By MARCO V. LUCERO

This letter is to provide clarification to those who have submitted letters in opposition to SB-203.

First of all I want to make it clear that none of my testimony at our State Capitol is self-serving. The legislation I support and have always supported since my election as your sheriff has been to enhance public safety, protect our children and to better serve our communities as law enforcement officers. If one wants to consider self-motivation for their lobbying, consider the articles written in opposition to SB-203.

Should SB-203 pass, this will exclude unqualified persons from running for sheriff. If a person has not successfully completed a basic law enforcement academy, they are not certified law enforcement officers in our state and would be excluded as eligible candidates for sheriff.

Persons who believe that the sheriff or deputies have no law enforcement authority in Los Alamos are mistaken. At the very least, as the sheriff in Los Alamos you serve orders from the courts,and the sheriff’s office maintains the sex-offender registry. These are law enforcement functions.

If you are a state certified law enforcement professional, you are required by state law to investigate and enforce the laws of the state (29-1-1). This statute requires that every Sheriff in our state conduct criminal investigations, when information of crime is brought to their attention. Now this is every sheriff, not every sheriff other than the Sheriff of Los Alamos County.

As I stated in my article, I am working with our fellow sheriffs and members of the New Mexico Sheriffs Association (NMSA) to increase professional standards for the Office of the Sheriff. As an elected law enforcement professional, I have done my best to try to improve services to all the people of Los Alamos. I don’t believe that any person in the county of Los Alamos could honestly say, that since my election as your sheriff, that I have done things that have negatively impacted public safety.

The letter sent to the editor calling for the elimination of the Sheriff’s Office, was sent by a person who has never supported me as your sheriff. He is upset because he recently argued in opposition to my testimony on HB-65 “Crimes Against Children.” We got a do pass on that as well. As a member of a national defense attorney’s organization, his priorities are for the defendants/criminals rather than our victims/children.

He made claims that I am leading the other sheriffs in our state as spokesman for the NMSA to support SB-203. That is completely inaccurate. We have had the majority of sheriffs in our state stand in support of this legislation at the State Capital. SB-203 is not my legislation, it is one bill that was developed and approved by members of the NMSA. 

There is a Bill being presented that would expand the terms limits of the sheriff. Senate Judiciary Rules sixteen SJR-16. This bill has passed to the next committee.

I am not completely sold on this bill. I could see some good and some bad coming from passing this, but I do believe it should go to the people to decide on whether to amend our State’s Constitution to adjust term limits for sheriffs.

Respectfully submitted.