes the city can rededicate $1 million of APD’s $207 million budget to community organizations and social services. Davis is also suggesting a 24/7 dispatch line for calls regarding the homeless that would be answered by those in a public health role and not by the APD reducing APD’s volume of 911 emergency calls.

Davis also announced that the council will meet with the community in July to gain input into possible changes to APD’s budget, police operations and other avenues where funds could be placed to better the community.

https://www.abqjournal.com/1465979/council-leader-unveils-police-reform-proposal-ex-more-community-engagement-rerouting-of-some-calls-included.html

THE ONLINE SURVEY

On June 13 and June 17, KRQE reported that Pat Davis published a survey online, asking people to weigh in on how they’d like to restructure APD’s budget. Links to the full KRQE reports are here:

https://www.krqe.com/news/albuquerque-metro/city-council-to-discuss-call-for-defunding-police/

https://www.krqe.com/news/albuquerque-metro/online-survey-results-show-residents-view-on-police-reform-in-albuquerque/
The link to the full survey is here:

https://mailchi.mp/patforabq.com/lets-talk-about-blm-defund-the-police-whats-next-for-abq?fbclid=IwAR02pMaeaBpubiam49wJXhrNtb-Wes4EuNHGvCWacW1ikuEzW21XYgjJKoc

The survey was conducted and made available by email and online from Friday, June 13 through Monday, June 15, 2020. According to the survey city wage page, 10,053 completed the survey by June 15. Respondents included residents from every zip code in the city. The ethnic breakdown of the 10,053 who took the survey is as follows:

43% of the respondents were white (City white population is 39%)

29% of the respondents were Hispanic (39% of population is Hispanic)

3.2% of the respondents were Black (3.2% of population is Black

1.9% of the respondents were Asian (City population is 2% Asian)

1.8% of the respondents were Native American (City population is 4%)

20% declined to answer what their ethnicity

In the survey, respondents were asked which police reforms they support. The responses were as follows:

85% supported requiring every officer to wear and use cameras

81% supported bias-prevention training for every officer

71% supported a civilian oversight board to investigate police wrongdoing complaints

71% supported prohibiting holds and tactics likely to cause severe injury, including chokeholds and taser strikes to sensitive areas

61% supported creating community-based justice workers to help those with a criminal record access expungement, removing them from the criminal justice system and giving them a fresh start

59% supported requiring officers to do 8 hours of volunteer service with community groups

56% supported prohibiting the city from receiving military equipment for civilian law enforcement use

When asked if the city should prioritize hiring more police officers or increasing funding for community programs, a vast majority of those who took the survey supported investing in community groups. 51% of respondents said APD should not respond to non-emergency calls like minor accidents and lost property, taking those reports by phone or online instead.

https://www.krqe.com/news/albuquerque-metro/online-survey-results-show-residents-view-on-police-reform-in-albuquerque/

The following suggestions were made from those who responded to the survey:

1. Demilitarize policing by ending our participation in federal programs giving military surplus to police for local law enforcement use. (EDITORS NOTE :For at least the past 5 years, APD has not applied for any military surplus, but that did not stop Davis from introducing a resolution to do so when the Mayor could have easily issued an executive order.)

2. Civilianize non-emergency police department positions to bring in new ideas and talent for specialized jobs where an immediate intervention or arrest isn’t required.

3. Require every police officer to serve in a non-profit capacity such as volunteering in an after-school program, a community kitchen, or a homeless shelter at least 8 hours per quarter.

4. Restructure the way the City allocates grants to community organizations to prioritize those empowering Black/African American, Native, Hispanic and Asian communities where historical underinvestment perpetuates poverty and disenfranchisement.

5. Create permanent, recurring funding sources for reinvestments in housing and job creation focused on disenfranchised communities.

6. Create community justice workers to help those with a criminal record access expungement, removing them from the criminal justice system and giving them a fresh start.

7. Hold public hearings on APD’s budget to take public input on priorities.

https://www.krqe.com/news/albuquerque-metro/city-council-to-discuss-call-for-defunding-police/

The survey and results can be viewed here:

https://www.cabq.gov/council/find-your-councilor/district-6/news/9-500-residents-provide-input-on-police-reform-through-councilors-community-survey

Councilor Davis said the data from the survey will be used when discussing APD’s budget in July and the city’s budget in August that has yet to be submitted by the Keller Administration. The survey is open for participation until the end of the month.

A number of the respondents made suggestions for APD that it is already doing under the Court Approved Settlement Agreement. Davis put it this way:

“[The respondents said what is needed are] more psychological testing, more bias-prevention training, and it turns out we have implemented all those in the last five years and the public doesn’t really have a good sense of what we’ve done. … That means we probably have a bigger and better job to do in terms of talking about where we come from and what else we can do next.”

SETTLEMENT REFORMS ALREADY IN PLACE

DOJ’s finding of a “culture of aggression” within APD dealt with APD’s interactions and responses to suspects that were mentally ill and were having psychotic episodes. The investigation found APD’s policies, training and supervision were insufficient to ensure officers encountering people with mental illness or in distress do so in a manner that respected their rights and in a manner that was safe for all involved. The settlement agreement (CASA) mandates sweeping changes and reforms to APD.

On November 14, 2020, it will be a full 6 years that will have expired since the city entered into the CASA with the DOJ. Specific reforms implemented to address APD’s training and interactions with the mentally ill and others include:

1. After a full year of negotiations, new “use of force” and “use of deadly force” policies have been written, implemented and all APD sworn have received training on the policies.

2. All sworn police officers have received crisis management intervention training to deal with the mentally ill and others.

3. APD has created a “Use of Force Review Board” that oversees all internal affairs investigations of use of force and deadly force.

4. The Internal Affairs Unit has been divided into two sections, one dealing with general complaints and the other dealing with use of force incidents.

5. Sweeping changes ranging from APD’s SWAT team protocols, to banning choke-holds, to auditing the use of every Taser carried by officers and re-writing and implementation of new use of force and deadly force policies have been completed.

6. “Constitutional policing” practices and methods, and mandatory crisis intervention techniques an de-escalation tactics with the mentally ill have been implemented at the APD police academy with all sworn police having received training.

7. APD has adopted a new system to hold officers and supervisors accountable for all use of force incidents with personnel procedures implemented detailing how use of force cases are investigated.

8. APD has revised and updated its policies on the mandatory use of lapel cameras by all sworn police officers.

9. The Repeat Offenders Project, known as ROP, has been abolished.

10. Civilian Police Oversight Agency has been created, funded, fully staffed and a director hired.

11. The Community Policing Counsels (CPCs) have been created in all area commands and the CPCs meet monthly.

12. The Mental Health Advisory Committee has been implemented.

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

Nothing gets by the very observant Pat Davis that allows him to articulate earth-shattering remarks such as “we probably have a bigger and better job to do in terms of talking about where we come from and what else we can do next.” The truth is, the survey may be informative for budget discussions, but that’s about it because of the mandated DOJ reforms under the Court Approved Settlement Agreement (CASA).

For the last 6 years, APD has been struggling to implement all 276 reforms mandated by the Federal Court Approved Settlement Agreement (CASA). The city has spent virtually millions to implement the reforms, change and write use of force and deadly force policies, provide training to all personnel, recruit and hire more sworn police, implement community base policing and training in mental health crisis intervention. The Federal Court Appointed Media has written and filed 11 Federal Monitor’s report. The Court Approved Settlement Agreement was to be fully implemented within 4 years and it has been almost 6 years and the case has not been dismissed.

After almost a full six years of the CASA, the city council ostensibly does not understand the authority of the United States Federal Court over the City or APD. The City and APD are still under the thumb of the Federal Court Judge and the watchful eye of the Federal Court Appointed Monitor. Little next to nothing can be done by the city with APD when it relates to policies mandated and resources and funding of the reforms required so long as the federal settlement remains in place.

The City Council and for that matter, the Mayor is seriously hamstrung as to being able to divert funding from APD to other social priorities. Even if the City Council and the Mayor wanted to defund the APD to the point of abolishing it, they probably could not without approval of the Federal court. The Federal Court has overwhelming if not absolute authority over APD and there is little that can be done to defund APD. Any plan to defund APD or change training of police officers will no doubt have to be approved by the Federal Court Judge after conferring with the federal monitor.

For a related blog article see:

City Councilor Pat Davis Needs To Step Down To Atone For His Own “Black Lives Matter” Moment And Violations Of Peoples Civil Rights As A Police Officer

On Friday, June 26, the publisher of this blog received the following text message from one of Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham’s aides:

“Friday, June 26, 11:22 am

“Hello Pete, thanks for sharing this. (blog article) Pat Davis is no longer on a Judicial Selection Commission. He was part of a commission, for a court of appeals vacancy I believe, but this is a one- off process.”

Daniel Schlegal, Governor’s Aide

On June 27, it was reported that New Mexico Supreme Court Chief Justice Judith Nakamura announced that she will not be retiring on August 1 as she originally announced and she plans on retiring some time at the end of the year.

https://www.abqjournal.com/1470426/chief-justice-nakamuras-still-retiring-but-not-yet.html

The post script to the blog article explains the New Mexico Nominating Commission and how it works. “When a judicial vacancy occurs, the appropriate nominating commission recommends qualified candidates to the governor, and the governor makes an appointment. There are fifteen judicial nominating commissions that screen applicants for vacancies on New Mexico courts and recommend qualified candidates to the governor: the appellate judges nominating commission for the supreme court and court of appeals; a district court judges nominating committee for each of the state’s thirteen judicial districts; and a metropolitan court judges nominating committee for the Bernalillo County Metropolitan Court”. The Court of Appeals Nominating Commission is for both appellate courts: the court of appeals and the supreme court.

Davis was appointed to “The Court of Appeals Judicial Selection Commission” and listed on the June 29 announcement and therefor the appointment was to fill both the vacancies of retiring Judges Court of Appeals Judge Linda Vanzi and New Mexico Supreme Court Justice Judith Nakamura.

Now that Justice Nakamura is no longer retiring, the Court of Appeals Commission no longer needs to meet to fill her vacancy. Judicial Selection Commission members remain the same as vacancies occur or when the Governor decides to replace a commissioner. Therefore, based on the text, Pat Davis has been removed from the Court of Appeals Judicial selection commission. The Court of Appeals Judicial Selection Commission will convene when Chief Justice Nakamura does retire and if the Governor wants to appoint a whole new commission and she can include Pat Davis if she wants.

The Governor’s office has not issued any statement to confirm if Pat Davis will be not be serving on any future Judicial Selection Commission for the Supreme Court nor any other court vacancy. Such removal is usually revealed only with the announcement of new commission members when a court vacancy occurs.

NEW MEXICO COURT OF APPEALS JUDICIAL NOMINATING COMMISSION JUNE 29, 2020

On June 29, 2020, the list of names appointed to the Court of Appeals and Supreme Court Judicial Nominating Commission was released. There were 9 Democrats (D), 9 Republicans (R) and one Independent (I) appointed to the commission. The appointments were:

Sergio Pareja, Chair, Dean of UNM School of Law

Justice Michael Vigil, D- appointed by Chief Justice Judith Nakamura

Chief Judge J. Miles Hanisee, R- NM Court of Appeals

Judge Jacqueline Medina, D -Santa Fe District Court Judge

Michael Sanchez, D- appointed by State Senator Papen

Oliva Garcia, D- appointed by State Senator Papen

Vicente Alvarado, D-appointed by Speaker of House Brian Egolf

Kelly Stout Sanchez, D- appointed by Speaker of House Egolf

Shannon L. Kennedy, D-appointed by Governor Lujan Grisham

Alb City Councilor, D- Pat Davis, appointed by Governor Lujan Grisham

Andrew J. (Drew) Cloutier, – R-appointed by State Bar

Paul Kennedy, R – State Bar/Judges 201 12th St NW ABQ, NM 87102

Larry J. Montano, R – Appointed by State Bar/Judges

Kimberly Chavez Cook, D – Appointed by State Bar/Judges

Maris Veidemanis, R- appointed by State Bar/Judges

Allegra Carpenter, R – appointed by State Bar/Judges

Samantha Kelly, R – State Bar/Judges

Denise M. Torres, R – State Bar/Judges

Jack Fortner, R – State Bar/Judges

Republicans – 9 Democrats – 9 Independent – 1

The judicial selection process is outline in the POSTSCRIPT to this blog article.

Review of the entire list of names appointed to the Appellate Court Judicial Selection Commission reveals that only Pat Davis has the dubious distinction of being arrested for Aggravated DWI and who has also been sued for civil rights violations, negligence and false arrest and imprisonment as a police officer. All others have a level of gravitas or credentials and understand New Mexico’s judicial system to serve on a commission that selects judges. The fact that Pat Davis is the current Albuquerque City Council President does not give him a “clean slate” nor does it absolve him from his past conduct as a police officer who violated peoples civil rights in order to qualify him to be given the authority to interview and help select attorneys to fill court vacancies.

BLOG ARTICLE REVEALING PAT DAVIS PATTERN OF VIOLATING PEOPLE’S CIVIL RIGHTS AS A POLICE OFFICER

On June 22, the blog article entitled City Councilor Pat Davis Needs To Step Down To Atone For His Own “Black Lives Matter” Moment And Violations Of Peoples Civil Rights As A Police Officer” was published and forwarded to Governor Lujan Grisham’s office. The link to the article is here:

https://www.petedinelli.com/2020/06/22/city-councilor-pat-davis-needs-to-step-down-to-atone-for-his-own-black-lives-matter-moment-and-violations-of-peoples-civil-rights-as-a-police-officer/

https://www.abqreport.com/single-post/2020/06/24/City-Councilor-Pat-Davis-must-resign-when-he-was-a-DC-cop-Davis-shot-a-black-man-endangered-people-of-color-by-driving-drunk

The blog article is an in-depth report on 3 known court actions that have been resolved. The cases involve actions of City Council President Pat Davis as a police officer before his election to the Albuquerque City Council. The cases are no longer pending with two settled with monetary damages paid by the University of New Mexico and charges dismissed in another.

All of Pat Davis’ political opponents over the years, as well as the local news media, have never fully investigated, reported on nor confronted Pat Davis in any meaningful way about the civil litigation he has been involved with as a Defendant relating to his actions as a sworn police officer here in New Mexico and in Washington, DC. His actions in New Mexico have cost taxpayers thousands of dollars in settlements paid.

PROGRESNOW CALLS FOR MULTIPLE RESINGATIONS FROM POSITIONS OF TRUST

On June 25, ProgressNow released a statement calling for Pat Davis to resign from the city council and other positions of influence he holds Following are relevant portions of the June 25, ProgressNow statement.

Title: ProgressNow New Mexico Statement on Councilor Davis’ Shooting of a Black Man and Pattern of Upholding Racist Institutions
By Marianna Anaya

“… [N}ew details have surfaced regarding former ProgressNow New Mexico Executive Director and Albuquerque City Councilor Pat Davis’ shooting of a Black man while working as a cop in Washington D.C. [See link #1 below] Davis originally founded ProgressNow New Mexico but left the organization in 2017 and while his name is attached to the organization and its beginnings, we want to state clearly that his past and present actions are not reflective of ProgressNow New Mexico values.

Part of our accountability work as an organization is to investigate bad behavior by bad actors. Unfortunately, Davis’ shooting of a Black man isn’t the only example of his troubling actions. A pattern has unearthed that continues into the present. After Davis moved to Albuquerque, he had multiple civil rights complaints [See link #2 below] lodged against him while serving as a cop at the University of New Mexico.
Later, as he ran for elected office, Davis reflected on his experience as a cop, utilizing a “tough on crime” narrative, referencing his time as “zero-tolerance cop– the kind you wouldn’t want to pull you over”. [See link #3 below]. As he ran for Bernalillo County Sheriff, his website highlighted his targeting of community members for low-level offenses, like marijuana possession. [See link #4 below.]
…
As a self-proclaimed “progressive” Davis is not exempt from accountability. Davis’ sustained pattern of racist actions over a long period of years has led us to call for Davis to step down from his positions of authority, including the Bernalillo County Criminal Justice Coordinating Council, the Judicial Selection Committee, Governor Lujan Grisham’s Marijuana Legalization Task Force, and his seat on City Council. Surely, our community does not need someone who routinely targets and criminalizes Black and Brown people to be serving on committees that select judges, decide the future of marijuana legalization in our state, or pass policies and make financial decisions for the City of Albuquerque.”

Link #1: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-dcd-1_05-cv-01372/pdf/USCOURTS-dcd-1_05-cv-01372-0.pdf

Link #2: https://www.petedinelli.com/2020/06/22/city-councilor-pat-davis-needs-to-step-down-to-atone-for-his-own-black-lives-matter-moment-and-violations-of-peoples-civil-rights-as-a-police-officer/

Link #3: https://www.abqjournal.com/943318/davis-has-insiders-perspective-on-reforms.html

Link #4: https://web.archive.org/web/20100408123744/http://site.sheriffpat.org/

The link to ProgressNow New Mexico page is here:

https://progressnownm.org/?p=225026

POLITICAL CONSULTANT COMMON DENOMINATOR OF PAT DAVIS, DA RAUL TORREZ AND MAYOR TIM KELLER

Pat Davis is the current Chairman of the Bernalillo County Criminal Justice Coordinating Council (BCJCC). He was nominated to the position by District Attorney Raul Torres. The paid political consultant for Pat Davis, District Attorney Raul Torrez and Mayor Tim Keller when all 3 ran for office is none other that Alan Packman, the longtime political consultant for Mayor Tim Keller. Packman ran Keller’s race for State Senate and Mayor. Packman is currently employed by Mayor Tim Keller and works for the city’s 311 call center and answers to Mayor Tim Keller. Before going to work for the City, Packman was a full time paid political consultant and was the “go to guy” to run the political campaigns of young, progressive Democrats, inlcuding the campigns of Secretary of State Maggie Talouse Oliver. (EDITOR’S NOTE: In the interest of full disclosure, Alan Packman worked on the unsuccessful 2013 Pete Dinelli for Mayor Campaign.)

The BCJCC is a 13 member commission consisting of the Chief Judges of the District Court and Metropolitan Court, the District Attorney, the Public Defender, the President of the NM Criminal Defense Lawyers Association, Bernalillo County Sheriff, the Albuquerque Police Chief, a Bernalillo County Commissioner, a City Councilor, the ABQ Chief Administrative Officer, the Regional Administrator of New Mexico Probation and Parole and the Director of the Administrative Office of the Courts.

The purpose of the BCJCC is to serve as a forum concerning the law, the legal system, and the administration of justice, which includes identifying issues and their solutions, proposing actions, and facilitating cooperation that will enhance public safety and reduce crime in Bernalillo County, advance the fair and timely disposition of cases, maximize the efficient use of criminal justice resources, and ensure justice and improved outcomes for those accused of crimes and the victims of crimes.

https://www.bernco.gov/county-manager/criminal-justice-coordinating-council-.aspx

THE PREAMBLE TO THE CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT

The preamble to the New Mexico Code of Judicial Conduct Provides as follows:

“An independent, fair, and impartial judiciary is indispensable to our system of justice. The United States legal system is based upon the principle that an independent, impartial, and competent judiciary, composed of men and women of integrity, will interpret and apply the law that governs our society.

Judges should maintain the dignity of judicial office at all times and avoid both impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in their professional and personal lives. They should aspire at all times to conduct that ensures the greatest possible public confidence in their independence, impartiality, integrity, and competence.”

http://www.nmjsc.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Code-of-Judicial-Conduct-as-of-4-27-18.pdf

Every Judge, appointed or elected, takes an oath of office and their conduct is regulated by the Code of Judicial Conduct. The New Mexico Code of Judicial Conduct establishes the standards for the ethical conduct of all judges. Judges are governed in their judicial and personal conduct by general ethical standards as well as by the Judicial Code of Conduct. The Code provides guidance and assist for judges in maintaining the highest standards of judicial and personal conduct and to provide a basis for regulating their conduct through disciplinary agencies. Judges can be fined, suspended or removed from office by the New Mexico Supreme Court for violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct.

http://www.nmjsc.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Code-of-Judicial-Conduct-as-of-4-27-18.pdf

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

I have been a licensed New Mexico attorney since 1978 (42 years). After over 27 years of municipal and state government service, I retired from public service in 2009. Although many who know of me consider me a “politician” but it is my professional career as a trial attorney, prosecutor and judge that represents the overwhelming majority of my legal career.

I was an elected official for only 4 years during my 42-year legal career. I have served as a Worker’s Compensation Judge, as a prosecutor for 15 years, including serving as Bernalillo County Chief Deputy District Attorney, as an Assistant Attorney General and Assistant District Attorney and as a Deputy City Attorney. My legal profession is something that I have dedicated most of my life to and it’s a profession I am very proud of and it’s a profession that I know must be held to the highest ethical standards.

One important thing I learned over the years as a prosecutor who worked with some of the finest law enforcement officers in the state is how important it is for our criminal justice system to preserve, protect and respect basic constitutional rights, civil rights and human rights, all rights that are imbedded within our US Constitution. As a prosecutor I reviewed many search warrants for sufficiency and probable cause. I was taught the basic principles of search and seizure law by my boss the former Deputy Attorney General and former District Judge James Blackmer who was considered at the time the number one expert in New Mexico search and seizure law.

Throughout my public service career, I have been a strong advocate for police civilian oversight. Early in my legal career as an Assistant District Attorney, I was involved with the successful prosecution of 3 police officers who broke the law while on duty and employed by APD. As a City Councilor I sponsored and was successful in getting enacted an ordinance calling for the first-time civilian review of complaints filed against police officers. When I was Chief Public Safety Officer, I advocated termination of police officers who violated people’s civil rights. I did the same when I was a city councilor.

Our law enforcement communities must understand with complete clarity that the presumption of guilt by law enforcement of anyone coupled with attempted or fabrication of evidence can never be tolerated. Court ordered search warrants are absolutely the essential for the protection of our civil rights, rights against unreasonable search and seizure and to prohibit the taking of property without due process of law. This is why I find the conduct of Pat Davis as a police officer so abhorrent.

WHY PAT DAVIS SHOULD NEVER SERVE ON JUDICIAL SELECTION COMMISSION

Pat Davis has been appointed to positions of trust and confidentiality by Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham, the Albuquerque City Council and the Bernalillo County Criminal Justice Coordinating Council. Two of those positions affect the New Mexico Bar, the criminal justice policy in Bernalillo County and the selection of judges. The past actions as a police officer by Davis, and his arrest for Aggravated DWI, should have disqualified Davis from the appointments, presuming he disclosed them before the appointments were even made. Any one who thinks that he has been vetted and forgiven for past mistakes because he successfully won twice for city council is seriously mistaken and being a fool. Many people of nefarious reputation have been elected to positions of authority, even a President of the United States. Election vetting and even a pardon does not absolve any one from serious misconduct.

The Code of Judicial conduct holds members of the judiciary to high ethical standards. This is absolutely necessary for the integrity of the legal justice system and we must be able to depend on it. Those who sit in judgment of others in legal proceedings, criminal and civil, must conduct themselves in a manner that maintains public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.

When it comes to those appointed to the Judicial Selection Commission, they too must be citizens that have conducted themselves in a manner that that reflects honesty, integrity and moral character. Those who serve on the Judicial Selection Commission are given an oath to carry on their duties of selection and need to be above reproach and influence. Judicial Selection Commissioners need to select people to nominate as a judge in a fair and impartial manner very much like what is expected of Judges.

Pat Davis as a police officer has a very troubling pattern of violating people’s civil rights, first as a police officer in Washington DC, then as a UNM Campus Police Offer. Pat Davis’ record of his past actions in a position of authority are a clear indication of what the public can expect of the type of judgment calls he will make when selecting people for the Judiciary. He had no business being appointed in the first place if in fact he revealed his past in the vetting for the appointments.

Given what is known about City Councilor Pat Davis, his actions as a police officer, his litigation history, his credibility is in serious doubt as are his political motives. The real Pat Davis, and his lack of respect for constitutional rights are revealed by his pattern of conduct he engaged if for years and was sued for as a UNM Police Officer and his conduct as a DC Police Officer. Pat Davis has no business making decisions regarding police reforms, law enforcement policy let alone be involved in the process deciding who is fit to be a judge.

If Albuquerque City Councilor Pat Davis is sincere and truly wants to make amends for his past conduct as a police officer, he needs to show some degree of honesty and integrity. He needs to stay off of any and all future Judicial Selection Commissions, step down and remove himself as City Council President, and resign or be replaced as the chairman of the Bernalillo County Criminal Justice Coordinating Council (BCJCC). All 3 appointed positions are positions of trust and influence in our criminal justice system. City Councilor Pat Davis has told the news media he has no intention of resigning from the city council. If that is the case, the Albuquerque City Council needs to move quickly and vote to replace Pat Davis as President, otherwise they will be viewed as a group of elected official willing to be lead by someone with a nefarious and troubling past.

The very last thing that is needed is for Pat Davis to serve in any one of the 3 appointed positions as someone who has said he has “made arrests and instigated some encounters I wouldn’t be proud of today” and who has engaged in “brutalization … of those who [he was] supposed to protect and serve.”

__________________________________

POSTSCRIPT

JUDICIAL VACANCY SELECTION PROCESS

When a judicial vacancy occurs, the appropriate nominating commission recommends qualified candidates to the governor, and the governor makes an appointment. At the next general election, a contested partisan election is held to fill the seat for the remainder of the term. The successful candidate runs in retention elections thereafter. The threshold for retention is higher in New Mexico than in most other states; judges must receive at least 57% in affirmative votes to be retained.”
http://www.judicialselection.us/judicial_selection/index.cfm?state=NM

JUDICIAL NOMINATING COMMISSIONS

There are fifteen judicial nominating commissions that screen applicants for vacancies on New Mexico courts and recommend qualified candidates to the governor: the appellate judges nominating commission for the supreme court and court of appeals; a district court judges nominating committee for each of the state’s thirteen judicial districts; and a metropolitan court judges nominating committee for the Bernalillo County Metropolitan Court.

The appellate judges nominating commission consists of fourteen members: the chief justice or the chief justice’s designee; two court of appeals judges appointed by the chief judge of the court of appeals; one lawyer and one nonlawyer appointed by the governor, the speaker of the house of representatives, and the president pro tempore of the senate; the dean of the University of New Mexico law school, who serves as chair; and four lawyers appointed jointly by the president of the state bar and the judge members of the commission.

Appointments to the judicial nominating commissions are to be made so that the state’s two largest political parties are equally represented. The state bar president and the judge members may make additional appointments as necessary to fulfill this requirement. There are no established term lengths for commission members; the appointing authorities are asked each time a judicial vacancy occurs whether the members of the relevant commission should be retained or replaced.

http://www.judicialselection.us/judicial_selection/methods/judicial_nominating_commissions.cfm?state=NM
FOR RELATED BLOG ARTICLES SEE

City Councilor Pat Davis Needs To Step Down To Atone For His Own “Black Lives Matter” Moment And Violations Of Peoples Civil Rights As A Police Officer

ProgressNow New Mexico Statement on Councilor Davis’ Shooting of a Black Man and Pattern of Upholding Racist Institutions; Calls For His Multiple Resignations

Pat Davis Shooting A Black Man As DC Cop Only Part Of Story; Davis Engaged In Pattern Of Civil Rights Violations As A UNM Cop Costing Taxpayers Thousands

On June 22, the 4 day New Mexico special legislative session ended. The session was called to deal with the state’s deficit and to adjust the state budget amid historical deficits the result of the COVID-19 pandemic business closures and the collapse in oil revenues. When the session ended, 7 bills had been enacted.

These bills enacted are:

HOUSE BILL 1: Authorizing a budget solvency plan that would keep state spending roughly flat over the next year while drawing down reserves, tapping into federal funds and engaging in other financial maneuvers.

The enacted budget was $7 billion for fiscal year 2020-2021 which begins on July 1. In February, lawmakers approved the largest budget in New Mexico’s history, at $7.6 billion, but only weeks later an oil price war and the COVID-19 pandemic put that plan in peril.

The revised fiscal year 2021 budget reduces spending by more than $600 million, bringing the budget to $7 billion. That’s a greater reduction than the around $450 million cut Lujan Grisham had advocated for. The revised budget reduces spending by 4 percent for most state agencies. It also includes $165 million in funding to help local governments that have their own coronavirus-related fiscal problems, with $15 million of that sum earmarked for McKinley, Cibola and San Juan counties.

The plan keeps intact most of the funding designated for the state’s new trust fund for early childhood education, reducing that amount from $320 million to $300 million.
Sen. John Arthur Smith, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, warned the state’s finances are not likely to bounce back quickly from the double punch caused by the coronavirus pandemic and plummeting oil prices telling . Smith tolf his fellow legislators:

“It’s certainly not the perfect response, but it darn well may be the only response we can give right now. … New Mexico, we are not alright. … This looks like it’s going to be a prolonged downturn.”

www.santafenewmexican.com/news/local_news/new-mexico-legislature-sends-7b-solvency-bill-to-governor/article_6d57350a-afe2-11ea-9a70-474b3af34deb.html

HOUSE BILL 5: The bill establishing a 9-member civil rights commission that would recommend legal changes aimed at protecting constitutional rights. The recommendations must be submitted by mid-November. The commission will look into the issue of “qualified immunity” which is a judicial precedent that makes it harder to prosecute police or other public officials in potential misconduct cases.

HOUSE BILL 6: This bill Waives some tax penalties during the pandemic. It also allows for increased temporary state payments to help cities and counties if federal funds are not made available.

SENATE BILL 3: This legislation establishes a low-interest loan program for small businesses and local governments. This bill establishes a loan program to aid small businesses and local governments damaged by the pandemic. It passed on an impressive bipartisan vote 59-5, a vote not often seen in today’s political climate.

SENATE BILL 4: This bill enacting temporary changes for the 2020 general election. Under provisions of the legislation, independent voters will be able to vote in primaries only if they formally change their registration to Democrat, Republican or Libertarian, which is already allowed. The change is that while currently they must make the switch at least 28 days prior to Election Day, the bill will allow a voter to do so at the polls. A voter will retain the new major party registration unless they go to their county clerk and re-register as independents.

SENATE BILL 5: Generating an estimated $141 million in savings by canceling stalled capital outlay and road projects, among other provisions.

SENATE BILL 8: Requiring law enforcement officers to wear cameras. This bill passed on a 44-26 vote. It calls for law enforcement officers in New Mexico to wear cameras and activate them when responding to calls. Bernalillo County Sherriff Manny Gonzalez has refused to mandate the use of lapel cameras despite call by the County Commission. He no longer has a choice. Senate Bill 8 also directs a state board to revoke the certification of any officer convicted of unlawful use of force.

https://www.abqjournal.com/1468913/historic-session-over-with-7-bills-passed.html

Governor Michelle Lujan issued the following statement after the session ended:

“This special session produced hundreds of millions in investments in small businesses, and local governments and economies; it accommodated and preserved much of the essential progress we have begun to make in our public education system as we begin to navigate a new global economic reality; and it launched, in earnest, an important and overdue conversation about accountability in law enforcement and in ensuring a just and safe New Mexico for all”.

https://www.abqjournal.com/1468913/historic-session-over-with-7-bills-passed.html

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

Even though the Special Session was called to deal with the state’s deficit and to adjust the state budget amid historical deficits the result of the COVID-19 pandemic, the most controversial legislation passed dealt with “law enforcement reform” and the mandating of the use of lapel cameras by all law enforcement in the state.

According to legislative analysts, over the last five years, New Mexico has had the nation’s highest per-capita rate of killings by police. The killing of African American George Floyd by a Minneapolis Police Officer using a “body neck suppression” tactic and a Las Cruces police officer was charged in the death of Antonio Valenzuela, who died after the use of a vascular neck restraint, gave the legislation momentum. House Bill 5 creating a 9-member civil rights commission that will recommend legal changes aimed at protecting constitutional rights was also given momentum for passage by the deaths of Floyd and Valenzuela.

Supporters of the proposed legislation said lapel cameras are needed and the cameras will add transparency and accountability, protecting officers from false accusations and shed light on deadly police encounters. Opponents countered saying the measure was an unfunded mandate that will discourage people from pursuing careers in law enforcement, worsening officer shortages throughout the state.

One thing for certain is that it’s not the relatively low cost to purchase the cameras, but the hundreds of thousands it will take for each law enforcement agency to store the camera video.

When it comes to Bernalillo County, Sheriff Manny Gonzalez has strenuously opposed the use of lapel cameras arguing that there is no proof that they reduce crime and only result in second guessing by the public and those who sue the department. The Bernalillo County Commission has implored Sheriff Gonzales to order his department to use lapel cameras to no avail. Sheriff Gonzales is said to be running for Mayor in 2021, and now that lapel cameras are mandated, it is one issue he will not have to deal with if in fact he does run.

The news media has pick up the story on ProgressNow New Mexico calling for the resignation of City Council President Pat Davis from the City Council, the Bernalillo County Criminal Justice Coordinating Council as well as the Judicial Selection Commission and citing in part the Dinelli June 22, blog article entitled “City Councilor Pat Davis Needs To Step Down To Atone For His Own “Black Lives Matter” Moment And Violations Of Peoples Civil Rights As A Police Officer”.

The link to the Dinelli blog article is in the POSTSCRIPT below.

Links to the ProgessNow news coverage are here:

https://www.kob.com/albuquerque-news/abq-city-councilor-pat-davis-defends-record-as-a-police-officer-amid-calls-for-his-resignation/5772329/

https://www.abqjournal.com/1470049/progressive-group-wants-city-councillor-davis-to-resign.html

https://www.sfchronicle.com/news/article/New-Mexico-official-called-on-to-resign-over-15367468.php

https://www.fggam.org/2020/06/progressnow-nm-calls-for-resignation-of-abq-city-council-president-pat-davis-because-of-pattern-of-racist-behavior/

Following is the ProgressNow press release:

“This week, new details have surfaced regarding former ProgressNow New Mexico Executive Director and Albuquerque City Councilor Pat Davis’ shooting of a Black man while working as a cop in Washington D.C. [See link #1 below] Davis originally founded ProgressNow New Mexico but left the organization in 2017 and while his name is attached to the organization and its beginnings, we want to state clearly that his past and present actions are not reflective of ProgressNow New Mexico values.

There are calls for justice across the nation- some are met with hostility, and others with grace. We hope Davis chooses the later, steps down from his positions and reflects on how his actions are contributing to a larger system of institutional racism. ProgressNow New Mexico will continue our work, the work of dismantling racist systems, holding bad actors accountable, and being a leading voice in New Mexico for real and tangible change.”

https://progressnownm.org/?p=225026

Below are the links referred to in content of ProgressiveNow press release:

Link #1: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-dcd-1_05-cv-01372/pdf/USCOURTS-dcd-1_05-cv-01372-0.pdf

Link #2: https://www.petedinelli.com/2020/06/22/city-councilor-pat-davis-needs-to-step-down-to-atone-for-his-own-black-lives-matter-moment-and-violations-of-peoples-civil-rights-as-a-police-officer/

Link #3: https://www.abqjournal.com/943318/davis-has-insiders-perspective-on-reforms.html

Link #4: https://web.archive.org/web/20100408123744/http://site.sheriffpat.org/

Link #5: https://mrycllns.blogspot.com/2010/02/interview-with-bernalillo-county.html

Link #6: https://alibi.com/news/49820/Election-Ahoy.html

OTHER CASES IN NEW MEXICO ESTABLISHING PATTERN OF CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS

Pat Davis shooting a black man in 2004 as DC cop is only part of the story. As a UNM Campus Cop, Davis engaged in serious pattern of civil rights violations. There are at least two civil lawsuits filed in New Mexico involving 5 people who sued Davis for false arrest and imprisonment, negligence and civil rights violations.

The two cases are civil actions filed in 2007 and 2008. In one case, Davis, along with 20 other police, stormed a home to execute a “sealed search warrant”, broke in and caused $20,000 in property damaged searching the home where they found nothing. In the other case, UNM Police Officer Pat Davis along with two other UNM Police officers essentially coerced two woman to allow searches of their homes, located in Corrales, for marijuana and illicit drugs without court approved search warrants. One woman, who worked for UNM, asked to see a search warrant and was told she would be “ratted out” to UNM officials if she did not cooperate.

The citations to the court cases are Aaron Flores, Arturo Flores and Ceclia Flores vs Patrick Davis, et al, “Complaint for Damages For Violation of Civil Rights”, New Mexico Second Judicial Court, CV-2008-03890 and Brook Bender and Joan Hughs vs Board of Regents of the Univerity of New Mexico and Patrick Davis, et al, “Complaint for False Arrest and Imprisonment, Negligence and Civil Rights Violations” , United States District Court for the District of New Mexico, civ no. 08-c433 mv act. Both cases were settled.

The known cases combined reveal an alarming pattern of violating people’s civil rights and unconstitutional policing practices by Pat Davis as a police officer. As City Council President, Pat Davis is calling for major changes and reforms to the Albuquerque Police Department (APD). Davis is questioning and challenging police practices, policies, procedures, training and funding of APD.

THE TWO CIVIL LAWSUITS

Following is a summary of 2 civil lawsuits where Pat Davis was sued along with other law enforcement sworn police.

In the first lawsuit is a civil “COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS”.

The second lawsuit is a civil “COMPLAINT FOR FALSE ARREST AND IMPRISONMENT, NEGLIGENCE AND CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS”.

In both cases, Davis was sued in his individual and personal capacity and in his official capacity as a UNM Police Officer. Both civil cases were settled with thousands paid in taxpayer money to the Plaintiffs for damages. In one case, the amount of taxpayer money paid to settle is disclosed. The specific amounts of the settlement paid in the second case and the terms of any release of claims is not known likely because the release of claims was not filed with the court to keep it confidential from the public.

AARON FLORES, ARTURO FLORES AND CECLIA FLORES vs PATRICK DAVIS, ET AL, “COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS”, NEW MEXICO SECOND JUDICIAL COURT, CV-2008-03890

In 2008, CV-2008-03890 was filed in the Second Judicial Court, County of Bernalillo, by Plaintiffs AARON FLORES, ARTURO FLORES AND CECLIA FLORES naming as a defendant PATRICK DAVIS, in his individual and personal capacity and in his official capacity as a University of New Mexico Police Officer.

This lawsuit names as defendants 14 Albuquerque Police Officers (APD) and 7 Bernalillo County Sheriff Officers (BCSO) in their individual and personal capacities and official capacities.

The alleged facts of the civil complaint relate to the execution of a court “sealed search warrant” on December 17, 2007 of a private residence owned by Arturo Flores and Celia Flores as husband and wife who resided elsewhere in another home they owned. The home searched was occupied by their son Plaintiff Aaron Flores along with a recent tenant who was a friend from high school of Aaron Flores and was renting one room of the home. According to the facts alleged in the complaint, a search warrant was secured for the home with the tenant boarder as the “target” of the warrant and who was alleged to be a marijuana drug dealer.

FACTUAL BASIS ALLEGED IN FLORES CIVIL COMPLAINT

On December 17, 2007, at approximately 9:10 pm in the evening when no one was at home at the residence, the 21 named defendant law enforcement officers stormed the residence to execute a “sealed search warrant”. Three “flash bang” grenades were hurled into the home causing damages to the walls and which started a fire that required the Albuquerque Fire Department to be dispatched. According to the complaint, the defendants, which included Davis, broke in two front doors, wrought iron works, broke windows and interior doors, broke a car window, broke a sliding gate to the home and “”trashed” the interior of the home including breaking furniture in a search for evidence of a crime, but no evidence of any crime was found against the plaintiffs nor their renter.

A neighbor called Arturo Flores about what was happening at the rental home and Flores immediately went to the residence. Arturo Flores was told by the defendants “a lot of traffic came to and from this house”, and that it was a “drug house” an allegation which was false. At least $20,000 in damages to the home were alleged making it un occupiable and needing extensive repairs. The theft of personal items including a laptop belonging to Aaron Flores was reported. It is not known if any inventory of what was seized under the warrant was filed.

On November 14, 2008, the civil lawsuit filed against Pat Davis, in his individual and personal capacity and in his official capacity as a University of New Mexico Police Officer was settled for the sum of $25,000 for a full and final release of any and all claims against him as alleged by Aaron Flores, Arturo Flores and Cecelia Flores. No information is available as to what the claims against the remaining 20 law enforcement officers were settled for nor when.

BROOK BENDER AND JOAN HUGHS vs BOARD OF REGENTS OF THE UNIVERITY OF NEW MEXICO and PATRICK DAVIS, ET AL, “COMPLAINT FOR FALSE ARREST AND IMPRISONMENT, NEGLIGENCE AND CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS” , UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO, CIV No. 08-C433 MV ACT

On April 29, 2008, CIV No. 08-C433 MV ACT was filed in United States District Court for the District of New Mexico by Brooke Bender and Joan Hughes naming the Board of Regents and the University of New Mexico d/b/a as University of New Mexico Police Department and UNM Police Officers Patrick M. Davis, John Doe Pacheco and Jane Does I and II, in their individual capacities and as employees of the University of New Mexico Police Department.

The factual background of the case alleged in the complaint relate to a January 8, 2008 law enforcement investigation undertaken by the Defendants against plaintiff Brook Bender at her home in Corrales, Sandoval County, New Mexico and a separate and distinct law enforcement action taken against Plaintiff Joan Bender, also at her home in Corrales.

BENDER’ S FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS IN CIVIL COMPLAINT

The complaint alleges that on January 8, 2008, the Defendant Pat Davis, along with other UNM Police went to the home of Brook Bender looking for a person named Richard Hughes and telling Bender they needed to search her home. According to the complaint, the officers did not identify themselves until Bender noticed a UNM Police Badge. The complaint alleges that Davis and the defendants told Plaintiff Bender that they knew she worked for UNM because they had found her UNM employee identification in her car next to some contraband and told her she needed to “work with them” or they would inform UNM officials about the alleged contraband found.

According to Bender’s allegations, she responded to the threats by allowing Davis and the other defendants into her home and asked to see a “search warrant”. They told Bender they did not have a search warrant, that they could easily obtain one and if she insisted on a search warrant they would “rat her out” to her UNM employer.

Bender told the defendants that Richard Hughes did not live at her home. According to the complaint allegations, Defendants insisted on searching the residents and ordered Bender to stand in her kitchen with her hands behind her back as they “tossed” the entire residents emptying out drawers and cabinets and leaving the residence in disarray. After the unauthorized search without a warrant, Bender alleges that she told Pat Davis and UNM officers she knew where the mother of Richard Hughes lived in Corrales and offered to take them to that residence. Defendants escorted Bender to their police car and assisted her into the police vehicle. Bender sat between two UNM Police as she showed them the Hughes residence. No one was home and Bender was taken back to her home by the UNM Police Officers.

HUGHES FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS IN CIVIL COMPLAINT

The Bender-Hughes civil complaint alleges that on the morning of January 9, 2008, at approximately 10:30 am, Davis and the UNM police returned to the home of Plaintiff Joan Hughes, made contact with her and announced that they were looking for her son Richard Hughes with Pat Davis providing Plaintiff Hughes with his business card.

Hughes told the Defendants that her son was in jail in Grants, New Mexico, which the defendants later confirmed, and that her son had not lived with her for several years. Davis none the less told Hughes that they had to “search her house”. Davis and the other defendants had no search warrant for the home and did not ask Hughes for permission to search her home. According to the complaint, Davis and the 3 other officers entered the home and ordered Hughes to sit on her couch while two of the defendants watched Hughes and while the others conducted and extensive searched of her home which lasted for about one hour.

According to the complaint, one defendant UNM Police Officers found pistol cartridges in Hughes bedroom, asked Hughes where the gun was and she notified them it was in her kitchen. Davis or another defendant retrieved the gun and made a call to see if it was stolen, and it was not. The complaint also alleges that Defendants found marijuana belonging to Hughes’s boyfriend. The defendants confiscated the gun found in the home and the marijuana. On January 11, 2008, Hughes secured the return of the gun from the UNM Police.

Confidential sources have disclosed that the Bender and Hughes case was settled for at least $75,000, but no verifiable court pleading nor “release of claims” in the case to confirm the date and amount of the settlement was provided by the confidential source.

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

Given what is known about City Councilor Pat Davis, his actions as a police officer, his litigation history, his credibility is in serious doubt as are his political motives. The real Pat Davis, and his lack of respect for constitutional rights are revealed by his pattern of conduct he engaged if for years and was sued for as a UNM Police Officer and his conduct as a DC Police Officer. Pat Davis has no business making decisions regarding police reforms, law enforcement policy let alone be involved in the process deciding who is fit to be a judge.

If Albuquerque City Councilor Pat Davis is sincere and truly wants to make amends for his past conduct as a police officer, he needs to show some degree of honesty and integrity and step down and remove himself as City Council President, resign from any Judicial Selection Commission he has been appointed to by Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham as well as resign as chairman of the Criminal Justice Coordinating Council. All 3 appointed positions are positions of trust and influence in our criminal justice system. His constituents can decide if they want him to continue as their city councilor.

The very last thing that is needed is for Pat Davis to serve in any one of the 3 appointed positions, and to quote Pat Davis, someone who has “made arrests and instigated some encounters I wouldn’t be proud of today” and who has engaged in “brutalization … of those who [he was] supposed to protect and serve.”

_______________________________________

POSTCRIPT:

Following is the June 22 blog article entitled “City Councilor Pat Davis Needs To Step Down To Atone For His Own “Black Lives Matter” Moment And Violations Of Peoples Civil Rights As A Police Officer” :

City Councilor Pat Davis Needs To Step Down To Atone For His Own “Black Lives Matter” Moment And Violations Of Peoples Civil Rights As A Police Officer

ProgressNow New Mexico is a non-profit, non-partisan, grassroots communications and advocacy organization working to unite, empower, and enhance the progressive voice in the Land of Enchantment. It functions as a progressive communications hub and its mission centers on the promotion of progressive issues and policies, correcting conservative misinformation, and holding elected officials and corporations accountable.
ProgressNow New Mexico is a proud member of the national ProgressNow network of organizations.

The link to ProgressNow New Mexico page is here:

https://progressnownm.org/?p=225026

The link to the national organization is here:

https://progressnownm.org/?p=225026

PRESS RELEASE

On June 25, ProgressNow issued the following statement for immediate release:

Title: ProgressNow New Mexico Statement on Councilor Davis’ Shooting of a Black Man and Pattern of Upholding Racist Institutions

By Marianna Anaya

“This week, new details have surfaced regarding former ProgressNow New Mexico Executive Director and Albuquerque City Councilor Pat Davis’ shooting of a Black man while working as a cop in Washington D.C. [See link #1 below] Davis originally founded ProgressNow New Mexico but left the organization in 2017 and while his name is attached to the organization and its beginnings, we want to state clearly that his past and present actions are not reflective of ProgressNow New Mexico values.

There are calls for justice across the nation- some are met with hostility, and others with grace. We hope Davis chooses the later, steps down from his positions and reflects on how his actions are contributing to a larger system of institutional racism. ProgressNow New Mexico will continue our work, the work of dismantling racist systems, holding bad actors accountable, and being a leading voice in New Mexico for real and tangible change.”

DINELLI COMMENTARY

Albuquerque City Council President needs to voluntarily step down as City Council President, and if he does not, the City Council should vote to remove him as President. Govenor Michelle Lujan Griham needs to ask Councillor Davis to step down from all Judicial Selection Commissions in order to preserve the integrity of the commission. Likewise, the Bernalillo County Criminal Justice Coordinating Council needs to select another chairperson.

Below are the links referred to in content of ProgressiveNow press release:

Link #1: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-dcd-1_05-cv-01372/pdf/USCOURTS-dcd-1_05-cv-01372-0.pdf

Link #2: https://www.petedinelli.com/2020/06/22/city-councilor-pat-davis-needs-to-step-down-to-atone-for-his-own-black-lives-matter-moment-and-violations-of-peoples-civil-rights-as-a-police-officer/

Link #3: https://www.abqjournal.com/943318/davis-has-insiders-perspective-on-reforms.html

Link #4: https://web.archive.org/web/20100408123744/http://site.sheriffpat.org/

Link #5: https://mrycllns.blogspot.com/2010/02/interview-with-bernalillo-county.html

Link #6: https://alibi.com/news/49820/Election-Ahoy.html

On April 10, 2014, the Civil Rights Division of the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) issued its report of an 18-month civil rights investigation of the Albuquerque Police Department (APD). The DOJ reviewed excessive use of force and deadly force cases and found APD had engaged in a “pattern and practice” of unconstitutional “use of force” and “deadly force” and found a “culture of aggression” within APD. The result was that on November 13, 2014 Albuquerque and APD entered into a federal court-approved settlement agreement mandating 276 reforms.

U.S. District Judge James Browning is the federal judge who is presiding over the reform efforts of the City and the Albuquerque Police Department (APD) under the Court Approved Settlement Agreement (CASA). Late last year the Albuquerque Police Officers’ Association (APOA) filed a motion challenging APD’s new “use of force” policy.

In January, APD implemented the new use-of-force policies. One sentence of the policy reads as follows:

“Supervisors and (Force Investigation Section) detectives shall consider the facts that a reasonable officer on scene would have known at the time the officer used force in evaluating whether the force was in compliance with department policy.”

In the motion APOA argued the sentence was vague and undefined and it is difficult to determine what facts “a reasonable officer” would have known at the time they decide to use force or deadly force . The union requested the court to replace the sentence with the following language:

“The determination of ‘objectively reasonable’ is based on the totality of the circumstances and the facts known to the officer at the time of the incident.”

COURT DENIES MOTION

On June 25, it was reported that Judge Browning denied the unions motion. In his written order denying the union’s motion, Judge Browning overruled the union’s objections. According to his order, Judge Browning said he can only amend the use-of-force policy if it violates the constitution, federal law or the court-approved settlement agreement between the city and the Department of Justice and he found it did not.

https://www.abqjournal.com/1469640/judge-overrules-police-union-objection-to-use-of-force-policy.html

Judge Browning ruled the language in the use-of-force policy is consistent with the “objective-reasonableness standard”. This is the legal standard articulated by the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Graham v. Connor , 490 U.S. 386 (1989). The US Supreme Court decided the case on May 15, 1989.

“Graham v. Connor determines the legality of every use-of-force decision any police officer makes. Using the Graham standard, an officer must apply constitutionally appropriate levels of force, based on the unique circumstances of each case. The officer’s force should be applied in the same basic way that an “objectively reasonable” officer would in the same circumstances. The Supreme Court has repeatedly said that the most important factor to consider in applying force is the threat faced by the officer or others at the scene.”

https://www.policemag.com/341717/understanding-graham-v-connor

Judge James Browning wrote:

“the determination whether a reasonable officer would have known that the offender suffered from mental illness is not based on whether it surfaces after the situation that the offender suffered from mental illness. Instead, the determination is based on whether a reasonable officer at the crime scene would have known from the circumstances that a person suffered mental illness.”

POLICE UNION REACTS TO RULING

It took the city years to revise APD’s use-of-force policies in a manner consistent with the court-approved settlement agreement, policies the police union has also been objecting to for a number of years.

According to Assistant City Attorney Lindsay Van Meter who is handling the case for the city, the dispute all started in early 2019 as disagreement between the city and the Albuquerque Police Union over the wording of one use of force policy.

The city’s policy reads that detectives investigating use of force cases “shall consider the facts that a reasonable officer on the scene would have known at the time the officer used force.” The Police Union wanted to change it for investigators to consider the facts “known to the officer at the time of the incident.” An example the police union gave was if an officer is rushing to a scene but doesn’t have time to see on his computer that the person is mentally ill, then uses force, they would be scrutinized for what they “would” or “should have known.” The APOA said this ruling says the officer should have read and known the person was mentally ill, which could have changed his interaction.

The APOA believes the wording is unconstitutional. Police Union President Shaun Willoughby had this to say:

“It is kind of subjective in our opinion to what I would have heard on the radio or on the scanner or what if, what if, what if.”

CITY’S REACTION TO RULING

City spokeswoman Jessie Damazyn wrote in a news release about Judge Browning’s ruling:

“A key component of the Settlement Agreement with the DOJ – and the work to repair APD’s relationship with the public – was an overhaul of the department’s Use of Force Policies”

The City Attorney’s reaction to Judge Browning’s ruling is that the ruling is a clear a victory for the City and APD. The ruling puts a bigger responsibility on police officers to investigate and gather more information about a suspect before they resort to using force.

Assistant City Attorney Lindsay Van Meter who is handling the case for the city had this to say:

“I was never really clear why they took as much objection to it as they did. These policies put very clear limits on the use of force by officers, make sure officers are investigated thoroughly and fairly and make sure everyone is held accountable when they use force. By limiting it to facts known to the officer at the time of the incident, that in our view would not allow the investigator to consider that other officers on scene did observe that particular circumstance and would show if an officer actually had reason to know something they say they didn’t know.”

The city said the policy creates an incentive for officers to fully assess a situation before deciding to use force. Both the city and APOA agree it’s a higher standard from the department’s policy prior to the Department of Justice reforms, which Van Meter said did not identify a standard. Van Meter said with this increased level of oversight it is easier to hold officers accountable when force is used.

https://www.krqe.com/news/albuquerque-metro/judge-rules-in-favor-of-city-on-use-of-force-overhaul/

POLICE UNION’S RESISTANCE TO CASA REFORMS

Federal Court Appointed Independent Monitor Dr. James Ginger who is overseeing the reforms has reported that since December 1, 2017 Mayor Tim Keller took office there has been a change in attitude and level of cooperation by APD. However, Ginger has also reported significant resistance to the reforms by APD mid-level management consisting of sergeants and lieutenants. The Federal Monitor has labeled the resistance the “counter CASA” effect.

OPERATIONAL COMPLIANCE LEVELS

The CASA was negotiated to be fully implemented over a four-year period. On November 14, 2020, it will be 6 full years that have expired since the city entered into the CASA with the DOJ. Under the terms and conditions of the CASA, once APD achieves a 95% compliance rate in 3 compliance areas, and maintains compliance for 2 years, the case can be dismissed.

For the purposes of the APD monitoring process, “compliance” consists of three levels: primary, secondary, and operational compliance levels.

The 3 compliance levels are:

1.PRIMARY COMPLIANCE: Primary compliance is the “policy” part of compliance. To attain primary compliance, APD must have in place operational policies and procedures designed to guide officers, supervisors and managers in the performance of the tasks outlined in the CASA. As a matter of course, the policies must be reflective of the requirements of the CASA; must comply with national standards for effective policing policy; and must demonstrate trainable and evaluable policy components.

2.SECONDARY COMPLIANCE: Secondary compliance is attained by implementing supervisory, managerial and executive practices designed to and be effective in implementing the policy as written, e.g., sergeants routinely enforce the policies among field personnel and are held accountable by managerial and executive levels of the department for doing so. By definition, there should be operational artifacts such as reports, disciplinary records, remands to retraining, follow-up, and even revisions to policies if necessary, indicating that the policies developed in the first stage of compliance are known to, followed by, and important to supervisory and managerial levels of the department.

3. OPERATIONAL COMPLIANCE: Operational compliance is attained at the point that the adherence to policies is apparent in the day-to-day operation of the agency e.g., line personnel are routinely held accountable for compliance, not by the monitoring staff, but by their sergeants, and sergeants are routinely held accountable for compliance by their lieutenants and command staff. In other words, the APD “owns” and enforces its policies.

Page 9 of 307, Case 1:14-cv-01025-JB-SMV Document 578 Filed 05/04/20

COUNTER CASA EFFECT

Notwithstanding the passage of almost 6 years, APD continues to struggled with the implementation of all the mandated reforms and is still under a federal court ordered consent decree.
It was in the Federal Monitors 10th audit report that the “Counter CASA” effect was fully explained. According to the Federal Monitor’s 10th report:

“Sergeants and lieutenants, at times, go to extreme lengths to excuse officer behaviors that clearly violate established and trained APD policy, using excuses, deflective verbiage, de minimis comments and unsupported assertions to avoid calling out subordinates’ failures to adhere to established policies and expected practice. Supervisors (sergeants) and mid-level managers (lieutenants) routinely ignore serious violations, fail to note minor infractions, and instead, consider a given case “complete”.
…

In his 11th “Independent Monitor Reports” Dr. Ginger again noted APD’s struggle to implement and maintain policy changes. He laid blame by stating that APD personnel
“were still failing to adhere to the requirements of the CASA found in past monitoring reports, including some instances moving beyond the epicenter of supervision to mid- and upper management levels of the organization. … Some in APD’s command levels continue to exhibit behaviors that “build bulwarks” [walls] preventing fair and objective discipline, including a process of attempting to delay and in some cases successfully delaying the oversight processes until the timelines for administering discipline had been exceeded. [The] delays prevented an effective remedial response to behavior that is clearly in violation of established policy.”
…
… Since the beginning of the CASA compliance process that there were a few at APD who were overtly resistant to the CASA. [The Monitor] in the past [has] found evidence of a “counter-CASA effect” among some at the supervisory, mid-management, and command levels at APD. Those who knowingly or subconsciously count themselves in this group are beginning to face pressure to change their assessment of the value of the CASA. In some cases [they] have faced reasonably prompt and appropriate corrective efforts from the current executive levels of the APD for behavior that is not congruent with the CASA. … This as an essential way forward if APD is to move into full compliance [with all the CASA mandated reforms]. The remaining issue is that this pressure is neither uniform nor persistent.”

See pages 4 and 303 of 11th Federal Monitors Report with the link to the entire report here:

https://www.justice.gov/usao-nm/file/1274006/download

11th FEDERAL AUDITORS REPORT COMPLIANCE STATUS ASSESSMENT

On May 4, 2020, the Federal Court Appointed Monitor James Ginger filed with the Federal Court his 11th Compliance Audit Report of the Albuquerque Police Department (APD) reforms mandated under the Court Approved Settlement Agreement (CASA). The report covers the eleventh monitoring period from August 1, 2019 to January 31, 2020.

EDITORS NOTE: The postscript to this blog article contains links to 10 articles reporting on the Court Approved Settlement Agreement and the 11 Federal Monitors Reports

In the previous 10th Federal Monitor’s Report, APD was reported to have met 100% of CASA-established primary compliance requirements during the reporting period. To quote the audit “This means, in effect, that policy requiring compliance actions and processes are complete, and are reasonably designed to achieve the articulated goals of the CASA.” Secondary compliance rates (training) were reported at 81%, up from 79% and overall compliance rates are at 63%, the same as the 9th audit report.

In the 11th audit report that covered the time period of August 1, 2019 and ended in January 31, 2020, the federal monitor found APD was 100% in primary compliance, no change from 10th report, a 93% in secondary compliance, a change of 14.8% from the 10th report, and 66% in operational compliance, a change of 3%.

Primary Compliance relates mostly to development and implementation of acceptable policies and conforming to national practices.

APD is now in 93% Secondary Compliance as of the 11th reporting period, which means that effective follow-up mechanisms are beginning to be taken to ensure that APD personnel understand the requirements of promulgated policies in the areas of training, supervising, coaching, and disciplinary processes to ensure APD personnel understand the policies as promulgated and are capable of implementing them in the field.

APD is in 66% Operational Compliance with the requirements of the CASA, which means that 66% of the time, field personnel either perform tasks as required by the CASA, or that, when they fail, supervisory personnel note and correct in-field behavior that is not compliant with the requirements of the CASA.

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

Six years ago, the APD Union was not a named party to the original civil rights complaint for excessive use of force and deadly force filed against the city by the Department of Justice (DOJ). Soon after the DOJ initiated the federal lawsuit against APD and the City, the APOA police union intervened to become a party to the federal lawsuit in order to advocate for union interests in city policy and changes to the “use of force” and “deadly force policies.”

The Police Union, despite public comments of cooperation and comments made to the court, have never fully supported the agreed to reforms. The Police Union contributed significantly to the delay in writing the new use of force and deadly force policies. The union leadership has always been at the negotiating table and for a full year were involved with the drafting of the “use of force” and “deadly use of force” policy.

The union contributed to the one-year delay in writing the policies objecting to many provisions of the policies. The police union repeatedly objected to the language of the use of force policy asserting the policy was unreasonable. This was evidenced by the monitors claim that submitted use of force policy was missing key components and the monitor saw 50-plus changes needing to be made to satisfy union objections.

The union leadership has attended and has sat at counsel table during all court hearings and the Federal Monitor presentations on his reports. During all the Court proceeding where the federal monitor has made his presentation to the federal court, the APOA union has made its opposition and objections known to the federal court regarding the use of force and deadly force policies as being too restrictive with rank and file claiming rank and file cannot do their jobs even with training on the policies.

Six of the 9 Federal Monitor’s status reports have been scathing against the city accusing the previous APD chain of command of delaying and obstructing the DOJ reform process, yet the police union had no comment and took no position. When the previous administration accused the federal monitor of biasness and attempted to have the monitor removed, after the Assistant Chief secretly tape a conference meeting with the monitor, the police union remained totally silent ostensibly giving its support to have the federal monitor removed.

POLICE UNION MEMBERSHIP AND COMPLAINTS

It is pathetic that after almost a full 6 years of the consent decree, APD is only at a 66% operational compliance rate with progress in the single digits percentage wise each year. The most likely reason for this is the police union where APD sergeants and lieutenants are part of the union and management at the same time. The federal monitor has reported repeatedly in no uncertain terms that there are problems with APD sergeants and lieutenants enforcing policies and to discipline officers who violate those policies.

The police union and its leadership have said in open court that the mandated reforms under the consent decree are interfering with rank and file officer’s ability to perform their job duties. A mere 10 months ago during the August 20, 2019, a day long status conference, the APOA union President Shaun Willoughby made is clear that the attitude towards the CASA has not changed in the least.

District Court Judge Browning asked APOA Union President Shawn Willoughby what he and the union rank and file felt about the CASA. Willoughby’s responses were a quick condemnation of the CASA when he said “we hate it”, “we’re frustrated”, the reforms and mandates are “a hard pill to swallow”, that “all change is hard”. According to Willoughby, police officers are afraid to do their jobs for fear of being investigated, fired or disciplined. In the same breath, Willoughby went on to brag about how his union, unlike other police unions in city’s with consent decrees, actually worked and cooperated with the city and the DOJ.

The police union has never articulated in open court and in clear terms exactly what it is about the reforms that are keeping rank and file from “doing their” jobs and “why they hate” the CASA as articulated by the union president. It’s likely the union feels what is interfering with police from doing their jobs is the mandatory use of lapel cameras, police can no longer shoot at fleeing cars, police can no longer use choke holds, police need to use less lethal force and not rely on the SWAT unit, police must use de-escalating tactics and be trained in crisis intervention, and management must hold police accountable for violation of standard operating procedures.

According to the Federal Monitors 10th report:

“Sergeants and lieutenants, at times, go to extreme lengths to excuse officer behaviors that clearly violate established and trained APD policy, using excuses, deflective verbiage, de minimis comments and unsupported assertions to avoid calling out subordinates’ failures to adhere to established policies and expected practice. Supervisors (sergeants) and mid-level managers (lieutenants) routinely ignore serious violations, fail to note minor infractions, and instead, consider a given case “complete”.

All APD police sergeants and lieutenants are clearly part of police management and chain of command and should not be a part of the union. APD Police sergeants and lieutenants cannot serve two masters of Administration Management and Union priorities that are in conflict when it comes to the CASA reforms. The police union refuses to acknowledge or agree to removal of the sergeants and lieutenants from the bargaining unit knowing it will eliminate the unions ability to influence them in management and it will reduce the size of the dues paying union membership.

FINAL COMMENTARY

There is no word yet if the police union will seek to appeal Judge Browing’s decision. If it does, the appeal will take time and no doubt delay even further to APD’s achieving 100% compliance with the reforms to allow for dismissal of the case.

The current police union contract expires on June 30. The City and the Union have now suspended their negotiations because of the corona virus pandemic and the uncertainty of the city’s revenues for the new fiscal year that begins July 1. It has been made known that union contract negotiations will again commence some time in August, and until a new union contract is negotiated and approved, the terms and conditions of the old contract will remain in effect.

One term that the city needs to negotiate is that Sergeants and lieutenants need to be made at will employees and removed from the police union bargaining unit in order to get a real buy in to management’s goals of police reform and the CASA. APD Police sergeants and lieutenants cannot serve two masters of Administration Management and Union priorities that are in conflict when it comes to the CASA reforms.

Until sergeants and lieutenants are removed from the union and made at will employees, do not expect the CASA reforms to be in 100% compliance allowing the dismissal of the case.

_______________________________

POSTSCRIPT

Following are related blog articles on the DOJ Court Approved Settlement Agreement and the Federal Monitors Reports:

https://www.petedinelli.com/2020/06/01/rage-across-america-over-george-floyd-murder-including-albuquerque-apds-response-reflect-doj-reforms-are-working-what-are-we-failing-to-hear/

https://www.petedinelli.com/2020/05/06/federal-monitor-files-11th-compliance-audit-report-of-apd-reforms-counter-casa-effect-still-problematic-order-100-operational-compliance-within-6-months-or-replace-chief-or-deput/

https://www.petedinelli.com/2019/11/07/10th-federal-monitors-compliance-report-counter-casa-affect-alive-and-well-within-apd-remove-to-dismiss-union-from-case-remove-sergeants-and-lieutenants-from-police-unio/

https://www.petedinelli.com/2020/01/13/city-moves-to-be-released-from-portions-doj-consent-decree-and-monitoring-commentary-intent-and-purpose-of-decree-accomplished-dismiss-case/

https://www.petedinelli.com/2019/08/23/apoa-police-union-is-counter-casa-affect-within-apd-remove-sergeants-and-lieutenants-from-union-kudos-to-apd-chief-michael-geier-on-reforms/

https://www.petedinelli.com/2019/08/19/convoluted-federal-monitors-third-outcomes-measures-and-analysis-report-red-flag-for-another-4-million-contract-trump-doj-has-all-but-ended-federal-police-reform-dismiss-abq/

https://www.petedinelli.com/2019/05/08/ninth-apd-federal-monitors-report-filed-negotiate-dismissal-of-casa/

https://www.petedinelli.com/2017/11/07/citys-conduct-stupid-is-as-stupid-does/

https://www.petedinelli.com/2017/05/16/doj-needs-to-seek-contempt-of-court-against-apd-command-staff/

https://www.petedinelli.com/2017/05/25/appoint-special-master-to-take-over-apd-to-implement-reforms/