Hobbs Police Not Off Hook: Judge Orders Department to Self-Monitor for Racial Discrimination
/
Originally published in the Albuquerque Journal (New Mexico) June 19, 2004
By: Rene Romo Journal Southern Bureau
Dealings With Minorities To Remain Under Scrutiny
In an opinion highly critical of the Hobbs Police Department, a federal judge this week ordered the department to self-monitor its officers' contacts with racial minorities for another year.
Self-monitoring was part of a settlement reached in 2001 in a class-action lawsuit alleging Hobbs officers discriminated against the city's black residents. The self-monitoring was scheduled to end Monday.
This week, U.S. District Chief Judge Martha Vazquez ordered its continuation, criticizing the Hobbs Police Department's "substantial non-compliance for a significant portion" of the agreement's term.
She cited cases that showed "potential improper police conduct" that should have triggered an internal affairs review, but didn't. One case involved an officer who struck and broke the leg of a woman who, handcuffed and sitting on a curb, attempted to stand.
However, Vazquez did not grant the plaintiffs' main request to sanction the police department or tighten the agreement's terms. Vazquez ruled that she construed the stipulated agreement as a contract, which she did not have the authority to modify.
Vazquez also declined to replace an outside department monitor and mediator whom plaintiffs complained was lax in his oversight.
According to the 2001 settlement, Hobbs police agreed to compile race-based data on arrests, investigative detentions and uses of force by officers for three years to allow a monitor, the plaintiffs and the department to identify potentially discriminatory conduct.
The 23-page opinion by Vazquez pointed to more than 20 apparent violations of the stipulated agreement.
Both sides claimed victory. Albuquerque attorney Richard Rosenstock, who with fellow attorney Daniel Yohalem represented the black plaintiffs, said that, while the judge did not grant all the plaintiffs' requests, the ruling described the police department's shortcomings.
Rosenstock said he hoped the opinion will spur improvements by Hobbs police administrators of "the understanding that many officers and detectives have of the laws of search and seizure."
Hobbs attorney Josh Harris said, "The city is obviously quite pleased that Judge Vazquez denied at least 80 to 90 percent of what the plaintiffs wanted."
Police support data
Harris said he planned to file a motion seeking reconsideration of some of Vazquez's findings, in part because the defense did not respond substantively to some of the criticisms.
Vazquez's ruling noted that Hobbs police data show blacks are "being arrested, subjected to force and subjected to investigative detentions in numbers significantly greater than" the percentage of black residents in the city.
Blacks make up about 6.8 percent of Hobbs' population, but blacks made up 15.1 percent of those given field interviews by police and 16.4 percent of arrests, according to data compiled in 2001 and 2002.
Blacks also made up one-fifth of all arrests for the discretionary charge of resisting, evading or obstructing an office, the order noted.
Hobbs police argued the data does not demonstrate discriminatory treatment because "it is a fact that blacks commit crimes at a rate in excess of their population in the community," the ruling states.
Vazquez said her duty was not to weigh the merits of the that argument, which she described as unpersuasive, but only whether the city complied with the agreement.
Vazquez said the data should have triggered internal affairs investigations under the agreement, but those did not occur.
"Internal affairs at Hobbs looked at every single police report," Harris responded, adding, "It would be unfair to conclude that police did not review officer conduct."
'Patterns of conduct'
Vazquez noted Hobbs police data suggests some officers may have engaged in "patterns of conduct" that weighed more heavily on blacks and other minority residents. Yet police did not conduct internal affairs investigations of the officers, Vazquez wrote.
The judge noted police officers filled out "numerous" field interview cards "which, on their face, lack reasonable suspicion for a non-consensual detention." Reasons officers noted for stopping minority residents for questioning included "coming out of an alley after dark," walking down the street at 7:30 p.m. carrying a cordless drill, and walking down the street in a "high burglary area."
The judge cited three cases that showed "potential improper police conduct" that should have triggered internal affairs review.
In one case, three officers entered the house of Verna Hodge, a black woman, without a warrant and allegedly without consent, after receiving an anonymous tip that Hodge's son had burglarized a neighbor's house and stolen jackets. Though they had not contacted the alleged victim to confirm a crime had occurred, the officers detained Hodge and three others in the house for about 90 minutes while unsuccessfully trying to get a search warrant.
In a footnote, Vazquez wrote it was "very disturbing" that, though no charges were filed against Hodge's son, the police department defended its officers' actions by saying the younger Hodge had committed a felony crime. Police briefs then commented that Verna Hodge had the "audacity" to file a citizen complaint against the detention.
The police department's "comments raise questions regarding defendant's understanding of, and commitment to protecting, the Constitutional rights of the citizens of Hobbs," Vazquez wrote.
