“Our officers are professionals. ... We will respond to your calls without fail. We know that there’s a lot of mistrust out there. We want you to know you can count on us. We are all professionals doing a tough job. We are not perfect. We make mistakes. We will own up to our mistakes. We love Las Cruces. We are a tight community. We are Las Cruces. We are here to back you up. Please reach out to us and know we are a professional organization. We really do care about our community.” (Las Cruces Sun-News, 17 June 2020)
Thus testified then-Deputy Police Chief Miguel Dominguez before City Council on 15 June 2020 shortly after the police killing of George Floyd, nationwide protests, and “8 Can’t Wait” proposals. Lest Council adopt police reforms, Dominguez whined and pleaded for pity on the Las Cruces Police Department.
Many Las Cruceans, notably columnists in the local media, have unqualified respect and offer limited support for the LCPD. Their opinions either indulge in both-siderism to exonerate officers of misconduct or excuse them in any incident. I understand this bias. We are dependent on the police for public safety. But, like dogs dependent on their masters, many lick certain parts of those on whom they are dependent. They fear that, if they do not behave obsequiously, police officers might withhold what they see as favors to citizens.
To those not blinded by their biases, the police are prone to misconduct because they operate under the color of the law and have weapons to enforce their actions. In courts, they enjoy the benefit of the presumption of regularity—that is, the belief that they tell the truth—when, in fact, they often “testilie”—a term of art (BTW, “police” is an anagram for “cop lie”). If prosecuted, they enjoy the benefit of qualified immunity, which applies to most of their actions presumed to be lawfully forgivable because of those split-second decisions based on claimed perceptions of threats to their lives. If Jared Cosper, the killer of Sra. Amelia Baca, is an example, many police are too delicate for their duties. However, Police Chief Jeremy Story’s recruitment film looks to remedy that deficiency by hiring the kind of thugs being hired, trained, and deployed by ICE.
Not all police work is running down citizens. Most of it involves matters routine—code and traffic violations, vehicle accidents, domestic situations, with opportunities to treat citizens disrespectfully or abusively, as if guilty until proven innocent—and paperwork galore: investigations, reports, charges, courtroom appearances, etc. In this work, police also show their moral and professional nature—and make it harder for reflexive apologists to tout them. In citing my experiences, I have in mind Dominguez’s lie that “We will own up to our mistakes.”
When Dominguez spoke, an Internal Affairs investigation into five alleged code violations against me had determined that all five were false. IA’s report went to Police Chief Patrick Gallagher and no farther; he wanted to conceal its evidence of LCPD misconduct, possibly motivated by antisemitism, but I got it through my Inspection of Public Records Act request. Meanwhile, IA’s letter to me, which closed the case, did not even mention these code violations, much less their falsity. When I wrote Dominguez about the “mistakes” of false allegations, I received no reply. When then-City Manager Ifo Pili admitted that I deserved a detailed apology for the false allegations, then-City Attorney Jennifer Vega-Brown rejected it and substituted a bland statement of regret at my inconvenience.
In a class by himself in non-operational matters is the current Police Chief, Jeremy Story.
Shortly after Story was promoted to his current position, I met with him to congratulate him and hoped that, since he had not been involved, he would honor my request to clear my police file of the false allegations. Flipping through the documents which I gave him, he said that he found troubling things and assured me of his concern. Months later, I emailed him to remind him of his concern. I received no response. Story took no action to correct LCPD’s mistake.
More months later, I encountered him at a public meeting, I asked him about clearing my file. He replied that there was no file—a lie. When I insisted that there was and had the documents to prove it, he asked me to send them to him. When I returned home, I emailed the documents to him, and he emailed me back that he would look into the matter and get back to me. I do not know whether he looked into the matter, for, despite a months-later reminder, he did not get back to me. Story did not admit this mistake or correct the original LCPD mistake.
Early in 2025, Story recommended that City Council request $500,000 for five “SWAT” vehicles. I contacted Story’s office—at this date, I think that I left a voicemail message—with questions about this request and the need for five such vehicles. I got no response. All of this I mentioned in my 20 June 2025 blog. With his record of not replying to me, I sought the answers to my questions through three elected officials: Cassie McClure, Joanne Ferrary, Nathan Small. If they sought answers, they got no results. Then, on 5 May 2026, Small’s legislative assistant contacted the City Manager’s assistant, who requested that Story answer my questions.
Story responded that day with an email to these assistants but not to me; it began with a libel: “Mr. Hayes [sic] has been given the answer multiple times over the past year and a half.” I responded to the assistants and a few officials that I have never received an answer, not one, not many; if I had, I would not have kept asking for one. I challenged Story to back his claim with emails, text messages, or phone logs, and urged City Manager Ikani Taumoepeau to require that he do so. I emailed City Attorney Brad Douglas to invite a discussion of this libel but have had no response from him. In the two weeks since, Story has produced no back up; his libel stands.
These city officials deem Story’s libel appropriate to his position although it is an act of turpitude and an indication of his and his department’s lack of professionalism, regardless of whether my experience is typical or unique. The libel, not believed by either assistant, does not reflect on me; it reflects on Story. His attempt to smear me behind my back discredits only himself. Like his predecessor, he had many chances to deal truthfully with me and to admit and correct LCPD mistakes. He took none of them. For all the police talk about the perils of their profession, nothing about admitting and correcting mistakes—owning up to one’s mistakes; more generally, taking responsibility for one’s conduct—is a threat to an officer’s life or limb. But such is the moral debasement of the LCPD that dishonesty in public (Dominguez) and in private (Story) is standard leadership practice and one reason for public distrust of the police.
