Feb. 5—The office of Bernalillo County District Attorney Sam Bregman is at odds with the Albuquerque Police Department over which agency has the responsibility to track and report officer no-shows in court.

As the FBI investigation into alleged wrongdoing by the APD’s DWI unit over the past decade continues, the question of which agency should have been tracking DWI officer attendance in court has spurred a bout of finger-pointing.

At issue is whether there was an effective system among criminal justice partners in Albuquerque that would have detected a criminal scheme in which DWI officers collaborated with defense attorneys to get DWI cases dismissed.

No criminal charges have been filed, and FBI search warrants remain sealed while five APD officers, including a lieutenant who used to work in the DWI unit, remain on paid administrative leave.

The DA’s office on Monday issued a strongly worded statement that Albuquerque Police Chief Harold Medina was mistaken in telling the Albuquerque City Council in a letter last week that the DA’s office has the responsibility to alert the police department when officers miss court.

“This is simply not true and has never been true,” stated Nancy Laflin, spokeswoman for the DA’s office in a statement. She said the DA’s office alerts the APD as a “courtesy” only.

“The federal DWI investigation is about alleged misconduct by DWI police officers. Instead of focusing on that issue, the Albuquerque Police Chief is blaming the District Attorney’s Office, the Law Office of the Public Defender and the Metropolitan Court for the dysfunction and mismanagement of his DWI unit,” the DA’s statement said. “He should refocus on putting things in place to prevent this type of disaster from happening again.”

APD’s spokesman Gilbert Gallegos countered on Monday that Medina, as a deputy chief, spoke with then-Chief Deputy DA Chuck Barth about high case dismissal rates, and Barth wanted the DA’s office to take responsibility for tracking no-shows in court. So the DA’s office took the responsibility for notification. But after Barth died in 2021, the system appeared to break down and APD wasn’t notified consistently, Gallegos told the Journal. That has recently changed.

Bregman was appointed DA in January 2023 and is running for reelection. Medina has been police chief since 2017.

“Our office provided regular updates to all of our law enforcement partners whenever their officers failed to appear, but ultimately each agency was responsible for their officers’ attendance in court,” Lauren Rodriguez, spokeswoman for state Attorney General Raúl Torrez, Bregman’s predecessor, said Monday.

Chief Deputy DA Josh Boone told the Journal on Monday his office has updated and improved its system for alerting law enforcement agencies when their officers fail to appear for court hearings. The new system has been in use since January but wasn’t put in place because of the current allegations.

The DA’s office staff, including its assistant district attorneys, report the time, date and the reason, if known, that officers have missed court proceedings. Typically, misdemeanor cases, such as DWI, are dismissed without prejudice if important witnesses, such as the arresting officer, aren’t present to testify in court.

Boone said his office decides whether to refile such charges on a case-by-case basis.

Medina in a letter in late January also accused the upper management of the Law Offices of the Public Defender of ignoring concerns of public defenders who work in Metro Court about attorney Thomas Clear III, whose law office was among those locations searched Jan. 18 as part of the FBI investigation.

Clear at the time was the chairman of the state Public Defender Commission, which oversees the independent LOPD operations. Clear has since resigned. He hasn’t responded to Journal requests for comment.

In response to Medina’s letter, state Chief Public Defender Ben Baur issued a statement calling the letter a “self-serving distraction from the ongoing investigation. Chief Medina is responsible for the conduct of his officers. We are responsible to our clients, and are guided by our ethical responsibilities to them, our office and our profession.”