By DAVID IZRAELEVITZ, ChairCorruption: dishonest or illegal behavior especially by powerful people (such as government officials or police officers) (Merriam-Webster Dictionary)
My fellow councilor Pete Sheehey has proposed a Council resolution to more expansively define the roles and responsibilities of the Los Alamos County Sheriff’s Office. The last paragraph of his resolution is very troubling, as it would give the Sheriff the power to perform a criminal investigation should the Police Department be deemed, in the Sheriff’s “reasonable” opinion, to be compromised. I see this expansive power as a fatal flaw in his proposal. To understand my objections, let’s dig deeper into the implications of this role.
The police is bound by oath to investigate crime impartially, thus this new and unique Sheriff’s power would be invoked when the Sheriff suspects corruption in parts of the Police Department at the minimum, or a corrupt Police Chief, County Manager, or ultimately County Council. Public corruption is a real possibility, as it is in any government, but is the Sheriff the right person to be investigating this? Under what circumstances and via what evidence would the Sheriff decide that his office “reasonably believes” a case of corruption? What constitutes “reasonable belief”? What check would exist to assure that this is a valid accusation and not a political vendetta, or itself the result of corruption in the Sheriff’s office? Sheehey’s resolution is notably silent on this.
But, let’s suppose for the moment that the Sheriff’s suspicion is well founded and a certain Councilor (say Izraelevitz) has pressured the County Manager, who in turn has directed the Police Chief to turn a blind eye to criminal behavior in our county. I have strained my imagination to think of any circumstance where the Sheriff would be better equipped to perform the investigation alone than to contact the State Police or the FBI and let them lead the investigation with the Sheriff in an auxiliary role. If the Sheriff is a responsible public official, wouldn’t this be the better course of action, and more likely to result in a strong case and conviction? The State Police and the FBI have the resources, expertise, manpower and, unfortunately, the experience in New Mexico to perform this investigation. Public corruption is the FBI’s top criminal investigative priority, including 2000 cases in 2006, according to a New York Times. Think of all the cases of corruption in our state in the last decades. Do we know of ANY case in New Mexico where public corruption was investigated by a Sheriff’s Office?
Councilor Sheehey has made a valiant effort to satisfy the demands of a small group in our community who feel that the Sheriff’s office should have primary law enforcement responsibilities in our County and has offered this “police the Police” bone as a compromise, a compromise that will likely not satisfy them anyway. I applaud his efforts to be collaborative and responsive to our citizenry, but this proposal makes absolutely no sense at all and gives the Sheriff’s Office powers and responsibilities for which it is totally unsuited.
I hope that my fellow councilors will come to the same conclusion at our upcoming July 26th meeting.
Editor’s note: David Izraelevitz is the chair of the Los Alamos County Council but wants to make clear that the opinions expressed here are his own.
