FOR IMMIDIATE RELEASE August 6, 2008
CONTACT: (505) 266-5915 ext. 1003
ALBUQUERQUE— Yesterday, the New Mexico Court of Appeals struck down a city ordinance, affirming an earlier ruling, that would have empowered the city of Albuquerque to forcibly medicate people with mental illnesses. The Assisted Outpatient Treatment Law (AOT) conflicted with state laws that require patient consent before treatment.  This decision is a tremendous victory - upholding civil liberties in New Mexico.
Protection and Advocacy System, Inc., the American Civil Liberties Union of New Mexico (ACLU), and The Law Offices of Peter Cubra initially sued the City in 2006, alleging that AOT subjects people with mental illness to potentially invasive treatment regimens based upon speculation that they might become dangerous.
"The Court of Appeals made clear that all people have the right to make decisions about their mental health care and that state law identifies the circumstances and creates the process by which people with mental illness may be forced to accept mental health treatment, both in and out of treatment facilities.  In addition, the Court affirms the right of people with mental illness, when they have capacity, to make advance directives for mental health treatment and have them honored," said Nancy Koenigsberg, legal director of Protection and Advocacy System.
AOT, also known as Kendra’s Law, grants judges the authority to require people receiving mental health services to take psychiatric drugs, regularly undergo psychiatric treatment, or both. Failure to comply could result in the patient’s being committed to an institution for up to 72 hours.
“The decision was not based on some arcane turn of the law,” said Peter Simonson, executive director of the ACLU of New Mexico. “The court found that the city ordinance directly conflicted with the legislature’s desire to preserve some basic rights for people with mental illness and the way those protections were written into state law.  In the wake of this decision, the city should work with the legislature to channel resources into services for people with mental illness and abandon the tack of denying basic liberties.”
In October 2006, Second District Court judge Valerie Huling struck down the law writing that the ordinance was “inconsistent with the statutorily recognized right of a competent mentally ill person to refuse consent to treatment,” including psychotropic medications, electroshock therapy, and other invasive procedures.  She also ruled that the ordinance was in “direct conflict” with a state law that “broadly recognizes a right in competent individuals to make health care decisions.”
# # #
The mission of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of New Mexico is to maintain and advance the cause of civil liberties within the state of New Mexico, with particular emphasis on the freedom of religion, speech, press, association, and assemblage, and the right to vote, due process of law and equal protection of law, and to take any legitimate action in the furtherance and defense of such purposes. These objectives shall be sought wholly without political partisanship.
The Protection and Advocacy System (P&A) is a private, non-profit organization which protects and promotes the rights of people with disabilities in New Mexico. Founded in 1979 and authorized through federal law and an Executive Order of the Governor, P&A is the state's only legal rights center for people with disabilities. Each year, after public hearings and comment, P&A sets priorities for the cases and disability problems it will address. Visit http://www.nmpanda.org/index2.htm
Related Documents:

Appeals Court Opinion (Vol 1)
.

Appeals Court Opinion (Vol 2)
.

Kendras Law Press Release (10-13-2006)

FOR IMMIDIATE RELEASE: Wednesday May 21, 2008 CONTACT: (505) 266-5915 ext. 1003

TUCSON, AZ – The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of New Mexico today filed suit against U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) authorities on behalf of two CBP agents who were suspended from duty after speaking out against the agency’s practice of “shotgunning traffic”--i.e., randomly stopping vehicles without reasonable suspicion.  Agents Juan Curbelo and William Leafstone, Jr. have worked for the CBP for 12 years. “It’s our contention that the Border Patrol is punishing these officers for breaking the agency’s ‘code of silence’ and shedding light on a practice that brazenly violates the privacy rights of motorists,” said Peter Simonson, executive director of the ACLU of New Mexico.  “Rather than being suspended from their jobs, Agents Curbelo and Leafstone should be congratulated for taking a principled stand, knowing full well that it might not sit well with some of their fellow officers.” In December 2006, Curbelo’s ex-wife, Concepcion Curbelo, and his children were stopped by a Border Patrol agent during a “shotgunning” patrol near Rodeo, New Mexico.  The agent arrested Ms. Curbelo for allegedly possessing and trafficking marijuana, and took her to the Border Patrol station in Lordsburg.  A short time later, agent Curbelo received a copy of the incident report regarding his ex-wife’s arrest.  Both he and Agent Leafstone noted inconsistencies in the report that, they concluded, were intended to cover up the fact that Ms. Curbelo was stopped without reasonable suspicion. Agent Curbelo reported his concerns to the Office of the Inspector General, in January 2007.  Agent Leafstone testified at Ms. Curbelo’s hearing regarding the practice of “shotgunning traffic.”  Both were made to remove their badges, and placed on administrative duties. Charges against Ms. Curbelo have been dismissed. “The ACLU has focused on eliminating unjustified vehicle stops, such as this one,” said Dan Pochoda, legal director of the ACLU of Arizona.  “It is inexcusable for a federal agency to retaliate against officers for speaking out against these practices.” ACLU of New Mexico Staff Attorney George Bach and co-counsel Dan Pochoda filed the lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Tucson, Arizona. # # # The mission of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of New Mexico is to maintain and advance the cause of civil liberties within the state of New Mexico, with particular emphasis on the freedom of religion, speech, press, association, and assemblage, and the right to vote, due process of law and equal protection of law, and to take any legitimate action in the furtherance and defense of such purposes. These objectives shall be sought wholly without political partisanship. Related Documents: Shotgunning Complaint

Statement of Peter Simonson, ACLU of New Mexico Executive Director

FOR IMMIDIATE RELEASE: May 16, 2008 CONTACT: (505) 266-5915 ext. 1003 The march toward full equality for gay men and lesbians took a critical step forward this week when the California Supreme Court ruled that a ban on marriage for same-sex couples was impermissible under the California state constitution.  While this victory is primarily symbolic for us here in New Mexico, it strengthens our resolve, and that of our allies, to pass legislation in our state that creates the same legal protections for same-sex couples as married couples currently enjoy.  Until that time, families in New Mexico will go without sources of security, like health insurance, that ensure their stability, and discrimination will tarnish our record on civil rights and fairness.  The time has come for freedom-loving New Mexicans to draw inspiration from the California decision and pass the Domestic Partners Rights and Responsibilities Act.

# # # The mission of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of New Mexico is to maintain and advance the cause of civil liberties within the state of New Mexico, with particular emphasis on the freedom of religion, speech, press, association, and assemblage, and the right to vote, due process of law and equal protection of law, and to take any legitimate action in the furtherance and defense of such purposes. These objectives shall be sought wholly without political partisanship.