Incarcerated New Mexicans challenge solitary confinement
O'Shay Toney and GuJuan Fusilier, two of the three men held in the Penitentiary of New Mexico who are challenging the prison's use of solitary confinement. (Photos courtesy of the American Civil Liberties Union of New Mexico)
Three New Mexicans held at the maximum-security state prison in Santa Fe are challenging the New Mexico prison system's use of solitary confinement, not just for them but for anyone else and those who might be subjected to it in the future.
Through their attorneys, three men on Thursday filed a complaint for class relief against the prison itself, the New Mexico Corrections Department and so far unidentified defendants who will be named later.
O'Shay Toney, GuJuan Fusilier and Mah-konce Hudson allege the prison system has an unlawful and constitutional policy and practice 'of subjecting hundreds of New Mexicans annually to prolonged periods of solitary confinement as a form of punishment for violating prison rules.'
On Thursday, the First Judicial District Court in Santa Fe assigned the case to Judge Matthew Wilson.
'We don't comment on pending litigation,' Corrections Department Spokesperson Brittany Roembach told Source NM in a statement.
The Corrections Department denies it uses solitary, with Roembach instead referring to it as 'restrictive housing.'
'To be clear, solitary confinement does not exist in the NMCD system,' she said. 'We utilize restrictive housing, like the Predatory Behavior Management Program (PBMP), to fix behaviors.'
In response to Source's questions, Roembach shared a copy of the prison system's policy governing the program, which states that its purpose is to 'reduce predatory behavior' among incarcerated people.
ACLU-NM Managing Attorney Lalita Moskowitz told Source NM in an interview it's a very common practice for prison officials to use euphemisms for solitary confinement. Prison reform advocates in New Mexico have said previously that the program is one example of the department putting a different label on solitary confinement.
In the complaint, the incarcerated people allege that the program uses solitary as punishment and guards use arbitrary and inconsistent criteria to put people in it.
Under the program, the men have 'spent months, and in many cases, years of their lives locked in tiny, barren cells for 23 hours per day or more as supposed punishment for violating prison rules,' the complaint states.
If Judge Wilson finds that allegation to be true, that would be a violation of the state's 2019 Restricted Housing Act, which defines 'restrictive housing' as confinement of a person in a locked cell or similar living quarters for 22 or more hours each day without daily, meaningful and sustained human interaction.
Lawmakers to consider more limits on solitary confinement in prisons and jails
There are 147 people in the program at PNM, according to Roembach. ACLU-NM estimates that 400 people have been held in solitary over the last three years.
The policy also requires that prison officials provide mental health and psychiatric treatment to people in the program, however, the complaint alleges, 'In reality, PBMP is a long-term solitary confinement unit that offers little in the way of programming or preparation.'
Both Fusilier and Toney suffer from 'severe mental illness,' the complaint states, and Hudson was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder because of trauma from being in long-term solitary.
Fusiler said in a statement that he's begged for help with his anger, anxiety and PTSD and prison officials have allegedly responded with isolation and rejection.
'This so-called program offered NOTHING it promised,' he said. 'This place doesn't provide growth or positive change for our lives, no matter how loud our cries for help are. It feels like the people running it don't care about the success of my life. Instead, they keep us pinned down and oppressed.'
While in solitary, Toney alleges he is unable to privately or consistently speak with a mental health professional. Hudson 'fears being overmedicated' in solitary and can't access the care he needs because he has no privacy or ability to communicate with providers, the complaint states.
Prison officials have also allegedly prohibited Toney from using technology, making phone calls or accessing the commissary, his property or recreation time, the complaint states.
Hudson said in a statement long-term solitary 'turns anger into hate, eliminates coping mechanisms, leaving only survival tactics, and exacerbates existing mental health issues into debilitating anxiety and paranoia.'
'It teaches isolation rather than connection, leaving people ill-equipped for social environments whether in general population or upon release to society,' he said.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
9 hours ago
- Yahoo
Government drones used in 'runaway spying operation' to peek into backyards in Sonoma County, lawsuit says
Three residents filed a lawsuit this week against Sonoma County seeking to block code enforcement from using drones to take aerial images of their homes in what the American Civil Liberties Union is calling a "runaway spying operation." The lawsuit, filed by the ACLU Wednesday on behalf of the three residents, alleges that the county began using drones with high-powered cameras and zoom lenses in 2019 to track illegal cannabis cultivation, but in the years since, officials have used the devices more than 700 times to find other code violations on private property without first seeking a warrant. "For too long, Sonoma County code enforcement has used high-powered drones to warrantlessly sift through people's private affairs and initiate charges that upend lives and livelihoods. All the while, the county has hidden these unlawful searches from the people they have spied on, the community, and the media," Matt Cagle, a senior staff attorney with the ACLU Foundation of Northern California, said in a statement. A spokesperson for Sonoma County said the county is reviewing the complaint and takes "the allegations very seriously." Read more: Will these drones 'revolutionize' 911 response? L.A. suburb will be first to test The lawsuit comes amid a national debate over the use of drones by government agencies who have increasingly relied on the unmanned aircraft during disasters and for environmental monitoring and responding to emergency calls. More recently, some agencies in California and in other states have explored using drones to investigate code enforcement violations. In 2024, nearly half of Sonoma County's drone flights involved non-cannabis violations, including construction without a permit, junkyard conditions and zoning violations, according to data included in the complaint. "The use of drones over someone's private space raises a question of what is considered private," said Ari Ezra Waldman, a professor of law at UC Irvine. Waldman said if law enforcement on the ground wants to see on the other side of a tall fence or trees into someone's property they have to get the person's consent or they need probable cause for a warrant. "Why shouldn't that apply above ground too?" he said. California doesn't have a law that regulates the use of drones by code enforcement agents. In 2015, lawmakers in the state Assembly approved a measure that would have restricted the use of drones over private property without the owner's permission. Then-Gov. Jerry Brown vetoed the bill saying at the time that it could expose hobbyists or commercial users to "burdensome litigation." The ACLU argues that the county's use of drones as an investigative tool violates the California Constitution which provides people the right to privacy and against unreasonable searches and seizures. "I think that our expectations of privacy are based on social norms and people don't normally expect that someone is going to have a super high powered, detailed ability to capture extraordinary detail with a camera that's just buzzing over their property," Waldman said. "We shouldn't have to walk around life expecting that just because this technology exists that we have no privacy from anything anymore, from any direction." The lawsuit also alleges that the county's drone policy has loosened in the past several years. In 2019, the policy required inspectors to receive a complaint about a property before deploying a drone. Now, officials have no such requirement, allowing them instead to launch "discretionary proactive investigations," the complaint states. Residents named in the lawsuit say that the drones hovering above their homes have resulted in ongoing privacy concerns and a loss of enjoyment of their property. One plaintiff, Benjamin Verdusco, decided to sell his home after he learned that the county had been taking pictures of his backyard with a drone in 2021, according to the complaint. Read more: Police drones could soon crisscross the skies. Cities need to be ready, ACLU warns Another plaintiff, Nichola Schmitz, who is deaf, wasn't able to hear the buzz of the drone hovering above her property on Oct.10, 2023. When a worker on her property pointed it out she "became confused and worried," the complaint states. She rushed to her bedroom and closed the curtains, concerned about how long the drone had been there and whether it had seen her naked on her property earlier that day. She alleges the drone made two big loops around her property and, shortly after, a red tag appeared on her gate alleging two violations of the county code — one for illegal grading and another for having on her property an unpermitted dwelling, a small cabin that her father had built on the land in 1981. She spent $25,000 for a contractor to fix the alleged grading issue but still faces $10,000 in fines. ACLU attorneys allege the evidence obtained by the drone was done so unlawfully because officials did not have a search warrant. "This horrible experience has shattered my sense of privacy and security," Schmitz said in a statement. "I'm afraid to open my blinds or go outside to use my hot tub because who knows when the county's drone could be spying on me." A third plaintiff, Suzanne Brock, confronted county officials after she learned that they had taken detailed aerial photos of her outdoor bathtub and shower that she and her daughter used daily. She expressed concern to inspectors that they might have seen her naked in the bathtub. Code Enforcement Inspector Ryan Sharp told her that "when we see something like that, we turn around," according to the complaint. When Brock asked if county officials see people during the flights, Sharp told her yes, according to the complaint, but added that "we don't put that in the camera footage." Sign up for Essential California for news, features and recommendations from the L.A. Times and beyond in your inbox six days a week. This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
Los Angeles Times
10 hours ago
- Los Angeles Times
Government drones used in ‘runaway spying operation' to peek into backyards in Sonoma County, lawsuit says
Three residents filed a lawsuit this week against Sonoma County seeking to block code enforcement from using drones to take aerial images of their homes in what the American Civil Liberties Union is calling a 'runaway spying operation.' The lawsuit, filed by the ACLU Wednesday on behalf of the three residents, alleges that the county began using drones with high-powered cameras and zoom lenses in 2019 to track illegal cannabis cultivation, but in the years since, officials have used the devices more than 700 times to find other code violations on private property without first seeking a warrant. 'For too long, Sonoma County code enforcement has used high-powered drones to warrantlessly sift through people's private affairs and initiate charges that upend lives and livelihoods. All the while, the county has hidden these unlawful searches from the people they have spied on, the community, and the media,' Matt Cagle, a senior staff attorney with the ACLU Foundation of Northern California, said in a statement. A spokesperson for Sonoma County said the county is reviewing the complaint and takes 'the allegations very seriously.' The lawsuit comes amid a national debate over the use of drones by government agencies who have increasingly relied on the unmanned aircraft during disasters and for environmental monitoring and responding to emergency calls. More recently, some agencies in California and in other states have explored using drones to investigate code enforcement violations. In 2024, nearly half of Sonoma County's drone flights involved non-cannabis violations, including construction without a permit, junkyard conditions and zoning violations, according to data included in the complaint. 'The use of drones over someone's private space raises a question of what is considered private,' said Ari Ezra Waldman, a professor of law at UC Irvine. Waldman said if law enforcement on the ground wants to see on the other side of a tall fence or trees into someone's property they have to get the person's consent or they need probable cause for a warrant. 'Why shouldn't that apply above ground too?' he said. California doesn't have a law that regulates the use of drones by code enforcement agents. In 2015, lawmakers in the state Assembly approved a measure that would have restricted the use of drones over private property without the owner's permission. Then-Gov. Jerry Brown vetoed the bill saying at the time that it could expose hobbyists or commercial users to 'burdensome litigation.' The ACLU argues that the county's use of drones as an investigative tool violates the California Constitution which provides people the right to privacy and against unreasonable searches and seizures. 'I think that our expectations of privacy are based on social norms and people don't normally expect that someone is going to have a super high powered, detailed ability to capture extraordinary detail with a camera that's just buzzing over their property,' Waldman said. 'We shouldn't have to walk around life expecting that just because this technology exists that we have no privacy from anything anymore, from any direction.' The lawsuit also alleges that the county's drone policy has loosened in the past several years. In 2019, the policy required inspectors to receive a complaint about a property before deploying a drone. Now, officials have no such requirement, allowing them instead to launch 'discretionary proactive investigations,' the complaint states. Residents named in the lawsuit say that the drones hovering above their homes have resulted in ongoing privacy concerns and a loss of enjoyment of their property. One plaintiff, Benjamin Verdusco, decided to sell his home after he learned that the county had been taking pictures of his backyard with a drone in 2021, according to the complaint. Another plaintiff, Nichola Schmitz, who is deaf, wasn't able to hear the buzz of the drone hovering above her property on Oct.10, 2023. When a worker on her property pointed it out she 'became confused and worried,' the complaint states. She rushed to her bedroom and closed the curtains, concerned about how long the drone had been there and whether it had seen her naked on her property earlier that day. She alleges the drone made two big loops around her property and, shortly after, a red tag appeared on her gate alleging two violations of the county code — one for illegal grading and another for having on her property an unpermitted dwelling, a small cabin that her father had built on the land in 1981. She spent $25,000 for a contractor to fix the alleged grading issue but still faces $10,000 in fines. ACLU attorneys allege the evidence obtained by the drone was done so unlawfully because officials did not have a search warrant. 'This horrible experience has shattered my sense of privacy and security,' Schmitz said in a statement. 'I'm afraid to open my blinds or go outside to use my hot tub because who knows when the county's drone could be spying on me.' A third plaintiff, Suzanne Brock, confronted county officials after she learned that they had taken detailed aerial photos of her outdoor bathtub and shower that she and her daughter used daily. She expressed concern to inspectors that they might have seen her naked in the bathtub. Code Enforcement Inspector Ryan Sharp told her that 'when we see something like that, we turn around,' according to the complaint. When Brock asked if county officials see people during the flights, Sharp told her yes, according to the complaint, but added that 'we don't put that in the camera footage.'
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Yahoo
By the #s: Federal prosecutors slow down on charges for unauthorized entry into NM's military base
The border wall seen from the northern edge of the New Mexico National Defense Area east of Columbus, N.M. in late May. (Photo by Patrick Lohmann / Source NM) Federal prosecutors this month charged fewer people for allegedly trespassing on the newly established military base along New Mexico's border with Mexico, according to a Source New Mexico review of federal court records. Over the last two months or so, 570 people have been charged for 'unauthorized entry' into what is now effectively a military base along the border, Source's review shows. On April 15, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Interior Secretary Doug Burgum announced the transfer of land from the Bureau of Land Management to the military, effectively making the 180-mile border New Mexico shares with Mexico into an extended military base tied to Fort Huachuca in Arizona. Along with empowering the United States Army to patrol the border and temporarily detain people they found, the transfer exposed people arrested to a new criminal charge of unauthorized entry, a misdemeanor punishable by up to a year in jail. The area transferred to the military is a little more than 400 square miles, minus state and private land, running roughly along the New Mexico Panhandle and south of Highway 9 before Hachita. Prosecutors announced the new type of criminal charge in late April and began filing charging documents soon after, with as many as 58 people facing the new misdemeanors in a single day in early May. But the charges quickly proved vulnerable to legal challenges based, partly, on whether people knew they were illegally entering a military base. The military has posted small warning signs in English and Spanish along the northern and southern borders of the so-called National Defense Area that entry is prohibited. On May 14, a federal judge dismissed more than 100 of the charges, after federal public defenders raised the issue on behalf of their clients. The dismissals coincided with a one-day dip in the number of unauthorized entry charges being brought, according to Source's review. The number of daily charges picked up again before beginning to decline early this month. Since May 30, just 11 people have been charged with unauthorized entry, according to federal filings. The reason for the decrease is unclear, including whether it's because fewer people are crossing or whether federal prosecutors have changed their strategy. Tessa Duberry, a spokesperson for the office, did not respond to a request for comment on the decrease. In addition to the judge's dismissals, the U.S. Attorney's Office dismissed at least three of its own unauthorized entry charges due to confusion about where the boundaries of the NDA lie. Confusion reigns in New Mexico's militarized border zone Meanwhile, the Army has warned hunters and hikers that they could be prosecuted if they enter the area, but per an informal agreement, ranchers can drive past the signs without issue as they tend to cattle they graze on former BLM land they lease in the NDA. Public defenders are also challenging the charge in a couple of individual cases, including one instance in which the charging documents suggest the arrestee was picked up in Arizona, and another involving a citizen of Uzbekistan who, her attorneys argue, didn't read or speak English or Spanish and therefore couldn't have known she was entering a restricted area. U.S. Rep. Gabe Vasquez (D-NM) this week questioned Army Secretary Daniel Driscoll in a Congressional committee hearing, saying widespread confusion exists about who can enter the area and 'where the boundaries of this military zone actually start and where they end.' Driscoll said the Army would work on improving signage and communication with people in the area and members of Congress. 'The army is working incredibly hard with our soldiers to put out signage. We have taken it over recently,' he responded.
