Funding for New Mexico in Focus is provided by: Viewers Like You >> Nash: This week on New Mexico in Focus, we examine the gulf between those who want to change our state's medical malpractice laws and those who don't.

>> Grisham: All of a sudden, in the last several years, we have created a climate that is impossible for independent practitioners, and frankly it's also impossible for hospitals.

>> Nash: While many Hermits Peak Calf Canyon fire survivors still wait for relief.

The man in charge of claims cashes in.

New Mexico in Focus starts now.

Thanks for joining us this week, I'm Nash Jones.

So we have got a full docket for you tonight, including a story that has been months in the making.

We got our hands on a cache of documents purporting to show that while many people who lost property and their entire way of life in the state's largest ever wildfire are still waiting for payments, FEMA claims Director Jay Mitchell moved quickly to cut himself a check for smoke damage to suss it out, we teamed up with Source New Mexico journalist Patrick Lohmann, who's long reported on the hermits Peak Calf Canyon fire.

[New Mexico] in Focus reporter Cailley Chella takes you to Northern New Mexico tonight to explain what happened and how people who live in those devastated communities feel about it, then, District Attorney and candidate for Governor Sam Bregman, made headlines last month, saying that he would prosecute ICE agents if they detain people without legal justification in Bernalillo County.

Executive Producer Jeff Proctor sits down with Alex Uballez, the former U.S.

Attorney, to walk through whether Bregman threat could actually materialize and what it would look like if it did.

We're also going to take some time tonight to learn about efforts to address New Mexico's literacy crisis and catch up with a group of people who made a pilgrimage from Carlsbad to Santa Fe, in support of this year's signature climate bill.

But we begin at the Roundhouse, where the session's fiercest debate is focused on a bill that would restrict how much money some people could collect in malpractice lawsuits.

Supporters say the change would help address New Mexico's physician shortage.

They include Doctor Michael Lopez of Las Vegas, who I caught up with at the Capitol last week, take a listen.

>> Dr.

Lopez: I've been trying to recruit a partner since my original partner, Doctor Elliott, retired six years ago, and I've not been able to attract anybody.

People from out of state come in and they're very interested and then when they see the malpractice climate - they decline.

>> Nash: The highest profile backer of the so-called Medical Malpractice Reform Bill is, Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham.

She makes her case to correspondent Gwyneth Dolan this week, and details what she meant when she told the Albuquerque Journal that she's not leaving office without it.

>> Gwyneth: Governor, thank you so much for spending time with us today, we really appreciate it.

>> Grisham: You're welcome, thanks for having me on your program.

>> Gwyneth: You have framed Medical Malpractice reform as one element of an overall solution to the doctor shortage in New Mexico.

And the bill you're supporting focuses on punitive damages.

Why is that the best angle or an important angle to tackle?

>> Grisham: Well, I want to talk about that because it's not the most important, it's a critical component.

Punitive damages are the thing that isn't covered by malpractice insurance, but also spikes malpractice insurance.

And it creates high personal risk for both providers, individuals and hospitals.

We are a national outlier because we don't define it right.

We have the lowest evidentiary standard for punitives.

We have a weird glitch in how we define occurrence, so that a single incident, which people should be made whole for if there's been a malpractice or an injury caused by a medical practitioner, but then everyone involved in the incident, whether or not they were responsible for the problem, can add -- you can do an individual claim for each of those, so it is ballooned and stacked.

We also don't pay damages outright which then impacts what you can get in punitives.

And so all of a sudden in the last several years we have created the climate that is impossible for independent practitioners.

And frankly, it's also impossible for hospitals.

>> Gwyneth: Yeah, last week, lawmakers changed the bill to give more protection to individual doctors and local hospitals and less protection for out of state hospital systems.

What is this distinction about?

Is it about ownership or size or accountability?

>> Grisham: It's really a debate.

And I'm I'll give you the side that I'm on, about these out of state hospitals don't have the same relationships, so they don't put enough staff in and they don't spend enough money on the most clinical advanced treatment protocols and equipment.

And then they create risk by doing that.

And they should be held accountable if we don't hold them accountable at the standard, we're never going to improve the quality of care until this country moves away from the perverse profiteering in health care.

It is a much more complicated design.

That means everyone sold, that means there's 1 or 2, like Genesis, for example.

They've all declared bankruptcy.

Nobody gets made whole, and guess what?

They never hired staff and created -- new buildings care got worse.

Rural hospitals will close.

They've already got nearly $1 trillion out of the equation because of the Trump Administration and Congress in Medicaid.

They are not if the profit margins aren't good enough.

And I don't even like saying that.

It's just a reality.

They won't hire people.

They won't hire the best doctors.

They won't invest.

And so you know who is?

You are.

I've asked New Mexicans to pay for all of it because I worry about the quality of care.

And in the end, it isn't enough because the doctors will not come to New Mexico.

[Legislative Finance Committee] LFC reports has 2/3 of all current doctors are considering leaving.

>> Gwyneth: What do you say to a medical malpractice victim or a family, who experienced reckless conduct or egregious behavior that punitive damages are designed for?

If this bill becomes law?

>> Grisham: We still get punitive damages.

And you should, because gross neglect is -- disgusting and patients need to be made whole.

I'm a lawyer.

I need plaintiffs lawyers.

Sounded a little too angry about trial lawyers.

The problem is, I need them to do their jobs, which are amazing.

Protect people, make them whole.

But you can't practice in an environment that -- for whatever reason, that's so one sided, including the way in which we calculate what the costs of care for the future or what you lost is completely different than anybody else.

And it's designed so that it weighs in favor of the plaintiffs attorneys.

It should be weighing in favor of the victim and the patient, and it isn't.

So, what I'm asking the legislature to do, and New Mexicans, is don't take a side between doctors or patients for lawyers.

That's an untenable thing to ask anyone to do.

I'm asking New Mexico to rightsize our laws to make sure that patients can be protected, which is why we have a Patient Compensation fund and why we keep making sure people have access to insurance, because we want patients to be protected and have access.

But we want this to be a reasonable setting so that everybody's held accountable.

But everybody has a fair situation from which to practice.

>> Gwyneth: So, if the sort of package of changes that you want, goes into effect, how will all New Mexicans kind of notice the difference?

How will that impact them on a daily basis?

>> Grisham: You will begin to see, quickly, change in attitude, a reduction of the temperature, and the state will be in a much better position to recruit providers.

>> Gwyneth: Now, it's not a sure thing -- >> Grisham: No.

>> Gwyneth: You have said, “I'm not leaving this job without Medical Malpractice reform, but state lawmakers have been resistant to Special Sessions.” So if it doesn't happen and you've said you're willing to apply pressure, what does that look like?

>> Grisham: Well, now I'm going to disagree with you.

That's not really pressure.

That's doing my job.

New Mexicans 85 plus percent want this.

They believe that they are experiencing poor quality care because they don't have access.

And they are all concerned that their doctors are leaving.

This is not good for the state.

It's not good for families.

It's not good for economic development.

It is not good for anyone.

So what I have said is you have to address it.

That's your number one job, is solving problems for New Mexicans.

The difference this time is you have a lot of people who are really clear that something has to give, and as long it isn't the fatal flaw, they have a chance to get it up to me in the 30 Day Session if they don't.

Here's the big difference.

You have some moderate Democrats.

You have 100% of the Republicans in the House and in the Senate who want to stay or be called back for a Special Session.

This is their number one issue that changes the climate for any governor, and it certainly changes the climate for me.

So I would say, not pressure, but I've made it clear I won't shy away from creating the necessary pathways to make sure that this number one issue gets addressed.

>> Nash: You can find more of Gwyneth's interview with the governor on the New Mexico in Focus YouTube channel.

The governor and the bill's bipartisan sponsors argue New Mexico's patients will remain sufficiently protected under the proposed changes.

But a number of those who have endured injury and worse, their advocates, their attorneys, the family members of New Mexicans who have died as a result of medical malpractice have turned out in vocal opposition.

Karen Bateman of Albuquerque is among them.

Her daughter, Kelsey, died in 2018 as a result of malpractice, leaving two young children behind.

Bateman says she's concerned that the proposed changes would lead to even less deterrence and accountability for negligent doctors and hospitals.

>> Nash: Karen, thanks so much for taking the time to share your personal experience around New Mexico's medical malpractice laws.

>> Bateman: I'm so glad to be here and I'm glad to tell the story of my daughter, thank you.

>> Nash: You lost your daughter, Kelsey, to medical malpractice.

Would you like to tell us a bit about who your daughter was and what happened to her?

>> Bateman: Well, my daughter was 35 and she was giving birth to her second child and had preeclampsia, so she went into labor prematurely.

She did deliver a healthy baby boy, but she died three days later, of malpractice.

And, the cause was -- well, there were a multitude of different things that happened, but primarily she was not treated properly for her preeclampsia.

She was still suffering the effects of that when they released her prematurely from the hospital.

>> Nash: I'm so sorry for your loss.

>> Bateman: Thank you.

>> Nash: You did file suit.

Through medical malpractice, around Kelsey's death.

My understanding is that you did sign a non-disclosure agreement.

So you can't disclose everything about the case, including, what the settlement was, the amount of the settlement, the hospital or the physicians involved.

But I do have some questions about what you can disclose.

My understanding is that it was a settlement.

It didn't go to trial.

Is that right?

>> Bateman: That's correct, yes.

>> Nash: The settlement amount you can't disclose -- did it feel like it was the justice you were seeking?

>> Bateman: Not at all.

Not at all.

It's going to help raise, my grandsons, but it's not going to -- it's not really going to be -- the punitive damages were not such that I feel as if the -- hospital and the folks involved really learned a lesson or changing their practices because, it still happens.

The lawyers were fantastic.

They took the case on a contingency basis.

They knew it was a good case.

They kept me informed every step of the way.

We could not have done this on our own.

Thank goodness for them.

But you have to consider that when when the whole case is done, the the moneys that come out of that, you still have to pay the attorney's fees.

And I think they well-deserved what they got.

But that's something that happens throughout this whole process.

>> Nash: Now lawmakers are debating House Bill 99, an effert to cap those punitive damages for certain parties.

Also to not be able to ask -- ask for them from the jump, but only after the case has been looked into, further and to raise the standard of proof for such cases.

How do you feel about the bill that's being debated?

>> Bateman: If you don't have punitive damages that hurt, these things will continue because a lot of these big corporations are doing things that actually do push the patients out of the hospital.

They're saying, you know, if you have a baby, you can be in there one day, maybe two days, and we're going to send you home.

Ready or not, you're going home.

And I think that was part of the problem.

And one of the issues of many that led to my daughter's death.

>> Nash: Now, a recent amendment that has been officially added to the bill excludes out of state hospitals, out of state owned hospitals from that cap, meaning that the bill only now protects individual providers and New Mexico-owned hospitals and clinics.

What's your take on that amendment?

How do you feel that?

>> Bateman: I think that's great because the -- the way that you're treated by these corporate hospitals and the insurance companies shows that they're just -- they're in it for the bottom dollar, for the money, for the shareholders, and they're putting the shareholders above the patients.

>> Nash: What will -- the rest of the legislative session look like for you?

Will you be continuing to advocate -- >> Bateman: I will.

>> Nash: What does that look like?

>> Bateman: I'll be here whenever I'm needed.

I've met a lot of other wonderful people.

Unfortunately, a lot of other families who have suffered losses or life, you know, lifelong injury and we will continue to fight.

>> Nash: Karen, thank you so much for not only your time, but for sharing Kelsey's story as well.

>> Bateman: Thank you, and may I show a picture of my daughter?

>> Nash: Please.

>> Bateman: This is Kelsey.

She's beautiful, beautiful girl.

And we miss her so much, and I'm so sad that her sons will be missing her and and her youngest son will never know her.

>> Nash: Thank you.

>> Bateman: Thank you.

>> Nash: The bill narrowly passed its first hearing in the House Health and Human Services Committee this week.

As we tape this Thursday, it has one more committee stop before it can get a full vote of the House.

>> Uballez: This is a different world, right?

Convicting federal agents for depriving people of rights is important to establishing that trust in the system.

And when the people don't see that happening, right?

It's important for leaders to stand up and say, “No, the law applies to everybody.” >> Nash: You'll hear from former U.S.

Attorney, Alex Uballez, on whether and how a local District Attorney could prosecute ICE agents, in about ten minutes.

Last week, in a partnership with our team here at New Mexico in Focus Source New Mexico's Patrick Lohmann published a bombshell story.

It revealed that Jay Mitchell, the director of the Hermits Peak Calf Canyon FEMA Claims Office, quietly pushed through a $250,000 payment, for smoke damage, that he says, the state's largest ever wildfire caused to his Angel Fire home.

His wife cashed in a nearly identical check for her business.

The payments have sparked outrage among some of those hardest hit by the fire, many of whom are still waiting to be compensated, as FEMA promised they would nearly four years ago.

Lohmann and [New Mexico] in Focus reporter Cailley Chella went to Angel Fire to get answers from Mitchell and for the Northern New Mexico communities, who are demanding accountability.

[trees rusting in the wind] >> Cailley: In 2022, U.S.

Forest Service ingnited the largest wildfire in New Mexico history.

Two prescribed burns scheduled on a windy, dry day, one at Hermit's Peak and one at Calf Canyon, burned out of control, decimating almost 350,000 acres.

For those living in the path of the flames, it wasn't just a disaster.

It was the end of a way of life.

>> Ortiz: So, it burned my grandmother's house that my grandfather had built.

It was an Adobe home.

It burned.

Everyone here lives off the land.

You sell live trees, you sell dead trees.

You sell vegas, you sell rock.

You sell dirt -- sand.

We make use of our resources, of our natural resources that we have.

And that's how people make a living.

>> Cailley: They survived the fires, the floods and the smoke.

And neighbors in the burn scar, like people here living in Sapello tell me the most difficult part is surviving the paperwork.

>> Salazar: We turned to a lawyer to advocate, well, not advocate, but to counsel for us.

Because the paperwork is incredible.

I mean, I've been to school with Lora I'm an educated man.

And the paperwork is overwhelming.

And the ridiculous requests they make of you to do.

You got to work.

You can't.

You don't have time.

>> Cailley: The federal government promised to make the victims of the fire whole, allocating almost $5.5 billion for compensation through a dedicated FEMA claims office.

But many say they have yet to see it.

>> Lorenza: We haven't received it.

Zero.

I haven't gotten any smoke damage.

I haven't gotten fencing.

>> Cailley: Almost four years later, while dozens wait in trailers and debt.

One man at the top of that office and his wife have already been paid to the tune of half a million dollars >> Mitchell: My private residence!

Get out of here!

>> Lohmann: Okay.

>> Cailley: That's the voice of Jay Mitchell, the director of FEMA's Hermits Peak Calf Canyon Fire Claims Office.

Internal documents obtained by Source New Mexico and NMPBS revealed that last July Mitchell received a payout of roughly $266,000 for smoke and ash cleaning at his home in Angel Fire and his wife Lisa received more than 258 grand last August for business related losses, she claimed.

We attempted to reach Mitchell by phone and at his office, but he didn't answer and his security guards tried to lie to us to get us to go away.

>> Lohmann: What door should I go to, to find 1712?

>> Cailley: Actually, sir, it says 1712 right above your head >> Security: This one is 1711.

>> Cailley: Not according to those numbers right there.

>> Security: All right, hold on o ne second.

>> Cailley: Thank you, very much.

We then went to Mitchell's home in Angel Fire, a ski resort town about an hour's drive from the hardest hit communities.

The house and Casita, valued at nearly $800,000, sits on a hillside overlooking his neighborhood.

He and his wife were less than happy to see us.

I caught most of the interaction on video, but I kept the microphone rolling.

[footsteps in snow] >> Lisa: What do you want?

>> Cailley: Hi!

Is Jay home?

>> Mitchell: Get the **** out of here!

>> Lohmann: Okay.

>> Lisa: She's probably a reporter.

>> Mitchell: Yeah!

>> Lohmann: I'm with -- >> Mitchell: It's my private residence.

Get out of here!

>> Lohmann: Okay.

[walking through snow] >> Lisa: By the way, this is harassment You better leave me alone.

>> Lohmann: Yeah.

We're leaving.

>> Lisa: Good.

[walking on gravel] [car door opening] >> Cailley: This is Patrick Lohmann, a journalist at Source New Mexico who's been reporting on this fire and its aftermath since the match was lit.

We teamed up for this story and went to Angel Fire together to get to the bottom of it.

>> Martinez: So, down to the cul-de-sac over here is a guy named John and his wife, >> Cailley: we spoke to a few of Mitchell's neighbors, including this man, Michael Martinez.

Martinez lives a half a mile northeast of Mitchell.

He says he remembers the smell of smoke in 2022, but not the damage.

>> Martinez: There was -- no smoke damage to my house at all.

Personally, I didn't see anything.

No, we never had a day where smoke was that bad coming in.

You know, we have pictures of it just blooming up over to the south of us and even from Taos.

But, never anything that's that really hit -- at least our neighborhood >> Lohmann: Yeah, yeah.

>> Cailley: Within the 534 square mile burn scar where hundreds of homes were lost, victims were promised a fast lawyer free claims process.

But many say that hasn't panned out.

They were able to file back in 2022, but they needed itemized evidence, financial records, loan information, etc.

and the smoke and ash program is separate.

It launched two years later in the spring of 2024, and covers a much larger 22 hundred square mile zone with way easier requirements.

There, the burden of proof is low with some residents only needing to sign a declaration to get a payout.

While the Mitchell's smoke and business claims were processed and paid quickly.

Some of those who were hit the hardest are still waiting.

>> Cruz: So these trees died from the fire, and you'll see.

You can see like some survived and some didn't.

And then right up through here, everything was gone.

It is really disheartening and disturbing that he received this.

This is dated July 21st.

I think Jay Mitchell has not been honest with people.

He is not -- putting the people in the burn scar first like he said he would.

>> Cailley: Yolanda Cruz is a community advocate who helps neighbors navigate the grueling FEMA process.

She showed us her backyard.

What actual fire damage looks like.

Hillsides of blackened toothpicks so saturated with soot that it coats her hands just by touching a tree.

>> Cruz: How do you justify saying, okay, Yolanda, you get $200,000 and your neighbor across the street or two streets down gets nothing.

And if Jay Mitchell cannot make the policies work for people, how are they working for him?

Like that just makes no sense to me.

>> Cailley: A map analyzed by NMPBS and Source New Mexico shows Mitchell's home is less than 1000 feet from the boundary line that allows claimants to receive smoke money with almost no proof.

Small business owners in the burn scar say they've also been stonewalled.

Sarah Mathews owns Borracho's, a local favorite and has been a vocal advocate for business owners in Las Vegas.

>>Mathews: Businesses like mine, who have quantifiable losses in the millions haven't been paid a penny.

We can't even get paid our smoke damage money.

We can't even get our SBA loans repaid.

We can't even get our flood insurance premiums repaid with or without a lawyer.

I think it's disgusting that people like Jay Mitchell, who have sat at tables with me, and women who lost their homes, have not been compensated for total losses, but they received smoke damage money.

>> Cailley: Mathews says her town is dying as the workforce disappears and businesses closed their doors forever.

It's kind of like the systematic -- decimation of our community.

It feels like they're trying to kill us slowly and choke us out, is what it really feels like.

Anyone with integrity would have made sure that people who lost property, who lost homes, who had total losses, were compensated before it just became a money grab for the people who are well-connected.

>> Cailley: For those who lost everything.

The money isn't a windfall.

It's survival.

>> Vigil: We lost our home.

Total loss.

Our pets, our vehicles.

We lived at a motel for nine months, which was very hard.

Anita and Andrew Vigil say they've begun to rebuild with the small amount FEMA paid them for the loss of their home.

But it's not enough to cover everything.

>>Vigil: Peanuts!

They gave us peanuts!

Let's put it that way.

>>Andrew: That money they gave us.

We used it for progress towards the property >> Vigil: to rebuild.

>> Andrew: because I cleaned my property myself.

>> Cailley: They now live in a FEMA trailer that they feel they were forced to buy >> Vigil: because the offer that they gave us.

We had to take it because we wanted to come back home.

He wanted to come back home.

We didn't have a choice but to purchase the FEMA trailer, which they shouldn't even sold to us.

They should've just gave it to us because they burnt our house down Silva: Can I add on to that?

The FEMA trailer that was, sold to them and along with other neighbors that did purchase those FEMA trailers.

They're all electrical.

For this rural area.

The electricity goes off all the time.

So these trailers were not equipped for this area.

They weren't suitable for this area.

>> Cailley: Laura Silva is an advocate for her neighbors.

She didn't lose her home, but she knows the cost of the fire intimately.

>> Silva: We had my little niece that, nine years old, and, she came to visit.

We all knew she had asthma.

She was exposed to some of that smoke.

Well, when she went back home to Albuquerque.

My little niece Amiyah had a reaction, with her asthma, and she passed.

This little girl was everybody's -- sunshine, >> Cailley: and she told me her husband's cancer has returned, which she attributes to the unrelenting stress.

>> Silva: We didn't ask for the fire They threw it on us.

>>Ortiz: We didn't light the match.

>> Silva: And we're the forgotten clan.

We are, FEMA knows that they're going to have to pay long term for those non-economic damages, for the mental anguish that they put on us, and the continued mental anguish that they've done to us.

They don't want to pay.

Okay, so then if you don't want to pay for non-economic damages, pay for the things you can pay.

And they don't do it.

They don't move it.

They're all in suspension.

All our claims.

>> Cailley: In late 2022, members of New Mexico's congressional delegation fought to secure the $5.45 billion dollars in federal funding through the passage of the Hermits Peak Fire Assistance Act.

Since Patrick's story about the Mitchell's FEMA payments went live, at least three of our state's federal lawmakers, including Teresa Leger Fernández, have called on Jay Mitchell to resign, citing lack of transparency and a failure to meet the standards of the office.

As of today, 74 people who lost their homes are still waiting for their final compensation offers.

For them, the fire isn't just a memory, it's a daily struggle against the very agency meant to help them.

For New Mexico In Focus, I'm Cailley Chella reporting.

>> Nash: Governor Lujan Grisham earlier this week joined the growing chorus of voices calling for Mitchell to resign.

Thanks to Patrick and to Cailley for their months of hard work on that story.

We have been following President Trump's authoritarian crackdown on immigrants and how it impacts New Mexico since he walked back into the white House a year ago.

Well last month, Bernalillo County District Attorney Sam Bregman made waves on that front when he dashed off a letter to Federal Immigration authorities.

The Democrat, who's also running for governor, threatened to prosecute ICE agents who detain people without legal cause.

You may be wondering the same thing that we were like, can he actually do that?

Well, Executive Producer Jeff Proctor invited Alex Uballez, former U.S.

Attorney for New Mexico, to explore that question.

>> Jeff: Alex, it's nice to see you.

And welcome back to New Mexico in Focus.

>> Uballez: Thank you.

Anything I can do to support public broadcasting in this moment in history.

>> Jeff: Thanks for doing that.

We all had the same question.

My news team and I, after we saw the letter, Sam Bregman letter that Nash just mentioned.

And the question was basically, can Bregman do this?

I'd like to tackle that question in a couple of different ways, and I'd like to start with the law.

What do you make of Sam's threat in that letter, in terms of the various legal context in which it exists?

>> Uballez: Yeah.

You may remember in my office I used to have this print.

I got in a lot of trouble for having behind me at the desk.

It said, “Laws aren't real”, right.

And I like to ground in a conversation about the law in this fact that laws are words that we have come together and agreed, that are the rules by which we should abide, but the only exists so far as we believe in them.

Right, and so this is really important When we're thinking about the laws that the district attorney is talking about here.

We're looking at false imprisonment, which was the specific one outlined in the letter, and how it would be used against folks who violate the law.

In the district attorney's terms, a federal agent who makes an arrest without probable cause, reasonable suspicion or a warrant might be subject to local state laws.

And the broad answer to that is that's true, right?

Everybody is is is subject to the rule of law.

Tons of caveats though of course, as a lawyer, you know, it's it depends is our favorite answer.

And that's true.

So while the laws always apply how they apply and whether they can be applied, are separate questions.

And so how they apply in this case.

Right, you're looking at false imprisonment.

False imprisonment requires, a knowledge that your imprisonment of a person is not lawful.

You don't have the lawful authority to do it.

Of course, we trust our police and our federal agents.

By statute, by law and constitution, with the ability to imprison people.

But because it's a component of their job.

So it makes a little difficult to talk about how false imprisonment might apply to a federal agent.

There's a couple other components too of course right.

We're talking about state law, a federal law.

And we've heard, of course, the terms of federal supremacy.

And I think that that term doesn't quite carry as much water as many people believe it does.

>> Jeff: How not?

>> Uballez: So federal supremacy, right?

Is the idea that if a federal agent is doing their job, basically.

Right, there's legal words for it, but if they're doing their job the state shouldn't interfere in that.

That means that the actions are taking are necessary and proper and advancing whatever the federal interest or the federal law that they're pursuing.

If they are not doing something that's necessary and proper to advance a federal law, then that's supremacy doesn't protect them from state criminal prosecution.

The second sort of procedural piece, of course, is when cases are brought against federal agents, they can be then removed to federal court where federal rules apply.

But state law, in terms of the charge still applies.

>> Jeff: I want to go back to those three standards that you just mentioned.

Judicial warrant, that's a warrant that Sam would ostensibly come up with himself.

A judge would sign it.

Next, you've got probable cause, and last, you've got reasonable suspicion.

I want to hone in on that for just a moment.

How do you think about reasonable suspicion in terms of the possibility of charging a federal agent for false imprisonment?

What's that standard?

>> Uballez: Yeah and so we're looking at a broad range of activity.

If we're looking at, for example, at Minneapolis or in Los Angeles, of things the federal agents are doing that we might consider, or that the district attorney might consider as a component or target of this letter.

That is everything from making an arrest of somebody who is committing a crime, making an arrest of somebody who is not legally in this country and subject to removal, or detaining somebody for any less reason.

That's usually where reasonable suspicion comes in.

So that's the Terry stop.

It's where an officer has to hold somebody temporarily seize them right?

In violation of Fourth Amendment, but with justification, that being the reasonableness.

The Supreme Courts recently advised us that ICE agents, when you're carrying out immigration enforcement, have quite and I would say, disturbingly low bar to proof there right, such as your skin color, the language you speak, and the job that you have might be enough to establish reasonable suspicion for a stop.

And so if we're looking at where, you know, the justification an officer would give for his actions if charged with false imprisonment, you sort of like I look at the lowest the lowest barrier and see what would qualify, and what would not.

With this ruling from the Supreme Court and with that very low barrier, which includes such things as crowd control, public safety.

Right.

The neighborhood you're in, how you look, language you speak and the job you have?

It's going to be very difficult to assert that an agent didn't have at least that basic reason to go talk to someone and seize them temporarily.

>> Jeff: As a separate matter, I think part of what I'm hearing you say is that it would be exceedingly rare to find a fact pattern in a case, a specific instance where none of those thresholds is met with an ICE agent detaining someone.

Do I have that right?

>> Uballez: It'd be really difficult.

Not impossible right.

You know, there's a there's a million hypotheticals.

And there is a lot of instances that we're looking at in Minneapolis where it doesn't appear that there is any justification at all for some of the seizures that are occurring.

Remember, seizures are everything from putting a person in handcuffs to maybe pointing a gun at somebody, right?

That person is considered seized >> Jeff: Or in the back of a squad car, for example.

>> Uballez: Or especially if you're in custody in the back of a squad car.

And so there are situations that might exist.

It's going to be a tough thing to prove it.

>> Jeff: Let's spend just a moment on the mechanics of all of this.

I want to let you know something.

We contacted APD and BCSO, to ask, like, what would you guys do if the DA's office asked you to go arrest an ICE agent based on this, sort of framework that Sam's come up with?

Of course, they both demurred, saying that we're not interested in commenting on the hypothetical.

You and I are here to very much talk about that exact hypothetical.

What steps would need to be taken with the DA's office?

Need to take, just walk me through the process.

If Sam sees one of these and believes that it fits those criteria.

>> Uballez: Yeah, and so, you know, I have some experience in this on the federal side.

Right, and so when I was the United States Attorney, we charged police officers with what we call deprivation of rights violations of section 242.

That includes local police officers in the jail police department includes a border patrol officer for deprivation of rights.

Often what that meant was that we were able to conduct an investigation.

If you look at, you know, the work we did in that Border Patrol officer case, for example, we had the, you know, OPR, the inspector generals, from inside the federal agencies conducting investigations of evidence that they had in their possession and then handing it over to the prosecutors to build the case and bring the charges.

So at base level, what you need to bring a charge like this is access to the scene or access to the evidence and access to the witnesses to prove the case.

>> Jeff: Wouldn't you then next, once you've got all of those things together, you have to you have to have a warrant.

So the next step would be the judge right?

Got to get a judge to sign the warrant.

>> Uballez: Yeah, I mean you could and so there's a couple options there.

I mean, you need to take it to grand jury, who would need to issue the indictments, and then, you could either issue a summons or a warrants, right.

And so that's a choice by your prosecuting agency is whether they want to go put a person in cuffs.

And yes, a judge would say, you can go put this person in cuffs or summons them to the courts to appear for their first appearance.

>> Jeff: If you go the warrant route, I think that triggers an arrest, essentially right.

So if APD and BCSO let's just assume for sake of this conversation that they're not going to go and do that.

They're not going to effectuate that arrest.

What options does the district attorney have then?

>> Uballez: Yeah so, my understanding is the DA has a number of investigators who are sworn personnel who I believe can conduct arrests.

There's probably a dozen of them or so.

They don't have the street presence that Albuquerque police or Bernalillo County does.

And so I think if Bernalillo County and Albuquerque police are not going to effectuate that arrest, would have to be one of the DA's investigators.

>> Jeff: Sounds like an awkward moment for one of those investigators where Sam to walk across the office and say, I need you to go put handcuffs on an ICE agent.

>> Uballez: Yeah, it definitely would.

And that was the, you know, unique thing about doing the Border Patrol case, right?

Where we had the cooperation of the agency right.

Doing an investigation of a police department where we had the cooperation of the agency right.

And so when we, you know, this is part of what's different in today, which is if we're looking at Minneapolis, for example, we don't have federal local cooperation in law enforcement, and that does create an additional level of awkwardness, maybe to executing less.

>> Jeff: That is a good segway into us opening the lens a bit for the end of our conversation.

I'm going to read a quote from an op ed written by a former assistant US attorney and ask for your reaction.

He writes “Bregman has chosen political theater over public safety.

His recent threat to prosecute federal agents for enforcing federal law is legally wrong and reckless.

It misleads the public, encourages confrontation with law enforcement, and promotes a false narrative that could get someone seriously injured or killed.” What do you make of that framing?

>> Uballez: Sure, I mean a lot of feelings about it.

The first really circles back to where we began, right, with the trust of the public, right?

This republic, this democracy, this country is built on the trust of the people.

And that trust has to be earned, right?

As a federal law, as a chief federal law enforcement officer for New Mexico, I believed every day my job was to prove to the public, not just keep them safe, not just do the job of investigating crimes and putting cuffs on people, but to prove to the public that they could trust me.

Trust can't be ordered.

It has to be earned.

And so when I'm thinking about these words from my former colleague, Swanson.

I'm thinking about a world that may have existed in the past where there was trust earned by the federal government, by law enforcement, who showed like inBorder Patrol's case, that they would conduct an internal investigation and they would turn over the evidence to, you know, federal prosecutors and that we would then charge this person who rammed the person's head into the wall.

This trust has been broken over the past year by this administration, by the actions that we witness every single day in Minneapolis.

And so when the trust is broken, it's tough for a government to ask a people to order people to just comply when they have not earned that trust.

When we see day to day actions in Minneapolis against people who are not even involved, who are standing on the sidewalks, actions like spraying them with pepper spray or pointing guns at them.

Or slamming them into the ground.

Actions that here in New Mexico, we have charged federally as deprivation of rights and convicted federal agents for.

And so this is a different world, right?

Convicting federal agents for depriving people of rights is important to establishing that trust in the system.

And when the people don't see that happening, right, it's important for our leaders to stand up and say, no, the law applies to everybody.

Right, and so we talked a little bit about the troubles, both legally and practically, in executing this letter from District Attorney.

Nonetheless, it is important that the people understand that there is a rule of law and that will be enforced, and that they see that their leaders will take that stand and hold that line so that they don't have to on the streets, right?

I think this undercuts the argument and the premise of this op ed, which is people won't feel like they have to take to the streets and obstruct and get in the way if they know that their leaders and their public officials would do that for them.

>> Jeff: Alex, thanks so much for coming in to help us understand this a bit better.

>> Uballez: Oh my pleasure.

Thanks, Jeff.

>> Nash: Thanks to Alex Uballez for helping us think through Bregman's letter.

New Mexico senators have advanced two education related bills.

One would boost requirements for math teachers, screenings for learning disabilities, and student supports.

The other would lean more heavily on something called structured literacy to teach children to read.

We'll learn more about what that looks like in a bit.

But first, the bill sponsor, Senate President Pro Tem Mimi Stewart, tells US politics correspondent Gwyneth Doland that districts using these methods are already seeing success.

>> Gwyneth: Senator, we want to talk a little bit about structured literacy and how reading success in New Mexico has changed.

>> Stewart: Our proficiency levels are going up 10 and 12% in some districts, they're up 60 to 70% in Roswell.

They use structured literacy in their bilingual programs.

Those bilingual students are at 70% proficiency.

The students from poverty are at 65%.

Structured literacy is the best for those kids who are most at the bottom.

Kids with dyslexia, kids with disabilities, kids from poverty, second language learners.

That is the Yazzie Martinez group.

They learned the quickest and the best from structured literacy.

But everybody can learn better.

reading and spelling, if you use structured literacy, it's a way to teach a language that's based on what skills you need at each grade level to master before you then can read more easily.

>> Gwyneth: And there's a little bit of a debate about it, because it is such a change from the way reading has been taught.

So what kind of challenge does this pose for teachers who've been doing it the same way for a long time?

>> Stewart: Change is hard.

Here's the best thing that's happened.

We have spent 14 million a year for five years to train teachers.

We've used the program that's called Letters Language Essentials for Teachers of Reading and Spelling.

And that teaches teachers the science of reading, how kids actually learn to read and how they can help them every one of their grade levels.

We didn't get that in college.

You know, we got well, just do your best.

You know, like the spaghetti.

Throw it at the wall, see what sticks.

But now we know this is decades of research showing us that structured literacy is what you use when you teach everybody how to read.

>> Nash: Thanks to Gwyneth and to Senator Stewart.

For more on how that program would help students with dyslexia specifically, check out the full interview on the New Mexico In Focus YouTube page.

So the fact that teachers in the state are already using the structured literacy approach is thanks in large part to Project Echo, a tell a mentoring program based at UNM.

Doctor Soraya Gallop leads its education division.

She recently chatted with senior producer Lou DiVizio about how structured literacy works.

>> Lou: Doctor Gollop, thank you much for being here on New Mexico in Focus.

>> Gollop: It's a pleasure.

Thank you for inviting us.

>> Lou: Yeah of course.

One of the programs that we talked about briefly, the letters program that's been out for a couple of years, if I if I'm not mistaken, it's focused on the state's literacy crisis.

Before we get into the program and how to implement it, why that word crisis?

What's going on in New Mexico?

>> Gollop: Yeah, it's a crisis because, you know, only 1 in 3 children, at third grade level can read proficiently right now.

And reading at third grade is unbelievably crucial, because third grade is that point in school where you move from learning to read to reading to learn.

So the kids are no longer at third grade, naturally, get any reading instruction in classes.

All of a sudden you have to read your math problems.

You have to read your science problems.

You need to read your textbook.

If you can't read, you can't do math.

You can't do science.

You can't do anything else.

Right?

It is completely foundational.

We also know that students that are not on track for reading by third grade, four times less likely to graduate from high school than their peers who can read on time at third grade.

And our rates right now, I mean, on average, we're looking at around 1 in 3 is proficient.

But if you look into, some areas of our state, at our Native American students, only 16% of them are reading on grade level.

It's at grade.

It's crazy bad.

>> Lou: Yeah.

So what does this program letters do to help teachers understand how to approach students?

And how do you work with those teachers to help them implement what they've learned in the classroom?

>> Gollop: Absolutely.

So letters is like the background knowledge program.

So it basically teaches the teachers that science of like, what is it that kids need to learn and how do they need to learn it?

So there's a strong focus on understanding kind of word and letter parts, and how those word and letter parts relate together.

So if you think about it, you know the sound of a word.

Hello.

Like, okay, so I just made a whole bunch of sounds.

How is it that the sound actually connects to the H that we write on the page, right.

What is going on there?

This is what we call phonemic awareness and students.

About 35% of students, we think will naturally just kind of learn to read really, really easily.

But you'll notice it's only 35%.

And that's actually a little higher than our number of proficient readers right now.

The rest of our students need really explicit instructions and how this phonemic awareness works, how to do it in the classroom, and how to integrate that into what's a really, really complex job.

Right?

So if an elementary teacher is in that classroom, 22 students, the whole time, they have to do math, they have to do language, they have to do writing, they doing, they doing all of the things.

So this specific thing, you've got to do it so carefully and so well-structured and letters is really providing a framework for how to do that.

One thing that, we strongly believe at echo is that teachers are not in it for the money and they're not in it for the fame.

Right?

Any teacher who is there, their professional success is connected to how well their students do so.

They are deeply, deeply motivated to do this.

So those teachers are really hungry to find out.

Well, okay.

In the latest program, I think what I should be doing and now in the eco structured literacy classroom project that we're running, we're taking them by the hand and saying, okay, well, this is how we do it in the first week of school, and this is how we do it in the second week of school.

And now this is the resource you should be using for the student that's a little bit behind.

Here's this resource that you can be using for this kid that's a little bit ahead and really making it work and that kind of complex way.

>> Lou: Yeah.

Have you heard from teachers.

Do they enjoy that opportunity and has it been benefiting them at least on an anecdotal level?

>> Gollop: Absolutely.

And yeah, measures of success from teachers.

We're measuring both of their are they using the new strategies?

And yes, very, very much so.

Teachers are completely changing.

The literacy practices in their classrooms are really sort of participating in the program, and they're seeing amazing results.

There's one teacher down in Alamogordo who at the beginning of the year, had only 42% of their students reading on grade level.

This was a second grade teacher, five months, and she was up to 77% of her students reading on grade level.

Another teacher down in Deming, all but one of her second graders was reading at on grade level.

After five months of the program.

The kindergarten teachers, they're seeing things like students who can't do anything, sort of writing letters, really connecting those sounds, really understanding all of that phonemic awareness.

By the end of kindergarten, first grade teachers, they've got students moving from writing part words and single words to like three sentence paragraphs by the end of the year.

So yes, really strong results.

>> Lou: Great.

Are there any plans to scale those anecdotal successes to to pull that data together so that you have a clear picture of exactly how well the program is working?

>> Gollop: Yes, yes, and I'm grinning right now.

I'm deeply excited.

So this entire project, was formed around this idea of doing this research at student level results.

We are literally about to get the student level data from PED to start doing our background work.

To pull all of those numbers together.

We have very, very confident from what we've been hearing from teachers, that we'll be seeing a very strong signal in the data about the progress of these students.

>> Lou: Okay.

How do teachers get connected with you and the program?

And is this something that can be spread across the state if not mandatory, but it's something that's available to everyone if they would like to use it?

>> Gollop: Currently, well, this year we're serving as many people as we can with the funding that we have.

This year we had 260 teachers apply to the program, and we were able to serve 160 of them.

So it's a it's a good number, but it's not all of them.

Yes.

They can look at, come to our website and come and sign up for the program.

We enroll people at the beginning of the, at the end of the spring for the next, for the following year.

Right now, the program is serving kindergarten through third grade teachers, in two cohorts.

We also have a parallel program, which is serving a couple of whole schools here in APS and, and educational leaders.

>> Lou: So out of personal interest, more than anything, once teachers get to this point and they have students in the classroom, they're trying to implement these things that you teach them.

There's also a bit a part on the front end in early childhood.

What can parents do to prepare their children to work with teachers who are laterite trained and build literacy early on?

>> Gollop: Oh, absolutely.

So, we are naturally oral language creatures, right?

The spoken word is our natural state.

So when we think about reading and writing, I'm never going to be able to read something or write something that I can't speak out loud, that I can't take in when I'm hearing.

So what we first concretely do in the first developmental phase that we see in young children is building that oral language.

So it's talking to them, it's engaging with them.

It's being present with them, not on your phone.

It's being looking them in the eye, saying the words, letting them mimic you, all of that piece.

So number one, it's naming things.

It's having conversations.

It's this kind of great game.

You know, when you're in the grocery store, you know, where's the eggplant.

Is it purple?

You know, can you see the onions.

Can you count the onions?

It's this engagement around naming and engaging with things in the world is sight thing number one.

And we can do that from the very, very littles all the way up.

And then of course, this reading aloud, reading aloud is very, very valuable.

It it sparks their interest.

It gets them beginning to build those connections between the letter sounds and the words on the page.

You can do the alphabet with them.

That's really great as well.

It's building those kind of foundational skills.

But number one, engagement, right?

Being present, looking them in the eye, talking to them, hearing them.

Yeah.

>> Lou: Understood.

Thank you so much, Doctor Gollop.

Thanks for being here on New Mexico in Focus, >> Nash: Thanks to Doctor Gollup for explaining how the letters program works and how Project Echo is trying to spread the message.

On January 12th, Desiree Bernard and Clara Sims set out from Carlsbad, making their way up to Santa Fe on foot.

The catalyst the Clear Horizons Act, a legislative effort to cement some of the governor's climate and pollution goals into state law.

Since it is an oil and gas regulation bill at its heart, we're going to turn it over to Capitol and main reporter Jerry Redfern.

He's been keeping an eye on the industry for us this session, and caught up with the pilgrims on the road to the roundhouse.

Here's Jerry.

>> Jerry: The sun rose into a crispy, clear blue sky.

And gala stay on Tuesday, lighting a camper van parked on a county road on the edge of town.

Inside, two women woke up, stretched and eat breakfast, and they donned warm jackets and talked with locals walking by, waved passing cars, hoisted day packs filled with snacks and water, and began the day's walk north toward Santa Fe.

Desiree Barnes and Clara Sims, both directors with the group Interfaith Power and Light, began walking three weeks earlier in Carlsbad in the middle of the Permian Basin, the country's most productive oil and gas field.

They call their Long Walk a pilgrimage to connect the most polluted corner of the state with the state's lawmakers during their annual legislative session.

They want to deliver prayers and a message.

Specifically, they want to transition away from fossil fuels to hold industry accountable for pollution, to protect New Mexicans facing climate change impacts, and to encourage the legislature to pass the Clear Horizons Act.

On Tuesday, they hit the road just as a Senate committee held the first hearing on that bill.

Broadly speaking, it would force dramatic greenhouse gas reduction statewide.

And since the oil and gas industry admits nearly half of the greenhouse gases produced in the state, it would have to make the biggest reductions.

Unsurprisingly, the bill is not popular with that industry.

The impacts of oil and gas production in the Permian Basin were front and center for Desiree and Clara.

>> Sims: Hi, my name is Clara Sims.

One of the things that touched me most on the pilgrimage was early on, having a meal with community members in Artesia, and they conveyed that they feel like they're legislators, will not hear them or represent them.

When it comes to oil and gas.

They need other legislators to represent them and listen to them, and they need other people in New Mexico to bear witness to what is happening in that region.

>> Renard: My name is Desiree Renard.

Walking through those regions and smelling the very, very intense stench in the air and seeing all the warning signs and the poison signs, and just really feeling for the folks who are breathing that air and breathing it ourselves was difficult.

>> Jerry: But the pilgrimage covered much more than oil fields over roughly 330 miles and 25 days of walking.

The two inadvertently saw the wild weather of a shifting climate.

In New Mexico, temperatures hovered near 70 degrees when they walked past Roswell.

Far warmer than normal.

>> Sims: One of the most spectacular things I experienced on the journey was a sunrise.

I was in my tent and very cold and I didn't want to get out, but I got to watch, through the flap, just, sunrise unfold over about 30 minutes on the plains outside of Roswell.

And it was one of the most beautiful things I've ever seen.

>> Jerry: A few days later, overnight temperatures dipped to six degrees, far colder than normal.

On Tuesday, the debate over the Clear Horizons Act ran nearly five hours long for any legislative hearing.

The last person to speak was Angel Charlie, a Democratic senator who lives at Acoma Pueblo.

>> Charlie: The land gifted us the budget we now use to take care of the people of New Mexico.

And today, I'm asking us to take care of the land to protect her in the same ways she has always protected and provided for us >> Jerry: around the time that Desiree and Clara stop walking on Tuesday, the bill passed that first hearing.

Now it awaits its second hearing in the Senate Tax, Business and Transportation Committee.

With two short weeks left in the session, >> Nash: Thanks to Jerry Redfern and to the climate advocates who spoke with him before finally arriving in Santa Fe yesterday.

And thanks to everyone else who contributed to the show, join us here next Friday for another trip to the Roundhouse.

This time we're going to dig into what's getting funded and what's coming up short in the proposed state budget for New Mexico PBS I'm Nash Jones until next week.

Stay focused.

Funding for New Mexico in Focus is provided by viewers like you.