In the United States we have a long standing concept that is at the core of our democracy called the "Separation of Powers" doctrine. This stands for the notion that there are different branches of government for a reason. Each branch has a separate and distinct function not to be ruled over or controlled by another branch. The branches are to exist separately and equally and often in conflict with each other. Out of the tension of this conflict, wise and measured government is so supposed to spring forth.
For example, the US Congress and the Office of the President are two separate branches of government. For many years now because the President came from the same party as the majority of the members of the Congress, the Congress, out of party loyalty to the President, ceded many of its powers to the President. Instead of harshly scrutinizing the requests of the President, the Congress for years has given the President almost everything he has wanted. Along the way, the Congress has lost much of its power. This has not been a good thing for us, the People. Now we see the Congress, which has changed majority parties, challenge the President. The President is challenging the Congress back. This is healthy for our democracy and the fight is on.
On a local level, we have had a severe weakening of our democracy over the past twelve years due to an alternate legal system Jaime Esparza set up called DIMS. This program has resulted in a very dangerous blurring of the lines between two arms of government, that of the Prosecutor and that of the police, who have different roles, mandates and functions. The job of a prosecutor is normally to:
-review a case and see if a crime has been committed;
-if a crime has been committed, make sure that the right person is in fact the one being charged;
-make sure that the law has been followed (i.e. was the search properly conducted pursuant to search warrant or consent)
-take the case to court.
The El Paso Police have a job different from a prosecutor. Their job is to:
-investigate crimes;
-arrest people who violate the law, especially when they witness the violation;
-follow the law when making an arrest;
-write their report documenting the facts supporting the arrest;
-submit the documents to the Prosecutor for possible prosecution;
-be ready to testify if needed;
-go back out on the street and do the job all over again.
Although the police and the prosecutor work together on a certain level they are never to become one and the same. They are to be independent in making their respective decisions, to arrest or not, to prosecute or not.
Under his alternate legal system DIMS, Esparza was able to convince a bunch of people at the City to give him a whole lot of money (every year it goes up) to allow him to sit at their police station and tell the police to arrest or not arrest. Esparza convinced the Police to give him power that theretofore had been theirs.
Now the Police have to get Esparza's permission to arrest even when they witness the crime themselves. The police also have to submit their reports to the Asst. DA on DIMS duty for his review and approval. The DIMS attorney can tell the officer to make changes to the reports. As a result, the police, who for decades knew how to do their own reports, now have to hand them over to people who do not have the same function as they do, for approval.--Keep in mind that the police are subject to testifying in court about their reports. Through DIMS, Esparza has subjected his lawyers to coming to court along with the officers to testify to their participation in the report writing and arresting decision. Who actually did what, is now the question? Did the cops write this line or did the lawyer? Interestingly enough, Esparza wants the lawyers treated differently from the cops even though they are now doing much of the same work as the cops on the report end. But what is good for the goose is good for the gander...
Before the nightmare of DIMS, if the Police saw a crime they made the arrest and took it to an independent judge for review, not the prosecutor who has different goals when reviewing a case (i.e. can he win at trial which is a much higher burden of proof than just the probable cause burden necessary to make an arrest and get someone off the streets). Esparza has said publicly that his DIMS attorneys screen cases for trial. So if the cops arrest an individual for DWI because he committed some traffic infraction, smelled of alcohol, failed field sobriety tests, etc., they have proper probable cause even if at the station the arrestee blows under the legal limit. The cops are doing their job properly to remove this person, who is a potential danger, off the streets. Whether or not the case can be won at trial is another issue. When the above facts, which are from a real DWI case, were presented to the DIMS attorney who recognized that the individual was a newspaper reporter (who for now will remain unnamed) and the DIMS attorney told the cop to cut the defendant loose, what happened to the function of the policeman and the probable cause burden for arrest? A guy who the cops had in cuffs for being legally intoxicated is back out on the street driving home alongside your kids.
DPS, Sheriff's Office, Socorro PD, etc. do not use DIMS. They have declined to do so. It apears they want to keep their power and their role separate and not make the same mistake as the El Paso Police Department has.
The rank and file police do NOT like DIMS. They consider it a waste of their time. They want to make their arrests and take the case to a judge and get back out on the streets and certainly not argue with an attorney.
The lines between the police and the D.A.'s office have become too blurred. The separation which once existed between them, has been removed. My opponent has left El Paso in a terrible mess but he really doesn't care because the power is being concentrated in him instead of being dispersed as democracy requires. My opponent also appears to be blissfully oblivious to the fact that many of our families are here because they fled from leaders just like him in Latin America and Germany and Russia, some undersized dictator on a balcony, surrounded by lackies, telling us how we just need to keep writing the checks and paying him everlasting homage.
I will address this issue more and give the lawyers' point of view on the abuses of DIMS, one that was aptly pointed out by a poster on this site named XADA. The lawyers' complaints about DIMS are the same as the cops interestingly enough, lack of independence, too much intereference, etc. Stay tuned.
For example, the US Congress and the Office of the President are two separate branches of government. For many years now because the President came from the same party as the majority of the members of the Congress, the Congress, out of party loyalty to the President, ceded many of its powers to the President. Instead of harshly scrutinizing the requests of the President, the Congress for years has given the President almost everything he has wanted. Along the way, the Congress has lost much of its power. This has not been a good thing for us, the People. Now we see the Congress, which has changed majority parties, challenge the President. The President is challenging the Congress back. This is healthy for our democracy and the fight is on.
On a local level, we have had a severe weakening of our democracy over the past twelve years due to an alternate legal system Jaime Esparza set up called DIMS. This program has resulted in a very dangerous blurring of the lines between two arms of government, that of the Prosecutor and that of the police, who have different roles, mandates and functions. The job of a prosecutor is normally to:
-review a case and see if a crime has been committed;
-if a crime has been committed, make sure that the right person is in fact the one being charged;
-make sure that the law has been followed (i.e. was the search properly conducted pursuant to search warrant or consent)
-take the case to court.
The El Paso Police have a job different from a prosecutor. Their job is to:
-investigate crimes;
-arrest people who violate the law, especially when they witness the violation;
-follow the law when making an arrest;
-write their report documenting the facts supporting the arrest;
-submit the documents to the Prosecutor for possible prosecution;
-be ready to testify if needed;
-go back out on the street and do the job all over again.
Although the police and the prosecutor work together on a certain level they are never to become one and the same. They are to be independent in making their respective decisions, to arrest or not, to prosecute or not.
Under his alternate legal system DIMS, Esparza was able to convince a bunch of people at the City to give him a whole lot of money (every year it goes up) to allow him to sit at their police station and tell the police to arrest or not arrest. Esparza convinced the Police to give him power that theretofore had been theirs.
Now the Police have to get Esparza's permission to arrest even when they witness the crime themselves. The police also have to submit their reports to the Asst. DA on DIMS duty for his review and approval. The DIMS attorney can tell the officer to make changes to the reports. As a result, the police, who for decades knew how to do their own reports, now have to hand them over to people who do not have the same function as they do, for approval.--Keep in mind that the police are subject to testifying in court about their reports. Through DIMS, Esparza has subjected his lawyers to coming to court along with the officers to testify to their participation in the report writing and arresting decision. Who actually did what, is now the question? Did the cops write this line or did the lawyer? Interestingly enough, Esparza wants the lawyers treated differently from the cops even though they are now doing much of the same work as the cops on the report end. But what is good for the goose is good for the gander...
Before the nightmare of DIMS, if the Police saw a crime they made the arrest and took it to an independent judge for review, not the prosecutor who has different goals when reviewing a case (i.e. can he win at trial which is a much higher burden of proof than just the probable cause burden necessary to make an arrest and get someone off the streets). Esparza has said publicly that his DIMS attorneys screen cases for trial. So if the cops arrest an individual for DWI because he committed some traffic infraction, smelled of alcohol, failed field sobriety tests, etc., they have proper probable cause even if at the station the arrestee blows under the legal limit. The cops are doing their job properly to remove this person, who is a potential danger, off the streets. Whether or not the case can be won at trial is another issue. When the above facts, which are from a real DWI case, were presented to the DIMS attorney who recognized that the individual was a newspaper reporter (who for now will remain unnamed) and the DIMS attorney told the cop to cut the defendant loose, what happened to the function of the policeman and the probable cause burden for arrest? A guy who the cops had in cuffs for being legally intoxicated is back out on the street driving home alongside your kids.
DPS, Sheriff's Office, Socorro PD, etc. do not use DIMS. They have declined to do so. It apears they want to keep their power and their role separate and not make the same mistake as the El Paso Police Department has.
The rank and file police do NOT like DIMS. They consider it a waste of their time. They want to make their arrests and take the case to a judge and get back out on the streets and certainly not argue with an attorney.
The lines between the police and the D.A.'s office have become too blurred. The separation which once existed between them, has been removed. My opponent has left El Paso in a terrible mess but he really doesn't care because the power is being concentrated in him instead of being dispersed as democracy requires. My opponent also appears to be blissfully oblivious to the fact that many of our families are here because they fled from leaders just like him in Latin America and Germany and Russia, some undersized dictator on a balcony, surrounded by lackies, telling us how we just need to keep writing the checks and paying him everlasting homage.
I will address this issue more and give the lawyers' point of view on the abuses of DIMS, one that was aptly pointed out by a poster on this site named XADA. The lawyers' complaints about DIMS are the same as the cops interestingly enough, lack of independence, too much intereference, etc. Stay tuned.