{"id":13918,"date":"2010-03-01T18:05:23","date_gmt":"2010-03-02T01:05:23","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.nmpolitics.net\/index\/?p=13918"},"modified":"2010-03-02T23:35:26","modified_gmt":"2010-03-03T06:35:26","slug":"sheriff-takes-over-case-involving-las-cruces-city-manager","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/nmpolitics.net\/index\/2010\/03\/sheriff-takes-over-case-involving-las-cruces-city-manager\/","title":{"rendered":"Sheriff takes over case involving Las Cruces city manager"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"\"<\/a>

The Las Cruces Police Department building (Photo by Heath Haussamen)<\/p><\/div>\n

DA says Las Cruces police had a conflict because Terrence Moore is the police chief\u2019s boss; LCPD disputes that but hands over case \u2018to remove this potential of perceived cloud of impropriety\u2019<\/h4>\n

The Do\u00f1a Ana County Sheriff\u2019s Department is taking over a Las Cruces Police Department investigation into two incidents involving City Manager Terrence Moore<\/a> and his ex-wife.<\/p>\n

The case transfer took place Friday afternoon after Do\u00f1a Ana County District Attorney Susana Martinez<\/a> raised concerns about the way LCPD handled the case and urged the transfer to the sheriff\u2019s department. It also followed weeks of inquiries from this reporter that included reviews of police documents and audio recordings.<\/p>\n

Last year, Las Cruces police looked into injuries Moore\u2019s then-wife suffered in late 2008 and questions surrounding a police report the city manager filed over a prescription-drug incident in January 2009, treating the two incidents as a single case. Las Cruces police closed the case without filing charges.<\/p>\n

Martinez said LCPD should not have been investigating a case involving its own boss and should have turned the case over to an outside agency at the start. Moore oversees the police chief and, by extension, the police department.<\/p>\n

\u201cThis sort of an investigation should have been conflicted out (from the beginning). It should have been transferred to another law enforcement agency so there wasn\u2019t even the appearance of impropriety,\u201d Martinez said in an interview.<\/p>\n

Martinez\u2019s urging of the transfer came after she reviewed police reports and talked with Interim LCPD Chief Pete Bradley<\/a>. She said the investigation was not thorough, which, given Moore\u2019s position over the police department, creates an appearance of impropriety.<\/p>\n

Among her concerns: Police interviewed Moore\u2019s then-wife but, though there was reason to suspect that she might have been the victim of domestic violence, they didn\u2019t interview Moore.<\/p>\n

Moore: \u2018I haven\u2019t even been accused of anything\u2019<\/h3>\n
\"\"<\/a>

Las Cruces City Manager Terrence Moore (Photo by Heath Haussamen)<\/p><\/div>\n

Bradley told this reporter Friday that he believed LCPD handled the situation appropriately. He said he was going to have a certified domestic violence instructor who works for LCPD review the case to make sure nothing was missed and would contact the district attorney for a possible transfer if the instructor found something.<\/p>\n

Less than three hours after making that statement, Bradley handed the case over to Sheriff Todd Garrison<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Bradley said Sunday he changed his mind \u201cto remove this potential of perceived cloud of impropriety.\u201d He still maintains that LCPD handled the case appropriately and that there was no impropriety. He said he doesn\u2019t expect the sheriff to find anything LCPD did not.<\/p>\n

\u201cNothing changed about my belief of what occurred or anything else, it\u2019s just there\u2019s so much interest in this, and so many fingers pointing out impropriety and conflict of interest,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n

Bradley wasn\u2019t chief at the time of the investigation. He was a deputy chief, and he took over as interim chief when Harry Romero retired from the top job at LCPD on Nov. 31. Romero could not be reached for comment for this article.<\/p>\n

Contacted Saturday, Moore said that no one has alleged \u201cthat I\u2019ve done anything wrong.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cI haven\u2019t even been accused of anything,\u201d Moore said. \u201cSo how could this even be an issue?… I haven\u2019t done anything. There\u2019s nothing there. There never was, to begin with.\u201d<\/p>\n

He declined to comment further.<\/p>\n

Moore\u2019s then-wife did not allege a crime<\/h3>\n

Last\u00a0year, Las Cruces police looked into two incidents: injuries Moore\u2019s then-wife suffered in late 2008, and a\u00a0police report\u00a0Mr. Moore filed over a prescription-drug incident in January 2009.<\/p>\n

Moore\u2019s ex-wife has not alleged that Moore or anyone else committed crimes against her. But injuries to her head, and the police report Moore filed, caught the attention of LCPD Officer Maurice Hernandez in March 2009.<\/p>\n

Hernandez is stationed at the school at which Moore\u2019s ex-wife teaches, and on March 5, 2009 \u2013 a day after Moore filed for divorce \u2013 his then-wife approached Hernandez at the school. According to the police report Hernandez filed that day, Mrs. Moore told Hernandez that Mr. Moore had \u201cpushed\u201d his way into the house, having come to \u201cpick up some of his things,\u201d and refused to leave until she threatened to call police.<\/p>\n

The report also states that Moore\u2019s then-wife expressed concern about Moore getting \u201cnasty\u201d with her at their son\u2019s soccer practice and taking her copy of their will when he moved out of the house.<\/p>\n

Hernandez filed a second report on March 6 in which she states that Moore\u2019s then-wife \u201capologized for getting me involved and said that she didn\u2019t want to cause me any trouble.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cShe then went on to tell me that her husband, Mr. Moore had called and left some messages and had named me by name stating that I\u2019d been told by my bosses that the situation was being handled, or something like that,\u201d Hernandez wrote in her report.<\/p>\n

Neither Hernandez nor Moore\u2019s ex-wife would comment for this report.<\/p>\n

Bradley confirmed that, over the course of the next several days, Hernandez had some off-the-record conversations with Mrs. Moore, whose divorce from Mr. Moore was finalized on Nov. 30 of last year. On March 12, Hernandez conducted a formal interview with Moore\u2019s then-wife at the school.<\/p>\n

Hernandez questioned Mrs. Moore at length about two incidents, according to an audio recording of that interview that was obtained by this reporter in response to a public records request.<\/p>\n

Head injuries required three stitches<\/h3>\n

In late 2008, Mrs. Moore sustained a black eye and a cut on the back of her head. She was examined by a neighbor \u2013 a retired physician who told her she needed to go to the hospital, she told Hernandez during the interview.<\/p>\n

The cut required three stitches, Mrs. Moore told Hernandez. She refused to tell Hernandez how she sustained the injuries, according to the recording of the interview.<\/p>\n

\u201cBut it did get physical?\u201d Hernandez asked.<\/p>\n

\u201cI didn\u2019t say that,\u201d Mrs. Moore answered.<\/p>\n

Mrs. Moore also explained to Hernandez why she wouldn\u2019t tell her certain things, including what caused the injuries.<\/p>\n

\u201cI\u2019m trying to keep most of it as quiet as possible. \u2026 I\u2019m thinking about my future now\u2026 because I\u2019m worried about his ability to pay child support, and my alimony,\u201d she said to Hernandez during the interview.<\/p>\n

She did tell Hernandez that, when she sustained the injuries, Mr. Moore \u201cwanted the paperwork to say I fainted. That was so important to him.\u201d<\/p>\n

She didn\u2019t say during the interview whether she actually did faint.<\/p>\n

Mr. Moore declined to answer, or even be asked, specific questions about his ex-wife\u2019s statements made during the recorded interview with Hernandez, or about other aspects of the police probe.<\/p>\n

Moore, ex-wife told different stories about prescription situation<\/h3>\n

In January 2009, Mr. Moore filed a report with LCPD about an incident involving a prescription drug\u00a0for his wife that was picked up from Walgreens Pharmacy. He claimed, according to the report, that his wife picked up her prescription, realized it was the wrong medication, returned it to Walgreens and got the right prescription.<\/p>\n

\u201cIt did not appear to Mr. Moore or his wife that anything amiss occurred that this was just an error,\u201d the report states.<\/p>\n

But that\u2019s not what Mrs. Moore said happened when asked about the situation during the March 12 interview with Hernandez.<\/p>\n

She told Hernandez that Mr. Moore picked up the prescription from Walgreens and brought it home to her. When she opened the bag, she told Hernandez, she found unmarked pills that didn\u2019t look like her normal medication in a bottle that had Wite-Out over the description of the pills inside it.<\/p>\n

In addition, the part of the bottle\u2019s label that described the pills \u201cwas torn off,\u201d Moore\u2019s then-wife told Hernandez during the interview.<\/p>\n

Mrs. Moore and Hernandez discussed whether Mr. Moore, or someone else such as a pharmacy employee, might have tampered with the prescription medication. Mrs. Moore told Hernandez she didn\u2019t want to think about the possibility of Moore being involved.<\/p>\n

\u201cNot like he would try to kill me. Come on, let\u2019s \u2013 I\u2019m too, I\u2019m young, I\u2019m healthy, they\u2019d have to do an autopsy. Come on,\u201d Mrs. Moore said after Hernandez told her she was glad she didn\u2019t take any of the pills.<\/p>\n

\u201cAnd maybe we\u2019re just thinking too far into it,\u201d Hernandez replied.<\/p>\n

Chief says police didn\u2019t have probable cause<\/h3>\n

Chief Bradley defends his department\u2019s decision to close the case.<\/p>\n

Moore\u2019s then-wife \u201cbumps right up to the edge\u201d of alleging crimes in her conversations with Hernandez, but didn\u2019t go far enough to trigger further police action, Bradley said during his interview with this reporter.<\/p>\n

\u201cOK, do we have any indication that there was an intentional act to poison anybody or anything else? No we do not. Do we have any supporting documentation or evidence that says one is telling the truth over the other? No we do not,\u201d Bradley said. \u201c\u2026 Now if we have one person step up to say, \u2018I think he intentionally tried to poison me,\u2019 boom, I mean, flags go off and everything else occurs.\u201d<\/p>\n

There\u2019s no indication that police did anything further to investigate after Hernandez\u2019s March 12 interview with Moore\u2019s then-wife.<\/p>\n

This reporter obtained police reports, and related audio recordings, through a records request. They were public because the case had been closed, and police said that was all there was to the case file.<\/p>\n

There\u2019s nothing in the police file to indicate that the case was ever assigned to a detective. There\u2019s nothing to suggest that police looked for evidence of whether Moore or his wife picked up the prescription at Walgreens, such as a receipt or security camera video; the case file does not contain either. It also appears that police did not interview the neighbor who examined Mrs. Moore the night she suffered her injuries in 2008.<\/p>\n

And there\u2019s nothing in the file to indicate that police ever interviewed or attempted to interview Mr. Moore about either incident.<\/p>\n

Police flagged report and kept some details from the public<\/h3>\n

There\u2019s also evidence that police treated the report Mr. Moore filed related to the prescription drugs as a sensitive matter.<\/p>\n

Hernandez, while telling Moore\u2019s then-wife during the March 12 interview how she could obtain a copy of the report Moore filed, said police were \u201chandling this like it\u2019s just an, everybody off the street, anybody off the street, not a special person, not no special privileges or anything like that.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cYou might have to go through some little red tape because, because, like I said, it is a secured report,\u201d Hernandez said.<\/p>\n

A secured report is one that has been flagged by someone at LCPD as sensitive for some reason, LCPD spokesman Dan Trujillo told this reporter. When that happens, the section of the report containing a narrative of the incident is not available to the public, he said.<\/p>\n

Reasons to secure a report could include that the incident involves juveniles, Trujillo said. That was not the case with this report, but in this reporter\u2019s experience, it\u2019s not unusual for LCPD to flag reports involving public officials.<\/p>\n

\u201cWhy would it be secured if they\u2019re treating it like anyone off the street?\u201d Mrs. Moore asked Hernandez during the March 12 interview about the report Mr. Moore filed.<\/p>\n

\u201cI don\u2019t, I don\u2019t ask those questions because I\u2019m not going to get those answers, so I just don\u2019t ask,\u201d Hernandez replied. \u201cSome things are better left unsaid.\u201d<\/p>\n

Reached by phone by this reporter, Hernandez said she could not talk about the situation because doing so would probably violate LCPD policy.<\/p>\n

Moore\u2019s ex-wife did not respond to phone messages seeking comment. And when this reporter sent a message to a Facebook account that appears to belong to her, Mr. Moore called to say his ex-wife contacted him about the message, and that she didn\u2019t want to talk. Again, Mr. Moore refused to answer specific questions.<\/p>\n

Martinez questions thoroughness of police inquiry<\/h3>\n

Martinez said the \u201cstandard method of investigating\u201d a possible domestic violence incident includes \u201call possible suspects being interviewed, and all possible victims being interviewed.\u201d Police should have interviewed Mr. Moore about the injuries Mrs. Moore suffered, she said.<\/p>\n

\u201cAll possibly involved individuals are interviewed because it is necessary to make sure you are getting the whole story and the truth,\u201d Martinez said.<\/p>\n

Bradley said there wasn\u2019t probable cause to justify interviewing Moore about either incident. And there was no attempt to obtain evidence from Walgreens because police can\u2019t access pharmacy records \u201cwithout probable cause that a crime has been committed,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n

Bradley said the department closed the case because no one, including Moore\u2019s then-wife, was alleging that a crime had occurred, and police had no other evidence to prove a crime.<\/p>\n

\u201cIt would be safe to say that we suspected something occurred, that we were not getting the whole story, that we were unable to get the whole story,\u201d Bradley said.<\/p>\n

But suspecting that something occurred, Bradley said, isn\u2019t the same as suspecting that a crime had been committed.<\/p>\n

\u201cWe didn\u2019t suspect a crime occurred. We wanted to make sure a crime hadn\u2019t occurred,\u201d he said. \u201c\u2026 it\u2019s a subtle difference.\u201d<\/p>\n

Bradley said LCPD went beyond what it normally would have done in such a case \u2013 through attempts to build a relationship with Moore\u2019s then-wife and get her to open up \u2013 \u201cfor the simple reason that it would appear to be improper had we not.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u2018Because her husband is the boss of the\u00a0police department\u2019<\/h3>\n

Martinez said interaction between Bradley and this reporter illustrates why the Las Cruces police should have turned over the case to an outside agency from the start.<\/p>\n

Over the course of seven weeks, Bradley rejected, through the police spokesman, two requests from this reporter for an interview, and he did not return a message left with the police administration receptionist. It was only on Friday, when Mr. Moore called him and asked him to talk with this reporter, that Bradley agreed to an interview.<\/p>\n

Martinez said the fact that Moore was able to change Bradley\u2019s mind reinforces her point about Moore\u2019s influence over LCPD.<\/p>\n

\u201cWhen there is an appearance of impropriety doesn\u2019t necessarily mean there\u00a0is impropriety,\u201d Martinez said. \u201cThe concern is if the victim \u2013 if there is a victim \u2013 believes he has some kind of authority over the investigating agency and that makes her feel intimidated. The conflict of interest is where she does not feel comfortable giving information \u2013 if there\u2019s information to give \u2013 because her husband is the boss of the\u00a0police department.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cCertainly, that was something she said she was concerned about when speaking to the LCPD officer,\u201d Martinez said about Moore\u2019s then-wife.<\/p>\n

Bradley said the LCPD investigation never reached the point at which police would have considered whether a conflict of interest existed.<\/p>\n

\u201cHad there been any indication of criminal activity, allegations of criminal activity, we would have made the decision whether or not to handle it ourselves or farm it out,\u201d Bradley said.<\/p>\n

Bradley also said he has \u201cno knowledge of any pressure\u201d being applied by Moore in an attempt to steer the investigation.<\/p>\n

\u201cI saw absolutely no indication,\u201d Bradley said.<\/p>\n

\u201cAnd I can tell you, up front, that if there would have been an arrest to be made, my former boss would have been waving the handcuffs,\u201d Bradley said of Romero.<\/p>\n

\u2018Get it dealt with as quickly as possible\u2019<\/h3>\n

Sheriff Garrison expressed no opinion on whether LCPD should have given the case to the sheriff\u2019s department or another agency in the first place, but said he\u2019s happy to honor Bradley\u2019s request to investigate.<\/p>\n

He said the department will utilize what LCPD has already done and do its own investigation beyond that.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe intent is to get it dealt with as quickly as possible,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The Do\u00f1a Ana County Sheriff\u2019s Department is taking over a Las Cruces Police Department investigation into two incidents involving City Manager Terrence Moore and his ex-wife. The case transfer comes after the district attorney raised concerns about LCPD investigating a case involving its own boss and urged the transfer.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[11,1],"tags":[145],"class_list":["post-13918","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-news-and-analysis","category-uncategorized","tag-las-cruces"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/nmpolitics.net\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13918","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/nmpolitics.net\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/nmpolitics.net\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/nmpolitics.net\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/nmpolitics.net\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=13918"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/nmpolitics.net\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13918\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/nmpolitics.net\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=13918"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/nmpolitics.net\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=13918"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/nmpolitics.net\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=13918"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}