By Peter Simonson, ACLU-NM Executive Director

You may have heard about the APD’s sting scheme: plant a daypack by the ATM at 4^th and Gold, wait for someone to take it, then follow and arrest the person for theft.  The APD has nabbed at least five people with the plot, including one person who has spent 14 days in jail.  Presumably those individuals are facing 3^rd degree felony charges--and the possibility of a permanent criminal record--because the APD reportedly filled the daypack with $2,500 worth of valuables, including a laptop.

Yesterday, Public Safety Director Darren White notified the ACLU that he and APD Chief Ray Schultz had decided to shut down the operation.

Stopping the sting scheme was the right thing to do, but troubling questions remain.  Didn’t the officers worry about false arrests?  They couldn’t know that a person’s motives for taking the daypack were criminal.  What if they arrested someone who thought the daypack was abandoned, or someone who intended to turn it over to the police?

Doesn’t APD have enough crime to investigate without manufacturing new crimes?  And baiting otherwise innocent people into turning criminal?

KOAT-TV reported that APD devised the scheme “after several reports of backpacks and purses being stolen in the University area.”  But the University area is miles away from the sting location and lies on the opposite side of the freeway.  Did officers truly think a sting in downtown Albuquerque was going to dampen crime in the University area?  Or was that just a feeble cover for a misguided operation?

The ACLU has learned of a similar entrapment scheme where APD officers set out an expensive bicycle in public and wait for someone to steal it.  Did Mr. White and Chief Schultz shut down this program as well?

The community deserves answers to these questions—some reassurance that APD officers aren’t abusing their authority.  The ACLU has contacted both Darren White’s office and that of the Police Chief to request a meeting and await their response.

WATCH THE PRESS CONFERENCE:

By Micah McCoy, Communications Specialist

I woke up Friday morning to read some good news: Argentina just voted to permit civil marriage for same-sex couples. This historic vote makes Argentina the tenth nation in the world to recognize the right of LGBT people to demonstrate their love and commitment to one another through marriage.

Wait, tenth?

Yep. The good old U.S. of A, leader of the free world and champion of democracy and human rights is lagging that far behind. Here are the countries that led the way for basic fairness in marriage:

Netherlands (2001)

Belgium (2003)

Spain (2005)

Canada (2005)

South Africa (2006)

Norway (2009)

Sweden (2009)

Portugal (2010)

Iceland (2010)

Argentina (2010)

.

This honor roll includes not just the usual suspects (the socially liberal Netherlands and Nordic countries) but also heavily Catholic countries (Spain, Portugal and Argentina). Add in South Africa, which legalized same-sex marriage a mere twelve years after the fall of Apartheid, and it just starts to get embarrassing. When did we stop leading?

Now instead of looking up to America as an example of freedom and equality, other nations look back at us through their rear-view mirror as they speed past us. How did this happen? I would argue that it is a result of our drift away from the principles in our most important founding documents: the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

Under the 14th Amendment, all American citizens are guaranteed equal protection under the law. This essentially means that you cannot recognize the civil rights of one group of people and deprive another group of those same rights without due process of law.  Under federal law, married couples receive over 1000 benefits and responsibilities that unmarried couples do not enjoy. Currently, same-sex couples are denied these benefits under the law simply because of who they love.

This is about caring, responsibility and commitment. Marriage would provide a way for committed same-sex couples to protect and care for the people they love. Denying committed couples basic legal protections hurts them; it’s wrong to make it harder for committed couples to take care of and be responsible for each other. Hospital visitation rights, pension benefits and inheritance rights are just a few of the many legal protections same-sex couples do not have access to.

Opponents of marriage equality wish to deny the protections and societal acceptance that come with marriage because they sincerely believe they are protecting their concept of “traditional marriage.” But what is a traditional marriage? Polygamy, dowries, arranged marriages, forced marriages of pre-adolescents, legal ownership of spouses: all once an integral part of “traditional marriage.” Over time our understanding of what marriage should be has changed, and it’s time for us to change once more.

We’ve fallen behind in this particular issue, but it’s never too late to start leading again. We need to reaffirm our commitment to fairness and equality by making the United States of America number 11 on that list.

By Micah McCoy, Communications Specialist

Two weeks ago Las Vegas Police Chief Gary Gold announced that that Tasers would no longer be used in his department. ACLU-NM applauds this principled move on the part of the Las Vegas, NM Police Department, and in honor of their decision, we’d like to take a moment to talk a bit more about why other cities and counties should reexamine their policies on the use of this weapon as well.

Tasers are projectile weapons that use compressed nitrogen gas to propel two darts that deliver a 50,000 volt electric shock into the body of a target, causing temporary loss of muscle control and disablement. These weapons are marketed as a “less than lethal” alternative for police officers and armed security guards to incapacitate a dangerous individual. However, there is a growing body of evidence that puts this “less than lethal” brand in serious question.

Just for starters, Amensty International estimates that more than 350 individuals have died after being shocked by these “less than lethal” devices since 2001. They also warn that we know dangerously little about the probable health risks associated with Taser use:

Medical studies so far on the effects of Tasers have either been limited in scope or unduly influenced by the weapons’ primary manufacturer. No study has adequately examined the impact of Tasers on potentially at-risk individuals — people who have medical conditions, take prescription medications, are mentally ill or are under the influence of narcotics. Rigorous, independent, impartial study of their use and effects is urgently needed to determine what role Tasers may have played in the 351 deaths and to determine appropriate guidelines for future Taser use.

In 2005, the ACLU of Northern California published an extensive study of Taser use in California entitled “STUN GUN FALLACY: How the Lack of Taser Regulation Endangers Lives,” which paints a compelling picture of how Tasers are used inappropriately and excessively in law enforcement. The report examines the deceptive marketing practices by the manufacturer (Taser International), lack of proper law enforcement training on the weapon’s use and a general lack of acknowledgement of the associated medical risks:

In light of these concerns and the rising death toll associated with Taser use, the ACLU of Northern California (“ACLUNC”)has conducted a thorough survey of 79 law enforcement agencies throughout northern and central California to determine how Tasers are being used. A close review of thousands of pages of policy and training materials used by departments reveals that, despite the growing number of deaths, increasing concern from medical and other experts about Taser safety, and extensive media coverage of problems associated with Taser use, the weapon remains largely unregulated. Of the 79 departments surveyed, 56 have added Tasers to their weapons arsenals. Of those, 54 provided their Taser-use policies and/or training materials to the ACLU-NC, which concluded the following:

• Only four departments regulate the number of times an officer may use a Taser on an individual. The others place no restriction on the number of times a suspect can be shot. This is particularly troubling considering that several of the targets in California died after being jolted multiple times.
• Only four departments created any of their own training materials for their officers. The rest relied exclusively on materials produced by Taser International.

• The training materials produced by Taser International and relied on by local law enforcement grossly exaggerate the safety of Tasers, downplay their risks, and misrepresent medical studies on their effects.

Tasers are certainly a legitimate alternative to conventional firearms in a life-threatening situation, but according to Amnesty International, 80% of the time they are used against people who are unarmed. Like the 14-year-old girl who was shot in the head with a Taser in Tucumcari, NM last year,  sending 50,000 volts directly into her brain. Or someone like 72-year-old great grandmother Kathryn Winkfein, who was tasered by a Texas constable after refusing to sign a traffic ticket. Or like Anastasio Hernandez Rojas who died on May 28^th after U.S. Border Patrol agents shocked him multiple times even though he was already restrained in handcuffs.

If you would like to ask your local police or sheriff’s department to stop using Tasers or to reexamine their Taser use policies, you can sign this petition courtesy of the petitionsite.com.

By Peter Simonson, ACLU-NM Executive Director

The GOP’s efforts to convince voters that the election system is wracked by fraud took another hit last week when the NM Court of Appeals rejected the Party’s effort to get a hold of the names and addresses of undocumented immigrants who have received state driver’s licenses.  The GOP had hoped to use the information to check whether non-citizen immigrants were registered to vote in New Mexico.

Talk about a wild goose chase.  What immigrant is going to risk felony charges, permanent deportation, and the total upheaval of his or her family just to cast a ballot in a US election?  Barely fifty percent of American citizens exercise that right even in the best of years!

What’s really concerning is how readily local GOP leaders will sacrifice individuals’ right to privacy in the zeal to find evidence of voter fraud.  Two years ago the ACLU sued members of the Republican Party for violating state privacy laws after the Party obtained copies of individual voter registration forms and released the information to the press.  GOP members also used the information to track down lawful voters and challenge their right to vote in their homes.

Americans don’t need another disincentive to vote, like the belief that fraud so compromises the election system that voting is fruitless.  If the GOP truly has the best interests of our electoral democracy in mind, it should devote its effort to encouraging New Mexicans to take part in elections.  It could start by promoting mobile vote registration campaigns and removing ID requirements for voting in Albuquerque elections.

Like a bad penny, the death penalty is back in the news again due to the conviction of Michael Astorga for the murder of sheriff’s Deputy James McGrane, Jr.  Although the state legislature voted to repeal the death penalty and replace it with life without parole and Governor Richardson signed the bill into law over a year ago, Astorga committed his crime before the death penalty repeal went into effect on July 1, 2009 so he is still eligible for the ultimate punishment. Fortunately, this is probably the last time taxpayers will need to fund a death penalty murder prosecution. No other murders that occurred before the law changed involve the death penalty, with one exception—if someone is arrested and convicted for the multiple murders of the women found out on the West Mesa, it would also likely be a death penalty case.

The thing that has annoyed me the most about seeing Astorga’s conviction splashed across the news, is the reaction of the politicians. Not only is the “tough on crime” posturing back, it has a twist—now the question is which woman governor wannabe is the toughest on crime. Who’s willing to pull the switch, or plunge the needle? Heaven forbid we elect a squeamish governor who doesn’t have the stomach to “follow the law of the land.”  As a feminist since birth, I’d always hoped that the advent of women in politics would project some rationality into the debate on the critical issues of the day. But American voters don’t seem to respond to rationality—and there is no issue more emotional than murder and the death penalty.

Also making news recently, was the Utah execution by firing squad of Ronnie Lee Gardner last Friday. Utah resumed use of the death penalty in 1977 when Gary Mark Gilmore was the first man to face the firing squad after the U.S. Supreme Court had first declared the death penalty cruel and unusual punishment and then changed course and allowed states to punish by death with restrictions. The difference this time was that the Utah AG Mark Shurtleff tweeted about the event. I think that’s an excellent demonstration of how capital punishment actually trivializes and de-values human life.

We will be hearing more about the death penalty in New Mexico because Michael Astorga gets a second jury trial to determine if he will be sentenced to death. Jury selection is currently scheduled to begin September 1^st. The sentencing trial will last four to six weeks. New Mexico juries do not impose the death penalty very often. I hope they don’t do it in this case either. It would be a violation of the public’s will if Astorga is sentenced to death despite our repeal of the death penalty.

-Kathleen MacRae, Development Director

Learn more about the ACLU’s work to abolish the death penalty, the ultimate denial of civil liberties.