Does DASO Enforce U.S. Immigration Laws?

I like Sheriff Kiki Vigil's talk. I wish he walked that talk.

US AG Jeff Sessions (l) and a proud DAC Sheriff Kiki Vigil (r)

He recently wrote, “It is the federal government’s responsibility to enforce the immigration laws and not the duty or responsibility of the local governmental agencies. . . I don’t want undocumented immigrants to be victims of crime and unscrupulous exploitation. If local law enforcement becomes immigration agents, it will discourage this community from reporting crime, and they will in fact be targeted and preyed upon, as I have seen this happen in the past.”

Well said. Consistent with what many savvy law enforcement officials say: becoming a tool of Border Patrol scares off crime victims from reporting rapes or other violent crimes.

But not well done! Department records indicate that during Vigil's time in office DASO has turned over to the Feds, or otherwise helped the Feds incarcerate, perhaps a thousand people who committed no state crime.

One DASO report lists 518 “CBP referrals” during the October 2016 to September 2017 period. “After Action Reports” from that period show that there were more than 600 people whom DASO reported to Border Patrol, helped Border Patrol apprehend, or otherwise assisted the Feds to arrest and incarcerate. For the 600, reports mention no state crimes. I didn't count the handful of others who were reportedly bringing in drugs or smuggling undocumented humans. In the six months since, there were another 195 “CBP referrals” – with only six arrests. The vast majority were not carrying drugs for sale. 

Border Patrol is doing its job. Whether one agrees or disagrees with its job description. 

Some would argue DASO should do that job too. But Sheriff Vigil doesn't. He articulates why he shouldn't enforce federal immigration laws – even while he apparently does that repeatedly. Six hundred people last year – many in little groups of two or three, crossing the border, without drugs or firearms or any apparent intent to break New Mexico's laws.

Roberts and Vigil (Sun-News)

Unless there's some mistake, some of his recent statements seem so inconsistent with the facts that they sound like lies. I've tried to get Sheriff Vigil to state his view of these facts, or correct mine. But, as for awhile now, he hasn't responded to me. So far, at least.

Last September, to obtain county commission approval of Stonegarden grants, Undersheriff Roberts and another officer promised the county commission that those grants would not require DASO to enforce immigration laws, but would be used for drugs and gunrunning. When I called Commissioner Garrett, he noted that Vigil's recent column tracked county policy. I asked whether Stonegarden meant enforcing Federal law. Garrett said, “They were not supposed to be using Stonegarden for enforcement of immigration laws, and I've asked every time it came up.” 

Video of that county commission meeting seems to show Roberts flatly misleading the Commission to get the grant approved. Commissioner John Vasquez asks what happens if a deputy, who's working overtime on Stonegarden money and has intel that someone is running drugs up in Hatch, stops the car and determines there are no drugs but the driver is here illegally. Roberts reassures him that if there were no state crimes, “We'd have to go back to our policy, that we don't enforce the immigration laws. . . They would be released.” How's that square with hunting down hundreds of families without papers for Border Patrol?

I hope Sheriff Vigil answers to someone about all this.

                                                          -30-

[The column above appeared this morning, Sunday, 29 April 2018, in the Las Cruces Sun-News, as well as on the newspaper's website and on KRWG's website.  A spoken version will air on KRWG and KTAL (101.5 FM) during the week.]

[Although I'd heard the facts discussed above, I was actually startled by the starkness of the contrast between what Mr. Vigil says and what DASO under his direction actually does.  I kept looking for some mistake.  And of course sought an explanation from the Department.  None was forthcoming, although I asked by phone-messages and email.  And knowledgeable sources confirmed, "Yeah, it's as self-contradictory as it looks."  By the way, the language I quoted at the start of the column came from Kiki's recent op-ed in the Sun-News trying to explain away Jeff Sessions's visit.]


[My memories of the September 26 Commission meeting were dim, but watching the video (starting about three hours in, at about noon that day) substantiated that Undersheriff Roberts and Sgt. Ben Casillas had stated pretty strongly, several times, that if the Commission approved the Stonegarden grant, despite concerns voiced that under the current political administration the Border Patrol would push DASO to enforce immigration laws, DASO would stick to County policy.  
Having just reviewed scores of "After Action Reports" and looked at the totals, with such extremely minimal reference in those reports to drugs, guns, or other crimes, it was really kind of sad to listen to DASO's reassurances to the County Commission.  Commissioners expressed concern that the current political climate might lead Border Patrol to ask DASO to help enforce immigration laws, despite the county policy; DASO representatives repeatedly said not only that they'd not do that but that the Border Patrol wouldn't ask them to!  Frankly, watching the video and reading the documents, one right after the other, was pretty appalling.
Stonegarden was No. 13 on the Agenda: "13. Accept and Approve Stonegarden 2016 Grant Award (EMW-2016-SS-00105) from the New Mexico Department on Homeland Security and Emergency Management Sub-Grant Agreement No. EMW-2016-SS-00105", and it's easy to watch the discussion.  (To watch video of any County meeting, go to this spot on the county's website, then press the link for commission meetings, which will take you to a page where you need to press "View Meeting" for September 26, 2017.   Then move to about 12 noon, about three hours into the meeting.]
 
[Thursday evening at a Union meeting Sheriff Vigil repeated that the only participation DASO has in Stonegarden is to stop drug traffickers and provide humanitarian aid to people stranded by coyotes!
That same evening I was reading the "After Action Reports," including one in which, during the annual Good Friday pilgrimage at Mount Cristo Rey, where there were about 3,000 pilgrims, "two individuals were seen entering the US and walking across the desert area.  The two individuals walked straight up to the exact location where we were at.  Seeing how they were extremely tired and had no water on them at all, the were provided with cold water.  The individuals were escorted down to the base of the mountain and Border Patrol Agents took custody of them."   Friday morning one of the men involved in all this confirmed that if deputies stop a car, and the people inside aren't violating law or dangerous, that's supposed to be the end of things, without any call to Border Patrol or holding the people until a Border Patrol agent can get there to take custody of them; but at DASO, the standard procedure is to call Border Patrol and turn the people over to Border Patrol.  Ain't what Kiki said.]



[With a potentially controversial column like this, I feel uncomfortable not getting the subject to confirm or deny the facts, or offer some explanation.  So my mind tries to work out ways I could be wrong here.
Q:  Were all these "After Action Reports" really about hunting down people suspected of gun-running or drug-smuggling, even if there ultimately turned out to be no guns or drugs?
A: Highly unlikely.  Since a few reports, which I didn't include in my count, mention such "intel" or mention confiscation of drugs, it seems unlikely the others would omit such information if it were there -- and, among many examples, a man and small child traveling alone (captured   ) would seem unlikely to be running guns.
Q:Well, maybe they only meant to promise not to participate in massive raids in communities.
A: That's not what they said, and not what the County policy says.  They told the County Commission, "We will not enforce immigration laws, and the Border Patrol won't ask us to violate county policy, although if there's a large group of people traveling together, some carrying a back-pack full of drugs, others who had no drugs and were only paperless might get swept up in that." 
Q: Well, not all the Reports are specific concerning DASO's role in arresting people without papers, so maybe they could argue that they only pointed people out, or rounded them up without "arresting" them or asking their citizenship, and just turned them over to Border Patrol.
A: The flat promise, repeatedly, was not to enforce immigration laws against people who'd committed no state crimes but were here illegally.  Whatever role DASO played in specific apprehensions -- and in at least some "we" [meaning DASO] took someone into custody -- it was deeply involved in helping to enforce immigration laws.]

[Also, as I mention in the column, people can and do take the position that DASO should enforce Federal Immigration laws.  I disagree.  Vigil himself articulates some of the reasons many good law-enforcement leaders in the Southwest feel local law-enforcement should generally stick to local laws.  And that's obviously county policy here. I understand that terrorists or gun-runners could be out there (though a year's "After Action Reports" don't seem to feature them), and having DASO supplement Border Patrol might make sense, if DASO stuck to dealing with those problems and drug-trafficking.  My particular concern is the vast gulf between what Mr. Vigil keeps saying and what his department does.  That's not good with any public official.]
 
[I sought these records through the Inspection of Public Records Act process.  Tthe system worked, and the documents, which were not subject to any IPRA exception, were produced -- with redaction of some information, such as precise locations patrolled.  (There was another interesting document I haven't yet received, but will discuss with County Counsel next week.)  Apologies to county staff who had to spend time on the redactions -- I know what a pain that can be -- and kudos to the county who followed the law, which public agencies do not always do.]

[6 May Note: 

[I should also note: (a) the County Commission has scheduled discussion of a resolution to terminate the Stonegarden grant contract that facilitated that conduct, (b) also on the agenda shortly ahead of that discussion is a "Presentation" by Sheriff Vigil on the subject, and (c) Ben -- I mean, Sheriff Vigil has written a commentary ("arrest reports are misleading") on that column, which appears in the Sun-News today.  Here's a link to the County Commission's agenda.  
For various reasons, including redactions, those "After Action Reports" aren't thoroughly clear.  I'll agree with Sheriff Vigil on that -- and it's why I repeatedly urged him to talk with me on the subject.  But a couple of things are clear: that DASO had involvement, as I said, in a lot of enforcement of federal immigration laws; that in most of those reports it isn't perfectly clear what DASO's exact role was; that in a few, drugs are mentioned, but that there's no mention of drugs or  reasonable suspicion of drugs (or guns) in the vast majority; and that in a few, where the accounts are more detailed, it's clear that DASO did turn people over to the feds merely for being here, with no indication drugs were found or suspected.  Further, others sources within DASO say that DASO does turn people over to the feds.
So, Tuesday morning's County Commission meeting should be interesting.]

-- 

peter goodman

575-521-0424 / 510-282-6690

Views from Soledad Canyon (blog)

Another Sad Case at DASO

Imagine you're a young cadet in the Doña Ana Sheriff's Office Academy. 

 

You're an army reservist, having made it through basic training. You're being consistently called lazy. You're the only cadet being told to suck your thumb and asked to repeat various tasks after completing them. “Why me?” you wonder.

You are the only black cadet. 

 

On June 5, after an incident, you tell the instructor, Frank Kaiser, that you feel you're being discriminated against because you're African-American. The County's strong anti-discrimination policies require Kaiser to report your allegation immediately to H.R. for independent investigation. Instead, he sends you home and tells you to go see Undersheriff Ken Roberts the next morning.

Roberts asks why you made your claim, then interrupts and tells you that you're history. Gone. He says all your fellow cadets want you gone, and that Sheriff Vigil has approved the termination. You wonder how he talked to so many people so fast. Maybe you wonder if having a DASO officer “investigate” your complaint about a DASO officer is entirely fair. 

 

The above is from legal pleadings in Johnson v. Doña Ana County. Plaintiff is Tederick Johnson. His lawyer is Ben Furth. (Furth is an experienced employment lawyer who also represents Julia Brown against the County.)

Here we go again. 

 

I'd love not to be writing about another dumb move by Vigil and Roberts. I'd love not to be wondering how much we will pay for this one. Obviously I'd also like to learn some day that this was not motivated by racism. I want to believe we're better than that.

Johnson may have been a lousy cadet. Maybe he deserved to be canned, though apparently DASO didn't plan to terminate him on June 4, then did immediately after he alleged discrimination. Suddenly DASO concluded he wasn't deputy material. Officially he was fired for insubordination, which the Complaint calls “pretextual” – a cover story for racism. The County will likely claim Johnson cried racism to avoid or delay being fired. 

 

Whatever the facts, it was not Roberts's province to investigate them. Even if there was no racism, Roberts's conduct seems arrogant and imprudent. 

 

Once someone raises allegations of racism, sexual harassment, or retaliation, the matter must be handled by someone as neutral as possible – for the sake of both the organization and the individual. The County fired Johnson before investigating his complaint. (The County admits the firing occurred June 6 and that Johnson's supervisor reported the EEOC complaint June 6. The County claims it started the investigation before firing Johnson, but admits it finished investigating afterward.

Both Kaiser and Roberts were required to: (a) report the allegation immediately to HR; and (b) request that the employee fill out an internal EEO complaint, or fill one out for him. Failure to do so would subject Kaiser and Roberts to disciplinary action.

I called County Counsel Nelson Goodin, who said no one would comment on the pending litigation. 

 

I've no idea whether Johnson should or shouldn't be a deputy; but Roberts seems to have ignored mandatory procedures he must have been familiar with. Whether the reason was laziness, arrogance, prejudice, or to cover up questionable conduct by Kaiser, Roberts's mistake is likely to cost us more money. (A friend asked after the Slevin case why the County couldn't go after the employee whose conduct cost us so much. We can't.)

When will DASO learn to follow the law?

                                                    -30-

[This column appeared in the Las Cruces Sun-News this morning, Sunday, 10 December 2017, and also on the newspaper's website and KRWG's website.  A spoken version will air on KRWG Wednesday and Saturday and on KTAL on Thursday.]

[I've little to add to the column, except that the immediate response has been some positive comments from insiders.  People in the know are concerned about DASO, and say the Vigil-Roberts regime has done real damage to the department.  It's unfortunate.  I think Kiki Vigil meant well would have liked to do a bang-up job running and improving DASO.  He hasn't.  I'm not expert in law-enforcement matters, but I'm hearing that morale and response times are down; and a lot of officers who seemed pretty capable are gone, something I wrote a few columns about quite awhile ago.]   

[I should reiterate that I'm not presuming to decide whether or not racism was the basic reason for Mr. Johnson's firing.  That'll be up to a jury, if the case doesn't get settled first.  However, I don't understand, and will be interested to see the explanation offered at trial, why DASO had to act so precipitously.  What would we have lost, except a few extra days or a couple of weeks of continued pay to this cadet, by responding appropriately?  Any schoolkid would know that having Roberts send a crony along to interview all the other cadets could not be a fair inquiry and couldn't help but muddy the waters for any independent investigator later.   You send a cadet packing -- justifiably or not -- and then send an officer around to tell the cadets about the controversy and ask who's side they're on, the terminated cadet's side or the side of the instructor who could get another cadet or two terminated, uhh, gee whiz.   That's why we have procedures in place.   If -- as I expect the County to argue -- this guy was under-performing and tried to fend off termination by alleging discrimination, then recognize he might find a lawyer and handle his case by the book.  Why react as Roberts did and help the guy make his case against you? 
The unseemly rush to get Mr. Johnson off the payroll seems particularly odd when I keep hearing that Vigil and Roberts have had an experienced officer on administrative leave for many months.] 
 

Sexual Harassment - Generally and Locally

When Anita Hill testified in the Clarence Thomas senate hearings that Thomas had sexually harassed her, I was working in a big law firm. Almost all male lawyers thought she was making it up. The secretaries, 98% women, thought she was probably testifying accurately. As did I.

Later three women working there each told me that the same lawyer had sexually harassed her with obscene come-ons obviously aimed not at starting an affair but solely at embarrassing a vulnerable female. That lawyer wasn't amorous. He was a bully.

Tuesday a friend asked what I thought about Charlie Rose's situation. He expressed concern that reputations are being destroyed by innuendo. He reflected that people are supposedly innocent until proven guilty. The law must and does hold you innocent until proven guilty, beyond a reasonable doubt in criminal cases; but in deciding what we each believe happened, we can apply our best judgment to the evidence. 

Yes, occasionally a reputation gets unfairly destroyed. I wrote two columns defending a teacher after the school fired him and the authorities very publicly filed and eventually dropped a bundle of horrible charges.

But if we lined up on one side all those tragic cases, in which someone made something up or misremembered facts, and we lined up on the other side cases where it's clear that a powerful male did bad things to a junior or subordinate female, one side would be nearly empty and the other filled with people like Donald Trump, Bill Clinton, Roy Moore, Al Franken, Charlie Rose, Harvey Weinstein, the New York Times writer, and countless others. Many people – mostly men – abuse their power, either for sex or simply to feel strong. (To overcompensate for self-doubts?) Women (and sometimes young boys) often don't speak up, for obvious reasons.

We shouldn't pre-judge anyone. Closer to home, if (as seems likely as I write this) DASO Undersheriff Ken Roberts, is placed on administrative leave while investigators look into alleged sexual misconduct by him, he deserves a fair and impartial investigation. 

Have we turned a corner? Will women continue to be believed more readily and feel freer to speak up about abuses? Or is the current receptivity temporary? Will some combination of male power, and abuses of the new receptivity (by some women and/or lawyers) swing the pendulum back some? 

I hope forcibly silencing the abused is over. Forever. And I hope anyone tempted to fabricate some story to attack some guy who's never done anything inappropriate realizes that doing so would not only be wrong, but would contribute to renewed skepticism about such claims.

Throughout human history women have silently suffered silently men's abuse in homes, workplaces, and elsewhere. Our culture has winked at it, even encouraged it. “Boys will be boys.” “Locker room talk.” “She asked for it.” Showbiz and Madison Avenue, using cleavage and a sexy voice to sell everything from skin cream to cars, teach young men that it's all on offer. 

Now is a great time for each of us men to scan our past. When I was very young I did and said things that I'd hate to be judged on now. Thoughts and words I regret. Just as most who grow up in the U.S. have some degree of racism in us, we men have vestigial feelings that conquest is right and natural, and that that's what women are for. 

Let's face that and grow up.

                                                   -30-

[The above column appeared this morning, Sunday, 26 November, 2017, in the Las Cruces Sun-News, and also on the newspaper's the newspaper's website and (presently) on KRWG's website; and KRWG will probably air a spoken version Wednesday and Saturday, and KTAL will do so on Thursday.]

[Saturday's Sun-News had a very good column by Heath Haussamen on how Sarah Silva made a difference in making sure that we all knew of the allegations against Michael Padilla -- supported by generous settlements on his behalf by the City of Albuquerque, for whom he worked at the time -- while contemplating whether to make him the Democratic nominee for Lieutenant-Governor.  Sunday's, as well as my column, had Walt Rubel's interesting perspective on the issue.  Walt mentions David Gutierrez, Doña Ana County's former Chief Sexual Harasser -- a prime example of someone who'd admitted such misconduct hanging on in office, taking our money for further embarrassing us and him.  

Let me add mine to the voices calling for Padilla to end his candidacy: the healthy settlements of allegations against him are sufficient corroboration, despite possible nondisclosure clauses in those, and despite the absence of a court decision.  We're not convicting him of a crime here, but [I hope] denying him the great privilege of being New Mexico's lieutenant-governor, or even the Democratic nominee; and we should, because nominating him would (a) be wrong and (b) undermine the Party's chances -- and electing him would embarrass the state and send the wrong message to young men and women.  With the presence of other appealing candidates in the race, we don't need him.  He should just gracefully walk away, for his own sake as much as New Mexico's.] 

[On the local angle of my column, the placement of Undersheriff Ken Roberts on administrative leave: I'm reliably informed by many that the problem is sexual harassment, that the allegations involve more than one woman, and that at least in one case we are talking about actions rather than words.  At least two television news departments have been following the story for a while now.  When I drafted my column, Roberts had not yet been placed on administrative leave, but I believed he would be on Wednesday.  Now, according to a television news report Thursday evening, he was placed on leave Wednesday.  However, so far as I know, no official statement by him or by DASO or by the County has stated the reasons.  I believe an Albuquerque group the County has used previously is investigating, which is probably good.  (He's too controversial for an investigation by anyone in the County, particularly since Sheriff Kiki Vigil has been sued or been sued by the County about seven or eight times.  Vigil likely will stand by Roberts, at least initially, although I haven't had a chance to ask him.  
We can only hope that the investigation is fair and thorough, for everyone's sake, but fast -- for the sake of DASO's functioning and also so that if Roberts is guilty of this misconduct -- and I stress the "IF" -- taxpayers don't keep paying him too long.]

[The end-game could be interesting.  Statute gives the Sheriff the right to choose his undersheriff. If the County decides Roberts committed firing offenses and the Sheriff wants to keep him on, could we see yet another lawsuit between DASO and the County?  If Vigil insisted on keeping Roberts, could the County stop paying him?  My guess is that either Vigil would live with the investigation results or the DPS would lift Roberts's license to be a law-enforcement officer, disqualifying him as undersheriff.]

Basketball in Las Vegas -- on Doña Ana County's Nickel

In late July, some Doña Ana County Sheriff's Deputies played in a basketball tournament in Las Vegas, which you and I helped pay for.

 

Some other deputies weren't too thrilled. Nevada seemed too far away for the event to help improve cop-community relations. They also found it odd that, although the players who'd been scheduled to work initially put in for vacation time, approved by their supervisors, their time records were later changed to reflect regular work. (Union President Sergeant Ben Casillas changed all the time records except his own, and Undersheriff Ken Roberts changed Casillas's.) Other deputies had actually worked 10-hour shifts for their money. 

 

Some felt it was unfair and illegal: that if the trip was a departmental activity, it should have been more widely advertised within the department; and that if it wasn't, why did the public end up paying for it? Further, it's well known that Roberts and Casillas are close. Adding to the confusion, around that time Casillas sustained a leg injury that reportedly required changes in his duties for awhile.

I got curious, of course. I asked for and received documents, including Kronos records that confirmed the belated change from vacation to regular time. ( I also received emails I haven't been able to open yet.)

Casillas confirmed some of the information and denied some. He admitted there was no department-wide advertising of the tournament, just “word-of-mouth.” He said that participating in the Police and Firemen's Games was a positive thing for the department, and that he'd spoken to Sheriff Enrique Vigil (not to Roberts) about that. Vigil authorized the change to regular time.

He also denied that he was injured in the tournament. He said he was injured playing basketball, but not during the Vegas tournament, which he didn't play in because he was sick. (He declined to say whether he'd put in for workman's comp, but his statement that he hadn't been injured while working seemed to suggest strongly that he hadn't.)

I asked him how the trip benefited the department. He said that “law enforcement agencies participate in a lot of other things that do not involve your typical work duties.” He cited local events, including Law Enforcement Night Out and participation in the Law Enforcement Torch Run, plus representing the department at funerals.

I said I could see calling, say, a neighborhood versus DASO softball game as a community activity. But Las Vegas, Nevada?

He said that there was a benefit to the department. That playing enabled deputies to mingle with other law-enforcement entities, and build relationships with some of those entities, some of which were from neighboring Arizona. He said these Games were “like the law-enforcement Olympics” and that participating “put the department on the map” with others, including big-city agencies. (It was a highly-competitive tournament.)

He also pointed out: that although men scheduled to work who'd taken vacation time ended up getting paid, no one who hadn't been scheduled to work those days was paid anything for going; that having the agency pay for players to participate was common, according to what he heard from players from other cities; and that while DASO's players paid for their own travel and got only their regular pay if they'd been scheduled, some larger-city departments paid for the trip and gave their players per diem as well.

Talking to Casillas, I got the sense that there's some dissension in the union. I'd heard long ago that some members weren't keen on his closeness to management, and thought he'd gotten special treatment from management. (Roberts preceded him as local union president.)

                                               -30-

[The above column appeared this morning, Sunday, 15 October 2017, in the Las Cruces Sun-News, as well as on the newspaper's website and KRWG's website.  A spoken version will air during the week on KRWG and KTAL-LP.]

[Certainly some at DASO were displeased with the way this trip went down, and the belated change to the way people's time was characterized.   On the other hand, Casillas says it was reasonable and that the change wasn't intended to be belated.  Not my job to decide, just to shine some light on these events.]

[I got the sense from Casillas that he viewed the complaints as related to a possible challenge to his presidency of the local union.  If there is such a challenge, it may prove interesting to see how that comes out.  There's an unusual history: Sheriff Vigil fired his previous undersheriff and appointed then-union-head Ken Roberts undersheriff.  Roberts and Casillas are reportedly pretty close.  (Certainly some have complained about cronyism.)  Whether that level of closeness between management and the union is healthy or unhealthy isn't for me to decide, although it would seem a bit unusual.  Since many have complained about Roberts's management, the results might suggest something about how widespread the negative feelings are.  I forget whether or not it's a secret ballot, although I think it is.]

[For those keeping score, it was a very competitive tournament, with teams from Los Angeles, Chicago, and other big cities.  DASO's team stood little chance against some very tall teams that had played together in such tournaments a lot over the course of several years.]

More on the Doña Ana County Sheriff's Office

I'd urge folks to read Sheriff's Vigil's "response to Peter Powers Goodman's column."

I had written two recent Sunday columns (and blog posts) on the Doña Ana County Sheriff's Office, Problems Again at Doña Ana County Sheriff's Office and Doña Ana County SWAT Team Hampered by Unusual Ground Rules.  Sheriff Vigil had declined to return my phone calls but did publish this response Sunday in the Las Cruces Sun-News. 

I have long agreed with Sheriff Vigil that DASO law-enforcement personnel should be better paid. I also advocated fairer treatment for them under the previous sheriff. I voted for Mr. Vigil.

Sheriff Vigil also misread my initial column if he thought it was about sacking Undersheriff Lerma. That's Vigil's prerogative; but eliminating Lerma and installing Roberts has proven unwise.   I'm no expert on running a law-enforcement agency. Maybe Vigil could have appointed someone who was a vast improvement over Lerma (although Lerma had extensive pertinent experience). But unfortunately that isn't what Sheriff Vigil did, according to all but one of the folks I've talked to.

Below, I've taken excerpts from Sheriff Vigil's column, mostly italicized, and added my response to his comments:

As I've noted, I repeatedly sought to discuss these matters with Mr. Vigil. He states now that he “decided not to interview with Mr. Goodman because I feel he has not been objective in previous columns he has written concerning the Doña Ana County Sheriff’s Office. I cannot discuss pending litigation or personnel matters. Finally, we cannot compromise officer safety by revealing tactical strategies with respect to SWAT operations.”

Objectivity: I have striven to be objective. I hope and believe I've succeeded. I have no political or personal animus toward Mr. Vigil, for whom I voted. Further, he knows of things that I did not publicize, or delayed publicizing, during his battles with county administration; and others have criticized me for writing too sympathetically to Sheriff Vigil. (I recall criticizing certain positions he took in lawsuits; but I said essentially what judges later wrote in their decisions – so unless he also considers all those judges biased, then this can't be the basis for his allegation.) In any case, I invite Sheriff Vigil to point to some specific evidence, such as something I've written that's false and negative concerning him. He offers none.

I agree that Sheriff Vigil is severely limited in what he can say about pending litigation or personnel matters. That can be unfair: an aggrieved employee can speak privately, but a supervisor risks legal problems if s/he does so.  Thus to some degree we must wait and see; but the sheer numbers of people who are gone or unhappy should be of concern to anyone who cares about good law-enforcement.

However, it's pure nonsense to say he “cannot compromise officer safety by revealing tactical strategies with respect to SWAT operations.” First of all, the basic “tactical strategies” are outlined on the website of the National Tactical Officers Association, taught in classes, and studied extensively.   Second, my IPRA request yielded documents, with only the names of certain parties redacted for reasons I agree thoroughly with. IPRA has an exception for investigatory documents that reveal confidential sources or methods.  If there were confidential SWAT team methods revealed by those documents, they should have been redacted; but there were none.

I agree with much of what Sheriff Vigil says:

“I promised changes in DASO. These changes were transforming DASO from a traffic citation quota system into a department that is engaged in community-oriented policing.”  I agree with his de-emphasis of traffic tickets. (In my youth I got too many of them.)

I agree thoroughly that DASO law-enforcement personnel should be better paid. I've said so often. I was troubled by the County's appeal of If there's a way I can help, let me know.


I agree that Ken Roberts makes a good first impression. We first met him as we emerged from voting for someone else in the Democratic Primary for Sheriff, He was standing by a truck advertising his own candidacy. During our brief conversation, he thoroughly looked and sounded the part. I immediately wondered whether maybe we should have voted for him. I just wish Roberts's positive qualities were turned toward more often toward improvement of the department.

Unfortunately, he apparently hasn't panned out so well. In discussing him with others recently, “ambitious” and “vindictive” are the most common words in the conversation. “There's just something really wrong with that guy,” a non-DASO person who has dealt with Roberts complained to me this week.

Obviously I disagree that Roberts has demonstrated “leadership.” I did have one person contact me to defend Roberts, and passionately argue that he was doing a great job; but most accounts have been sadly different from that. Real-life “leadership” is a more complex skill than Mr. Vigil suggests, and while it can occasionally create widespread resentment, as it does in the movies when a tough but fair military commander forces pilots to their limits because he must, that kind of resentment more often develops from bad management or the kind of “cronyism” some accuse Vigil and Roberts of.

Nor was his background auspicious. Here, folks who've worked with him generally didn't rate him highly as a detective. Undersheriff Roberts was also a policeman for several years in Shawnee, Oklahoma, many years ago. That ended badly. Demoted, he sued the department; and his lawsuit did so badly that he ended up getting ordered to pay money rather than collect it. He also went to the Border Patrol School several years ago, but apparently never got hired and never returned to try again. And he was apparently in the military police, with the Air Force.

Sheriff Vigil's “defense” on the SWAT Team debacle was no defense at all. A better defense would have been to admit the facts, call this a glitch or an exception, and state that Roberts will trust what the men on the ground are telling him a little more next time.

I applaud Sheriff Vigil's desire “to develop and oversee programs that promote positive community outreach and race relations.” However, he adds, “Unfortunately, the current county management has interfered and thus far prevented us from achieving these much needed goals.” If he ever talks with me again, I hope to hear more about that.

I'm also puzzled by some of his comments.

He says he “received numerous complaints from the public” when he appointed Eddie Lerma as his undersheriff; but my IPRA request to DASO for complaints from the public about Lerma yielded none.  

He says Ken Roberts “was the favorite candidate among the progressives. Ironically, Mr. Goodman is now questioning his qualifications and professionalism.” I had never heard that Roberts was the favorite among progressives. I saw candidates J.R. Stewart and Curtis Childress most often at the P.V.A.

He writes, “The state Department of Public Safety has my credentials and certifications. I completed the required courses provided by the New Mexico Association of Counties and the New Mexico Sheriff’s Association in January of 2015.” However, (a) oral and written IPRA requests to the Attorney-General, the state police academy, DASO, and the County yielded no hint that he'd taken the Sheriff's Association course in January of 2015. In fact, I thought the NMAC course and the NMSA courses both occurred in the second week of December 2014, making it tough to attend both.


I wish Sheriff Vigil well.  He holds an important position in our community, and can improve or weaken law enforcement and the relationships between law-enforcement and citizens.  I believe he has some good intentions.  I also believe he's made some mistakes.  He has nearly two full years left in his term, and I hope those will be so successful that if he seeks re-election we all avidly support his campaign.  

Dona Ana County SWAT Team Undermined by Unusual Ground Rules

Internal reports and other sources charge that Undersheriff Ken Roberts endangered lives by limiting a SWAT team's tactics January 18^th. “That undersheriff is going to get someone killed,” one said.” Several said SWAT team members were “furious.”

A dangerous armed fugitive, Sergio Ayala, wanted for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, was inside a house in Vado. A judge issued a search warrant. Deputies suggested calling out the SWAT Team.

Roberts limited the team to eight deputies and limited tactics. Internal reports criticize these decisions. “We as a team failed to serve the public and place their safety above that of a wanted violent felon,” concludes one.

An “After Action Report” by the SWAT Team commander, dated after criticism surfaced, alleges deputies were uncertain Ayala was in the house; but according to supplemental reports and a sworn statement to a Judge, who “COMMANDED” them to search the place and seize Ayala if they could, they were certain.

The commander's initial “Incident Supplement” had noted that a female witness who'd confirmed Ayala was inside “changed her story” and said that “Mr. Ayala ran outside through the front door” at a time when deputies “had containment on the residence and nobody ran out of the front door.”

I'm no expert. Because local officers can't talk on the record, or might be biased, I consulted a top national expert, NM court-recognized Don Whitson. Normally, DASO follows National Tactical Officers Association guidelines. [See the NTOA website]

Whitson said that generally, sending just eight people when more are available is “outrageous and patently unsafe,” as is ignoring “life-saving tools they are trained on.” Except in very limited circumstances, twenty is standard. SWAT situations involve too many different roles, tasks, and contingencies.

Roberts let the team toss in a “throw-phone” to facilitate negotiations. Ayala didn't pick it up and ignored orders to come out. The team spent seven hours there. “The community was held in virtual lockdown.” Roberts stuck by his limitations. He reportedly gave “specific orders not to cause any property damage and restricted the team of what tools could or could not be used.” Eventually the team left, unhappy to leave Ayala at large.

Using progressive tactics saves lives – of officers, neighbors, and even suspects. If the suspect ignores throw-phones and verbal commands, robots can be sent in, locating the suspect without endangering officers. Police can explode a “flash-bang diversionary device,” creating a humongous noise and a blinding light. They can create a “tactical dilemma” by exploding the FBDD out front while breaching a door in the back. That confuses the suspect and says, “we have what we need to bring you out, preferably without injuring you.” Tear-gas can be tossed in. Windows can be broken, helping locate the suspect without unnecessary risk. Eventually, a force can enter the house and find the suspect.

Whitson said that in all his years of litigation consulting, he's “never heard a reasonable explanation” for ignoring standard steps. He added that had someone been injured under these circumstances, he'd have no hesitation saying that the commander would be fully liable.

I tried to ask Roberts why. So far, no response.

A State Police SWAT team captured Ayala in Anthony a week later. A team member said, “Just as we were making our approach he went mobile in a vehicle. There was a short pursuit, and then a very short foot pursuit, and he was taken into custody without incident.”

I asked how many men they'd taken. He answered 22. I noted that the DASO Undersheriff had authorized only eight. “It's hard to do the job with only eight people,” he replied.

In that week, Ayala allegedly committed additional crimes, including forcible imprisonment. He didn't shoot or kill anyone, so far as we know; but he could have.

                                                                -30-

        

[This column appeared in the Las Cruces Sun-News this morning, Sunday, 5 February 2017, as well as on the newspaper's website and KRWG-TV's.  I invite comments and criticism -- and contacts from others at DASO who agree or disagree with anything I've written in this column or the initial column in the series, Problems Again at Dona Ana County's Sheriff's Department.  I'm interested in hearing from everyone with knowledge and from folks with a wide variety of opinions.] 

[Sadly, Sheriff Enrique Vigil and Undersheriff Ken Roberts have declined to answer any of my questions on these matters.  Vigil has, however, penned a rebuttal to last week's column, and it appears near my column in today's Sun-News.  I urge interested citizens to read it.  I'll respond in a blog post within the next couple of days, but not in a Sun-News column. For now, I'll just note that it isn't Sheriff Vigil against me:  I agree with the Sheriff on many things, including better pay for DASO law-enforcement folks, some de-emphasis of traffic citations, and certainly getting rid of quotas; but if what I'm hearing about his cronyism and favoritism has any merit, as it appears to, we differ on that.  

Really, it's Sheriff Vigil and Undersheriff Vigil against some number of present and former DASO law-enforcement personnel.  It seems to be fairly widespread, but Vigil and Roberts would say it's a few malcontents or people who weren't performing well. Many of those complain mostly of Roberts, and believe that if they could talk to the Sheriff he'd do the right thing; "I'm hearing complaints mostly about the Undersheriff now, not the Sheriff," said one source; and there's a believe that Vigil could still save his tenure by jettisoning Roberts; but some things preceded Roberts and/or could not have been ordered by him.]

[Apparently Roberts was briefly on the SWAT Team a while back. He reportedly couldn't meet physical standards. Leader Armando Gonzales warned then removed Roberts. That's common sense. If the physical standards require someone to get over four six-foot fences in 20 seconds, Roberts could endanger his partner. If the partner gets there on time, s/he arrives alone. 

Interestingly, when Roberts became Undersheriff, Gonzales, who'd been running the training department well, was banished to patrol, for reasons unclear. Gonzales retired.]

[For those particularly interested in the SWAT standards and policies, the National Tactical Officers' Association standards and a study on them are available at https://ntoa.org/
One of the more interesting results of a study done by or for the NTOA is that agencies with SWAT teams indicate that they are eight times more likely to use less-lethal solutions than lethal force when they call out the SWAT Team.  That is, without the SWAT Team callout, police are eight times more likely to use lethal force.  Presumably a large and well-trained SWAT Team, using the kinds of progressive tactics recommended by the experts, intimidates a suspect into surrendering or has the capacity to locate then disable and/or capture the suspect without using lethal force.
Also of interest is Mr. Whitson's website.]