There are many MANY factors in this case that—quite unfortunately—reduce confidence in our police, in our media, and in people like the Attorney General and everyone else who is weighing in and going off half-cocked. We know that people automatically hate politicians, and that has a lot to do with the way this case is being discussed. But people need to be able to place themselves, objectively, in the same position. We try to do this here.

What on earth is the Democratic Party of New Mexico doing demanding that Attorney General Hector Balderas jump into the Monica Youngblood case? No one has even examined the case yet. And Balderas has already established himself as something of a "selective" prosecutor — someone who already has lots of traditional (non-"progressive") Democrats as well as Republicans strongly questioning his selective application of the law.

New Mexico media have played the usual sensationalization card with State Representative Monica Youngblood, following her arrest on charges of drunk driving. But at least that much is not surprising. It's normal. The media's predictable take on it is akin to the GEICO commercial slogan: "It's what they do." But to have the AG eagerly jump in? Seriously? 

We have to stipulate at the outset that we don't condone drunk driving and believe our laws should be enforced — something that occurs only haphazardly and seemingly randomly in New Mexico, but that is another story (maybe we'll get to it in another article). 

But has the coverage of the Youngblood story been fair? 

WE REVIEWED the ENTIRE VIDEO PUBLISHED BY ALBUQUERQUE POLICE 

We didn't want to spend the time to look at this case, but we have been flooded with requests from readers in Albuquerque—Democrats and Republicans—who have lodged their complaints about this case, and have asked us to look at it, as they believe no other media outlet in the state will do. So we did. Here are some of our observations:

• The time. We note from the Zulu Time indicator that this video must have commenced about three minutes past midnight, technically on the 20th, so this was essentially a Saturday night event, on the 19th of May. (Though there are a number of unexplained gaps in both the video and the audio portions of the tape released to the public.)

• The stop. The stop was at a checkpoint. Most DWI arrests are made out on the highway, with determinations of probable cause being based on things the driver is doing—weaving in and out of traffic or other erratic behavior. For checkpoints, where everyone is stopped, we have to conclude the police must have to establish some other form of probable cause. So given that condition, we have no idea why Ms. Youngblood was asked to get out of her car at the checkpoint. Most people are not asked to get out of their cars.

• Getting out of the car. In the video that was released, curiously with no audio for the first 27 seconds, an officer is shining a light in Youngblood's eyes and apparently having her follow his finger with her eyes, which she does, without a problem. Nonetheless, he has her then get out of the car. If probable cause is a requirement for this particular next step, we wonder what it was. 

• The temperature. Once she was told to do so, she got out, and it was immediately clear that she was cold. The officer rather breezily dismissed that, saying, rather condescendingly (if not just a little bit dumb-like) "I'm not able to change the weather." And he made this same remark three or four times.(Does anyone over 2 years old believe he might be able to change the weather? That's not only patronizing, it's idiotic.)

He also said numerous times that "it's 67º." We have checked the weather for the timeframe. Technically, throughout the event, it was either 65º or 64º with the wind blowing between 23 and 29 miles per hour. The formulas of the various wind chill calculators appear to vary quite a bit, but they conclude that the temperature would have felt somewhere between 49º and 61º, yielding an average calculated "feels like" temperature of 55º. Many people, especially someone wearing a thin, short, short-sleeve dress, could be left feeling uncomfortable, which Ms. Youngblood clearly was. 

• Courtesy/telling the truth. Ms. Youngblood politely requested her jacket about a dozen times, telling the officer that it was in the trunk. He ignored her over and over, and patronized her, telling her (falsely) that the jacket was not in the trunk. Remember: they had the keys to the car. It was not a difficult request. At one point he tells her they've moved her car. And they couldn't get a jacket when they did that? Fishy.

• "Field Sobriety Test".  We have no idea why this was conducted. If probable cause is needed to begin the test, there was certainly none established. It would appear that one could ask to be free from the cold prior to completing a test that might result in one's arrest, but we don't know. It seems reasonable that shivering in the cold could affect the test. We do see that she asked about a dozen times for a jacket, and despite shivering, and being denied a jacket by an officer who was not being truthful, she took the test. And she aced it. Here is what happened:

     — She had a light shined in her face for about a minute and 24 seconds, during which time the officer moved his flashlight sideways and up and down some 23 times. She followed the light, unfailingly.  (How long does this have to take? How many times do someone's eyes have to follow the light? We don't know, but the test looks increasingly suspicious—especially after he later announced his "result.") 

     — Then the officer tells her to do a "walking test." He tells her to take nine heel-to-toe steps (though she states several times that she is very cold) and then repeat the process in the other direction. She does all that.

     — He tells her to stand on one foot with one foot about six inches off the ground and count "one thousand one...two...and so on." She does that for about 28 seconds, counting all the way to 24. How long does this take? Thousands of New Mexicans—usually because of obesity—can't stand on one foot for any length of time at all, regardless of sobriety. But she aces it. Freezing.

     — He then tells her to count backward from 47 to 32. She does that easily, counting all the way to zero. After all, he didn't say to stop at 32. If you think her continuing to count to zero proves something, we would disagree. As has been shown in hundreds of studies, most people don't listen to instructions well, or even to normal conversation. It is not surprising that she would continue counting—and it's likely many people would continue counting to show they have full command of their faculties.

     — He then tells her to say the alphabet, completing the letters "F through R." She does that, going all the way to Z. Again, as above, continuing beyond R proves nothing. 

What follows then was a strange, ungrammatical, syntactically and definitionally confusing explosion of a single run-on sentence from a clearly very excited officer. Here are 72 words spoken by Officer Moncada in only 13 seconds:

"So the test you just did Monica they're not pass or fail tests they're just certain clues that I look for okay that measure impairment okay so what needs to happen now is I need to give you the opportunity to do a breath test okay so depending on the results of that breath test is how we go from here okay so I need to place you under arrest for DWI."

We are not making this up. That is verbatim.

We don't know the law and don't profess to. But this does seem somewhat out of sequence.

First of all, the officer says the field sobriety test is "not pass or fail." That is confusing to us. What is it then? Just a gee-whiz exercise for general entertainment purposes? This seems to make no sense. It would seem the whole exercise must be to establish probable cause for an arrest. If he then arrests her then how can she have not "failed" the test, at least in his judgment? Weird.

Second, he seems to be heading down the road wherein "depending on the results" of a breath test, he will determine [something or other] unknown. But then he suddenly switches in mid-sentence, saying "depending on the results of that breath test is how we go from here okay so I need to place you under arrest for DWI."

What? Come again? Depending on what? The results of that test? Wait a minute, you are already arresting her. You are not "depending" on anything, let alone the results of some yet-to-be conducted breath test? What on earth did you intend to say when you started this sentence? What kind of briefing or sense of understanding did you give the subject? Nothing.

Based on the officer's rat-a-tat, wildly excited speech, the subject can have no idea whatsoever what he is thinking or doing.

At no point does the officer ask her to take a breath test. 

More important, Ms. Youngblood can have no idea what he is thinking or doing, or what process is being followed. Just listen to the gibberish.

What if she had taken the test and blown a 0.0? Or a 0.2? Where would "we go from here" at that point? What on earth was he saying? What did he intend to say? Did he get the cart before the horse?

We never heard anyone read her her rights. Shouldn't that be done when someone is arrested? Maybe we missed it.

Perhaps more important, NOTHING is explained to her at all. The officer is excited beyond belief at his quarry, and is speaking at 332 words per minute (see below) and never asks her to take any kind of breath test prior to arresting her. This all seems out of sequence. And it is impossible for anyone, whether a third party listening to the audio and watching the video, or Ms. Youngblood herself, to know what in the world is taking place. 

ENCOURAGING LESS CONFIDENCE in the POLICE, FOMENTING DISTRUST

It's no wonder some of the lawyer advertising we have seen tells people to say nothing, refuse all tests, and tell you outright that our police are not your friends. It saddens us to see these things. 

We see more and more lawyers tell people:

"The police have already decided to arrest you when they begin the field sobriety tests."

And:

"When they conduct the test, they are only looking for something to back up the decision they have already made."

We don't know if that is true, but we got to thinking that we don't know of any clubs for "People who have passed Field Sobriety Tests." If such clubs exist at all, we suspect the membership is quite small.

And think about it—isn't the American notion of "fair play" at stake here? Doesn't the average naive American believe he or she is getting a fair shot when asked to repeat the alphabet or numbers? Most of us had no idea it is a scam. But it certainly appears to be. And that's not good for society.

Officer Montaño's EXCITABLE SPEECH: Some Curious Facts—Not that we think it Means that Much

Officer Montaño (we picked up his name from his conversation with the animal control officer) actually spoke 72 words in only 13 seconds. That's an amazing rate of 332 words per minute. Normal conversational speed varies from about 110-150 words per minute. Political ads on radio ads are usually limited to an absolute maximum of about 75 words per 30 seconds (or about 150 words per minute).  Otherwise, they are hard for the public to comprehend.  

We don't know why the officer would speak so fast. But there can be little doubt that he was extremely excited. We are left to wonder if Representative Youngblood's car was sporting a red license plate (legislators are provided with special plates that they may or may not choose to use in place of a regular license plate).

Given the impenetrable prose and the non-sequiturs that continuously flowed from Officer Montaño, we would guess he was somehow aware from the very beginning of the stop, or at some point well before he announced "the results" of his non-pass/fail "test," that he had the opportunity to arrest a legislator. That's our guess. It may or may not come out in the wash.

APD and the MEDIA

In many cases involving the Albuquerque Police Department, days and weeks drag on without any video being "available." "It may compromise the case," they say.

But this video was not only released, it was edited, prepared and shoved out lickety-split. Sensational commentary accompanied it. TV stations jumped on it. Elected officials and candidates weighed in immediately. No questions asked. But we remain highly skeptical. We also ask exactly how many people—what percentage of the population—really and truly puts themselves in the shoes of Representative Youngblood?

People are very quick to hate on politicians. They hold them to standards they would never subject themselves or their family members to. Many in social media presume an elected official guilty—even when they know NOTHING of the facts of the case. We find all of this troubling in society. 

Immediately after the video and photos were rushed out to the media, a Ruidoso radio personality presumed that she was guilty, saying "don't drink and drive." When it was pointed out that she said she didn't drink and drive, more than one response came back that said: "Then why was she arrested?" Statements like that belie the civic intelligence of the typical voter, as well as indicts our cultural literacy. This obviously gives us pause. 

AND WE HAVEN'T EVEN GOTTEN TO THE POINTS ABOUT CONGRESSIONAL CANDIDATE PAT DAVIS 

When he was arrested for DWI, Pat Davis lied about being in the military. He tried to pull out his alleged "cop" credentials. And he's RUNNING FOR CONGRESS, for crying out loud! Monica Youngblood never did anything remotely like that.

When will anyone—from the media or the Democratic Party—ask Davis to stop running for office for having lied about being in the military, and for having tried to pull a fast one on the police? We won't hold our breath.anag

ARE WE WRONG? THIS IS AN IMPORTANT QUESTION. PLEASE TELL US WHAT YOU THINK

Email us (at nmpj@dfn.com) with your feedback, comments, questions and ideas.