By T.J. Wilham, Copyright © 2008 Albuquerque Journal
Marvin Gladstone is an 80-year-old retired attorney with gray hair and a heart condition. His 69-year-old wife, Patti, is a semiretired accountant and an amputee who uses a prosthetic leg to walk.
Earlier this summer, Marvin Gladstone was considered a "threat" by Albuquerque police. He was handcuffed, arrested, charged and put in the back of a squad car. In a separate altercation with police later that afternoon, his wife was handcuffed, arrested and carted off to jail.
During his arrest, Marvin Gladstone suffered a heart attack and had to be rushed to the hospital, his attorneys say.
Patti Gladstone was arrested at the hospital after police apparently thought she was trying to break her husband out of custody when she rolled him away from officers in a wheelchair — although she said she was just looking for a place to sit.
When police tried to book Patti Gladstone into jail, her blood pressure was so high that the medical staff at the Metropolitan Detention Center wouldn't take her.
The couple's alleged crimes? Assaulting an officer, refusing to obey an officer, disorderly conduct and cruelty to an animal.
While they await court dates on the various criminal charges, they are considering filing a lawsuit against the Albuquerque Police Department.
APD officials say the officer, Lena Deyapp, acted appropriately and did everything she could to avoid cuffing the Gladstones but was left with no option because they continually assaulted her.
"Mr. and Mrs. Gladstone felt they were above the law and could do whatever they pleased," police spokesman John Walsh said. "The last thing our officer wanted was to take them into custody, but they chose to escalate the situation, act the way they did and, quite frankly, they should have known better."
Dog in an SUV
The encounter occurred June 18 at a Foothills supermarket. According to attorney Mary Han, Patti Gladstone went inside to shop while Marvin Gladstone stayed in the couple's sport utility vehicle with the family dog, a large mixed breed.
After several minutes, the dog's water was running low, and Marvin Gladstone went into the store to get more, Han said. He left the windows cracked and shut off the engine.
How long the Gladstones left the dog unattended and how hot it was in the car are in dispute.
Han claims that it was still cool inside the vehicle; a city vet says that, based on outside temperatures and what is usually safe, he believes that the animal was in danger of dying. It was about 2 p.m and police dispatchers noted the temperature as 94 degrees.
After Marvin Gladstone left the vehicle, someone called 911 and reported that the dog was panting, in distress and that the windows were "slightly" cracked, police say.
Han said Gladstone was only gone about 10 minutes, but, according to dispatch reports, it took 19 minutes for an APD officer to get to the vehicle.
APD officials said the officer couldn't find the vehicle's owners, tried to have them paged inside the store and made contact with them 32 minutes after the 911 call — about 13 minutes after she arrived at the scene.
Han says the Gladstones' veterinarian will testify that they are "very responsible" pet owners.
"The dog was within minutes of being dead," said Craig J. Mabray, chief of veterinary services for the Albuquerque Animal Welfare Department, who didn't examine the pet, which was ultimately allowed to return with the Gladstones. He based his comments on a formula for how long animals can safely be in an enclosed area at a certain temperature. "This dog was in trouble."
The city has been cracking down on people who leave pets unattended in vehicles, and police have made such calls from citizens a top priority. Under city law, it's illegal to leave an animal or child in an enclosed vehicle for a period of time that could result in danger.
Patti Gladstone told police that they had been gone 10 minutes.
When the officer went back to her squad car to wait for animal control officers, Marvin Gladstone approached her and said, "How long is this going to take? We have stuff to do," according to APD reports.
Deyapp told him that animal control was on its way and to get back in his SUV. For "officer safety reasons," Deyapp walked him back to his vehicle, where his wife also told the officer that the couple had things to do, including a doctor's appointment. The dog remained in the car with the Gladstones with the air conditioning on.
Marvin Gladstone approached the officer again a short time later. This time, the conversation escalated.
Police order
Marvin Gladstone asked the officer, "Is there anything I can do to expedite the situation?" according to police reports.
Deyapp replied, "No sir, and I am giving you an order to stay inside your vehicle."
Police say Marvin Gladstone became irate, began to yell and told Deyapp that she was a disgrace to the police department. He was a few inches from her and pointed at her face.
Deyapp wrote in her report that she took a step back because she was in "immediate fear of battery."
Deyapp said Marvin Gladstone said, at one point, that he wanted to go to jail.
Police reports don't make it clear how long it took for an animal control officer to arrive. When the officer arrived, it was determined that the dog was OK. But the officer cited Patti Gladstone, who was driving the vehicle, for cruelty to an animal.
APD officials said city ordinance requires that dogs left unattended in a car must have an opening large enough for the dog to get its head out.
After the citation, police say Marvin Gladstone got out of his vehicle again, approached Deyapp in an "aggressive manner" and asked for her name and badge number.
Deyapp says she provided the information, then placed him under arrest for refusing to obey because he didn't stay inside his vehicle.
"Our officer was placed in a position where she had to take action because of his irresponsible acts," Walsh said.
While sitting cuffed in the back of a police car, Marvin Gladstone, who has had triple bypass surgery, started to have chest pains. An ambulance took him to the hospital, where he was treated for a heart attack, Han said. A doctor's note showed that he had suffered a mild heart attack.
Han said officers refused to let Gladstone take nitroglycerin tablets, which she said might have prevented the attack.
Patti Gladstone took the dog home and met her husband at the hospital. Three officers also showed up.
'Out of control'
While there, police say they told Patti Gladstone that her husband couldn't leave their custody.
A surveillance video of the emergency room waiting area shows her pushing her husband's wheelchair away from the group of officers. It appears she was looking for a seat.
The officers didn't appear to be concerned at first. Suddenly, all three approached her, forced her away from the wheelchair and rushed her outside.
Han says Patti Gladstone was thrown against a wall, cuffed and arrested for acting disorderly. She was taken to the county jail, where staff refused to book her.
According to Deyapp's report, Patti Gladstone was told that she couldn't move away from the officers, refused to return when ordered and insisted she needed to sit down.
When the officers grabbed the wheelchair, she shouted at them, "No, you will not." Police say she wouldn't let go of the wheelchair.
Marvin Gladstone wasn't booked but was given a summons to appear in court. He was treated and released several hours later. He has been charged with refusing to obey a lawful order and assault upon a peace officer.
Police also settled on giving Patti Gladstone a summons after jail staff refused to book her. She has been charged with refusing to obey an officer, cruelty to an animal and disorderly conduct.
"APD is out of control," Han said. "Imagine that this was your mom or your father. It's pretty outrageous, isn't it?
"One person is an artist, a grandmother of seven, and the other is a retired lawyer. These are people who believe in the system."
Showing posts with label APD. Show all posts
Showing posts with label APD. Show all posts
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
Thursday, July 31, 2008
Man Shot by Officers Critical
By Hailey Heinz, Journal Staff Writer
A man who initially called authorities to his home complaining of chest pain was in critical condition Wednesday after he refused treatment, said he had a gun, and was shot by officers.
Fire officials were called to the man's home on the 9700 block of Mesa Arriba NE and told the man they wanted to take him to the hospital for treatment, Albuquerque police spokeswoman Nadine Hamby said. The man, who police said is in his 30s, then became agitated and told them he had a weapon.
Firefighters withdrew and called police, who arrived at the home and got the man's family out of the house. The man also left the house, and police saw that he had a handgun, Hamby said. She said the man ignored police commands and appeared to be walking toward a neighbor's house when the officers shot him. It was unclear Wednesday whether all three officers fired or who hit him, but all were considered "involved," Hamby said.
The three have been placed on paid administrative leave while the department investigates the incident.
The man was taken to University of New Mexico Hospital with gunshot wounds, where he was in critical condition Wednesday night. Hamby declined to say whether police had previously been called to the house or whether the man had a criminal record. She also declined to say whether the man drew his gun or whether officers were armed with less-lethal weapons such as rubber bullets or stun guns.
Bryan Andrada, a neighbor, was riding his bicycle past the man's home when the shooting happened about 6 p.m. Andrada said he had seen police cars in the neighborhood and went to get a closer look when an officer with a drawn gun warned him not to get any closer. He said he couldn't hear the words between the officers and the victim but saw police shoot and watched the man fall. He said five shots were fired.
"To see somebody just go limp like that, it's pretty disturbing," he said. Andrada said he didn't see the man draw his gun or point it at officers.
Neighbors clustered near the shooting scene said the neighborhood is usually quiet, and even close neighbors said they didn't know the victim, who was a renter.
"It's such a quiet neighborhood," said Karen Armstrong, who has lived there for 14 years. "We put in speed bumps because speeders were our biggest concern."
A man who initially called authorities to his home complaining of chest pain was in critical condition Wednesday after he refused treatment, said he had a gun, and was shot by officers.
Fire officials were called to the man's home on the 9700 block of Mesa Arriba NE and told the man they wanted to take him to the hospital for treatment, Albuquerque police spokeswoman Nadine Hamby said. The man, who police said is in his 30s, then became agitated and told them he had a weapon.
Firefighters withdrew and called police, who arrived at the home and got the man's family out of the house. The man also left the house, and police saw that he had a handgun, Hamby said. She said the man ignored police commands and appeared to be walking toward a neighbor's house when the officers shot him. It was unclear Wednesday whether all three officers fired or who hit him, but all were considered "involved," Hamby said.
The three have been placed on paid administrative leave while the department investigates the incident.
The man was taken to University of New Mexico Hospital with gunshot wounds, where he was in critical condition Wednesday night. Hamby declined to say whether police had previously been called to the house or whether the man had a criminal record. She also declined to say whether the man drew his gun or whether officers were armed with less-lethal weapons such as rubber bullets or stun guns.
Bryan Andrada, a neighbor, was riding his bicycle past the man's home when the shooting happened about 6 p.m. Andrada said he had seen police cars in the neighborhood and went to get a closer look when an officer with a drawn gun warned him not to get any closer. He said he couldn't hear the words between the officers and the victim but saw police shoot and watched the man fall. He said five shots were fired.
"To see somebody just go limp like that, it's pretty disturbing," he said. Andrada said he didn't see the man draw his gun or point it at officers.
Neighbors clustered near the shooting scene said the neighborhood is usually quiet, and even close neighbors said they didn't know the victim, who was a renter.
"It's such a quiet neighborhood," said Karen Armstrong, who has lived there for 14 years. "We put in speed bumps because speeders were our biggest concern."
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
Court: Police Not Entitled To Immunity
Associated Press
The 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver has upheld a lower court's ruling that Albuquerque police officers are not entitled to qualified immunity on claims they retaliated against protesters at an anti-war rally.
More than a dozen people who participated in the University of New Mexico campus rally in March 2003 sued the city of Albuquerque, Mayor Martin Chávez and several Albuquerque police officers, claiming their First Amendment rights to freedom of expression and assembly were violated.
The protest drew between 500 and 1,000 people, who spilled onto city sidewalks and the crosswalks of adjacent streets.
The Albuquerque Police Department claimed protesters were blocking traffic and began tossing canisters of tear gas and using pepper spray after protesters failed repeated warnings to clear the streets.
Several protesters were arrested.
A U.S. District Court dismissed most of the plaintiffs' claims against the officers, but analyzed their First Amendment claims of retaliation and determined the officers were not entitled to qualified immunity on the claim.
The court determined there was "no question" that protesting a war is a constitutionally protected activity and the use of tear gas, pepper spray and physical force to disperse plaintiffs and protesters "could have chilled a person of ordinary firmness from continuing to participate in the demonstration."
The officers conceded that the use of tear gas and pepper spray affected certain plaintiffs but said their actions, even "assuming an improper motive," could not have affected plaintiffs who did not witness the officers' actions.
The officers argued on appeal that, because the plaintiffs knew of the officers' aggressive actions at places along the route, "these plaintiffs were thus chilled." The officers contended they were entitled to qualified immunity with respect to those who did not witness or were not affected by their actions.
The appellate court, based in Denver, rejected the officers' arguments because they were not brought before the lower court. City Attorney Bob White said Monday he had not seen the ruling. "We'll have to review the decision and decide how we proceed in the case from here," he said.
The 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver has upheld a lower court's ruling that Albuquerque police officers are not entitled to qualified immunity on claims they retaliated against protesters at an anti-war rally.
More than a dozen people who participated in the University of New Mexico campus rally in March 2003 sued the city of Albuquerque, Mayor Martin Chávez and several Albuquerque police officers, claiming their First Amendment rights to freedom of expression and assembly were violated.
The protest drew between 500 and 1,000 people, who spilled onto city sidewalks and the crosswalks of adjacent streets.
The Albuquerque Police Department claimed protesters were blocking traffic and began tossing canisters of tear gas and using pepper spray after protesters failed repeated warnings to clear the streets.
Several protesters were arrested.
A U.S. District Court dismissed most of the plaintiffs' claims against the officers, but analyzed their First Amendment claims of retaliation and determined the officers were not entitled to qualified immunity on the claim.
The court determined there was "no question" that protesting a war is a constitutionally protected activity and the use of tear gas, pepper spray and physical force to disperse plaintiffs and protesters "could have chilled a person of ordinary firmness from continuing to participate in the demonstration."
The officers conceded that the use of tear gas and pepper spray affected certain plaintiffs but said their actions, even "assuming an improper motive," could not have affected plaintiffs who did not witness the officers' actions.
The officers argued on appeal that, because the plaintiffs knew of the officers' aggressive actions at places along the route, "these plaintiffs were thus chilled." The officers contended they were entitled to qualified immunity with respect to those who did not witness or were not affected by their actions.
The appellate court, based in Denver, rejected the officers' arguments because they were not brought before the lower court. City Attorney Bob White said Monday he had not seen the ruling. "We'll have to review the decision and decide how we proceed in the case from here," he said.
Thursday, July 3, 2008
APD Must 'fess Up, Revise Interrogation Procedures
from the Albuquerque Journal
By Jeff Buckels, New Mexico Public Defender Department
Journal readers can't have missed Saturday's front-page story about how DNA evidence cleared my client Robert Gonzales of murder after two and a half years in jail. And you can't have missed that Robert confessed to the murder at the time.
It was a false confession, and it's not that rare. Nearly a fourth of 218 DNA exonerations documented by the national Innocence Project have involved false confessions.
Police use sophisticated techniques to get confessions. They start by putting the suspect off-guard with friendly chitchat, visiting about the suspect's school, family, favorite TV shows.
Having established that they are the suspect's pal, interrogators put the confession machinery in gear. They accuse the suspect of the crime and refuse to credit his denials. To make resistance seem pointless, they exaggerate or simply lie about the evidence they already have (“You were seen with the victim!”). In virtually every case of false confession involving compliant suspects, the interrogators minimize the suspect's blameworthiness (“I'd have done the same thing!”) and offer face-saving excuses which seem to promise leniency (“We know you were provoked!”). If the suspect still resists, they tell him that confessing is the only way to make the interrogation ordeal come to an end (“You've got to help us if you want to get this over with!”). If he still resists, the interrogators say he's wrong, and insist again and again that the only way to make the ordeal end is to get it right.
These techniques and others are mixed and repeated over and over, for hours if necessary. Every one was used on Robert Gonzales, who stopped resisting and confessed to a murder he didn't commit.
I expect this reaction from many readers: “If I were accused of a crime I didn't commit, nothing, except maybe torture, would make me confess.” I don't doubt it. But while you are enjoying your morning coffee and newspaper, consider whether you are not different from Robert Gonzales in at least two important ways.
First, you are not unusually vulnerable to manipulation and suggestion. Even persons of normal and high intelligence have succumbed to the interrogator's bag of tricks. Retarded and youthful suspects are like putty in a trained interrogator's hands.
Second, you have not been arrested, shackled and stuffed in the back seat of a police car. You are not surrounded by armed police in an interrogation room. Your mug shot will not be on the six o'clock news. You are not scared out of your wits. You are not easy pickings.
Robert Gonzales was. And it took a double-whammy of DNA evidence to stop what interrogation procedure and a false confession started.
More than two years ago, the police learned that scores of scientific tests — DNA evidence, fingerprints, hair samples, fiber evidence — had failed to place Robert at the scene of the crime or connect him to the victim in any way. The DNA pointed consistently to a single unknown person — not Robert. But in the teeth of the scientific evidence, the prosecution pushed on, relying on Robert's “confession” alone.
Two weeks ago, the other shoe fell. The DNA taken from the victim matched a prisoner at the federal lockdown outside Estancia. Then and only then did the prosecution throw in the towel.
I am not writing to vent or to celebrate (“All's well that ends well!”). I am writing to call attention to police policy and training — or rather the lack of it.
The two senior APD officers who interrogated Robert Gonzales knew they were dealing with a suspect who was young and probably retarded in some degree. He told them he was in special education classes in school. Yet they admitted in pretrial interviews and under oath at a hearing that they didn't even consider handling Robert's interrogation differently than any other. The fact is, APD had provided them with no training in interrogating developmentally disabled suspects.
Such training and policies exist and are in effect in other police departments. This specialized training helps officers recognize suspects who are retarded and requires them to make sure the suspects really do understand Miranda warnings. They are to curtail the usual tricks to elicit confessions, treat confessions skeptically, and do double duty corroborating such confessions before committing to prosecution.
Maybe if procedures like this had been in place at APD when Robert Gonzales was arrested, Robert wouldn't have given a false confession or maybe the police wouldn't have believed it. Failing that, maybe they would have gotten the message when the DNA evidence came in over two years ago and pointed to somebody else. This would have saved the prosecuting authorities, the court system and the taxpayers a lot of time, trouble and money.
And it would have saved a vulnerable young man from serving thirty-two months in jail for a horrific crime he did not commit.
Jeff Buckels is the supervising attorney of the Capital Crimes Unit of the Public Defender Department.
By Jeff Buckels, New Mexico Public Defender Department
Journal readers can't have missed Saturday's front-page story about how DNA evidence cleared my client Robert Gonzales of murder after two and a half years in jail. And you can't have missed that Robert confessed to the murder at the time.
It was a false confession, and it's not that rare. Nearly a fourth of 218 DNA exonerations documented by the national Innocence Project have involved false confessions.
Police use sophisticated techniques to get confessions. They start by putting the suspect off-guard with friendly chitchat, visiting about the suspect's school, family, favorite TV shows.
Having established that they are the suspect's pal, interrogators put the confession machinery in gear. They accuse the suspect of the crime and refuse to credit his denials. To make resistance seem pointless, they exaggerate or simply lie about the evidence they already have (“You were seen with the victim!”). In virtually every case of false confession involving compliant suspects, the interrogators minimize the suspect's blameworthiness (“I'd have done the same thing!”) and offer face-saving excuses which seem to promise leniency (“We know you were provoked!”). If the suspect still resists, they tell him that confessing is the only way to make the interrogation ordeal come to an end (“You've got to help us if you want to get this over with!”). If he still resists, the interrogators say he's wrong, and insist again and again that the only way to make the ordeal end is to get it right.
These techniques and others are mixed and repeated over and over, for hours if necessary. Every one was used on Robert Gonzales, who stopped resisting and confessed to a murder he didn't commit.
I expect this reaction from many readers: “If I were accused of a crime I didn't commit, nothing, except maybe torture, would make me confess.” I don't doubt it. But while you are enjoying your morning coffee and newspaper, consider whether you are not different from Robert Gonzales in at least two important ways.
First, you are not unusually vulnerable to manipulation and suggestion. Even persons of normal and high intelligence have succumbed to the interrogator's bag of tricks. Retarded and youthful suspects are like putty in a trained interrogator's hands.
Second, you have not been arrested, shackled and stuffed in the back seat of a police car. You are not surrounded by armed police in an interrogation room. Your mug shot will not be on the six o'clock news. You are not scared out of your wits. You are not easy pickings.
Robert Gonzales was. And it took a double-whammy of DNA evidence to stop what interrogation procedure and a false confession started.
More than two years ago, the police learned that scores of scientific tests — DNA evidence, fingerprints, hair samples, fiber evidence — had failed to place Robert at the scene of the crime or connect him to the victim in any way. The DNA pointed consistently to a single unknown person — not Robert. But in the teeth of the scientific evidence, the prosecution pushed on, relying on Robert's “confession” alone.
Two weeks ago, the other shoe fell. The DNA taken from the victim matched a prisoner at the federal lockdown outside Estancia. Then and only then did the prosecution throw in the towel.
I am not writing to vent or to celebrate (“All's well that ends well!”). I am writing to call attention to police policy and training — or rather the lack of it.
The two senior APD officers who interrogated Robert Gonzales knew they were dealing with a suspect who was young and probably retarded in some degree. He told them he was in special education classes in school. Yet they admitted in pretrial interviews and under oath at a hearing that they didn't even consider handling Robert's interrogation differently than any other. The fact is, APD had provided them with no training in interrogating developmentally disabled suspects.
Such training and policies exist and are in effect in other police departments. This specialized training helps officers recognize suspects who are retarded and requires them to make sure the suspects really do understand Miranda warnings. They are to curtail the usual tricks to elicit confessions, treat confessions skeptically, and do double duty corroborating such confessions before committing to prosecution.
Maybe if procedures like this had been in place at APD when Robert Gonzales was arrested, Robert wouldn't have given a false confession or maybe the police wouldn't have believed it. Failing that, maybe they would have gotten the message when the DNA evidence came in over two years ago and pointed to somebody else. This would have saved the prosecuting authorities, the court system and the taxpayers a lot of time, trouble and money.
And it would have saved a vulnerable young man from serving thirty-two months in jail for a horrific crime he did not commit.
Jeff Buckels is the supervising attorney of the Capital Crimes Unit of the Public Defender Department.
Tuesday, July 1, 2008
Cameraman's Charges Dropped
Wednesday, July 02, 2008
By Joline Gutierrez Krueger And T.J. Wilham, Journal Staff Writer
The attorney for veteran KOB-TV cameraman Rick Foley claims police illegally searched his client’s news vehicle and failed to read him his Miranda rights before cuffing him, throwing him in the back of a police car and charging him with refusing to obey an officer.
Charges against Foley were dropped Tuesday.
APD officials said Tuesday they were trying to determine if a search had occurred. A police spokesman said it’s common for officers to do an “inventory” during someone’s arrest.
Foley was covering a police standoff near Copper and Charleston NE on May 29 when rookie officer Daniel Guzman told Foley to move to a different location, according to a police report. A video captured by Foley’s camera shows the officer lunging at him. Foley was handcuffed, placed in the back of a police car and cited.
Guzman was placed on administrative leave last weekend pending a disciplinary hearing scheduled for next week.
The refusing to obey charge was dismissed Tuesday after Metro Court Judge Benjamin Chavez ruled that Guzman had not provided sufficient facts, or probable cause, to support the allegation.
Chavez said Guzman had incorrectly used a traffic citation form and not a criminal complaint when citing Foley and that he had only repeated the charge and not the circumstances of the case on the citation.
Chavez dismissed the charge without prejudice, meaning that police can refile the charges at a later date.
“I think this case is dead,” Foley’s attorney, Matthew Coyte, said afterward. “It was dead from the beginning.”
Foley said after Tuesday’s hearing that police never read him his rights before charging him.
In a statement released to the Journal through Coyte, Foley said he watched in “amazement” as police searched his news vehicle without a warrant.
According to legal experts, the law allows police to search vehicles if the driver is in the process of being arrested. If the car is being towed, police can take an “inventory” of the vehicle to make sure valuables don’t come up missing.
Foley was not taken to jail.
APD spokesman John Walsh said officers routinely search the vehicle of someone who is being arrested and taken to jail.
In Foley’s case, Walsh said an officer might have taken inventory anticipating that Foley was going to be taken to jail — if his vehicle was searched at all.
Walsh also noted that neither Foley nor KOB-TV has filed a complaint with the department alleging an illegal search.
By Joline Gutierrez Krueger And T.J. Wilham, Journal Staff Writer
The attorney for veteran KOB-TV cameraman Rick Foley claims police illegally searched his client’s news vehicle and failed to read him his Miranda rights before cuffing him, throwing him in the back of a police car and charging him with refusing to obey an officer.
Charges against Foley were dropped Tuesday.
APD officials said Tuesday they were trying to determine if a search had occurred. A police spokesman said it’s common for officers to do an “inventory” during someone’s arrest.
Foley was covering a police standoff near Copper and Charleston NE on May 29 when rookie officer Daniel Guzman told Foley to move to a different location, according to a police report. A video captured by Foley’s camera shows the officer lunging at him. Foley was handcuffed, placed in the back of a police car and cited.
Guzman was placed on administrative leave last weekend pending a disciplinary hearing scheduled for next week.
The refusing to obey charge was dismissed Tuesday after Metro Court Judge Benjamin Chavez ruled that Guzman had not provided sufficient facts, or probable cause, to support the allegation.
Chavez said Guzman had incorrectly used a traffic citation form and not a criminal complaint when citing Foley and that he had only repeated the charge and not the circumstances of the case on the citation.
Chavez dismissed the charge without prejudice, meaning that police can refile the charges at a later date.
“I think this case is dead,” Foley’s attorney, Matthew Coyte, said afterward. “It was dead from the beginning.”
Foley said after Tuesday’s hearing that police never read him his rights before charging him.
In a statement released to the Journal through Coyte, Foley said he watched in “amazement” as police searched his news vehicle without a warrant.
According to legal experts, the law allows police to search vehicles if the driver is in the process of being arrested. If the car is being towed, police can take an “inventory” of the vehicle to make sure valuables don’t come up missing.
Foley was not taken to jail.
APD spokesman John Walsh said officers routinely search the vehicle of someone who is being arrested and taken to jail.
In Foley’s case, Walsh said an officer might have taken inventory anticipating that Foley was going to be taken to jail — if his vehicle was searched at all.
Walsh also noted that neither Foley nor KOB-TV has filed a complaint with the department alleging an illegal search.
Officer on Leave After Attack
By T.J. Wilham, Journal Staff Writer
An Albuquerque police officer who was captured on video attacking a KOB-TV news photographer has been placed on leave.
Officer Daniel Guzman, who had been working with another officer since the May 29 incident, is to appear at a disciplinary hearing next week. Afterward, Police Chief Ray Schultz will decide what disciplinary action, if any, should be taken against the officer.
Veteran KOB photographer Rick Foley was covering a police standoff near Copper and Charleston NE when Guzman, a rookie, told Foley to move to a different location, according to a police report. Foley was some distance from the police cars blocking the street and outside an area that had been blocked by officers.
Shortly after Guzman told Foley to move, the two argued, and Foley asked Guzman for his name and badge number.
A video captured by Foley's camera shows the officer lunging at him. Foley was handcuffed, placed in the back of a police car and cited for refusing to obey an officer.
Foley has a court appearance today in Metropolitan Court. In a statement released through his attorney, Foley on Monday called for Guzman to seek dismissal of the charges.
“In my 27 years covering the news, I have never interfered in officers performing their difficult jobs, nor would I,” the statement said. “My father was a career police officer, and I have been brought up with the greatest respect for the job they do. Yet one officer found time to grab me on a public street, handcuff me, place me in a police car and prevent me from doing mine.
“I hope the officer will do the correct thing and dismiss this criminal case.”
Shortly after the incident, Schultz asked the city's independent review officer to conduct the investigation.
Schultz said he made the decision to place Guzman on leave after reading the independent review officer's report, which he received Friday.
He declined to comment further.
“There is very little I can say until the disciplinary hearing is conducted,” Schultz said. “I can say the reason he is on leave is related to the incident.”
Schultz has acknowledged that “mistakes” were made during the incident, and he has drafted a new policy on how to deal with onlookers.
He has met with members of the local news media to discuss the new policy.
An Albuquerque police officer who was captured on video attacking a KOB-TV news photographer has been placed on leave.
Officer Daniel Guzman, who had been working with another officer since the May 29 incident, is to appear at a disciplinary hearing next week. Afterward, Police Chief Ray Schultz will decide what disciplinary action, if any, should be taken against the officer.
Veteran KOB photographer Rick Foley was covering a police standoff near Copper and Charleston NE when Guzman, a rookie, told Foley to move to a different location, according to a police report. Foley was some distance from the police cars blocking the street and outside an area that had been blocked by officers.
Shortly after Guzman told Foley to move, the two argued, and Foley asked Guzman for his name and badge number.
A video captured by Foley's camera shows the officer lunging at him. Foley was handcuffed, placed in the back of a police car and cited for refusing to obey an officer.
Foley has a court appearance today in Metropolitan Court. In a statement released through his attorney, Foley on Monday called for Guzman to seek dismissal of the charges.
“In my 27 years covering the news, I have never interfered in officers performing their difficult jobs, nor would I,” the statement said. “My father was a career police officer, and I have been brought up with the greatest respect for the job they do. Yet one officer found time to grab me on a public street, handcuff me, place me in a police car and prevent me from doing mine.
“I hope the officer will do the correct thing and dismiss this criminal case.”
Shortly after the incident, Schultz asked the city's independent review officer to conduct the investigation.
Schultz said he made the decision to place Guzman on leave after reading the independent review officer's report, which he received Friday.
He declined to comment further.
“There is very little I can say until the disciplinary hearing is conducted,” Schultz said. “I can say the reason he is on leave is related to the incident.”
Schultz has acknowledged that “mistakes” were made during the incident, and he has drafted a new policy on how to deal with onlookers.
He has met with members of the local news media to discuss the new policy.
Sunday, June 29, 2008
Does Law Aid Officers, Or Is It Abused by Them?
Sunday, June 29, 2008
By T.J. Wilham, Journal Staff Writer Copyright © 2008 Albuquerque Journal
You could be arrested for having a party.
Interrupting a police officer could land you in jail.
And if you videotape a crime scene on a public street, you could be cuffed, thrown in a police car and charged.
All of this has happened in Albuquerque: people engaged in what appear to be legal acts arrested and charged by police for “refusing to obey” a lawful order.
But are the orders lawful and is refusing to obey them a crime that is jokingly referred to in legal circles as “contempt of cop”?
It’s not a joke, of course. In addition to a possible trip to jail that night, refusing to obey carries a fine of up to $500 plus up to 90 days in the slammer.
But the charges frequently wash out when they hit the courthouse.
In 2007, Metropolitan Court judges dismissed 70 percent of the refusing to obey charge in 517 arrests made by police and sheriff’s deputies in Bernalillo County under a city ordinance called “resisting, obstructing or refusing to obey an officer.”
The top reason: 45 percent of the dismissals were due to a lack of prosecution, the officer was unwilling to proceed with the charges in court, a lack of probable cause or proper reports were not filed. Thirty percent of the dismissals were due to a plea agreement in which the defendant pleaded guilty to other charges.
“This law they are arresting people under is unconstitutional,” said Albuquerque attorney Ray Twohig. “Police in Albuquerque think they can give whatever order they want. You have constitutional violations happening in Albuquerque wholesale.”
The city ordinance that gives police the authority to arrest someone who disobeys them was adopted in 1973, a year before the city charter was written. Part of the ordinance says a person can be charged if he or she refuses to obey or comply with any lawful process or order given by a police officer. Anyone found guilty could be sentenced to up to 90 days in jail.
Albuquerque Police Chief Ray Schultz said the ordinance is needed because officers face situations when they have no choice but to arrest someone to avoid violence.
For example, police might respond to a domestic violence call in which both sides are arguing, and the situation will likely escalate. Officers will ask one side of the dispute to leave in order to avoid violence. If they don’t, they get arrested.
Many of these cases get dismissed.
Overlapping laws
Defense attorneys like Twohig question why the ordinance is needed since New Mexico already has a law called “resisting, evading or obstructing an officer.”
Twohig said the city ordinance gives police too much authority and is much more broad than state law, which does not include the word “obey.”
“Police in Albuquerque have more power than officers in any other jurisdiction in the state,” said Twohig, who last year represented a Roswell city councilwoman who successfully fought her arrest under the state’s version of the law. “You have a whole lot of people being arrested in Albuquerque for ‘contempt of cop,’ and it seems to me this law encourages it.”
Schultz acknowledged that sometimes it is questionable whether the order is lawful, but, he said, that’s what the courts are for.
“The courts recognize it’s a tool that law enforcement has to use to separate parties or to get someone to do something they don’t want to do,” Schultz said. “Without that tool, it would ratchet it up to the next level, and it is going to result in physical violence or a serious crime as a result of the parties not being separated.”
The ordinance does not explain what a “lawful order” is. According to legal experts, it’s a “gray area.”
Retired Judge Woody Smith said that when he was on the District Court bench, he judged each case individually and always looked for whether someone’s constitutional rights were violated by the order.
“You can’t define what a lawful order is,” said Smith, also a former prosecutor, Metropolitan Court judge and public defender. “It depends on the circumstances. Police have a lot of discretion, and lot of times it is determined after all of the facts are known.”
Smith noted that he felt the law at times was “overused” and certain police officers tended to use it more than others.
Schultz said most of the arrests are coupled with other charges. In the rare circumstances in which someone is only charged with refusing to obey, those arrests are closely scrutinized by supervisors who review the arresting officer’s report and criminal complaint to make sure there is enough probable cause.
“A clear majority of the cases, had the person just left the area and done what they were being asked, they wouldn’t have been arrested,” Schultz said. “These charges are the result of someone saying ‘No, I don’t want to, I don’t have to.’
“The officer just can’t leave — then the calling party would be upset at us for not intervening. This charge is used as a last resort. When the officer has no other option.”
TV photographer
The law was spotlighted last month when KOB-TV cameraman Rick Foley was arrested for refusing to obey an officer.
Foley was covering a police standoff May 29 near Copper and Charleston NE when rookie officer Daniel Guzman told Foley to move to a different location, according to a police report.
Foley at the time was some distance from the police cars blocking the street and was outside an area that had been blocked by officers.
Shortly after Guzman told Foley he needed to move, the two exchanged more words and Foley asked Guzman to provide his name and badge number.
A video captured by Foley’s camera shows the officer lunging at Foley. Foley was handcuffed, placed in the back of a police car and cited.
An investigation into Guzman’s conduct is under way, while criminal charges against Foley are pending.
Since then, Schultz has acknowledged that “mistakes” were made and has drafted a new policy on how to deal with onlookers. Guzman, meanwhile, has been paired with a veteran officer until the investigation is complete .
Recent cases
After Foley’s arrest, the Journal examined 36 recent arrests in which the defendant was charged only with “refusing to obey” an officer under the city ordinance.
Some of those arrests include:
Nestor Pons Ocana, 47, was arrested May 4 after he interrupted an Albuquerque police officer. According to court records, Ocana was a passenger in a car that was stopped for a noise violation. The officer was citing the driver for the violation when Ocana told the driver not to sign the citation because the officer’s action was “racist.” The officer noted that he told Ocana to be quiet, but Ocana continued to yell, preventing the officer from hearing the driver. Charges against Ocana were dismissed due to a “lack of probable cause.”
Raymond Medina, 37, was arrested Dec. 29 because he refused to end a party at his apartment. Officers had responded to a noise complaint. When they arrived, police told Medina that he had to end the party. Medina said he would “keep it down,” but officers insisted the party was over and his guests had to leave.
Medina refused, saying he didn’t want his guests to get DWIs. An officer then stuck his foot in front of Medina’s door, preventing him from closing it, and took him into custody. Charges against Medina were dismissed due to a lack of prosecution. Medina was never charged with violating the city’s noise ordinance. Even if he had been, city attorneys acknowledge, officers can’t force everyone to leave.
Antonio Serna, 39, was arrested Dec. 4 when he initially refused to let police into his house. The officers did not have a warrant. According to court records, officers were looking for Serna’s son in connection with a child abuse case. They went to Serna’s home looking for him. Serna told officers his son was not home. When officers insisted on searching Serna’s house, Serna responded that they needed a warrant and tried to shut the door. The officers said Serna was “preventing the possibility of further investigation.” The officers peeked in, saw his son and arrested both of them. Refusing to obey charges against Serna were dismissed because officers failed to file a report.
Peter Simonson, New Mexico director of the American Civil Liberties Union, said his organization has received several complaints from people arrested under the city ordinance. The ACLU has successfully represented clients charged under the ordinance.
He said he doesn’t think the law is unconstitutional, just APD’s interpretation of it.
Simonson said he takes issue with Schultz’s theory of letting the courts sort things out.
“It shouldn’t have to get to that point,” Simonson said. “It is up to the police to properly enforce a law like this and not rely on the court to correct their errors. People should not have to go to court to prove they were not violating the law.”
Robert Saavedra decided not to prove his innocence.
Saavedra and his friend were Downtown on Dec. 21 when someone shot his friend’s truck.
They waited for several hours while police investigated. After awhile, Saavedra and his friend thought the investigation was over, so they started to get in the truck to leave, Saavedra said.
Officers got upset and took Saavedra’s friend into custody for refusing to obey, he said. Saavedra, who was not in the truck, called his friend’s brother to tell him what was going on when officers told him to leave the scene and to get off the cell phone.
Officers said in a criminal complaint that Saavedra took one step back, but proceeded to make a phone call and refused to move back on the sidewalk.
Saavedra was then arrested and taken to jail with his friend.
Saavedra decided not to fight the charges. He said he didn’t have enough money to hire an attorney. Instead, he said the officer told him that if he paid some fines and agreed to stay out of trouble, his case would be dismissed.
According to metro court records, that occurred in 16 percent of the cases in 2007.
“I didn’t back-talk him. I wasn’t mean. I just tried to explain that I was on the phone with my buddy’s brother so he could bond him out,” Saavedra said. “They didn’t want to listen. They just wanted to take someone to jail that night.”
In Saavedra’s criminal complaint, the arresting officers maintained that Saavedra refused to leave the area despite being told several times to do so.
Similar laws exist throughout the country.
But over time, some jurisdictions have eliminated the laws because homeless advocates have challenged their use, said William Walsh, a former New York City police officer and director of the Southern Police Institute in Louisville, Ky. Walsh said a similar law was in place when he was a police officer in New York City in the 1960s.
He said that officers mainly used the law when they needed to arrest someone involved in a riot, and he cautioned against getting rid of such laws.
“Police officers get called to disputes, and they are expected to settle them. They can’t walk away,” Walsh said. “The only tools they have is their own persuasion, their use of force and the law.”
City Code 12-2-19 RESISTING, OBSTRUCTING OR REFUSING TO OBEY AN OFFICER.
Resisting, obstructing or refusing to obey an officer consists of either:
(A) Knowingly obstructing, resisting or opposing any officer of this state or any other duly authorized person serving or attempting to serve or execute any process or any rule or order of any of the courts of this state or any other judicial writ or process; or
(B) Resisting or abusing any judge, magistrate or peace officer in the lawful discharge of his duties; or
(C) Refusing to obey or comply with any lawful process or order given by any police officer acting in the lawful discharge of his duties; or
(D) Interfering with, obstructing or opposing any officer in the lawful discharge of his regular and affixed duties.
By T.J. Wilham, Journal Staff Writer Copyright © 2008 Albuquerque Journal
You could be arrested for having a party.
Interrupting a police officer could land you in jail.
And if you videotape a crime scene on a public street, you could be cuffed, thrown in a police car and charged.
All of this has happened in Albuquerque: people engaged in what appear to be legal acts arrested and charged by police for “refusing to obey” a lawful order.
But are the orders lawful and is refusing to obey them a crime that is jokingly referred to in legal circles as “contempt of cop”?
It’s not a joke, of course. In addition to a possible trip to jail that night, refusing to obey carries a fine of up to $500 plus up to 90 days in the slammer.
But the charges frequently wash out when they hit the courthouse.
In 2007, Metropolitan Court judges dismissed 70 percent of the refusing to obey charge in 517 arrests made by police and sheriff’s deputies in Bernalillo County under a city ordinance called “resisting, obstructing or refusing to obey an officer.”
The top reason: 45 percent of the dismissals were due to a lack of prosecution, the officer was unwilling to proceed with the charges in court, a lack of probable cause or proper reports were not filed. Thirty percent of the dismissals were due to a plea agreement in which the defendant pleaded guilty to other charges.
“This law they are arresting people under is unconstitutional,” said Albuquerque attorney Ray Twohig. “Police in Albuquerque think they can give whatever order they want. You have constitutional violations happening in Albuquerque wholesale.”
The city ordinance that gives police the authority to arrest someone who disobeys them was adopted in 1973, a year before the city charter was written. Part of the ordinance says a person can be charged if he or she refuses to obey or comply with any lawful process or order given by a police officer. Anyone found guilty could be sentenced to up to 90 days in jail.
Albuquerque Police Chief Ray Schultz said the ordinance is needed because officers face situations when they have no choice but to arrest someone to avoid violence.
For example, police might respond to a domestic violence call in which both sides are arguing, and the situation will likely escalate. Officers will ask one side of the dispute to leave in order to avoid violence. If they don’t, they get arrested.
Many of these cases get dismissed.
Overlapping laws
Defense attorneys like Twohig question why the ordinance is needed since New Mexico already has a law called “resisting, evading or obstructing an officer.”
Twohig said the city ordinance gives police too much authority and is much more broad than state law, which does not include the word “obey.”
“Police in Albuquerque have more power than officers in any other jurisdiction in the state,” said Twohig, who last year represented a Roswell city councilwoman who successfully fought her arrest under the state’s version of the law. “You have a whole lot of people being arrested in Albuquerque for ‘contempt of cop,’ and it seems to me this law encourages it.”
Schultz acknowledged that sometimes it is questionable whether the order is lawful, but, he said, that’s what the courts are for.
“The courts recognize it’s a tool that law enforcement has to use to separate parties or to get someone to do something they don’t want to do,” Schultz said. “Without that tool, it would ratchet it up to the next level, and it is going to result in physical violence or a serious crime as a result of the parties not being separated.”
The ordinance does not explain what a “lawful order” is. According to legal experts, it’s a “gray area.”
Retired Judge Woody Smith said that when he was on the District Court bench, he judged each case individually and always looked for whether someone’s constitutional rights were violated by the order.
“You can’t define what a lawful order is,” said Smith, also a former prosecutor, Metropolitan Court judge and public defender. “It depends on the circumstances. Police have a lot of discretion, and lot of times it is determined after all of the facts are known.”
Smith noted that he felt the law at times was “overused” and certain police officers tended to use it more than others.
Schultz said most of the arrests are coupled with other charges. In the rare circumstances in which someone is only charged with refusing to obey, those arrests are closely scrutinized by supervisors who review the arresting officer’s report and criminal complaint to make sure there is enough probable cause.
“A clear majority of the cases, had the person just left the area and done what they were being asked, they wouldn’t have been arrested,” Schultz said. “These charges are the result of someone saying ‘No, I don’t want to, I don’t have to.’
“The officer just can’t leave — then the calling party would be upset at us for not intervening. This charge is used as a last resort. When the officer has no other option.”
TV photographer
The law was spotlighted last month when KOB-TV cameraman Rick Foley was arrested for refusing to obey an officer.
Foley was covering a police standoff May 29 near Copper and Charleston NE when rookie officer Daniel Guzman told Foley to move to a different location, according to a police report.
Foley at the time was some distance from the police cars blocking the street and was outside an area that had been blocked by officers.
Shortly after Guzman told Foley he needed to move, the two exchanged more words and Foley asked Guzman to provide his name and badge number.
A video captured by Foley’s camera shows the officer lunging at Foley. Foley was handcuffed, placed in the back of a police car and cited.
An investigation into Guzman’s conduct is under way, while criminal charges against Foley are pending.
Since then, Schultz has acknowledged that “mistakes” were made and has drafted a new policy on how to deal with onlookers. Guzman, meanwhile, has been paired with a veteran officer until the investigation is complete .
Recent cases
After Foley’s arrest, the Journal examined 36 recent arrests in which the defendant was charged only with “refusing to obey” an officer under the city ordinance.
Some of those arrests include:
Nestor Pons Ocana, 47, was arrested May 4 after he interrupted an Albuquerque police officer. According to court records, Ocana was a passenger in a car that was stopped for a noise violation. The officer was citing the driver for the violation when Ocana told the driver not to sign the citation because the officer’s action was “racist.” The officer noted that he told Ocana to be quiet, but Ocana continued to yell, preventing the officer from hearing the driver. Charges against Ocana were dismissed due to a “lack of probable cause.”
Raymond Medina, 37, was arrested Dec. 29 because he refused to end a party at his apartment. Officers had responded to a noise complaint. When they arrived, police told Medina that he had to end the party. Medina said he would “keep it down,” but officers insisted the party was over and his guests had to leave.
Medina refused, saying he didn’t want his guests to get DWIs. An officer then stuck his foot in front of Medina’s door, preventing him from closing it, and took him into custody. Charges against Medina were dismissed due to a lack of prosecution. Medina was never charged with violating the city’s noise ordinance. Even if he had been, city attorneys acknowledge, officers can’t force everyone to leave.
Antonio Serna, 39, was arrested Dec. 4 when he initially refused to let police into his house. The officers did not have a warrant. According to court records, officers were looking for Serna’s son in connection with a child abuse case. They went to Serna’s home looking for him. Serna told officers his son was not home. When officers insisted on searching Serna’s house, Serna responded that they needed a warrant and tried to shut the door. The officers said Serna was “preventing the possibility of further investigation.” The officers peeked in, saw his son and arrested both of them. Refusing to obey charges against Serna were dismissed because officers failed to file a report.
Peter Simonson, New Mexico director of the American Civil Liberties Union, said his organization has received several complaints from people arrested under the city ordinance. The ACLU has successfully represented clients charged under the ordinance.
He said he doesn’t think the law is unconstitutional, just APD’s interpretation of it.
Simonson said he takes issue with Schultz’s theory of letting the courts sort things out.
“It shouldn’t have to get to that point,” Simonson said. “It is up to the police to properly enforce a law like this and not rely on the court to correct their errors. People should not have to go to court to prove they were not violating the law.”
Robert Saavedra decided not to prove his innocence.
Saavedra and his friend were Downtown on Dec. 21 when someone shot his friend’s truck.
They waited for several hours while police investigated. After awhile, Saavedra and his friend thought the investigation was over, so they started to get in the truck to leave, Saavedra said.
Officers got upset and took Saavedra’s friend into custody for refusing to obey, he said. Saavedra, who was not in the truck, called his friend’s brother to tell him what was going on when officers told him to leave the scene and to get off the cell phone.
Officers said in a criminal complaint that Saavedra took one step back, but proceeded to make a phone call and refused to move back on the sidewalk.
Saavedra was then arrested and taken to jail with his friend.
Saavedra decided not to fight the charges. He said he didn’t have enough money to hire an attorney. Instead, he said the officer told him that if he paid some fines and agreed to stay out of trouble, his case would be dismissed.
According to metro court records, that occurred in 16 percent of the cases in 2007.
“I didn’t back-talk him. I wasn’t mean. I just tried to explain that I was on the phone with my buddy’s brother so he could bond him out,” Saavedra said. “They didn’t want to listen. They just wanted to take someone to jail that night.”
In Saavedra’s criminal complaint, the arresting officers maintained that Saavedra refused to leave the area despite being told several times to do so.
Similar laws exist throughout the country.
But over time, some jurisdictions have eliminated the laws because homeless advocates have challenged their use, said William Walsh, a former New York City police officer and director of the Southern Police Institute in Louisville, Ky. Walsh said a similar law was in place when he was a police officer in New York City in the 1960s.
He said that officers mainly used the law when they needed to arrest someone involved in a riot, and he cautioned against getting rid of such laws.
“Police officers get called to disputes, and they are expected to settle them. They can’t walk away,” Walsh said. “The only tools they have is their own persuasion, their use of force and the law.”
City Code 12-2-19 RESISTING, OBSTRUCTING OR REFUSING TO OBEY AN OFFICER.
Resisting, obstructing or refusing to obey an officer consists of either:
(A) Knowingly obstructing, resisting or opposing any officer of this state or any other duly authorized person serving or attempting to serve or execute any process or any rule or order of any of the courts of this state or any other judicial writ or process; or
(B) Resisting or abusing any judge, magistrate or peace officer in the lawful discharge of his duties; or
(C) Refusing to obey or comply with any lawful process or order given by any police officer acting in the lawful discharge of his duties; or
(D) Interfering with, obstructing or opposing any officer in the lawful discharge of his regular and affixed duties.
Thursday, June 12, 2008
Attack on Cameraman Prompts New APD Policy
By T.J. Wilham Copyright © 2008 Albuquerque Journal; Journal Staff Writer
Police Chief Ray Schultz plans to retrain his entire police force because of mistakes he acknowledged were made by an officer who attacked a KOB-TV cameraman after ordering him to move from an area near a crime scene.
The incident— which was caught on tape, aired on TV and posted on the Internet— sparked hundreds of complaints to APD.
Schultz said Wednesday that he has drafted a policy that he plans to take to all of the city's news organizations for input. He also said the police force will go through training on the new policy and how to deal with crime scene onlookers.
One change would require an officer involved in a disagreement with the media to call a supervisor or public information officer.
The officer involved in last month's incident has been paired to work with a veteran officer— and never alone— until an investigation is complete.
"I have always said that we learn from our mistakes," Schultz said. "Obviously, there were some mistakes made. So, let's learn from them instead of repeating them."
Veteran KOB-TV cameraman Rick Foley was covering a police standoff on May 29 near Copper and Charleston NE when rookie officer Daniel Guzman told Foley to move to a different location, according to a police report.
Foley at the time was some distance from the police cars blocking the street and was outside an area that had been blocked by officers.
Shortly after Guzman told Foley he needed to move, the two exchanged more words.
A video captured by Foley's camera shows the officer lunging at Foley. Foley was handcuffed, placed in the back of a police car and cited for "refusing to obey an officer."
The citation was filed Tuesday in Metropolitan Court. Foley has been given a July 1 court date.
Schultz said he couldn't intervene and have the citation dismissed. Only an officer or a judge can dismiss a citation once it has been written, he said.
Shortly after the incident, Schultz asked the city's independent review officer to investigate.
That investigation is ongoing. The IRO has reviewed Foley's tape but has not conducted any interviews.
The Journal made an official request on June 2 for records involving any prior disciplinary action taken against Guzman as well as any other resident's complaints.
Police have yet to produce the documents.
A deputy city attorney said in an e-mail that they are reviewing the request and will have a response within 15 days.
Schultz said action was taken shortly after the incident because of the severity of the allegations and the fact that his office has received about 200 e-mails— most of which attack Guzman and the chief. Schultz said that two of those e-mails had a threatening tone and that those e-mailers wanted to know where and when Guzman works so they could "talk to him."
"Because of the nature of some of the e-mails, we thought it was in his best interest not to put him in a situation where someone has an encounter with him and something escalates," Schultz said.
Schultz said that when he watched a video of the encounter, he noticed that several mistakes were made, although he declined to elaborate until the IRO completes its investigation.
Schultz pointed out that Foley had asked Guzman for his name and badge number, and that the officer refused to give it.
"That's an obvious policy violation," Schultz said. "We have a distinct policy you will provide name and identification number when asked by anyone. That did not occur."
Schultz said the new policy he drafted deals mostly with how officers are to treat representatives of the media when they think a reporter or photographer is disobeying a lawful order.
The drafted policy calls for the officer to contact his supervisor or a public information officer, but not to initiate an arrest.
The department already has a policy in place that says anyone from the community can record any crime scene as long as he or she is not standing in the scene.
"We want any conflicts addressed at the scene and not have our officers jump to enforcement action," Schultz said. "Let's get the right people there and not get to the point where someone is being arrested or cited."
Police Chief Ray Schultz plans to retrain his entire police force because of mistakes he acknowledged were made by an officer who attacked a KOB-TV cameraman after ordering him to move from an area near a crime scene.
The incident— which was caught on tape, aired on TV and posted on the Internet— sparked hundreds of complaints to APD.
Schultz said Wednesday that he has drafted a policy that he plans to take to all of the city's news organizations for input. He also said the police force will go through training on the new policy and how to deal with crime scene onlookers.
One change would require an officer involved in a disagreement with the media to call a supervisor or public information officer.
The officer involved in last month's incident has been paired to work with a veteran officer— and never alone— until an investigation is complete.
"I have always said that we learn from our mistakes," Schultz said. "Obviously, there were some mistakes made. So, let's learn from them instead of repeating them."
Veteran KOB-TV cameraman Rick Foley was covering a police standoff on May 29 near Copper and Charleston NE when rookie officer Daniel Guzman told Foley to move to a different location, according to a police report.
Foley at the time was some distance from the police cars blocking the street and was outside an area that had been blocked by officers.
Shortly after Guzman told Foley he needed to move, the two exchanged more words.
A video captured by Foley's camera shows the officer lunging at Foley. Foley was handcuffed, placed in the back of a police car and cited for "refusing to obey an officer."
The citation was filed Tuesday in Metropolitan Court. Foley has been given a July 1 court date.
Schultz said he couldn't intervene and have the citation dismissed. Only an officer or a judge can dismiss a citation once it has been written, he said.
Shortly after the incident, Schultz asked the city's independent review officer to investigate.
That investigation is ongoing. The IRO has reviewed Foley's tape but has not conducted any interviews.
The Journal made an official request on June 2 for records involving any prior disciplinary action taken against Guzman as well as any other resident's complaints.
Police have yet to produce the documents.
A deputy city attorney said in an e-mail that they are reviewing the request and will have a response within 15 days.
Schultz said action was taken shortly after the incident because of the severity of the allegations and the fact that his office has received about 200 e-mails— most of which attack Guzman and the chief. Schultz said that two of those e-mails had a threatening tone and that those e-mailers wanted to know where and when Guzman works so they could "talk to him."
"Because of the nature of some of the e-mails, we thought it was in his best interest not to put him in a situation where someone has an encounter with him and something escalates," Schultz said.
Schultz said that when he watched a video of the encounter, he noticed that several mistakes were made, although he declined to elaborate until the IRO completes its investigation.
Schultz pointed out that Foley had asked Guzman for his name and badge number, and that the officer refused to give it.
"That's an obvious policy violation," Schultz said. "We have a distinct policy you will provide name and identification number when asked by anyone. That did not occur."
Schultz said the new policy he drafted deals mostly with how officers are to treat representatives of the media when they think a reporter or photographer is disobeying a lawful order.
The drafted policy calls for the officer to contact his supervisor or a public information officer, but not to initiate an arrest.
The department already has a policy in place that says anyone from the community can record any crime scene as long as he or she is not standing in the scene.
"We want any conflicts addressed at the scene and not have our officers jump to enforcement action," Schultz said. "Let's get the right people there and not get to the point where someone is being arrested or cited."
Thursday, May 29, 2008
Video: APD officer, photographer scuffle
By: Tom Joles, KOB-TV, and Joshua Panas, KOB.com
An Eyewitness News 4 photographer was cuffed and cited Thursday morning for disobeying a police officer. It was a situation where the photographer was trying to do his job. And now the Albuquerque Police Department is reviewing the tape to see if the officer crossed the line.
APD says a driver and officers had exchanged gunfire at Copper Avenue and Rhode Island Street NE. An Eyewitness News 4 photographer covering the incident approached two police cars at Copper and Grove NE, believing the suspect was already in custody. The photographer was told that he had to go to a media staging area, but he claims the officer wouldn�t tell him where that was, so he just moved back.
The two officers briefly talked, and then one of them told the photographer where to go.
Video of the incident shows one of the officers walking away, looking at the photographer, and then walking out of frame while the other officer drives away from the scene.
The photographer then began to put his camera in the news vehicle to move to the media staging area when the officer begins circling around.
�I�m not putting the camera down until (inaudible),� the photographer told the officer as he was approached.
The two scuffled for a short time, and then the photographer was handcuffed and detained for about 90 minutes.
A police report identifies the officer as a D. Guzman and Eyewitness News 4 was told Thursday evening that Guzman had been a police officer for 13 months and on the street for seven months.
APD Chief Ray Schultz has yet to release a statement about the video, but APD spokesman John Walsh said the tape will be looked at.
�I can't comment on exactly what occurred on it. That will be reviewed by the independent review officer and, like I stated, he will come across with recommendations and the Albuquerque Police Department will act on those recommendations," Walsh said.
APD says they will proceed with the citation against the photographer.
An Eyewitness News 4 photographer was cuffed and cited Thursday morning for disobeying a police officer. It was a situation where the photographer was trying to do his job. And now the Albuquerque Police Department is reviewing the tape to see if the officer crossed the line.
APD says a driver and officers had exchanged gunfire at Copper Avenue and Rhode Island Street NE. An Eyewitness News 4 photographer covering the incident approached two police cars at Copper and Grove NE, believing the suspect was already in custody. The photographer was told that he had to go to a media staging area, but he claims the officer wouldn�t tell him where that was, so he just moved back.
The two officers briefly talked, and then one of them told the photographer where to go.
Video of the incident shows one of the officers walking away, looking at the photographer, and then walking out of frame while the other officer drives away from the scene.
The photographer then began to put his camera in the news vehicle to move to the media staging area when the officer begins circling around.
�I�m not putting the camera down until (inaudible),� the photographer told the officer as he was approached.
The two scuffled for a short time, and then the photographer was handcuffed and detained for about 90 minutes.
A police report identifies the officer as a D. Guzman and Eyewitness News 4 was told Thursday evening that Guzman had been a police officer for 13 months and on the street for seven months.
APD Chief Ray Schultz has yet to release a statement about the video, but APD spokesman John Walsh said the tape will be looked at.
�I can't comment on exactly what occurred on it. That will be reviewed by the independent review officer and, like I stated, he will come across with recommendations and the Albuquerque Police Department will act on those recommendations," Walsh said.
APD says they will proceed with the citation against the photographer.
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
Friday, December 14, 2007
APD Officers Pair With Needy Children for Meal, Movie and Wal-Mart Trip
Monday, December 10, 2007
By Jack King, Journal Staff Writer
In the toy aisle of a Northeast Heights Wal-Mart on Sunday, one little girl stood up in a shopping cart lined with clothes and shouted at the flurry of shoppers blocking her way, "Beep, beep."
In the clothing department, another little girl laid her face against a pair of velour pants and purred, "Whoa, I want these."
Bernalillo County Sheriff's Deputy Richard Castillo surveyed the fairly well-controlled pandemonium and said, "It makes the job worth it all the rest of the year."
For the last 13 years, area police and sheriff's departments have held Cops for Kids. Children from low-income families are recommended by their school counselors. On a day before Christmas, the officers show up at their doors in squad cars, take them to breakfast, then on a shopping trip using $100 gift cards paid for by private donations, said Albuquerque Police Department Detective Patricia Paiz, who coordinates the program.
This year, 102 officers were paired off with 102 students from elementary and middle schools throughout Albuquerque and Bernalillo and Sandoval counties.
Ten of the students came from Sandoval County, four of them from Bernalillo. Many of the rest came through the Albuquerque Public Schools Homeless Project, and all are from homes with household incomes of less than $800 monthly, Paiz said.
"It's invaluable," said Bernalillo County Deputy Jessica Tyler, of Cops for Kids. "There's the interaction between the kids and the officers, and it gives these kids a Christmas they otherwise wouldn't have."
This year, the day began with a breakfast at Golden Corral that included— as Apache Elementary School third- grader Makayla Sulls firmly asserted— ice cream. Breakfast was followed by a cavalcade of police cars to the Academy NE Wal-Mart parking lot, where Santa Claus, actually Albuquerque Public Schools Police Chief Bill Reed decked in the traditional red and white suit and beard, arrived by helicopter. Later, there was to be a showing of "Enchanted" at the Century Rio 24 theater.
But first, there was serious shopping to be done.
Paiz said she visits the students' homes and gets a shopping list from their parents. They are required to buy a winter coat, shoes or a set of clothes, whatever they most need. But afterward, if there is anything left on their gift cards, they are free to buy toys.
Not all of them do. Some are like Chelwood Elementary fourth-grader Michael Romero, who told his escort, "No, I want to buy something for my dad now.
"He's really nice and he always gets me stuff. He's kind of like wasting his money on me, so I want to get him something."
Wal-Mart assistant manager James Short said Michael isn't the only unselfish student of the many groups he's seen in the 13 years the store has hosted Cops for Kids.
"That's the funny thing. When these kids come in, they always want to shop for their families," he said.
By Jack King, Journal Staff Writer
In the toy aisle of a Northeast Heights Wal-Mart on Sunday, one little girl stood up in a shopping cart lined with clothes and shouted at the flurry of shoppers blocking her way, "Beep, beep."
In the clothing department, another little girl laid her face against a pair of velour pants and purred, "Whoa, I want these."
Bernalillo County Sheriff's Deputy Richard Castillo surveyed the fairly well-controlled pandemonium and said, "It makes the job worth it all the rest of the year."
For the last 13 years, area police and sheriff's departments have held Cops for Kids. Children from low-income families are recommended by their school counselors. On a day before Christmas, the officers show up at their doors in squad cars, take them to breakfast, then on a shopping trip using $100 gift cards paid for by private donations, said Albuquerque Police Department Detective Patricia Paiz, who coordinates the program.
This year, 102 officers were paired off with 102 students from elementary and middle schools throughout Albuquerque and Bernalillo and Sandoval counties.
Ten of the students came from Sandoval County, four of them from Bernalillo. Many of the rest came through the Albuquerque Public Schools Homeless Project, and all are from homes with household incomes of less than $800 monthly, Paiz said.
"It's invaluable," said Bernalillo County Deputy Jessica Tyler, of Cops for Kids. "There's the interaction between the kids and the officers, and it gives these kids a Christmas they otherwise wouldn't have."
This year, the day began with a breakfast at Golden Corral that included— as Apache Elementary School third- grader Makayla Sulls firmly asserted— ice cream. Breakfast was followed by a cavalcade of police cars to the Academy NE Wal-Mart parking lot, where Santa Claus, actually Albuquerque Public Schools Police Chief Bill Reed decked in the traditional red and white suit and beard, arrived by helicopter. Later, there was to be a showing of "Enchanted" at the Century Rio 24 theater.
But first, there was serious shopping to be done.
Paiz said she visits the students' homes and gets a shopping list from their parents. They are required to buy a winter coat, shoes or a set of clothes, whatever they most need. But afterward, if there is anything left on their gift cards, they are free to buy toys.
Not all of them do. Some are like Chelwood Elementary fourth-grader Michael Romero, who told his escort, "No, I want to buy something for my dad now.
"He's really nice and he always gets me stuff. He's kind of like wasting his money on me, so I want to get him something."
Wal-Mart assistant manager James Short said Michael isn't the only unselfish student of the many groups he's seen in the 13 years the store has hosted Cops for Kids.
"That's the funny thing. When these kids come in, they always want to shop for their families," he said.
Ex-Chief's Divorce Messy
By T.J. Wilham, Journal Staff Writer
The daughter and wife of former Albuquerque Police Chief Sam Baca are seeking a restraining order against him, citing a history of abuse dating back 40 years.
Baca, who was Albuquerque's police chief from 1985 to 1990, has championed himself as a domestic violence advocate. He started APD's Domestic Abuse Response Team and has testified before Congress on domestic violence issues.
Baca, who was named police chief of Lakeland (Fla.) Police Department when he retired from APD, is also seeking a restraining order against his wife, claiming she has attacked him in the past.
Two separate hearings took place Thursday in District Court. The request from Baca's daughter, Jennifer, was taken under advisement. A hearing for Baca's wife, Vera, was continued to sometime next year.
The court has not heard Sam Baca's request.
Temporary restraining orders, though, are in place for the parties.
In court Thursday, Jennifer Baca told Commissioner Reed Sheppard that her father threatened her twice.
The fist time occurred Nov. 19, when Jennifer Baca met her parents at a Northeast Heights restaurant. Vera Baca intended to leave her husband that day and pretended to go to the restroom with her mother, who also was at the restaurant. She did not return. Jennifer Baca said she was threatened by her father after telling him that her mother was leaving.
Vera Baca filed for a divorce the next day.
"He told me that he knows the law," Jennifer Baca said in court. "He said that accidents happen and break-lines are undetectable.
Jennifer Baca said the second threat occurred when her father called her on Thanksgiving, about a week after her mother left him, and asked if she knew where his bullets were.
Jennifer Baca testified that she hated her father since birth, adding that she had been abused in the past by him.
Baca, who returned to Albuquerque in 2000, said he never abused his daughter or threatened her. He said he has always had a strained relationship with his daughter and that she was trying to embarrass him.
"(My daughter) is very vindictive," he said. "She would like to ruin me."
The daughter and wife of former Albuquerque Police Chief Sam Baca are seeking a restraining order against him, citing a history of abuse dating back 40 years.
Baca, who was Albuquerque's police chief from 1985 to 1990, has championed himself as a domestic violence advocate. He started APD's Domestic Abuse Response Team and has testified before Congress on domestic violence issues.
Baca, who was named police chief of Lakeland (Fla.) Police Department when he retired from APD, is also seeking a restraining order against his wife, claiming she has attacked him in the past.
Two separate hearings took place Thursday in District Court. The request from Baca's daughter, Jennifer, was taken under advisement. A hearing for Baca's wife, Vera, was continued to sometime next year.
The court has not heard Sam Baca's request.
Temporary restraining orders, though, are in place for the parties.
In court Thursday, Jennifer Baca told Commissioner Reed Sheppard that her father threatened her twice.
The fist time occurred Nov. 19, when Jennifer Baca met her parents at a Northeast Heights restaurant. Vera Baca intended to leave her husband that day and pretended to go to the restroom with her mother, who also was at the restaurant. She did not return. Jennifer Baca said she was threatened by her father after telling him that her mother was leaving.
Vera Baca filed for a divorce the next day.
"He told me that he knows the law," Jennifer Baca said in court. "He said that accidents happen and break-lines are undetectable.
Jennifer Baca said the second threat occurred when her father called her on Thanksgiving, about a week after her mother left him, and asked if she knew where his bullets were.
Jennifer Baca testified that she hated her father since birth, adding that she had been abused in the past by him.
Baca, who returned to Albuquerque in 2000, said he never abused his daughter or threatened her. He said he has always had a strained relationship with his daughter and that she was trying to embarrass him.
"(My daughter) is very vindictive," he said. "She would like to ruin me."
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
Case Dismissed For DWI Sergeant's Son
Albuquerque Journal Staff Report
The son of the Albuquerque Police DWI commander, who was charged in May on suspicion of being a minor in possession of alcohol, had his case dismissed in Metropolitan Court on Tuesday.
Samuel Armijo, the 20-year-old son of Sgt. Louis Armijo, was late for his appearance before Metropolitan Court Judge Sharon Walton, court records show.
But so was the arresting officer, who was to testify, according to court records. The officer sent word to the court that he was having car problems, but the message didn't get through until after the case had been called.
The case had been continued twice— once because the judge wasn't available, the other because the officer was out of state— and the rule requiring cases be adjudicated within six months was set to expire Dec. 19, court records show.
State Department of Public Safety officers stopped Armijo April 14 on suspicion of drunken driving. He showed signs of impairment but was ultimately taken home by his father. Sgt. Armijo was on duty at the time.
Albuquerque police officials said they have conducted an investigation and found that Sgt. Armijo did nothing wrong.
Both APD and DPS have said the other should have arrested Samuel Armijo on DWI charges.
The son of the Albuquerque Police DWI commander, who was charged in May on suspicion of being a minor in possession of alcohol, had his case dismissed in Metropolitan Court on Tuesday.
Samuel Armijo, the 20-year-old son of Sgt. Louis Armijo, was late for his appearance before Metropolitan Court Judge Sharon Walton, court records show.
But so was the arresting officer, who was to testify, according to court records. The officer sent word to the court that he was having car problems, but the message didn't get through until after the case had been called.
The case had been continued twice— once because the judge wasn't available, the other because the officer was out of state— and the rule requiring cases be adjudicated within six months was set to expire Dec. 19, court records show.
State Department of Public Safety officers stopped Armijo April 14 on suspicion of drunken driving. He showed signs of impairment but was ultimately taken home by his father. Sgt. Armijo was on duty at the time.
Albuquerque police officials said they have conducted an investigation and found that Sgt. Armijo did nothing wrong.
Both APD and DPS have said the other should have arrested Samuel Armijo on DWI charges.
Cop Accused of Rape Resigns
By T.J. Wilham, Albuquerque Journal Staff Writer
An Albuquerque police officer accused of raping a female suspect has resigned.
Officer David Maes, 28, was placed on paid administrative leave two months ago following his Oct. 11 arrest on charges of criminal sexual penetration in connection with the sexual assault of an inmate he was transporting.
Maes has not been indicted by a grand jury.
Police Chief Ray Schultz said Tuesday his investigators had just completed a criminal investigation into the incident and were starting an internal inquiry when Maes resigned.
Schultz said Maes likely would have been fired if he hadn't quit.
"It was the right thing for him to do," Schultz said. "His biggest concern at this point is the criminal investigation."
According to court records, Maes was arrested six days after a woman told Metropolitan Detention Center officers that she had been raped by Maes while en route to jail.
The woman had been arrested after a stolen car she was riding in was involved in a crash.
While detectives were questioning the woman, she complained her vision was blurry and was taken to Lovelace Hospital for treatment.
Maes was assigned to guard her and transport her to jail once she received treatment. While at the hospital, Maes allegedly sexually assaulted the woman in an exam area and then assaulted her again when he stopped at a baseball field before taking her to jail, according to court records.
Maes had been an Albuquerque police officer since Jan. 22, 2005.Cr
An Albuquerque police officer accused of raping a female suspect has resigned.
Officer David Maes, 28, was placed on paid administrative leave two months ago following his Oct. 11 arrest on charges of criminal sexual penetration in connection with the sexual assault of an inmate he was transporting.
Maes has not been indicted by a grand jury.
Police Chief Ray Schultz said Tuesday his investigators had just completed a criminal investigation into the incident and were starting an internal inquiry when Maes resigned.
Schultz said Maes likely would have been fired if he hadn't quit.
"It was the right thing for him to do," Schultz said. "His biggest concern at this point is the criminal investigation."
According to court records, Maes was arrested six days after a woman told Metropolitan Detention Center officers that she had been raped by Maes while en route to jail.
The woman had been arrested after a stolen car she was riding in was involved in a crash.
While detectives were questioning the woman, she complained her vision was blurry and was taken to Lovelace Hospital for treatment.
Maes was assigned to guard her and transport her to jail once she received treatment. While at the hospital, Maes allegedly sexually assaulted the woman in an exam area and then assaulted her again when he stopped at a baseball field before taking her to jail, according to court records.
Maes had been an Albuquerque police officer since Jan. 22, 2005.Cr
Thursday, November 15, 2007
Assault Alleged at Hospital
By T.J. Wilham, Journal Staff Writer
A woman who has accused an Albuquerque police officer of raping her while she was in custody says he assaulted her at the hospital while she waited to be treated by doctors, according to documents unsealed Wednesday.
She said he later drove her to a baseball field, where he assaulted her twice more before taking her to jail.
Patrol officer David Maes, 28, was arrested Oct. 11, six days after the woman told correctional officers that she had been raped by Maes while he was transporting her to jail, police said.
"We have not unfounded or discounted her claims at this point," Police Chief Ray Schultz said Wednesday. "We are continuing our investigation."
He said his investigators have obtained video surveillance taken from the hospital that supports some of the woman's claims. The woman was at the hospital for possible injuries after being in a car crash.
Maes, who has been with the Police Department for two years, has been charged with criminal sexual penetration. He was released from the Metropolitan Detention Center the day after his arrest, after he posted $200,000 bail.
He remains on paid administrative leave.
As part of the criminal investigation, Maes' DNA is being compared with samples taken from the woman.
At the time of his arrest, a warrant detailing the allegations against Maes was sealed. On Wednesday, the District Attorney's Office agreed that the documents could be unsealed after a request from the Journal, KOAT-TV and KRQE-TV. Judge Denise Barela Shepherd signed an order unsealing the documents.
According to those documents:
On Oct. 4, the woman was riding in a stolen car that was involved in a crash at San Mateo and Gibson SE.
After the collision, the passengers in the stolen car ran away. Police caught the woman, arrested her and took her into custody for questioning.
While auto theft detectives questioned her, she complained that her vision was blurry. An ambulance was called, and she was taken Downtown to Lovelace Hospital for treatment.
While she waited for physicians, Maes was called to watch her at the hospital.
The woman claims that while Maes was watching her, he "immediately started making nasty and rude gestures to her."
"I didn't know to take him seriously," the woman told investigators. "He's an officer that has authority over me. After a while, I realized he wasn't playing no more, then it started to get a little bit scary."
At one point he told the woman that he wanted her to perform oral sex on him.
Maes pulled a privacy curtain shut, exposed himself, and performed a sex act on her, the woman claimed.
After the woman was treated at the hospital, Maes took the woman to her home so she could change clothes, she told investigators.
Doing so would be a direct violation of APD policies, Schultz said Wednesday.
"A prisoner is supposed to go to one place, and that is either the transport center or the jail," Schultz said.
According to documents, Maes then drove the woman to a baseball field near Locust and Odelia, where he sexually assaulted her twice outside his police cruiser, she told police.
Afterward, Maes drove back to the hospital. Once he was in front of the building, he radioed a dispatcher, said he was transporting a prisoner and gave his mileage.
Officers routinely call out when they are transporting prisoners to avoid false accusations such as sexual assaults or brutality claims.
Schultz said that he will make a decision on what discipline action, if any, should be taken against Maes once his department completes an internal affairs investigation.
Prosecutors have not presented the case to a grand jury.
A woman who has accused an Albuquerque police officer of raping her while she was in custody says he assaulted her at the hospital while she waited to be treated by doctors, according to documents unsealed Wednesday.
She said he later drove her to a baseball field, where he assaulted her twice more before taking her to jail.
Patrol officer David Maes, 28, was arrested Oct. 11, six days after the woman told correctional officers that she had been raped by Maes while he was transporting her to jail, police said.
"We have not unfounded or discounted her claims at this point," Police Chief Ray Schultz said Wednesday. "We are continuing our investigation."
He said his investigators have obtained video surveillance taken from the hospital that supports some of the woman's claims. The woman was at the hospital for possible injuries after being in a car crash.
Maes, who has been with the Police Department for two years, has been charged with criminal sexual penetration. He was released from the Metropolitan Detention Center the day after his arrest, after he posted $200,000 bail.
He remains on paid administrative leave.
As part of the criminal investigation, Maes' DNA is being compared with samples taken from the woman.
At the time of his arrest, a warrant detailing the allegations against Maes was sealed. On Wednesday, the District Attorney's Office agreed that the documents could be unsealed after a request from the Journal, KOAT-TV and KRQE-TV. Judge Denise Barela Shepherd signed an order unsealing the documents.
According to those documents:
On Oct. 4, the woman was riding in a stolen car that was involved in a crash at San Mateo and Gibson SE.
After the collision, the passengers in the stolen car ran away. Police caught the woman, arrested her and took her into custody for questioning.
While auto theft detectives questioned her, she complained that her vision was blurry. An ambulance was called, and she was taken Downtown to Lovelace Hospital for treatment.
While she waited for physicians, Maes was called to watch her at the hospital.
The woman claims that while Maes was watching her, he "immediately started making nasty and rude gestures to her."
"I didn't know to take him seriously," the woman told investigators. "He's an officer that has authority over me. After a while, I realized he wasn't playing no more, then it started to get a little bit scary."
At one point he told the woman that he wanted her to perform oral sex on him.
Maes pulled a privacy curtain shut, exposed himself, and performed a sex act on her, the woman claimed.
After the woman was treated at the hospital, Maes took the woman to her home so she could change clothes, she told investigators.
Doing so would be a direct violation of APD policies, Schultz said Wednesday.
"A prisoner is supposed to go to one place, and that is either the transport center or the jail," Schultz said.
According to documents, Maes then drove the woman to a baseball field near Locust and Odelia, where he sexually assaulted her twice outside his police cruiser, she told police.
Afterward, Maes drove back to the hospital. Once he was in front of the building, he radioed a dispatcher, said he was transporting a prisoner and gave his mileage.
Officers routinely call out when they are transporting prisoners to avoid false accusations such as sexual assaults or brutality claims.
Schultz said that he will make a decision on what discipline action, if any, should be taken against Maes once his department completes an internal affairs investigation.
Prosecutors have not presented the case to a grand jury.
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
Police OK'd to Test For Steroids
By T.J. Wilham, Copyright © 2007 Albuquerque Journal; Journal Staff Writer
Concerned that steroid use can trigger outbursts of rage and unpredictable behavior, the Albuquerque Police Department will soon begin testing some of its employees for anabolic steroids.
For the past several years, APD has had a random drug testing policy in place. But the only steroid testing it did was of all new officers before being hired, as required by state law.
Now, under a new procedure recently approved by city leaders, police administrators can test any officer or civilian employee who demonstrates signs of steroid use.
Police Chief Ray Schultz already wants to test one of his civilian employees after other employees said they noticed changes in the person's appearance.
"Under this new procedure, we need some sort of reasonable suspicion in order to test," Schultz said. "Change of behavior, their physical appearance or reliable information they are users would be good enough for us to order the employee to take a test.
"It's important we do this because we are finding more and more that the use of anabolic steroids can result in rage or unpredictable behavior."
For a police employee to be tested for steroids, Schultz has to write a letter to the city's human resources director requesting the test and stating "reasonable suspicion."
The employee must take the test once the request is approved by the human resources director and the city chief administrative officer. Refusal could result in termination.
A positive result also could result in termination.
APD developed a policy several years ago that allows administrators to randomly test its officers. Under the policy, a computer generates a list of about 20 officers every two weeks.
At a cost of $30 to the department, the officer takes a urinalysis test that determines whether narcotics such as marijuana, methamphetamine or cocaine have recently been used.
Schultz said there were no plans to include steroid tests in the random drug testing. To do so would likely involve negotiations with the department's union.
And the cost for testing for steroids is $130 per test. That would cost the department more than $67,000 a year.
Schultz inquired in July about testing for steroids after being told one of his employees might be using them. City attorneys reviewed the request, and under a medical evaluation policy adopted in 2001, they determined Schultz had the right to request the test.
This month, city attorneys developed a procedure that allows him to do so.
Under the 2001 policy, city department heads can request drug tests if they believe an employee is not physically or mentally capable of performing their duties.
Albuquerque Police Officers' Association President Ron Olivas said he was unaware of the new procedure.
However, he said he didn't object to it.
"I guess they don't have to consult us, but it would have been nice to know so we could inform our members," he said. "We don't have a problem with it as long as there is something in place to ensure the officers' rights are protected and they are not doing this without some sort of just cause."
Concerned that steroid use can trigger outbursts of rage and unpredictable behavior, the Albuquerque Police Department will soon begin testing some of its employees for anabolic steroids.
For the past several years, APD has had a random drug testing policy in place. But the only steroid testing it did was of all new officers before being hired, as required by state law.
Now, under a new procedure recently approved by city leaders, police administrators can test any officer or civilian employee who demonstrates signs of steroid use.
Police Chief Ray Schultz already wants to test one of his civilian employees after other employees said they noticed changes in the person's appearance.
"Under this new procedure, we need some sort of reasonable suspicion in order to test," Schultz said. "Change of behavior, their physical appearance or reliable information they are users would be good enough for us to order the employee to take a test.
"It's important we do this because we are finding more and more that the use of anabolic steroids can result in rage or unpredictable behavior."
For a police employee to be tested for steroids, Schultz has to write a letter to the city's human resources director requesting the test and stating "reasonable suspicion."
The employee must take the test once the request is approved by the human resources director and the city chief administrative officer. Refusal could result in termination.
A positive result also could result in termination.
APD developed a policy several years ago that allows administrators to randomly test its officers. Under the policy, a computer generates a list of about 20 officers every two weeks.
At a cost of $30 to the department, the officer takes a urinalysis test that determines whether narcotics such as marijuana, methamphetamine or cocaine have recently been used.
Schultz said there were no plans to include steroid tests in the random drug testing. To do so would likely involve negotiations with the department's union.
And the cost for testing for steroids is $130 per test. That would cost the department more than $67,000 a year.
Schultz inquired in July about testing for steroids after being told one of his employees might be using them. City attorneys reviewed the request, and under a medical evaluation policy adopted in 2001, they determined Schultz had the right to request the test.
This month, city attorneys developed a procedure that allows him to do so.
Under the 2001 policy, city department heads can request drug tests if they believe an employee is not physically or mentally capable of performing their duties.
Albuquerque Police Officers' Association President Ron Olivas said he was unaware of the new procedure.
However, he said he didn't object to it.
"I guess they don't have to consult us, but it would have been nice to know so we could inform our members," he said. "We don't have a problem with it as long as there is something in place to ensure the officers' rights are protected and they are not doing this without some sort of just cause."
Saturday, August 25, 2007
Ex-Cop's Charges In Rape Dropped
Journal Staff Report
The New Mexico Attorney General's Office filed paperwork Friday saying it is dropping the sexual assault case against fired Albuquerque police officer Timothy Chavez.
The notice was filed without prejudice, meaning the case could be refiled.
Attorney general spokesman Phil Cisneros said a nolle prosequi was filed because "we didn't feel it would serve the public to proceed."
"It's a good day for Tim. He can put this to rest," said Mary Han, who with co-counsel Paul Kennedy defended Chavez at trial this month. The trial ended Aug. 14 with a hung jury that voted 11-1 for acquittal on all but one count. It voted 10-2 for acquittal on that count.
"They spent vast amounts of money prosecuting a case I think they didn't analyze carefully. They put that man through all kinds of hell, when there perhaps were other remedies they could have sought and didn't even try," Han said.
Chavez, then a 33-year-old decorated vice cop, was arrested on the rape charges in May 2005. The girl told police she had been raped after meeting a man on Live Links, an adult telephone dating service.
The girl admitted during testimony that she had lied about her age to Chavez and other men to get onto the service.
Chavez said that the sex was consensual and that he thought the girl was 18.
The girl, Marissa Mason, and her mother have filed a civil lawsuit against Chavez and Albuquerque. The city is defending that lawsuit.
The New Mexico Attorney General's Office filed paperwork Friday saying it is dropping the sexual assault case against fired Albuquerque police officer Timothy Chavez.
The notice was filed without prejudice, meaning the case could be refiled.
Attorney general spokesman Phil Cisneros said a nolle prosequi was filed because "we didn't feel it would serve the public to proceed."
"It's a good day for Tim. He can put this to rest," said Mary Han, who with co-counsel Paul Kennedy defended Chavez at trial this month. The trial ended Aug. 14 with a hung jury that voted 11-1 for acquittal on all but one count. It voted 10-2 for acquittal on that count.
"They spent vast amounts of money prosecuting a case I think they didn't analyze carefully. They put that man through all kinds of hell, when there perhaps were other remedies they could have sought and didn't even try," Han said.
Chavez, then a 33-year-old decorated vice cop, was arrested on the rape charges in May 2005. The girl told police she had been raped after meeting a man on Live Links, an adult telephone dating service.
The girl admitted during testimony that she had lied about her age to Chavez and other men to get onto the service.
Chavez said that the sex was consensual and that he thought the girl was 18.
The girl, Marissa Mason, and her mother have filed a civil lawsuit against Chavez and Albuquerque. The city is defending that lawsuit.
Tuesday, August 21, 2007
Councilor wants gang members posted online
By: Eric Kahnert, Eyewitness News 4, and Reed Upton, KOB.com
See Tha Video Here
A city councilor working with the mayor’s office has introduced legislation that would create an online registry of the mug shots of gang members. Councilor Ken Sanchez introduced the bill Monday night. The council will consider it at the next council meeting. Under Sanchez’s proposal, the pictures and names of gang members would be available on line if APD determines someone was involved in a gang related crime. Addresses will not be posted with the pictures and names in order to minimize the possibility of retaliation.
Sanchez says, unlike the sex offenders Website, people on the gang Website could eventually get off of it.
“Young kids make mistakes and hopefully they will take the right path in the future,” he says. “Once they’re on the registry, it’ll be for two years unless they take a prevention program. [Then] they’ll be taken off immediately.”
*** *** ***
Some thoughts from a citizen with eyes open:
So walking with two of your friends on central will get youth entered into an online database next to sex offenders and pets that the city is about to euthanize!! How would you feel if the APD or APS Police entered your kid into this database, branding them as a gangster for two years, maybe the rest of their life?
How does the APD define who is in a gang? Baggy pants? Brown or Black skin? A blue hat?
This humiliating bill didn't pass, but we should count it as a near victory for legalized racial profiling. Call up Mayor Martin "Gentry" Chavez and Councillor Ken Sanchez and let them know that this looks like just another vindictive attack on youth of color by the City government.
You can leave comments for Councillor Ken Sanchez here:
If the idea is to protect the public, we should create an online database of crooked politicians and abusive cops, with their photos and descriptions of their crimes.
See Tha Video Here
A city councilor working with the mayor’s office has introduced legislation that would create an online registry of the mug shots of gang members. Councilor Ken Sanchez introduced the bill Monday night. The council will consider it at the next council meeting. Under Sanchez’s proposal, the pictures and names of gang members would be available on line if APD determines someone was involved in a gang related crime. Addresses will not be posted with the pictures and names in order to minimize the possibility of retaliation.
Sanchez says, unlike the sex offenders Website, people on the gang Website could eventually get off of it.
“Young kids make mistakes and hopefully they will take the right path in the future,” he says. “Once they’re on the registry, it’ll be for two years unless they take a prevention program. [Then] they’ll be taken off immediately.”
*** *** ***
Some thoughts from a citizen with eyes open:
So walking with two of your friends on central will get youth entered into an online database next to sex offenders and pets that the city is about to euthanize!! How would you feel if the APD or APS Police entered your kid into this database, branding them as a gangster for two years, maybe the rest of their life?
How does the APD define who is in a gang? Baggy pants? Brown or Black skin? A blue hat?
This humiliating bill didn't pass, but we should count it as a near victory for legalized racial profiling. Call up Mayor Martin "Gentry" Chavez and Councillor Ken Sanchez and let them know that this looks like just another vindictive attack on youth of color by the City government.
You can leave comments for Councillor Ken Sanchez here:
If the idea is to protect the public, we should create an online database of crooked politicians and abusive cops, with their photos and descriptions of their crimes.
Sunday, July 29, 2007
KRQE: Church group resumes park feeds
ALBUQUERQUE (July 29, 2007) - A church group that was citied by police because of the way it was helping feed the homeless is back in business tonight.
Trinity house workers were at a park near 14th and Central NW handing out meals this afternoon.
Police told the Trinity House it couldn't feed the homeless in city parks because it didn't have the proper permits.
The church group said it is now getting special event permits each week to serve.
Neighbors near Robinson Park where Trinity House used to serve also raised concerns about homeless people in their neighborhood.
Trinity House said the homeless have to eat somewhere. Organizers said they feel the park near 14th and Central is a good location.
"It seems like folks are feeling like this is a good place," Chelsea Collange of Trinity House said. "It's nice to be back in the shade and back in a public park.
Trinity House has been serving meals to the homeless every Friday and Sunday for the past two years.
Approximately 100 people show up to eat each meal.
Source: KRQE News 13 | Web Producer: Bill Diven
Trinity house workers were at a park near 14th and Central NW handing out meals this afternoon.
Police told the Trinity House it couldn't feed the homeless in city parks because it didn't have the proper permits.
The church group said it is now getting special event permits each week to serve.
Neighbors near Robinson Park where Trinity House used to serve also raised concerns about homeless people in their neighborhood.
Trinity House said the homeless have to eat somewhere. Organizers said they feel the park near 14th and Central is a good location.
"It seems like folks are feeling like this is a good place," Chelsea Collange of Trinity House said. "It's nice to be back in the shade and back in a public park.
Trinity House has been serving meals to the homeless every Friday and Sunday for the past two years.
Approximately 100 people show up to eat each meal.
Source: KRQE News 13 | Web Producer: Bill Diven
Friday, July 13, 2007
Church group cannot feed the homeless in Albuquerque park, police say
By Michael Gisick, Albuquerque Tribune
A Catholic group that gives free meals to homeless people is looking for a new place to serve after the city barred it from handing out food at a Downtown park.
The move comes after months of complaints by residents and business owners, who say the Sunday meals at Robinson Park draw drug dealers and other criminal activity to the area and leave the park and their yards fouled by trash and human waste.
But members of the Trinity House, a South Valley group, worry the decision will leave homeless people with few options for a Sunday meal and effectively limit their access to public space.
The group says it plans to go on serving meals from privately owned parking lots and is looking at several other parks as possible permanent locations.
"We want everybody to be happy," said Marcus Page, a founder of Trinity House. "If I have to choose between the happiness of the cops and the happiness of the homeless people, I'm going to choose the homeless people. But I don't want to have to choose."
Trinity House, which draws on the traditions of left-wing Catholic activism, has clashed with some Downtown residents since the group began serving Sunday meals about two years ago. While city officials acknowledge that the group has improved the way it cleans up the park after meals, Trinity House still hasn't allayed neighbors' concerns.
Those issues came to a head during a June 26 meeting between city officials and service providers for homeless people, officials say. Trinity House was told their application for a food service permit had been rejected. The next time they arrived at the park, they were met by police.
"With all the complaints we were getting, it came to our attention that nobody from the Police Department had approved their permits," Albuquerque police Detective Liz Thompson said, adding that police have seen an uptick in crime near the park. "There had been no input from the neighborhood."
Thompson is part of the Albuquerque police crisis and outreach team, which tries to link homeless people with services rather than treat them as criminals. She said the dialogue with Trinity House is continuing.
"The door isn't closed by any means," she said. "We do not want people to stop helping the homeless. But the parks don't really have the appropriate infrastructure - electricity, hot and cold running water, bathrooms."
Thompson said a number of ideas were floated during the June meeting.
The Library Bar and Grill on Central Avenue offered to donate food and the use of its kitchen if Trinity House could find somewhere to serve meals besides Robinson Park, located at Central Avenue and Eighth Street.
Thompson said she suggested a rotating schedule of meals at different parks to keep Robinson Park and its neighborhood from being overburdened. She also suggested Trinity House find a partner to provide an indoor location for the meals.
Page, who attended the meeting, said his group has gotten permission to prepare meals at the South Valley Economic Development Center's commercial-grade kitchen. That should allay concern's linked to the group's food service permit, which had been rejected, Page said.
A separate permit to serve on city-owned property may be a tougher hurdle, however.
Complicating matters for Trinity House is that a number of other church groups also sometimes hand out food at the Downtown park. Thompson said she's counted at least three and believes as many as six other groups make occasional forays Downtown from as far away as Belen.
Thompson said crime often follows the groups' departure.
"You have a certain element that comes and preys on those people," she said. "Believe it or not, as little as many homeless people have, there are people who will rob them."
Drug activity is also a problem, she said.
Although Trinity House's food-serving permit is still pending, Page said the group plans to go on serving from private property.
"We're going to stay away from the park because we don't want to fight that battle," he said. "We're hoping the cops won't want to enforce the health permit. How much of a crime is it to want to feed people?"
A Catholic group that gives free meals to homeless people is looking for a new place to serve after the city barred it from handing out food at a Downtown park.
The move comes after months of complaints by residents and business owners, who say the Sunday meals at Robinson Park draw drug dealers and other criminal activity to the area and leave the park and their yards fouled by trash and human waste.
But members of the Trinity House, a South Valley group, worry the decision will leave homeless people with few options for a Sunday meal and effectively limit their access to public space.
The group says it plans to go on serving meals from privately owned parking lots and is looking at several other parks as possible permanent locations.
"We want everybody to be happy," said Marcus Page, a founder of Trinity House. "If I have to choose between the happiness of the cops and the happiness of the homeless people, I'm going to choose the homeless people. But I don't want to have to choose."
Trinity House, which draws on the traditions of left-wing Catholic activism, has clashed with some Downtown residents since the group began serving Sunday meals about two years ago. While city officials acknowledge that the group has improved the way it cleans up the park after meals, Trinity House still hasn't allayed neighbors' concerns.
Those issues came to a head during a June 26 meeting between city officials and service providers for homeless people, officials say. Trinity House was told their application for a food service permit had been rejected. The next time they arrived at the park, they were met by police.
"With all the complaints we were getting, it came to our attention that nobody from the Police Department had approved their permits," Albuquerque police Detective Liz Thompson said, adding that police have seen an uptick in crime near the park. "There had been no input from the neighborhood."
Thompson is part of the Albuquerque police crisis and outreach team, which tries to link homeless people with services rather than treat them as criminals. She said the dialogue with Trinity House is continuing.
"The door isn't closed by any means," she said. "We do not want people to stop helping the homeless. But the parks don't really have the appropriate infrastructure - electricity, hot and cold running water, bathrooms."
Thompson said a number of ideas were floated during the June meeting.
The Library Bar and Grill on Central Avenue offered to donate food and the use of its kitchen if Trinity House could find somewhere to serve meals besides Robinson Park, located at Central Avenue and Eighth Street.
Thompson said she suggested a rotating schedule of meals at different parks to keep Robinson Park and its neighborhood from being overburdened. She also suggested Trinity House find a partner to provide an indoor location for the meals.
Page, who attended the meeting, said his group has gotten permission to prepare meals at the South Valley Economic Development Center's commercial-grade kitchen. That should allay concern's linked to the group's food service permit, which had been rejected, Page said.
A separate permit to serve on city-owned property may be a tougher hurdle, however.
Complicating matters for Trinity House is that a number of other church groups also sometimes hand out food at the Downtown park. Thompson said she's counted at least three and believes as many as six other groups make occasional forays Downtown from as far away as Belen.
Thompson said crime often follows the groups' departure.
"You have a certain element that comes and preys on those people," she said. "Believe it or not, as little as many homeless people have, there are people who will rob them."
Drug activity is also a problem, she said.
Although Trinity House's food-serving permit is still pending, Page said the group plans to go on serving from private property.
"We're going to stay away from the park because we don't want to fight that battle," he said. "We're hoping the cops won't want to enforce the health permit. How much of a crime is it to want to feed people?"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
