[‘Tis the season to wish you the happiness of the holiday of your choice: Hanukkah (starts at sundown 14 Dec), Christmas (25 Dec, of course), and Kwanzaa (26 Dec). Forgive me for not knowing about other holidays at this season. Saturnalia is, I think, no longer observed. I may take a break from blogging until the New Year, but I am probably kidding myself if I think so. If I do, I take this opportunity to wish you and yours the very best for another year.]
Rarely are Las Cruceans presented with differing opinions on the same topic by local columnists. So it is revealing to read Heath Haussamen’s 20 November column and Peter Goodman’s 23 November column on the recent arrest of Neil Garcia. In a note to his column on his website, Goodman acknowledges Haussamen’s column but does not discuss the similarities or debate the differences of their opinions. I make the inevitable comparison.
Haussamen’s column, “Police chief’s viral videos put Las Cruces at risk,” is longer and more detailed, and is entirely focused on two related issues. One is the legal problem posed by Garcia, a repeat offender of various crimes, from shoplifting to destruction of property to assault and battery. The other is the problem of the Las Cruces Police Department’s Police Chief Jeremy Story’s involvement of federal law enforcement officials in Garcia’s arrest and incarceration. Goodman’s column, “A Controversial Federal Arrest,” not only is shorter and less detailed, but also digresses on the inadequacies of local and state laws, and on the promise of local and state programs to deal with repeat offenders like Garcia.
Haussamen reports the basic facts. The police charged Garcia with over 70 crimes in a 3-year period, but he was convicted of none of them. Several state judges found that he was not competent to assist public defenders in his defense. So he was released and returned to his illegal occupations. Everyone is frustrated by the release of repeat offenders like Garcia because respect for constitutional rights allows perpetrators incompetent to stand trial to go free and thereby repeat their crimes.
In response to this situation, Story appeared in an LCPD video on 28 October in which he declared Garcia a danger to the public. According to Haussamen, the video was intended to go viral on social media; Blaze News, a right-wing news outlet, carried it. Story appeared in another LCPD video on 13 November between two federal law enforcement officials: Ryan Ellison, acting U.S. attorney for New Mexico, and Justin Garris, the FBI special agent in charge of the FBI in New Mexico. Each indicated the cooperation of federal and local law enforcement agencies and their shared determination to address repeat offenders.
Haussamen reports the unusual law used to arrest and jail Garcia until his trial, and notes the approval of some at Story’s innovative approach to the problem of repeat offenders whose incompetency enables them to elude accountability and likely conviction and incarceration. Haussamen disapproves. He warns Las Cruceans about the present dangers to Las Cruces during the Trump presidency of involving federal law enforcement in local and state criminal affairs. He suggests that Story is operating in ways favorable to the Trump administration’s aggressive approach to crime at the local and state levels. He questions whether Story, a Republican serving under a Democratic/Progressive City Council, is not undermining its policies about relationships with federal law enforcement agencies, which policies intend to protect Las Cruceans from their abuses. He concludes, “Story is way out of line.”
Goodman’s column is biased in his usual asperse-the-civilian, sympathize-with-the-police, way. Remember that he tried to moderate criticism of Jared Cosper, killer of Amelia Baca, by saying that Cosper did not wake up that day intending to murder anyone. By characterizing Garcia as “reportedly [as if there is room for doubt; emphasis mine] not sharp enough mentally to help his defense attorney,” Goodman omits the determinations of several state judges that Garcia is not competent to stand trial. His omission obscures the fact that Story’s actions skirted those determinations. Noting that some applaud Story’s “solution to a difficult problem” and others roast him “for it at city council and on social media,” Goodman states his sympathy for Story without giving reasons for doing so. Indeed, dodging the issues raised by Story’s solution, his conduct, and the involvement of federal agents in local crime, he shifts the blame to “all of us, for failing to solve a tough problem: how can we protect citizens from people who repeatedly harm others but can’t fairly be tried in court?” He concludes with a discussion of state efforts and programs to address the problem of incompetent defendants. The result is an incomplete, unfocused, diffuse response to this “controversial federal arrest.”
Both columns fail to address some important questions which frame this controversial arrest. Why did Story make the first video? How did a right-wing news outlet and federal law enforcement officials come to see the video? Was it by chance or by contact initiated by Story? Did he contact Blaze News to alert it to it? Did he contact the federal officials who appeared in the second video? Either way, it is not best police practice or even appropriate behavior for a police chief to avoid the usual channels in local government to address a matter of police policy and to resort to public relations stunts to influence it or invite federal intervention. As we have seen elsewhere, cities and states have resisted federal efforts to intervene in local affairs in the guise of fighting crime. Haussamen, but not Goodman, stresses that Story’s actions are contrary to City Council’s efforts to limit interactions between the LCPD and federal law enforcement agencies. He adds that it is dangerous for local and state police to cooperate in local matters with federal law enforcement officials. Story’s actions not only undermine the city’s elected leaders, but also accord with Trump’s claims of uncontrolled crime in Democratic-governed cities which requires federal intervention.
Before I ask what is it with Story, I want to know what the City Manager is doing about this insubordinate official. What steps is he taking to bring Story to heel? Or is Council giving him a wink and a nod to let Story proceed to solve a nettlesome problem?
So what is it with Story? His use of videos gives him personal prominence in addressing a police issue which troubles the city. It enhances his reputation, it increases his power, and it builds his resume. He is young enough to aspire to higher office, not accept a long-term commitment as police chief in a medium-size city in New Mexico. It also makes him more dangerous. To the degree that he operates without the self-restraint and professionalism of an officer in his position, to that degree he is unaccountable. His unexplained request to City Council for no fewer than five SWAT vehicles is ominous; more ominous is his refusal to respond to requests by me, a Councilor, and two Representatives for a rationale for these military-style vehicles. His police have pointed rifles at peaceful demonstrators. Story’s propensities for self-promotion and for arbitrary and aggressive policing bode ill for the city and its citizens. If, unlike Haussamen but like Goodman, we accommodate his actions, we endanger ourselves. The price of good policing must be eternal vigilance, with focused attention on Police Chief Jeremy Story.
