Updated: DOJ Stuns Federal Judge

Updated: DOJ Stuns Federal Judge

'There is an elephant in this room that is not being addressed' — U.S. District Judge Robert Brack

After Years of foot-dragging, DOJ Now Praises APD on Reforms

Turnabout follows Attorney General’s statement that consent decrees can ‘reduce morale’ among cops

See earlier story: APD Lying to Federal Monitor

The U.S. Department of Justice today stunned a federal courtroom by praising the Albuquerque Police Department’s progress in reforming itself. The DOJ position followed a recent report to the court that APD has deliberately undermined the reform process.

The abrupt turnabout came in the first federal court hearing since U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced the DOJ would back off on consent decrees with more than a dozen police departments found to have violating civil rights through the unconstitutional use of force.

APD entered into such an agreement with the DOJ in November 2014 and for the last three years has been haltingly making progress.

James Ginger, the independent monitor appointed by both the City of Albuquerque and the DOJ to oversee the APD reform process, has charged that APD has dragged its feet repeatedly. In his most recent report, Ginger accused APD of lying to him and, by extension, the federal judge overseeing the case.

Specifically, Ginger uncovered a secret directive by APD brass to ignore elements of the reform agreement. In a nutshell, Ginger’s 405-page report, which was released earlier this month, says APD command staff wrote a special order subverting the settlement agreement, denied its existence when asked about it and then refused to give the monitor a copy of the subversive order.

Peter Simonson, head of the New Mexico ACLU and a member of APD Forward, a group formed to keep track of APD reform, said he was “shocked” by the DOJ’s courtroom turnabout.

“We’re looking at the most damning report in two years and the DOJ instead of looking at APD’s most critical deficiencies, chooses to highlight its achievements,” Simonson said.

Even U.S. District Judge Robert Brack, who is overseeing the reform process and in whose courtroom today’s hearing occurred, spoke up about the disconnect between earlier findings of “deliberate non-compliance” by APD and DOJ’s praise of the department’s progress.

Luis Saucedo, a lawyer with the DOJ’s civil rights division in Washington, D.C., praised APD’s “tremendous progress.”

After about 15 minutes of such praise, Brack interjected, “There is an elephant in this room that is not being addressed, the mention of the deliberate non-compliance in the monitor’s report by APD.”

As an example, Brack noted that Ginger’s report mentioned that APD can’t yet decide what a neckhold is. Neckholds, like the one that killed Eric Garner in New York City in July 2014, are specifically barred by the APD settlement agreement.

“We have not seen the city retreat from its commitment to bar neckholds,” Saucedo said. “APD is looking for a better definition because it feels that all neck contact constitutes a neckhold.”

Brack then interjected: “We’re two years into this and we still don’t have a definition (of neckholds)?”

Brack brought up the covert special order. Saucedo cited APD’s workload as a possible reason for its existence. Brack responded: “It’s not OK to say that they (special orders) don’t exist. The city does not get to say that because it is hard we are going to do it differently and we are not going to tell anybody about it.”

Even Ginger seemed to go lightly on APD during today’s hearing, despite nearly two and a half years of expressing frustration over APD’s recalcitrance. Ginger failed to mention in his presentation anything about the “deliberate noncompliance” of his most recent report and he failed to mention the covert special order.

Saucedo said: DOJ “is not endorsing the view of deliberate non-compliance,” signaling that he disagrees that APD has engaged in foot-dragging.

“We are fully committed to this reform process and seeing it through,” Saucedo said.

Pete Dinelli, a former city councilor and chief public safety officer for the city, called today’s stance by the DOJ “a dramatic shift.”

“The DOJ should be asking themselves who are they representing now, APD or the citizens of Albuquerque,” Dinelli said.

See earlier story: APD Lying to Federal Monitor

Things get murkier

During the afternoon session, things became more confusing. City Attorney Jessica Hernandez said the situation regarding the special order was the result of a misunderstanding between Ginger and APD’s staff. Ginger’s staff, Hernandez said, asked for a specifically numbered special order, and got the number wrong. So when APD personnel tried to find the order, they couldn’t. Eventually, APD sent Ginger’s team all of the special orders the department had approved.

“We don’t believe we were deliberately non-compliant,” Hernandez said.

Ginger said he didn’t buy Hernandez’s explanation. He told Brack that his staffers asked for the special order both by number and by category.

“My staff is trained and knows what to ask for,” Ginger said. “We asked for it not just by number but by category. I’m not convinced that the explanation is accurate.”

Brack also asked Ginger why, during his presentation in the morning, he didn’t mention either the special order or the allegation in his report that APD had been in deliberate non-compliance with the settlement agreement. “I can’t have that attitude, the process can’t have that attitude,” Brack said of the alleged non-compliance.

“I do stand by it [the allegation],” Ginger said, explaining that he chose his words carefully and that APD had to be asked several times for information before supplying it. “I’m concerned about asking several times and not getting responses. I hope it is over.”

Brack said he was optimistic and pleased that APD had made some progress on complying with the settlement agreement. He noted that the department is in 47 percent “operational compliance” with the settlement agreement. APD needs to get to a 95 percent compliance rate and must maintain that for two years before the DOJ can consider leaving town.

“Now is the time when the rubber hits the road,” Brack said, adding that reaching a 95 percent compliance rate will be the most difficult part of the reform process.

The following two tabs change content below.
Dennis Domrzalski is managing editor of ABQ Free Press. Reach him at dennis@freeabq.com.
[wpproads id=17987]3 comments

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked with *

Cancel reply

3 Comments

  • Job
    May 10, 2017, 6:02 pm

    Republicans hate American citizens and praise the police state and corruption, nothing new.

    REPLY
  • Angela
    May 11, 2017, 4:45 am

    More lawyer games. More cover ups. It never ends.

    New Shocking Book Details New Mexican Law Enforcement Corruption

    Read this new book detailing sixteen years of law enforcement corruption in New Mexico. Read about rapist cops, judges on drugs, and drunken prosecutors. Read unbelievable accounts of cops killing unarmed fleeing people.

    Read about multiple child molester cops and prison and jail guards raping inmates. Read about judges who demand sex and money for favors.

    The book contains over a thousand links to media accounts setting forth thousands of bad acts by law enforcement. The chapters are well researched and concise.

    You will not be able to put this book down. You will be shocked at the level of criminality by those who are supposed to protect us.

    Read today:
    For All E Readers (Epub Format, Nook ibook):
    http://www.lulu.com/shop/we-wilson/bad-apples-a-21st-century-history-of-americas-worst-law-enforcement/ebook/product-23170449.html
    In PDF:
    http://www.lulu.com/shop/we-wilson/bad-apples-a-21st-century-history-of-americas-worst-law-enforcement/ebook/product-23163659.html
    For Amazon Kindle:
    https://www.amazon.com/Bad-Apples-Century-Americas-Enforcement-ebook/dp/B071HCYD9C/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1493723341&sr=8-1&keywords=bad+apples+book+we+wilson

    REPLY
  • Larissa Lewis
    May 12, 2017, 1:27 pm

    Attending this hearing confirmed my concerns-Judge Brack’s not-so-subtle bias toward the Gang. When he questioned Ginger’s negative criticisms of APD it shed doubt and implied that Ginger (and his highly qualified team)lacked professional credibility. It was a bit humiliating , and as Ginger’s assessments are what Brack depends on to make serious judgments, just disturbing. Everyone in that courtroom could be fired except for Federal Judge Brack, so ? Local DOJ suits have lost support from current DC administration, so their blahness is understandable ( they never intervened or did squat for years until some grieving families and citizens’ efforts moved Washington to come). The City’s insincere claim of support ( after they filed a lawsuit against this Oversight!) was polite, and APD suits wordy excuses were expected, but Brack’s show of doubt to Ginger =unacceptable. He did say "It speaks to an attitude, and I can’t have that attitude." but I wonder just what he made of the Boss of APD’s (Union Pres Willoughby) disrespectful "Casual Friday" and sprawled power display? Everyone, even women, respectfully wore subdued suits, but he stood out in blue plaid shirt. Attitude, cause he and his crew own it. The news had a clip of him gloating after Sessions announced lack of interest in cleaning up misbehaved police-music to Willoughby’s team. Another act in this play, and worth the price of admission. #judicialethics #integrity

    REPLY
The following two tabs change content below.
Albuquerque’s definitive alternative newspaper publishing an inquisitive, modern approach to the news and entertainment stories that matter most to New Mexicans. ABQ Free Press’ fresh voice speaks to insightful and involved professionals who care deeply about our community.