EDITORIAL: AG's public records lawsuit could be a real eye-opener on pretrial release deficiencies

Every now and again, we’re pretty pleased with the candidate we endorsed.

While we sometimes have regrets and feel snowed, we’re not having any of those second-thoughts with New Mexico Attorney General Raúl Torrez, whom the Journal endorsed both in the primary and general election of 2022. He’s proving to be a pretty independent law enforcement leader, and a strong advocate for the press and transparency in government.

Torrez’ decision last week to sue the administrator of the state District Court in Albuquerque for denying access to pretrial release public records is making a lot journalists and watchdogs tickled pink. New Mexico journalists have for years complained about the AG's Office not aggressively intervening in public records disputes. A six-month guideline for the AG's Office to issue a recommendation to affected parties was rarely met, leaving newspapers and TV stations to fight it out alone in court.

But not this time.

Torrez filed the lawsuit on behalf of two local TV news reporters who sought records pertaining to alerts and related information about the GPS devices worn by defendants who were released instead of remaining in jail while awaiting trial.

Court administrator Katina Watson denied the requests, citing confidentiality provided by state law.

So the state’s top cop is pressing the issue on behalf of the TV journalists.

Good for him. It could have taken years of litigation and millions of dollars in legal fees for the TV stations to have the matter settled in court.

“Public safety is the most important issue in our state and citizens have a right to know if pretrial services are an effective alternative to detention, especially when judges choose to release violent offenders over the objection of police and prosecutors,” Torrez said in a news release issued Wednesday.

“No branch of government, not even the judicial branch, is allowed to operate without accountability, especially when individuals like Devin Munford are allowed to roam the streets of our community.”

Torrez cited testimony at a recent murder trial that showed Munford, now a convicted killer, routinely violated court-ordered conditions before fatally shooting a man in 2021 while on house arrest with a GPS monitor.

During a KOAT TV Target 7 special investigation, the news station reported it was revealed in court that Munford violated his ankle monitor 113 times before killing Devon Heyborne.

What happens when defendants on GPS monitors violate the conditions of their release 113 times? Nothing, if no one is minding the store.

The issue of obtaining pretrial records has, unfortunately, been a long-running saga.

For years, Torrez, as the former Bernalillo County district attorney, had been critical of the pretrial release supervision program in the 2nd Judicial District.

He should have been.

For who knows how long, no one was actively keeping track of 2nd Judicial District Pretrial Services Division defendants on evenings, weekends or holidays. The glaring loophole wasn’t discovered until the fall of 2021, after countless crimes had been committed by defendants on pretrial release.

As law enforcement leaders such as Albuquerque Police Chief Harold Medina have repeatedly said, we’ve got a revolving door of justice, with many of the same bad guys getting out of jail in a matter of hours, only to commit more crimes.

“If pretrial supervision is as reliable as proponents argue, then they should have no objection to legitimate requests from the media about how well the system is working,” Torrez added in his news release. “Refusing to turn over the information only raises new questions that we should all demand answers to.”

Well-stated. What are they trying to hide? Are there other defendants who violated their pretrial release conditions more than a hundred times before killing someone?

The AG’s lawsuit will determine if court administrators are violating the state’s Inspection of Public Records Act by refusing to produce records showing the frequency of violations of conditions of release and what occurred with each violation, if anything.

“IPRA mandates that the citizen’s right to know is the rule, and that secrecy should only be an exception,” Torrez’ office said. “This level of accountability extends to all branches of government, including institutions that oversee criminal defendants’ compliance with court-ordered conditions of release.”

Watson contends state law prohibits public release of GPS data, except to law enforcement under certain circumstances. However, state lawmakers “exempted GPS location data from public inspection, but did not exempt alerts from GPS devices or documentation resulting in those alerts,” Torrez’ lawsuit states.

Torrez’ office, now known as the New Mexico Department of Justice, is the premier source of expertise when it comes to IPRA. The AG’s Office has historically published guides on IPRA and the state’s Open Meetings Act. They are required reading for young journalists, and your average citizen wanting some information about their local government.

Many of us have requested basic things like police incident reports and school superintendent contracts only to be looked at as Russian spies. The AG oversees public records and public meetings violations and enforcement, so Torrez is the exact right person to challenge the courts.

“Despite these foundational principles, (the 2nd Judicial District Court) recently denied two separate public records requests from journalists seeking documents related to the efficacy of court-ordered location monitoring of criminal defendants,” Torrez’ office said. “These denials obstruct public scrutiny and accountability, particularly concerning the pretrial supervision of criminal defendants. The public has a vested interest in understanding the effectiveness of these government operations, especially with the continuing development of the state’s bail reform.”

When will government officials learn that they work for the public, and that every document that’s created is the public’s business, unless there’s a dang good reason not to make the information public.

Potentially being embarrassed by widespread pretrial release deficiencies is not a valid exemption.

Torrez correctly notes the withheld information is critical for the public to determine whether pretrial release conditions are protecting community safety, how pretrial services is enforcing conditions, and how they are responding to violations.

“The transparency of these operations is vital to public safety, particularly after the 2016 constitutional amendment empowering the judiciary to detain dangerous defendants pending trial,” his office said. “The SJDC’s refusal to comply with IPRA not only violates the principles of open government but also jeopardizes public safety. This legal action seeks to enforce compliance with IPRA and to ensure that the public remains informed about the operations of its government, particularly in matters affecting community safety.”

This single case could have massive ramifications on Bernalillo County’s catch-and-release criminal justice system. The more the public knows, the more likely something will de done about the existing deficiencies in our pretrial release system.

Let the gavel be lowered and the case be heard. We’re totally behind you on this one, Mr. Attorney General.