Will DWI corruption criminals have to pay victims?
ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. (KRQE) – The public may never know exactly how much money was pocketed from the DWI corruption scheme that went on for decades in New Mexico. Now, victims of the scheme are suing the culprits in response. But as KRQE Investigative Reporter Gabrielle Burkhart reports, there's a hurdle in their path to justice.
Latest from KRQE Investigates
Will DWI corruption criminals have to pay victims?
DWI corruption case: Why can't we see officers plead guilty in federal court?
'We're not done yet': FBI discusses future of DWI scandal as another APD officer takes a plea
Take a look at the plea deals in New Mexico's DWI scandal
Disgraced Albuquerque lawyer let off the hook in construction zone speeding case
What the feds call the 'DWI Enterprise' has operated for decades behind the scenes in New Mexico's criminal justice system. Officers would refer their DWI arrestees to a defense attorney, who'd guarantee a botched criminal case for a price.
So far, there are eight convicted criminals in the DWI corruption scheme, including a defense attorney, his paralegal, and six former law enforcement officers.
How much money did they all pocket over the years? The public may never know that answer. But today, some of the victims of the corruption scheme are taking the criminals to civil court.
'This cop had put me in so much financial debt that I constantly have to continue borrowing money from my family,' Carlos Smith explained to KRQE Investigates in an interview last year. Smith was one of the first to come forward after news of the scandal broke in 2024, revealing how the scheme worked.
His arresting officer, former APD officer Joshua Montaño, stopped him for speeding in 2023, charged him with DWI, then handed off his bracelet to defense attorney Tom Clear's office, where Smith recorded the offered deal from Clear's paralegal, Rick Mendez.
Below is a transcript of a portion of Smith's interaction with who he says is Rick Mendez:
Paralegal: If you need to get off of this –Smith: I do.
Paralegal: Okay. You're at the right place. If you're one of those people that can live with it, then go hire a cheap attorney.Paralegal: We're not the cheapest.
Smith didn't end up paying Clear and Mendez for their $8,500 guaranteed dismissal. Instead, he dealt with a pending DWI for months, until it was dismissed by the District Attorney's office last year after Montaño was no longer a trusted witness in court.
Montaño, Clear, and Mendez have since pleaded guilty in federal court to Rico conspiracy charges, and Smith is suing them for civil rights violations. 'He needs to definitely pay for what he did to me and for anybody else that he did this to,' Smith said.
However, in the latest courtroom twist, there's now another party involved; one tied to money that could go to potential victims, like Smith. Thomas Clear III's insurance company, Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America, has now filed its own lawsuit in federal court.
'We have to go back to what is covered by these kinds of insurance policies,' explained Albuquerque attorney Deena Buchanan. Buchanan is not involved with this case in any way, but she has a lengthy track record litigating cases involving insurance companies.
Buchanan explains what Travelers is doing with its lawsuit against both Clear and Smith in federal court. Travelers claims Clear lied on his insurance application while engaging in a criminal enterprise, therefore, the former defense attorney's insurance policy should be null and void.
'Every year we have to resubmit to the insurance company and we have to get an updated policy,' Buchanan explained. 'And they ask us a series of questions that just say, 'Hey, do you know of any claims that could be brought against you? Do you know of anything that you might have done wrong in the last year that you need to report to us?'
Travelers is citing Clear and Mendez's federal plea deals, showing Clear admitted to running the DWI scheme in his law office since 1995. 'So Travelers looked at that and said, first of all, if this law firm was doing a criminal enterprise and it was using our insurance to cover it while it was engaging in this criminal enterprise, that contract of insurance is invalid,' Buchanan explained.
KRQE News 13 reached out to the attorneys in Smith's case against Montaño, the City of Albuquerque, Albuquerque Police Department, and Clear and Mendez. KRQE also reached out to attorneys for Travelers, but none of the parties would comment on the pending lawsuits.
'The judge is going to have to decide, are the acts the same?' Buchanan said. 'And has the plaintiff made allegations that are negligence, just pure negligence that are covered by the policy? Or are all of the allegations really about the criminal conduct or the intentional acts?'
What does this insurance lawsuit mean for victims who are now coming forward? KRQE asked Buchanan if there would be compensation for them.
'Well, you know, it's difficult in a civil action,' she explained. 'Even if there's no insurance, you can still go after someone's personal assets. When there's no coverage, it always raises the question of potential bankruptcy,' Buchanan added.
Clear's law office was seized by the feds as part of its investigation into the criminal enterprise. And today, Smith isn't alone in coming forward.
Other victims of the scheme have joined a class action lawsuit against key players in the criminal enterprise. And victims suing the government – meaning APD and the City of Albuquerque – Buchanan explains, that's a different story in civil court if the judgment goes their way.
'Yes, bottom line, the government would be responsible for paying,' said Buchanan. 'And our city has a lot of challenges right now, the police department has a lot of challenges right now, so it does concern me as a taxpayer that that's where the money would come from.'
Each of these lawsuits is still making its way through the court process. Buchanan said in cases like the one involving Clear's insurance company, a judge could make a decision within a few months.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
43 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Supreme Court: US Gun Makers Not Liable for Cartel Violence
In a unanimous blow to gun control advocacy groups, he Supreme Court shut down Mexicos $10 billion claim targeting U.S. gun makers in a cross-border lawsuit. Mexico originally filed the suit in 2021, arguing that U.S. gun companies were responsible for the weapons that fueled cartel violence. Mexico received support in its lawsuit from American gun control advocacy groups such as Everytown and March for our Lives Action Fund. The Supreme Court ruling, written by Justice Elena Kagan, found that the manufacturers alleged failure to exercise "reasonable care" does not meet the standard necessary to be found liable for "aiding and abetting" the sale of illegal firearms in Mexico. Mexico had asked the court for $10 billion in damages and additional court-imposed injunctive relief in the form of restrictions on manufacturers. According to a lawyer who spoke to RCP, siding with Mexico on the injunctive relief "would have likely severely prohibited the distribution of the manufacturers products" within the United States. A federal district court judge initially ruled that the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act protected the gun manufacturers from the suit. In 2024, the First Circuit Court of Appeals revitalized the lawsuit. In response, gun manufacturer Smith & Wesson brought the case to the Supreme Court. The PLCAA, signed into law in 2005 by President George W. Bush, shields gun manufacturers and dealers from liability when crimes are committed with their products. The law includes exceptions which Mexicos lawyers sought to invoke. The original suit by Mexico, which named multiple U.S.-based gun manufacturers as defendants, claimed that Mexicans "have been victimized by a deadly flood of military-style and other particularly lethal guns that flows from the U.S. across the border." It also argued that U.S. companies were negligent in their sales practices, claiming that the gun companies "are not accidental or unintentional players in this tragedy; they are deliberate and willing participants, reaping profits from the criminal market they knowingly supply." In response, lawyers for Smith & Wesson argued in a filing that the lawsuit "faults the defendants for producing common firearms" and for "failing to restrict the purchase of firearms by regular citizens." They made the case that "aiding and abetting criminal activity must involve something more than making products generally." Ultimately, the Supreme Court agreed with this reasoning. In reference to the injunctive relief that Mexico asked the court to grant, lawyers for Smith & Wesson asserted that the lawsuit was "inflicting costly and intrusive discovery at the hands of a foreign sovereign that is trying to bully the industry into adopting a host of gun-control measures that have been repeatedly rejected by American voters." According to some estimates, more than 250,000 firearms are smuggled from the United States into Mexico each year. In contrast, Mexico has one gun store and issues fewer than 50 new gun permits each year. The U.S. is the largest firearm exporter in the world, partly due to relaxed gun laws within the country. The unanimous decision marks the first ruling by the Supreme Court where the PLCAA is cited and could serve as precedent for protecting weapons manufacturers in future cases. The 9-0 ruling suggests strong judicial consensus on the limits of civil liability for gun manufacturers under federal law. It is seen as a win by gun rights activists, with the NRA arguing in their amicus brief on the case that "Mexico has extinguished its constitutional arms right and now seeks to extinguish Americas." Justices Clarence Thomas and Ketanji Brown Jackson each issued concurring opinions, with Jackson writing that Mexicos lawsuit targeted industry-wide practices that Congress has chosen not to prohibit and Thomas arguing that violations of U.S. law must be established in court for the PLCAA exceptions to be valid. James Eustis is an intern at RealClearPolitics. He studies politics at Washington & Lee University.
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
Amnesty Day to be held this month by the Shreveport City Marshal's Office. Here's what you need to know
The Shreveport City Marshal's Office is hosting its annual amnesty day later this month. On Saturday, June 21, the Shreveport City Marshal's Office will host its annual Amnesty Day from 8 a.m. to 3 p.m. at the Shreveport City Courthouse. This will allow anyone who has outstanding warrants through the Shreveport City Court to have their warrants recalled and a new court date scheduled without fear of being arrested or additional fees. Also, anyone with delinquent fines can get a new payment schedule. According to the marshal's office, this is only for warrants and fines issued through Shreveport City Courts. Warrants that involve Domestic Abuse Battery, Battery of a Dating Partner, DWI's and probation will not be recalled and must post a bond. Marshal James Jefferson encourages anyone who thinks that they may have an outstanding warrant or delinquent fines to take advantage of this opportunity. Individuals must come in person with their ID. More: Three more escaped New Orleans inmates have been caught, while two still remain at large Makenzie Boucher is a reporter with the Shreveport Times. Contact her at mboucher@ This article originally appeared on Shreveport Times: Amnesty Day to be held this month by the Shreveport City Marshal's Office. Here's what you need to know
Yahoo
6 hours ago
- Yahoo
Gateway Center residents speak about their experience at facility
ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. (KRQE) – The City of Albuquerque has poured tens of millions of dollars over the past several years to create the Gateway Center, in hopes of helping hundreds of people get back on their feet and find housing. For the first time, KRQE News 13 got a chance to speak with some of the residents about their experience and how it's opening new opportunities for them. 'Homelessness does not discriminate,' said Adrienne, a resident at the center. Story continues below Community:ABQ bus driver speaks out on her experience of safety issues on Central route News:Homeland Security: 11 people arrested at New Mexico dairy were 'undocumented' Trending:Mexican gray wolf Asha gives birth to litter of pups Food: Two Albuquerque restaurants make Yelp's 'Top 50 Cheap Eats' list For 13 years, Adrienne and her partner, Lisa, lived in an apartment together in Albuquerque. That was until the day Lisa was shot in the head in October, which led to costly medical bills and an eviction notice. 'Oddly enough, we lost everything we owned,' Lisa said. After getting evicted, it was only a couple of days before they were welcomed at Albuquerque's Gateway Center. 'By God's good graces, I'm still here, and the worst that came out of this is we got to start over a little bit,' Lisa said. It's been two weeks since they arrived, and they say they're making good progress on finding a new home for themselves. Lisa says she does not have a job, identification, or a cell phone, but that caseworkers at the center are helping her. They're also working to get her an EBT card. 'If you're willing to utilize the resources that they're giving you, then you're going to succeed,' Adrienne said. 'If you're not, then you're going to go out and say all these kinds of bad stuff.' Adrienne, however, does have a job, but stays at the center as the eviction process and apartment search play out. The city has faced scrutiny over the center, with the public questioning the millions spent and its success. Lisa and Adrienne say their experience is much different than what some people may think or hear about the center. '[It] focuses on getting people's lives back together,' Lisa said. 'Focuses on what the reality of going back out there is.' According to Albuquerque Mayor Tim Keller, about 500 people have gone through housing navigation at Gateway since the start of the year. About 20% of them have found some sort of housing. 'You're either going to step up and help yourself, or we're going to go ahead and rotate through and get somebody who wants to step up and help themselves,' Lisa added. The couple plans on moving to a new place in the next several months. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
