STATE OF NEW MEXICO

COUNTY OF BERNALILLO
SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT

MUNAH GREEN
Plaintiff,
v.

No. D-202-CV-2015-05680

CITY OF ALBUQUERQUE,
Defendant.

CLOSING STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF

COMES NOW Plaintiff, Munah Green, by and through her attorneys of record AHMAD
ASSED

AND

ASSOCIATES (Ahmad Assed and Richard J. Moran), and respectfully submits her

Closing Statement to the court:

Over eight months have passed since the Los Altos Skate Park shootings, and almost
eight months since Plaintiff filed her Inspection of Public Records Act (IPRA) with Defendant.
For almost eight months, Defendant has intentionally and flagrantly violated Plaintiffs IPRA
request. In addition to violating the State of New Mexicos IPRA law, Defendant has enjoyed the
benefit of having it both ways when it comes to public records and information. On the one hand,
Defendant claims it cant release records and information because its in the midst of an ongoing investigation, but then Defendant states nothing has been investigated in over four weeks,
or that the investigation is over.
Defendant has released bits and pieces of information that is suitable to its purposes, but
wont release the full record, even though IPRA is very clear that it is declared to be the public

policy of this state, that all persons are entitled to the greatest possible information regarding the
affairs of government and the official acts of public officers and employees. For almost eight
months, Defendant has arbitrarily and capriciously self-interpreted IPRA for its own ends. In
doing so, Defendant attempts to set an illegal precedent; one that intentionally subverts the spirit
and purpose of IPRA with potentially dangerous ramifications for our democratic system of
government.
At its core, Defendants actions and arguments to the public and the court is this: IPRA is
only enforceable and to be followed when we the government and it public officers and
employees - say it is to be followed, or when it is convenient or suits official purposes. Under
Defendants interpretation, IPRA becomes meaningless and subject to the pleasure and whim of
governmental power. Instead of IPRA being a public check and balance, or a statutory tool by
which the public can extract the greatest possible information about governmental actions, IPRA
can be thwarted, eviscerated and otherwise rendered meaningless by two words: on-going
investigation.
Plaintiff is the only actor in this case who has followed IPRA, literally, to the letter of the
law. On April 10, 2015 Plaintiff filed her IPRA request with the Albuquerque Police Department
(APD)s Record Custodian/IPRA Manager, Mr. Reynaldo Chavez. Plaintiffs request was for
certain records and videos, which Plaintiff described with reasonable particularity, as required by
IPRA.
On April 13, 2015. Defendant acknowledged receipt of Plaintiffs IPRA request. On
April 27, 2015 Defendant through Mr. Chavez - communicated to Plaintiff that Defendant
needed additional time to process the IPRA request. In the same April 27, 2015

communication, Defendant told Plaintiff that Defendant would promptly contact you via email
as soon as those documents become available for pick up or inspection. Significantly,
Defendant did not deny Plaintiffs IPRA request in Defendants April 27, 2015.
As the court knows, Section 14-2-11(C) states that a custodian who does not deliver or
mail a written explanation of denial within fifteen days after receipt of a written request for
inspection is subject to an action to enforce the provision of IPRA. Mr Chavez did not deny
Plaintiffs April 10 IPRA request. Mr. Chavez made it clear in his communication to Plaintiff
and on the witness stand that he not only would comply with Plaintiffs IPRA request, but he
testified that the request could and should be complied with, because that what the law required.
Operating on the belief that Defendant was sincere that some, if not all of the records,
recordings and documents requested would be available for pick up or inspection by Plaintiff,
our office sent a follow up communication on May 1, 2015. In Plaintiffs May 1, 2015
communication, Plaintiff noted that IPRA requires the custodian to explain in writing when the
records will be available for inspection or when the public body will respond to the request. and
that Defendant had provided no timeframe as to when the records will be available.
What Plaintiff did not know, is that Defendant would get rid of the APD Records
Custodian and IPRA Manager almost after Mr. Chavez indicated he would comply with
Plaintiffs IPRA request. It would be another forty-two (42) days before Defendant responded to
the May 1 communication from Plaintiff and sixty-two days (62) before Defendant completely
altered its previous position and issued a denial on June 11, 2015.

At the November 20, 2015 trial the acting APD records custodian and IPRA Manager,
Javier Urban, testified that he reviewed the May 1, 2015 correspondence. Mr. Urban testified at
trial that Defendant decided in the latter part of April or early part of May, 2015 that Plaintiffs
entire April 10, 2015 request would be denied. Even though Defendant made the decision to
reverse the former APD records custodian and IPRA Manager, Mr. Reynaldo Chavez, and
wholly deny Plaintiffs April 10, 2015 IPRA request sometime in late April-early May, 2015, the
Defendant did not provide Plaintiff with a denial until June 11, 2015.
Mr. Urban testified that Defendant did not describe the records and did not set forth the
names and titles or positions of each person responsible for the denial as required by IPRA. Mr.
Urban acknowledged that, despite having made the decision to wholly deny Plaintiffs IPRA
request, the Defendant held a press conference and released thirteen (13) highly selective screen
shots from a cell phone video taken at the Los Altos Skate Park on March 22, 2015. The thirteen
(13) highly selective screen shots taken from the cell phone video were part of a PowerPoint
presentation released to the news media at the May 8, 2015 press conference.
At the May 8, 2015 press conference, Defendant via its employees, agents, and/or
representatives used the PowerPoint presentation and thirteen (13) still photographs and screen
shots to portray to news media and members of the public that Plaintiffs minor son was shot and
killed in an act of self-defense. On June 22, 2015 members of the Albuquerque Police
Department (APD) allowed Plaintiff to view the full cell phone video after Plaintiff went to
APD headquarters and demanded to view the video. APD did not allow Plaintiff to make a copy
or otherwise record the cell phone video. APD did not provide Plaintiff with a copy of the cell
phone video.

On July 10, 2015 having no other choice or recourse, Plaintiff filed her Complaint for
Damages for Violation of the Inspection of Public Records Act. On August 14, 2015 Defendant
filed its Answer to Plaintiffs Complaint for Violations of the Inspection of Public Records Act.
In paragraph seven (7) of Defendants Answer, Defendant stated that the records sought
pertained to an ongoing police investigation.
At trial, Defendant presented testimony from APD Detective Terra Juarez and Sergeant
Liz Thompson that release of this cell phone video to the public would compromise the APD
investigation, as both Juarez and Thompson were concerned that its release would influence
witnesses recollection of the event. Detective Juarez testifies that she agreed the cell phone
video should be made available to Plaintiff and to the public at the conclusion of her
investigation.
Juarez also testified that had done no further work or investigation on the skate park
shootings and homicide in the past four (4) weeks. Juarez also acknowledged at trial that APD
spokesperson Tanner Tixier had made statements to the Albuquerque Journal on November 7,
2015 that detectives are no longer investigating the Los Altos Skate Park shootings and
homicide.
In addition to arguing against the precedent Defendant seeks to impose on IPRA in
Defendants effort to render public records enforcement meaningless, Plaintiff also presents three
questions to the court to that end: 1) did Defendant violate IPRA and is it in current violation of
IPRA, 2) did Defendant waive the IPRA confidentiality exception as it relates to the cell phone
video and, 3) is Plaintiff entitled to damages and enforcement of IPRA via a writ of mandamus
under NMSA 1978, 14-2-11 and 14-2-12?

Plaintiff argued in the bench memo submitted to the court that Faber v. King was
germane to the matter at hand. In Faber, the Plaintiff sought release of certain public records
from the Attorney General. That Plaintiff filed an IPRA request and the Attorney General denied
it in writing the next day. Here, Defendant first indicated that Plaintiffs IPRA request would be
complied with as required by statue but sought additional time to comply. Defendant then made
an internal decision to wholly deny Plaintiffs IPRA request, but the Defendant would not alert
or notify Plaintiff of that decision for another 45 days.
The Court in Faber ruled that Section 14-2-11 provides for statutory damages as
specified by IPRA. The Court ruled that while Section 14-2-12 does not permit punitive
damages, 14-2-12 does allow for a writ of mandamus, injunction, compensatory damages, costs
and attorneys fees. The Court held that the purpose behind IPRA is clearly set forth in Section
14-2-5 stating: it is declared to be the public policy of this state, that all persons are entitled to
the greatest possible information regarding the affairs of government and the official acts of
public officers and employees.
This case has received a great deal of public interest. It has also been subject to a great
deal of speculation, primarily because the public only has snippets of information bits and
pieces that Defendant has arbitrarily decided to release about a high-profile shooting and
homicide case.
Plaintiff brings this action before the court because the public is entitled to the greatest
possible information regarding the affairs of government and the official acts of public officers
and employees. The case at hand is clearly the type of situation where IPRA its goals and the

public policy set forth in that statue - wouldnt apply more. The plaintiff and the public, by law,
are entitled to the greatest possible information.
Perhaps most important of all, Plaintiff asks this court to reject Defendants contention
that IPRA is only to be followed when it is convenient or suits official purposes. It was not the
legislative intent when IPRA was enacted that it become meaningless and subject to the pleasure
and whim of governmental power. IPRA was meant to empower citizens and to hold government
and the official acts of public officers and employees accountable. Not just when it is convenient,
but primarily when it inconvenient and uncomfortable to those subject to IPRA.
It is Plaintiffs prayer that the Court will grant the relief Plaintiffs seeks under the
enforcement provisions of the New Mexico Public Records Inspection Act and bring the
Defendant into compliance with the law.
Respectfully Submitted,
__________/S/__________
Ahmad Assed & Associates
Ahmad Assed, Esq.
Attorney for the Plaintiff
818 5th Street NW
Albuquerque, NM 87102
505/246-8373
Fax 505/246-2930

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true

and correct copy of the foregoing
was emailed to the Kevin Morrow, Esq
City of Albuquerque Legal Department
on this __30__day of _November_2015.

___________/S/_____________
By: Ahmad Assed & Associates
Attorneys for the Defendant
7