Sign by June 11, 2025

PETITION

Certification Board Independence & Authority to Investigate & Act upon Civilian & Officer Complaints Against the Law Enforcement License of a Law Enforcement Leader: No law enforcement leaders shall be above the law. 

Need for Rules:

·       The NM Law Enforcement Certification Board (LECB) statute 29-7-4.3 requires the development of new regulations to replace those under which the predecessor Law Enforcement Academy Board Operated.  When the statute was passed in 2023, the old rules were to continue until replaced by new rules so that misconduct investigations could continue without interruption.  It has now been almost 2 years during which the LECB has been operating with outdated rules. 

·       29-7-4.3 also requires that the LECB function as an independent body, administratively attached to DPS.  This is essential for its work to be free from conflicts of interest.

·       The old LEA Board rules were silent as to how the Board would handle civilian complaints and complaints that were submitted directly to the Board instead of going through a police agency review process resulting in submission of a form LEA-90. 

·       The former Attorney General who chaired the LEA Board stated publicly that civilian complaints were appropriate for review by the Board.  Further, in a presentation by Tom Grover, made to the LECB on March 20, 2025, minutes of former meetings were referenced as indicating such complaints were appropriate for Board Review. 

·       The intent of the NM legislature in creating the LECB to replace the LEA Board, was to ensure appropriate oversight, investigation and action regarding misconduct that violates the conditions for licensure/certification of all New Mexico law enforcement officers, as well as public safety telecommunicators.  The law nowhere indicates any of the following exclusions from this oversight:

o   Complaints from civilians against agency leaders

o   Complaints from law enforcement officers or public safety telecommunicators against agency leadership

o   Complaints that come in a form other than the LEA-90.

·       Statements have been made without legal foundation, by members of the LECB, the Secretary of Public Safety, and certain police chiefs indicating that it is not legal for the LECB to review, investigate, or act upon complaints by civilians, or complaints against law enforcement leadership that may come to the LECB in a manner other than an agency LEA-90 form. 

·       Statements have also been made that indicate a bias against civilian complaints that do not come through the agency review systems.  These statements are inappropriate and are against the public interest.  All persons affected by law enforcement action should have standing to express concerns about misconduct without necessarily having to file a law suit. 

 

Specific Rules Requested

 

·       The LECB is the only authority that reviews, investigates and takes action to suspend, revoke or otherwise sanction any person licensed/certified as a law enforcement officer or public safety telecommunicator by the state of New Mexico.  This authority applies regardless of rank and must include all licensed/certified law enforcement leaders regardless of the law enforcement agency in which they are employed. 

·       To ensure freedom from conflicts of interest with authorities in the Department of Public Safety (DPS)—to which the LECB is administratively attached—LECB must seek (with assistance of DPS and or the Department of Finance and Administration DFA) formal independence for budget, personnel, and administrative purposes, including securing office space, necessary equipment, security of files, and other necessities.  

·       While employment action may be taken for misconduct investigated within a law enforcement agency, such action does not revoke or suspend a license, and the individual may work elsewhere in the state.  The LECB should review employment actions taken because of misconduct if it believes the misconduct rises to the level of sanctioning a license.  Agencies are required to report such action, but may not do so consistently, or when agency leadership is involved and may intervene to prevent such reporting. 

·       Action for violation of laws may also be taken by the courts, but such action imposes fines and other penalties, not necessarily a sanction against the individual’s license. Legal actions may be reviewed by the LECB where it believes the misconduct rises to the level of sanctioning a license. 

·       There is no recourse other than LECB for a civilian or line officer within a chain of command to hold a law enforcement leader accountable for misconduct with a sanction to their license preventing future employment in the state. 

·       While agencies are required to submit misconduct complaints based on their internal investigations to the LECB, those agencies have some discretion, and have been inconsistent in submitting all such investigations to LECB.  Should civilians or others within the chain of command disagree with the agency decision regarding the seriousness of misconduct, there is currently not a clear mechanism to have a review by the LECB, but there should be.  

·       LECB rules must make a provision for formal complaints of law enforcement leadership misconduct to be reported both by civilians, and by personnel within the chain of command. LECB may want to modify the LEA-90 form to accommodate such complaints, or it may want to specify another format that ensures appropriate and adequate information is submitted to be able to screen legitimate complaints for review. It is appropriate for LECB rules to specify criteria for completeness and adequacy of content for such complaints. 

·       When reviewing alleged misconduct by law enforcement leaders, the LECB must consider violation of both criminal and civil law, as well as actions that are corrupt and inconsistent with the oath taken by all public officials regarding upholding all laws and the public trust.  It is also important to consider abuse of power as a leadership violation that interferes with the implementation of law enforcement functions.  

·       There is a history of corruption among the top ranks of law enforcement in New Mexico, and its leadership must not be excluded from any form of misconduct review. 

·       The LECB will need to consider the best mechanisms for objective investigations, using its own staff resources, as well as the State Police when appropriate, and requesting support from the NM Department of Justice as needed, but particularly when state agency personnel are the subject of complaints.  However the investigation is conducted, the LECB cannot avoid or neglect to act upon misconduct in the ranks of law enforcement leadership on the basis of any political pressures.  LECB action can be appealed to the courts.

·       The LECB will also need to consider the best mechanisms for its CEO and staff to screen incoming complaints, to ensure that they receive fair consideration.