Sealed Case Against Governor Michelle Lujan-Grisham

 A sealed 7-page complaint was filed in the Estancia district court yesterday against Michelle Lujan-Grisham. The plantiff is the State of New Mexico and Aubrey L. Dunn.

A 2-page 6-person jury demand was also filed.

No further information is available except for the case being classified as an action for "misrepresentation, fraud."

Hinkle Family Fun Center Joins List of Businesses Suing New Mexico Governor

Hinkle Family Fun Center, on August 21, filed suit against New Mexico Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham, and Secretary of Health Kunkel.

On August 21, Hinkle Family Fun Center, LLC filed a civil sit against the Governor and Secretary of Health of New Mexico. In the suit, Hinkle alleges unlawful taking, and asks for just compensation from the 2nd Judicial District Court of New Mexico.

Due to the Public Health Orders issued by the State of New Mexico, Hinkle Family Fun Center was required to close on March 24, 2020. As of the date of filing, Hinkle had not yet been allowed to reopen. Accordingly, they sought compensation in accordance with the New Mexico State Constitution.

In a motion to dismiss, the State contends that since the orders are an extension of the State's police powers, the takings clause does not apply. Additionally, since the State did not actually take physical control of the property, and Hinkle did not exhaust administrative remedies, the lawsuit is invalid.

In reply, Hinkle contends that the State's claim is absurd: the State can shut any property down for any police reason, without having to pay any compensation.

A hearing has been requested for this case.

State of New Mexico v. Montano: The Practical Side

The Supreme Court of the State of New Mexico recently decided a case that defined what constitutes a "uniformed law enforcement officer," and an "appropriately marked law enforcement vehicle."

Background

In 2013, Deputy Glenn Russ, from the Curry County, New Mexico Sheriff's Office was wearing "a dress shirt with tie, dress slacks, and dress shoes" (the proscribed clothing of those in the "investigator" position that he was) while driving an unmarked official vehicle (though it did have a government license plate, sirens, and various inconspicuous police lights). He also had his deputy badge showing on his shirt pocket.

While driving, Russ spotted an individual who he thought had a warrant. Russ followed the vehicle the individual got into, and ran the license plate. The plate came back as not belonging to the individual Russ thought it was, though the plate was expired. Russ then turned on the flashing lights of his vehicle in an attempt to initiate a traffic stop for the expired plate. The driver of the vehicle, later identified as Roy Montano, did not stop. Instead, he proceeded to drive erratically: not stopping at stop signs and red lights, speeding, and jumping a curb.

When Russ' pursuit ended, and Montano was apprehended, Montano was charged with various crimes, including aggravated fleeing, which consists of "a person willfully and carelessly driving his vehicle in a manner that endangers the life of another person after being given a visual or audible signal to stop, whether by hand, voice, emergency light, flashing light, siren or other signal, by a uniformed law enforcement officer in an appropriately marked law enforcement vehicle in pursuit in accordance with the provisions of the Law Enforcement Safe Pursuit Act" and is a fourth degree felony.

Legal Standard

Montano was convicted of this crime, as well as others during his trial. The court's reasoning: "The court determined that displaying a badge was enough to be in uniform; the vehicle was appropriately marked because motorists know they have to pull over and stop when they see emergency lights flash."

The law that the court was referring to is NMSA 30-22-1(C), which states that "willfully refusing to bring a vehicle to a stop when given a visual or audible signal to stop, whether by hand, voice, emergency light, flashing light, siren or other signal, by a uniformed officer in an appropriately marked police vehicle" is a misdemeanor.

Therefore, it is not accurate that motorists must "pull over and stop when they see emergency lights flash." The emergency lights must be used by "a uniformed officer in an appropriately marked police vehicle." Thus the trial court avoided the question of whether Montano committed aggravated fleeing as defined in the law.

Montano appealed his conviction for aggravated fleeing.

Court of Appeals

The Court of Appeals considered whether Deputy Russ' behavior constituted a "uniform." They found that a uniform must consist of distinctive clothing. Because Russ' clothing was that of any individual who wears dress clothes for work it was not distinctive. Russ' badge, firearm, and handcuffs, although distinctive when taken together, are not clothing, and therefore are not part of a uniform.

The second question the Court considered was whether or not Russ' vehicle was "an appropriately marked law enforcement vehicle." The Court found that the vehicle was "appropriately marked" by virtue of its flashing lights, as only emergency vehicles may legally display flashing lights of the type that Russ' vehicle was equipped with.

Having found that Russ was not in uniform, the Court reversed Montano's conviction for aggravated fleeing.

Supreme Court

The State appealed the reversal to the Supreme Court. The Court found, for similar reasons as the Appeals Court, that Russ was not in uniform.

The Court then considered whether the vehicle met the standard for a conviction for aggravated fleeing. The Court found that the emergency lights and siren on Russ' vehicle did render it as an emergency vehicle, but not a law enforcement vehicle specifically. Because the aggravated fleeing statute requires "an appropriately marked law enforcement vehicle," the vehicle must be distinguishable as a law enforcement vehicle, and not the more general emergency vehicle.

Accordingly, the Court upheld the reversal of Montano's conviction.

The Practical Side

Under the State's proposed interpretation, anyone with a Dollar Tree police toy set, a megaphone from Harbor Freight, and some lightbulbs can attempt to chase after someone in a vehicle (albeit while impersonating a peace officer). Until the time that this impersonator chooses to activate their siren and lights, their vehicle would be indistinguishable from any other. Once they turn their lights on, a motorist, fearing a felony fleeing conviction, would be required to pull over for this impersonator.

Of course, if they didn't pull over, they wouldn't be charged with felony fleeing, as the vehicle isn't a "law enforcement vehicle." But the motorist cannot know that at the time. Uniforms and vehicle decals serve as a reassurance to a motorist that they are interacting with a legitimate law enforcement officer, not someone playing pretend.

Because the impersonator can go undetected until the time that they initiate the bogus stop, it would be impossible for a legitimate law enforcement officer to remove the impersonator from the road. On the other hand, a vehicle equipped with police decals, and a driver wearing a police uniform, runs the risk of being caught by legitimate law enforcement officers who say to themselves "wait a second, I've never seen this guy before, and that's not one of our cars."

Motorists fearing their personal safety may be justified in escaping from what could be an impersonator, but the State seeks to criminalize that behavior.

While it remains illegal to not pull over for a vehicle equipped with flashing lights, it rightly is legal to evade an improperly marked vehicle driven by a non-uniformed officer.

That's Just My Thought.

Here's our sources, so you can decide for yourself:

https://nmonesource.com/nmos/nmca/en/item/392093/index.do

https://laws.nmonesource.com/w/nmos/Chapter-30-NMSA-1978#!b/30-22-1.1

https://laws.nmonesource.com/w/nmos/Chapter-30-NMSA-1978#!b/30-22-1

https://nmonesource.com/nmos/nmsc/en/item/480373/index.do

https://www.dollartree.com/plastic-police-playsets/228325

https://www.harborfreight.com/megaphone-with-safety-siren-95271.html

https://www.1000bulbs.com/product/5461/IN-0025A19TB.html?gclid=Cj0KCQjw9IX4BRCcARIsAOD2OB2EcCf46dtR6aRMN7s1U1mN34NEqhNc5d815z6YcPQsoyAivQ5zhIMaAlm4EALw_wcB

https://www.1000bulbs.com/product/5459/IN-0025A19TR.html?gclid=Cj0KCQjw9IX4BRCcARIsAOD2OB2UoaJ2npYupqShjHlevQ8z_JaMRsVdebiRDWIeNhlrRwTJzs9PqToaAlMzEALw_wcB

https://laws.nmonesource.com/w/nmos/Chapter-30-NMSA-1978#!b/30-27-2.1

Columbus Police Chief's Emails to Officers about Protests

Emails obtained by JMTN show the communications sent by Chief Thomas Quinlan of the Columbus Division of Police ("CPD") to his officers in the wake of George Floyd's killing and the ensuing protests.

At no point in the nearly two weeks following George Floyd's killing did Chief Quinlan mention George Floyd by name in his division-wide emails, nor did he condemn the behavior of the Minneapolis police officers.

In response to a request for "all emails, memos, or other internal correspondence sent between May 25, 2020 and June 5, 2020 by Chief Quinlan to all sworn employees, or all employees, of the Columbus Division of Police," CPD sent JMTN this twelve-page collection of emails, as well as a statement saying there were no "memos or other correspondence." Accordingly, JMTN believes that this document represents all of the messaging that was sent by Chief Quinlan to his employees as a whole.

May 28, 6:25 PM

The first communication relating to George Floyd, who was killed on May 25 while in the custody of four officers of the Minneapolis Police Department, came on the evening of May 28, more than three days after the killing, and more than two days after footage from the scene made national news. In the email, sent by Chief Quinlan to all CPD employees, Quinlan quotes the following portion of the statement released by the Major Cities Chiefs Association, which Quinlan is a member of:

"MCCA members have worked tirelessly to build trust between law enforcement and the communities they serve. What occured in Minneapolis is a sobering reminder of how quickly bad policing can undermine that trust. The law enforcement community must do better and hold ourselves to a higher standard."

Quinlan excluded other portions of the statement [which is available in full here], including the first sentence: "the death of Mr. Floyd is deeply disturbing and should be of concern to all Americans," and the last "we extend our deepest condolences to the Floyd family and will lift them up in prayer during this difficult time."

May 29, 6:58 PM

On the evening of May 29, Quinlan sent another email, in part thanking his officers for "landing on the right side of this escalating and dangerous situation." News reports about the events of the previous night indicates that police used force only after objects were thrown at officers, and buildings were damaged.

A section of this email, titled "Chief's Intent for weekend operations," lists four "enduring goals"

1. "Protect and maintain the health and safety of all persons, to include sworn personnel."

2. "Protect peaceful demonstration and 1st amendment rights for all citizens"

3. "Protect all public and private property"

4. "Respond to all priority calls for service from the public" 

 

Quinlan also stated that "if use of force becomes necessary, all uses of force will be guided by law and division policy and except in cases of personal emergency all uses of force will be at the direction of a division supervisor."

It is not clear whether the pepper spraying of several individuals, including Rep Joyce Beatty, Franklin County Commissioner Kevin Boyce, and Columbus City Council President Shannon Hardin, conducted on the Sunday following the email, was a "personal emergency," or whether it was "at the direction of a division supervisor." It is also not clear how this use of force fits into Quinlan's "enduring goals."

May 31, 3:26 AM

In an email sent early on May 31, Quinlan addressed an email "To All Central Ohio Law Enforcement Who Stood Strong Though Rioting in Columbus." In the email Quinlan referred to "riots in our city later that same day [Thursday] aimed at police actions that originated far outside Columbus." Quinlan went on to say:

"I ask that you not be too quick to judge other groups by their worst examples or too blind to only see policing through best intentions. We all felt we were being persecuted unfairly over these past several days and wanted to speak out or even act out against the apparent injustice we felt. If you felt that then you understand how others might feel similarly as strong in speaking out and even acting out against apparent injustice however it might be defined in their world view."

At no point in the email did Quinlan use the word "protests," or "protestors."

May 31, 9:10 AM

In a separate email sent on the morning of May 31, Quinlan directed that "all sworn personnel are to have their riot gear with them." The email also cancelled several forms of leave for officers, stated "all sworn are scheduled to work 12-hour shifts," and ordered that "all non-covert personnel will work in uniform."

However, the State of Ohio Peace Officer Basic Training Manual on "Civil Disorders" [obtained by WOSU] says that "visible officers should be kept to a minimum and wear their normal uniform" during "lawful demonstrations."

The author of the training manual? Thomas Quinlan.

June 2, 2:14 PM

More than a week after George Floyd's killing, Columbus Police used George Floyd's name in a division-wide email for the first time. The email, sent by Deputy Chief Richard Bash, directed officers to report any injuries they suffered "as a result of the civil disobedience during the protests of the George Floyd death."

The City of Columbus did not respond to a request for comment on this story.

That's just my thought.

Here's our sources, so you can see for yourself:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1QJnfXSgAteYqWbWXAaE_TKmFKVN0Lw2W/view?usp=sharing

https://www.majorcitieschiefs.com/pdf/news/news_release_statement_regarding_death_of_george_floyd.pdf

https://www.nbc4i.com/news/local-news/crowds-gather-across-columbus-to-protest-police-brutality/

https://fox8.com/news/demonstrators-flood-columbus-streets-to-protest-police-violence-george-floyds-death/

https://twitter.com/politico/status/1267132229077159943

https://www.scribd.com/document/465239354/Ohio-Peace-Officer-Basic-Training-Civil-Disorders

https://radio.wosu.org/post/columbus-police-chief-wrote-book-crowd-dispersal-did-officers-follow-it

Editorial: Unsubstantiated Complaints Against Police Erode Trust: How to Fix It

Since May 25, when George Floyd was killed by Minneapolis Police Department Officers, protests have occurred in every major city -and a lot of smaller cities- throughout the United States. People in foreign countries such as England and France have also been protesting. For the past week, protesters have been making their voice heard about all sorts of issues, such as:

• Use-of-force by police, especially, though not exclusively, against non-white individuals
• Police not being held internally, civilly, or criminally accountable for their misconduct

Some protesters have been speaking up about broader issues, like:

• Transgender rights
• Gender inequality
• Systemic and institutional racism
• Gun violence
• Social inequities relating to COVID-19
• Wealth inequality
• And so much more

Specifically, JMTN would like to discuss issues surrounding police not being held accountable for their misconduct. There have been numerous reports of journalists being arrested, peaceful protesters being sprayed with tear-gas, and, yes, police officers being attacked during this past week. While we understand that everyone, including police officers, are human and make mistakes, there needs to be trust between police departments and the residents they protect and serve. Yet it seems from these protests that that mutual trust doesn't exist right now.

So here's how police departments can get it back.

When confronted with allegations of police misconduct relating to use-of-force during this past week, police chiefs have rightfully said "we're looking into it." Every department has a different process for how they handle misconduct complaints, but many of them all share the same flaw: they aren't transparent.

The trouble is that when police find a complaint to be unsubstantiated, they don't communicate their reasoning to the public. It appears then to be a case of "we've investigated ourselves, and found nothing wrong." Complainants feel like they aren't being listened to. If they submit a complaint, and the department says all is well-and-good, they don't understand. After all, if the citizen knew all the policies that the department found the officer to be following, then they wouldn't have filed a complaint in the first place.

When a citizen files a complaint against an officer, they do it because they truly think that the officer was out-of-line. Even when the officer really did behave properly, and the citizen is wrong, that isn't explained to the public. There's a saying: "you can't choose how I feel." In this case, police departments cannot choose how a complainant feels. When a citizen feels that an officer messed up, even when the officer did everything right, they file a complaint. If the department finds the complaint to be unsubstantiated, it doesn't change how the complainant feels. In turn, the public feels like the department is covering for a "bad cop." This causes trust between the police and the public to erode. And in the case of these latest protests, the trust didn't just erode: it vanished.

Instead, police departments should be transparent with the public about complaints. The department needs to show the complainant evidence that causes them to change their mind, not a closed-doors investigation. That means a public database of complaints, whether unsubstantiated or not, against the department's officers. This database would include:

• The date, nature, and general location of the complaint
• A listing of the officers involved
• The names of the individual's investigating the allegation, and their relationship with the department
• A reason for disposition that is clear, documented, and understandable by both the public and the officers involved
• For example, an unsubstantiated complaint about use-of-force would have an explanation of how the officer's actions complied with the department's use-of-force policy, as well as the text of the policy itself.
• An unsubstantiated complaint about use of bad-language by an officer would have an explanation of why the words the officer used were appropriate, why less-harsh words would not have been appropriate, and the department's policy regarding language used by officers.
• A substantiated complaint would include information about what policy was violated, how the policy was violated, and why the discipline the officer faces is appropriate.

Additionally, there must be an appeals process that affords both the officer and the complainant the ability to have the case re-heard, to include the ability to testify before the investigatory committee about why they believe the initial disposition was inappropriate.

A mechanism must exist for automatically triggering a deeper look at officers who have a certain number of unsubstantiated complaints. While the officer may in fact be entirely upstanding, it's also possible that there's something going on that the review board isn't set up to find. This is important, as Derek Chauvin, the officer who sparked this round of protests, had 24 complaints filed against him during his service with the Minneapolis Police Department. All but one were found to be unsubstantiated. However, the MPD does not make these other 23 records available for public review (JMTN has filed a request with the MPD under Minnesota's FOIA-equivalent for the complaint records of all four officers involved in George Floyd's killing in hopes that they will be disclosed).

While it is possible that Chauvin's previous 23 complaints do not show anything wrong, the public sees the non-disclosure as MPD trying to 'hide something.' This erodes public trust between the department and the residents, which makes things unnecessarily harder for everyone: police officers and citizens.

A simple "we understand your feelings, you're right to feel the way you do, and here's our reasoning" goes a long way to building trust with the public.

BREAKING: George Floyd Was Pulseless for Nearly Two Minutes Before Derek Chauvin Took His Knee Off Floyd's Neck

The criminal complaint filed against Derek Chauvin shows that another officer told Chauvin that George Floyd was pulseless. Chauvin did not release his knee from Floyd's neck for nearly two minutes after that.

On May 29, a criminal complaint against Derek Chauvin was filed in Minnesota's 4th District Court. This led to a warrant being issued for Chauvin's arrest on charges of 3rd degree murder and 2nd degree manslaughter.

The complaint, brought by the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension, says in part (emphasis added):

"BWC [body-worn camera] video shows Mr. Floyd continue to move and breathe. At 8:24:24, Mr. Floyd stopped moving. At 8:25:31 the video appears to show Mr. Floyd ceasing to breathe or speak. Lane said, 'want to roll him on his side.' Kueng checked Mr. Floyd’s right wrist for a pulse and said, 'I couldn’t find one.' None of the officers moved from their positions.

At 8:27:24, the defendant removed his knee from Mr. Floyd’s neck. An ambulance and emergency medical personnel arrived, the officers placed Mr. Floyd on a gurney, and the ambulance left the scene. Mr. Floyd was pronounced dead at Hennepin County Medical Center."

In other words, Derek Chauvin kept his knee on George Floyd's body for 1 minute and 53 seconds after being told by another officer, J Alexander Kueng, that Floyd no longer had a pulse.

Derek Chauvin did not start CPR. Instead, he kept his knee on George Floyd's neck for nearly two minutes after being told by another officer that Floyd didn't have a pulse.

This is inexcusable. Even if Chauvin truly felt that there was a need to put his knee on Floyd's back (though JMTN does not believe that was the case), that need ended the moment he was told Floyd was dead.

Instead of trying to revive him, Chauvin kneeled on Floyd's dead body for nearly two minutes until an ambulance arrived. Further, Officers Kueng and Lane did not remove Chauvin from Floyd's body.

The Minneapolis Police Department emailed us the following comment regarding this story:

"Any comments on legal matters are routed through the City Attorney’s Office."

In an email to JMTN, a spokesperson for the City of Minneapolis Communications Department, which handles press inquiries for the City Attorney's Office, said:

"The City Attorney’s Office won’t comment on this case at this time."

That's just my thought.

Here's our sources, so you can decide for yourself:

http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/6933328/27-CR-20-12646-Complaint.pdf

The Consent of the Governed in Petal, Mississippi: Mayor or Dictator?

On May 25, George Floyd died while being pinned down by officer Derek Chauvin of the Minneapolis Police Department. Bystander video of the incident was posted on Facebook Live. The video depicts officer Chauvin holding his knee down against Floyd's neck while Floyd pleads with the officers to release him from the position. Floyd goes silent several minutes later, and was declared dead at a hospital shortly later.

This story though is not about what happened in Minneapolis. It's about a small town in Mississippi known as Petal.

On May 26, a post was made on Twitter saying "Would be nice to get a few in there that understand reasonable force, when it's needed, and don't give the rest of them a bad reputation."  Hal Marx, the mayor of Petal commented the following on that post:

"If you are talking about the incident in MN, I didn’t see anything unreasonable. If you can say you can’t breathe, you’re breathing. Most likely that man died of overdose or heart attack. Video doesn’t show his resistance that got him in that position. Police being crucified."

The original poster replied to the Mayor, saying "Once he went unconscious and remained on his neck, do you feel that was warranted? At that point you have him restrained without allowing the unnecessary risk of closing the airway at that point. It’s hard to deny that was a bit excessive especially at that point."

Mayor Hal Marx replied with the following:

"Once he went unconscious and remained on his neck, do you feel that was warranted? At that point you have him restrained without allowing the unnecessary risk of closing the airway at that point. It’s hard to deny that was a bit excessive especially at that point."

 The Mayor has since deleted his Twitter account.

But this story isn't about the Mayor's tweets. It's about what happened in the town hall meeting held about them.

On May 28, the Petal Board of Aldermen called a special meeting. The meeting was livestreamed.

35 minutes into the meeting, the following exchange occurred during the public comment period:

Public commenter: "If you [Mayor Marx] love the people of Petal like you say you do; if you work for them, then [several voices in the audience saying "step down"] we can move forward as a city."

Mayor: "I don't believe that giving into bullying and mob mentality is what I wanna do, because, well, the voters voted me in until July 1, 2021."

Public commenter: "And now we don't want you."

Mayor: "Well it doesn't work that way, I'm sorry."

The people of Petal in attendance at the special meeting made it very clear that they were not happy with Mayor Marx anymore. They asked him to resign. He said "it doesn't work that way."

What's the difference between a representative and a dictator?

A dictatorship is characterized by not having the consent of the people to govern. The people of Petal don't seem to be consenting to the Mayor's governance. Yes, as the Mayor said earlier in the meeting, he has been elected three times to the office, most recently in 2019. It's true, as the Mayor said, that the people of Petal wanted him to be mayor at that time.

But they don't now.

The Mayor no longer has the consent of the governed.

We aren't talking about George Flynn. We aren't talking about racial prejudice. We aren't talking about the Mayor's tweets (although JMTN does not agree with the content of the Mayor's Twitter comments).

We're talking about the fact that the people of Petal don't want the Mayor anymore, and the Mayor said "it doesn't work that way."

It doesn't matter if the people's reasons are "wrong", as the Mayor claims throughout the meeting. They don't have to be "right" for the people to decide they don't want the Mayor anymore.

Only in a dictatorship is it true that "it doesn't work that way."

That's Just My Thought.

We have sent this story to Mayor Marx via email for comment. We will update the story with his reply when we receive one.

Here's our sources, so you can decide for yourself:

http://www.ci.minneapolis.mn.us/www/groups/public/@mpd/documents/webcontent/wcmsp-224679.pdfhttps://www.facebook.com/lovelyti2002/videos/a-woman-name-darnella-frazier-captured-this-video-in-south-minneapolis/898470823954840/ [note that this is not the original post of the video]

https://web.archive.org/web/20200527024859/https://twitter.com/MayorHalMarx/status/1265468035151904768#

https://twitter.com/MayorHalMarx

https://www.facebook.com/watch/live/?v=2281845112111043&ref=watch_permalink