Attorney: BCSO downplayed use of force in arrest
Motion filed to dismiss case, says reports omit sergeant’s involvement
While the state was preparing for the trial of a man accused of fleeing a traffic stop and other crimes last March, incident reports and documents provided to his defense attorney scarcely mention the name of the highestranking law enforcement official at the scene — who is now himself charged with a felony for his actions during the arrest.
Not even the man’s defense attorney knew her client was being considered a victim of excessive force until she happened upon an article in the Journal about the charges against a sheriff’s deputy in late September.
Bernalillo County Sheriff’s Office Sgt. David Priemazon was charged late last month with aggravated battery causing great bodily harm after a New Mexico State Police investigation determined he had kicked 34-year-old Chris-
topher Lucero in the face, fracturing his eye socket, following the pursuit. According to a criminal complaint filed in Metropolitan Court, “the physical force was not for purposes of lawful arrest, search or confinement.”
In Lucero’s jail booking photo, he is wearing a neck brace, his face is bloodied and one of his eyes appears to be swollen shut. In September, he filed a claim against Bernalillo County, but the status of that claim is unclear and no one from the county’s legal department returned phone calls requesting information.
Lucero’s defense attorney, Sarah Pepin, said she is concerned that she wasn’t told about the investigation over the deputy’s actions during the arrest and wonders if the charges against Priemazon had not been filed whether she would have known the extent to which her client had been kicked in the face.
“This is about far more than Sergeant Priemazon’s certainly concerning conduct on the date of incident in this case,” Pepin said during a motion hearing on Lucero’s criminal case held Wednesday.
“What I do know is someone at the (District Attorney’s) 2nd District or someone at BCSO decided we’re not going to give over all this evidence that relates to Sergeant Priemazon’s illegal conduct in this case. We’re going to scrub his presence entirely.”
Pepin filed a motion to dismiss Lucero’s case last week, alleging the state failed to disclose evidence and may be guilty of prosecutorial misconduct. A judge will hold another hearing on the matter this week.
Michael Patrick, a spokesman for the 2nd Judicial District Attorney’s Office, denied any misconduct and said that it was “both ironic and sad that rather than crediting the District Attorney’s Office for charging a bad cop for excessive force, the defense has instead chosen to twist the facts and misrepresent the law to the benefit of a career criminal.”
He said Priemazon’s actions during the arrest don’t exonerate Lucero from the crimes he is charged with.
Deputy Felicia Maggard, a sheriff’s office spokeswoman, said she could not comment on the case because it’s a “personnel matter.” She said 48-yearold Priemazon is a 15-year veteran of the force and remains on administrative leave.
Sam Bregman, Priemazon’s attorney, denied the charges all together.
“In our preliminary review of the evidence, it’s pretty clear this did not take place,” he said. “There was no excessive force used on this individual, and we look forward to clearing his good name in a court of law.”
‘Softening techniques’
Lucero was arrested March 19 after deputies spotted him in an orange Ford Escape bearing another vehicle’s license plate, according to a criminal complaint filed in Metropolitan Court. He was indicted on charges of aggravated assault on a peace officer, aggravated fleeing, possession of a firearm by a felon, use or possession of drug paraphernalia and possession of a controlled substance.
Deputies say they tried to pull him over, but he fled, swerving toward two teenage pedestrians as he did so. A pursuit was initiated and, as he sped away, deputies say Lucero drove the wrong way on Coors SW and accelerated toward a deputy in a marked cruiser.
A couple of miles away, deputies performed a “pursuit intervention technique” on the SUV Lucero was driving and it crashed, rolling over three times. He ran but deputies caught him and used “softening techniques” to subdue him, according to the complaint.
These “softening techniques” are described in police reports by at least two deputies (not Priemazon) as “striking Lucero’s upper bicep and back of his shoulder with closed and opened fists” and using palm and elbow strikes “on the fleshy, meaty portion of his back and right side.”
However, “Sgt. Priemazon’s presence and behavior are not mentioned in the police reports filed in this case by deputies,” Pepin wrote in her motion to dismiss Lucero’s case.
This is despite the fact that within 24 hours of Lucero’s arrest, another deputy reported up the chain of command that he believed the sergeant used excessive force. And in the midst of an internal affairs investigation, the incident was sent to State Police for a criminal investigation.
Pepin says there are photos of Lucero’s injuries and Priemazon’s boots that she has not been given.
She provided the Journal with two copies of police reports that appear to show that Priemazon’s name was deleted. His name is listed as an “approving officer” on a physical copy turned over to the defense a week after Lucero was arrested but are missing from the electronic copies submitted as part of discovery.
“I don’t know why there are two versions of this report — one that has his name and one set without his name on it,” Pepin said in a phone interview. “I don’t know why that exists ... I would have explored this if I had known it. Basically, why do two versions of the police report exist? Who did the two versions of the police report? Who made the decision to send the versions without his name?”
Case sent to 13th District
The 2nd Judicial District Attorney’s Office was notified of a criminal investigation into Priemazon after State Police began investigating and the office began receiving documents on the case in early August, according to Patrick, the DA’s Office spokesman.
And in mid-September — about two weeks before Priemazon was charged with aggravated battery — Lucero’s case was sent to the 13th Judicial District Attorney’s Office due to the conflict of interest.
In a motion filed in mid-October, prosecutors in the 13th Judicial District asked for all evidence regarding the action’s of Priemazon to be excluded from testimony because it is “irrelevant and highly prejudicial.” Priemazon was not called to be a witness in Lucero’s trial.
In a hearing on the motion to dismiss held Wednesday, prosecutors with the 13th Judicial District argued that they had recently received the case and didn’t know what the prior prosecutors did or didn’t do. They said Priemazon’s alleged actions during the arrest did not have any bearing on what Lucero is charged with.
Lemuel Martinez, the district attorney for the 13th Judicial District, declined to comment.
To sort all this out, District Court Judge Jacqueline Flores scheduled an evidentiary hearing for this week and asked Pepin to provide names of BCSO and DA’s Office personnel she would like questioned.
In response, prosecutor Vincent Martinez filed a motion asking for the hearing to be postponed until the state could have time to ask the New Mexico attorney general to act as a special prosecutor for them.
In the motion, he wrote that the hearing “creates a conflict because testimony and evidence may be required to be produced that would by its nature pull the Thirteenth Judicial District Attorney’s Office into the original conflict that caused this matter to be reassigned to the Thirteenth Judicial District Attorney.”