Carlos Garza claims he has passed the drug test he took 10 days ago.
The suspended
“The results were negative,” Garza said. “I do not have drugs in my system.”
The commission filed last week a petition asking the New Mexico Supreme Court to immediately suspend Garza without pay, force him to undergo urine and hair tests for illegal drugs, and explain why he should not be held in contempt for refusing the commission’s previous demand for the tests, which were sought because of allegations that Garza is using drugs.
Garza is already on suspension with pay until Nov. 3 while the commission conducts five separate investigations into other serious allegations. In addition, he was placed on judicial probation after admitting earlier this year that he improperly involved himself in a drunken driving case against a woman with whom he had a personal relationship.
The high court had already sealed the file involving the other five investigations but, before today, filings in the case involving drug allegations were public. The high court sealed that file today.
The commission made two additional filings today, but the details are now secret.
The high court has scheduled a hearing on matters involving Garza for 9 a.m. on Sept. 20 in
Garza had been ordered by the commission on Aug. 17 to undergo urine and hair testing for illegal drugs within 24 hours and to sign a waiver allowing the commission access to the results. Garza did not do that. The commission accuses him of intentionally avoiding service of the order and of violating the order, while Garza claims a series of mishaps and other circumstances led to the current situation.
Regardless, Garza says he took two urine tests on Aug. 21, four days after the commission ordered testing – a “rapid results” test, which he passed but learned after he had already paid for it was not admissible in court, and a second, more accurate test. It was the results of that test he received today.
Garza did not sign a release granting the commission access to the results, and he has not taken a hair test.
When asked, Garza would not say he won’t take the hair test, and he did not say he is waiting to see whether the high court orders it. He did say that hair tests “are not reliable.”
I should note that the state’s Children, Youth and Families Division uses hair tests to monitor parents who have had drug problems and are trying to regain custody of their children.
Garza questioned whether the commission, because of his right granted by the U.S. Constitution to be free of unreasonable search and seizure, has the authority to order hair tests for drugs. The state’s high court, in a June 16, 2004 order, stated that the commission has the authority to order judges under investigation to “submit to drug testing” in accordance with state personnel rules.
But Garza believes that might violate his rights.
“I, Carlos Garza, as a judge, took an oath to uphold the United States Constitution and the Constitution of New Mexico. Those constitutions have rights for those who are accused,” Garza said. “They’re rights that have been taken away from me.”
Garza said “it’s actually in my benefit” that the high court has not yet ruled on the commission’s most recent petition. Some have expressed surprise: If there are drugs in Garza’s system, they are expiring while the commission awaits an order from the court.
Garza compared the situation to the theory of many trial-law attorneys that, the longer a jury deliberates, the more likely the outcome will favor the defendant.
However, Garza acknowledged, the court could rule either way.
“We’ll see what they decide,” he said. “That is entirely their choice.”