.......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... ..........

The shooting death of 19-year-old Mary Hawkes by then-Albuquerque Police Department officer Jeremy Dear in the early morning hours of April 21, 2014, has been the subject of intense community interest. Did Hawkes, a suspected car thief fleeing on foot from police in a tough part of town, point a gun at Dear, who fired because he was in fear for his life? Or was he a trigger-happy cowboy, irritated by having to chase after a subject on foot and looking for a reason to shoot her?

Both the 2nd Judicial District Attorney’s Office and federal law enforcement have looked at the case. Neither has made a decision on whether Dear should be charged criminally.

Meanwhile, Hawkes’ family has filed a civil lawsuit against the city which, in the interest of the community and the future of APD, ideally would have resulted in a jury ascertaining the truth of what happened that night.

Barring reconsideration or action from an appellate court, that won’t happen.

ADVERTISEMENTSkip

................................................................

Several of the officers, including Dear, failed to record the events that night on their lapel cameras. Chief Judge Nan Nash, in addition to criticizing the lack of video footage, ruled this month that because the city didn’t preserve officer lapel cameras from the incident – something the city disputes – the jury would be instructed as a matter of law that police acted unreasonably in shooting Hawkes. The only issue would be how much money the family should get.

In other words, the police officers involved that night won’t be able to defend themselves and their actions.

Nash said in her ruling that because the plaintiff lawyers had been deprived of the best available evidence, which would have been video, and because juries often tend to believe police officers, the plaintiffs were at too severe a disadvantage. Further, she said she wanted to send a message to the city.

But the takeaway here was a judge who overstepped appropriate boundaries by taking the liability issue out of the hands of the jury. A trial with accomplished plaintiff’s lawyers who could argue about the significance of the unavailable video, along with a robust defense and reconstruction of that night’s events, would have been a much better community teaching moment than this piece of judicial activism. One nagging question, for example, is whether the gun found at the scene could be tied to Hawkes to the satisfaction of a jury.

Without that exercise or a criminal prosecution, the community is deprived of that truth-finding exercise known as the jury system.

Dear, to be sure, is a less-than-sympathetic character in this tragedy, and APD certainly deserves criticism.

Dear claims his camera came unplugged and therefore never turned on. Another officer’s camera had a dead battery. A third officer had some footage, but lawyers for the Hawkes family contend it could have been altered because of the pixelation it displays. The alteration claim is disputed by an independent city expert who says copies can be pixelated in editing, but that it is impossible to alter original footage without anyone knowing.

One officer has more extensive video that shows glimpses of the shooting from afar. There is video from a car wash that shows Hawkes with what appears to be a gun in hand. The family has raised questions about the gun found at the scene because it does not have Hawkes’ fingerprints or DNA on it.

Dear had a less-than-stellar record in his dealings with the public and was fired by Chief Gorden Eden after the Hawkes case for what Eden said was consistently disobeying orders requiring lapel cam use. Dear’s firing was overturned by the city personnel board and the city, in turn, has appealed to state District Court.

Nash in her decision wrote that while the lack of video recordings is troubling, what led her to take such an extreme action was the failure of the city to preserve the cameras in use that night.

But Assistant City Attorney Stephanie Griffin says the city does have at least some of the cameras, that they are available and they were offered to the plaintiffs. She said Dear’s camera was sent to the manufacturer for analysis and that the plaintiffs have that report. Griffin says some of the points relied on by Nash are not accurate and she plans to ask the judge to reconsider.

Besides, the cameras themselves aren’t evidence of what happened that night.

And the Bernalillo County Sheriff’s Office has made a deliberate decision not to equip deputies with lapel cameras. So, by Nash’s logic, would any shooting involving a BCSO deputy be unreasonable as a matter of law?

Is APD being punished because it has made an effort to record these incidents?

It is true that Nash is presiding over a civil case, and civil cases tend to be all about the money. But in this case, she should reconsider her ruling, or a higher court should reverse it. And if that happens, the city should take the case to trial rather than settle it while weaseling about “not admitting liability.”

Yes, it is about the money – taxpayer money. And in this case the search for truth is at least as important.

This editorial first appeared in the Albuquerque Journal. It was written by members of the editorial board and is unsigned as it represents the opinion of the newspaper rather than the writers.