ALBUQUERQUE, NM – Today, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of New Mexico announced that it has reached a settlement with the United States government, reclaiming $16, 925 on behalf of two African-American men who allege that New Mexico State Police, the Albuquerque Police Department, and Homeland Security stopped them because of their race and then seized their money without evidence of wrongdoing. In September, 2010, New Mexico law enforcement twice detained Stephen Skinner and Jonathon Breasher—a father and son on a road trip to Las Vegas, NV—subjected them to racial insults and colluded with federal authorities to seize nearly $17,000 in cash. Neither Stephen nor Jonathon were charged with a crime.

Skinner and Breasher’s ordeal began when they were pulled over in Raton, NM by a New Mexico State Trooper for driving five miles over the speed limit. He issued them a written warning and then asked to search their vehicle. They consented and the trooper found $16,395 in cash intended for their trip to Las Vegas in their luggage. The trooper aggressively interrogated the two men, called in a drug dog, partially disassembled their rental car and notified the Drug Enforcement Agency. At one point, the trooper can be heard on his belt tape recording referring to Skinner, a man of nearly sixty years, as “boy.”

After being detained for nearly two hours by the side of the road, the troopers released Skinner and Breasher with the promise that “it wasn’t over yet.”. As they entered Albuquerque, the Albuquerque Police Department immediately pulled them over for an “improper lane change.” Minutes later a federal Homeland Security officer arrived on the scene, seized the money in their luggage, and declared their assets forfeit to the government. They then seized their rental car and dropped them off at the Albuquerque Sunport, stranded with no money or transportation.

“I think they stopped us because we were two black people,” said Skinner. “I’ve never been treated that way before. That one officer addressed me as “boy”—I’m sixty years old. I’ve never been in trouble before, I pay my taxes, worked all my life, raised my kids, tried to do what’s right—I feel violated.”

In 2002, the New Mexico state legislature passed the New Mexico Forfeiture Act prohibiting state and local law enforcement agencies from channeling forfeited civil assets into their own budgets and instead requiring them to deposit forfeited assets in the state’s general fund to be used for drug treatment, education and substance abuse prevention. Law enforcement agencies have sought ways to circumvent the act since its passage. Last year, a state court judge required Bernalillo County and former Sheriff Darren White to pay more than $3 million in damages to individuals whose cash was seized by sheriff’s deputies, then transferred to the federal government, which then kicked back 80 percent to the county.

“Essentially, New Mexico law enforcement agencies seize civil assets from people who are not charged with a crime and if those people do not have the resources to challenge the forfeitures, the federal government will then kickback the majority of the money to the local police to use at their discretion bypassing the state fund.” said ACLU-NM Executive Director Peter Simonson. “What’s worse is that in this particular case there appears to be strong indication that the whole affair was racially motivated.”

After the ACLU of New Mexico intervened on Skinner and Breasher’s behalf, the government agreed to return all of the money they seized,.

###

From the Institute of Justice report, Policing for Profit:

 

 

Even after a reform effort in 2002, New Mexico’s civil forfeiture laws still do not offer adequate protections for property owners. To secure a civil forfeiture, the government must prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that property is related to criminal activity and thus subject to forfeiture. This is a higher standard than most states but still lower than proof beyond a reasonable required to establish criminal guilt. Moreover, in most instances, property owners have the burden of proof for innocent owner claims. And law enforcement may still receive 100 percent of the proceeds from any forfeiture.

httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w2KdfENYpTU

 
TRANSCRIPT:
Good morning. My name is Aja Riggs. I’m 48 years old, and I live in Santa Fe.
In March, I heard a report on the radio about two doctors asking a court to clarify the status of aid in dying under New Mexico law. I am here today to announce that I am joining the case, and asking the court to clarify the ability of mentally competent, terminally ill patients to obtain aid in dying from their physician if they find their dying process unbearable.
Less than a year ago I learned that I have uterine cancer. That news came as a complete surprise. I had had some difficult symptoms, but none of them by themselves were abnormal. Eventually I had an ultrasound and that led to a biopsy. Then the phone call came telling me the biopsy showed cancer.
I was stunned. I remember thinking in those first moments, “Cancer: That’s a life-threatening illness.” But I was told it was the least aggressive kind, and most likely stage one. A hysterectomy would probably be all that I needed to cure it. And then I would be able to go on with my life.
Surgery on October 5^th revealed a very different story. As I was coming out of anesthesia I asked what happened. I was told that the cancer had spread much further and was much more aggressive than we originally thought. Although I was still quite hazy, I understood that I was suddenly in a whole new ballpark and that my odds of long-term survival were now drastically reduced.
My doctor told me the cancer was stage 3-C, just one step away from Stage 4, and that I would need both radiation and chemotherapy.
At the end of December I had a biopsy of a lump that had grown during the time I was in chemo. That too turned out to be cancer. My doctor had taught me a lot by then, including that a tumor growing through chemo meant my chances for survival then looked even worse.
I’ve had some painful complications from the chemo, including a neutropenic immune system crash that sent me to the ER and required a few days in the hospital. That experience was pretty scary.  That, and the amount of pain and intensive medical treatment I’ve had, has made me think: If this disease is going to end my life, I don’t know if I want to go to the very end with it. When I say the very end, I picture being in pain or mostly unconscious in a bed, with my loved ones around me in distress.
When I was younger I studied counseling and psychology; I did an internship at a hospice and thought a lot about the dying process. I thought how interesting it would be to be aware you were dying, to be conscious of that fact and able to say your goodbyes to people.
Since I got this diagnosis, I’ve been thinking again, very seriously, about how to have some control over the end of my life. When I heard about this case on the radio, it answered a dilemma I’d been struggling with: I felt I couldn’t talk about my death with the people closest to me. I was afraid to talk about it with my doctor. I thought if it came to choosing a peaceful death, I would have to do it all by myself to keep from implicating anyone else.
To end that sense of fear and isolation that people have — about one of the most important events in our lives — that’s why I think aid in dying should be an option for terminally ill patients.
I am still getting chemotherapy and other aggressive treatments. I still have a chance, even if it’s a small one. I have a good life and I want to keep living. But if the cancer is going to kill me, I want the peace of mind of knowing that I have some choice at the very end. If my dying process becomes unbearable I want my doctor to be able to prescribe medication I could take to avoid further suffering and have a peaceful death.
I understand people can’t really know how they’ll feel until they actually get there. So I don’t know for sure how I will feel as I get closer to death. But I do know I want to have the choice.
I hope that the courts will agree with the doctors and me that nothing in the law prevents a doctor from providing aid in dying.