LAS CRUCES, N.M. — U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) released stats on use-of-force incidents for fiscal year 2015, claiming a reduction in incidents, yet falling short of providing stats on all officer-civilian interactions involving force.  Most conspicuously, CBP defines force narrowly to exclude incidents that are captured by the Department of Justice’s standards. Beyond CBP’s three, chosen categories—a physical restraint, the use of an alternative device or the application of lethal force—the stats fail to provide all incidents of use of force.

"We are all for less use of force by CBP, which has a deeply troubling record of killings and excessive force. But CBP’s release today touts a decrease in use-of-force incidents based on incomplete statistics that exclude many uses of force. The announcement lacks transparency regarding pending disciplinary action or investigations and fails to assuage border residents’ concerns that CBP culture values military-style policing over de-escalation and preservation of human life," said Vicki Gaubeca,  Director, ACLU Regional Center for Border Rights.

"CBP's 2015 reduction in lethal-force use and the agency’s public release of improved data about some incidents are encouraging, yet CBP doesn't appear to be counting anywhere near all uses of force defined by the Department of Justice. Without more accurate statistics, proper investigation of numerous past cases involving deadly and abusive force, and the addition of civilian oversight, CBP will fail to build trust in border communities about its reforms,” said Chris Rickerd, policy counsel with the ACLU’s Washington Legislative Office.
 

###

SOUTHERN BORDER REGION— Today, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) released revised “standards governing transport, escort, search and detention”—commonly known as TEDS. These standards create minimum requirements for U.S. Border Patrol and the Office of Field Operations, the two components of CBP, both of which may choose to supplement these standards with their own guidance.

While the new standards provide some affirmative reforms, other unconstitutional practices continue to be maintained.
“CBP’s public release of revised standards is a welcome nod towards transparency and an encouraging sign that the agency has finally acknowledged border communities’ concerns,” said Vicki Gaubeca, director of the ACLU of New Mexico Regional Center for Border Rights. “At the same time, these standards do not guarantee fair and lawful treatment for those in CBP custody and come with no structure for oversight or accountability.”

Several constructive reforms in the new TEDS standards include limiting the use of shackles as a “punitive” measure while in CBP custody, and adopting principles required by the federal Prison Rape Elimination Act.

“These standards make clear that CBP is beginning to recognize the failings of its detention operations,” said Chris Rickerd, policy counsel with the ACLU’s Washington Legislative Office. “We commend the agency’s initial effort, including its attention to children, LGBTQ persons and individuals with disabilities. Unfortunately, the standards fall short of constitutional adequacy and fail to address a federal judge’s recent concern that ‘widespread and deplorable’ detention conditions exist because CBP policies aren’t implemented. CBP needs to designate full-time detention-oversight personnel, upgrade the policies announced today, and establish a robust, independent inspection regime for all holding cells.”
The TEDS standards continue to give CBP officials wide latitude to override the new requirements in deciding what is timely or operationally feasible. They maintain the status quo that virtually robs migrants of personal belongings. They also maintain or exacerbate a number of constitutionally suspect policies that have already resulted in the systemic abuse and mistreatment of countless men, women, and children in Border Patrol custody.

“Standards are worth little if they are not enforced,” said Peter Simonson, executive director at the ACLU of New Mexico. “These standards fail to address CBP’s oversight and accountability deficits and, unlike other DHS agencies, omit independent monitoring and nongovernmental access. Without this, our nation’s largest police force will continue to operate under a veil of secrecy that enables Border Patrol agents to ignore constitutional rights and American values.”
 

Court expedites hearing, schedules oral arguments for October 26

SANTA FE, NM—Today, the New Mexico State Supreme Court announced that it granted certiorari in Morris v. New Mexico, the case seeking the right for terminally ill, mentally competent patients to seek physician aid in dying. The court is expediting the hearing to October 26^th at 9:00 AM, when it will hear oral arguments on the constitutionality of prohibiting aid in dying.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of New Mexico and the Disability Legal Rights Center (DLRC) represent plaintiffs in the case, Dr. Katherine Morris and Dr. Aroop Mangalik, Oncologists practicing in Albuquerque, NM, and Aja Riggs, a cancer patient currently living in Santa Fe, NM.

“We appreciate the opportunity to address this urgent, important issue as soon as possible,” said ACLU-NM cooperating attorney Laura Schauer Ives. “It is our hope that the New Mexico Supreme Court will uphold the district court’s original ruling that physician aid in dying is a fundamental right for terminally ill, mentally competent patients. Many terminally ill New Mexicans are watching this case closely, anxiously awaiting to see whether they will be able to choose a peaceful death if their suffering becomes unbearable.”

###