A summer of secrets: Police provide little information on multiple homicides, while skirting state law
Following a particularly violent summer, the Las Vegas Police Department is investigating four homicides and one non-fatal shooting. To date, charges have been filed in just one case.
Police have provided the public with very little information on these incidents, and have denied three open records requests made by the Optic under New Mexico’s Inspection of Public Records Act, or IPRA.
The first homicide occurred June 15 when Cruz Gallegos was shot and killed inside a home on Chavez Street. On July 22, Leroy Lucero died from multiple gunshot wounds while outside a home on San Miguel Street. Less than two weeks later, on Aug. 3, Marcos “Mark” Carrillo was found dead from a single gunshot wound inside a house on Union Street. About a half hour prior, Gilbert Montoya was found bleeding from multiple gunshot wounds outside a nearby home.
More recently, on Aug. 16, the body of William “Skip” Smith Jr. was found in an alleyway between 5th Street and 6th Street. Police have not said how he died, but recently, Chief of Police David Bibb confirmed LVPD considers Smith’s death a homicide.
June
The Optic learned of a June 15 homicide investigation from a police scanner. Despite several calls made to LVPD seeking information, the department would not provide much detail on the incident. The department never sent out a news release or any updates, and it did not name Gallegos as the victim until mid-July, and only after the Optic learned the victim’s name through documents filed in San Miguel Magistrate Court. Those documents also named a person of interest in the case: Arturo Ruiz.
Confronted with the information in the court records, LVPD confirmed Gallegos died of a single gunshot wound, and said Ruiz might have witnessed the shooting.
July
Police provided considerably more detail about the death of Lucero, but wouldn’t release details on potential suspects or persons of interest, or say if there was a potential link to Gallegos’ death.
Seeking more information in Lucero’s death, in late July, the Optic repeatedly contacted LVPD, and while some calls and emails were returned, many others were ignored. The Optic then filed an IPRA request with LVPD and the City of Las Vegas, seeking documents that might shed more light on the homicide.
Days later, Cmdr. Steve Pacheco told the Optic that LVPD could not provide the records sought because doing so could compromise LVPD’s investigation.
According to Melanie Majors, the executive director of the New Mexico Foundation for Open Government, any original records of entry from law enforcement agencies are public record.
These records include radio logs, dispatch logs, 911 tapes and other records of incidents reported to a law enforcement agency.
Majors told the Optic that NMFOG believes it is a violation of IPRA to not release original records. She said it’s also a matter of transparency.
“The public has the right to not only question what its government is doing, but to see what its government is doing,” Majors said. “Records are supposed to be released when they’re asked for. That’s the whole point. As a taxpayer, you have paid for that information.”
An IPRA compliance guide published by the Office of the Attorney General states certain law enforcement records can be exempt if an agency can prove those records reveal “confidential sources, methods, information or individuals accused but not charged with a crime.”
Majors said that while IPRA does allow some law enforcement exemptions, a law enforcement agency is still allowed to release redacted versions of its records, blacking out names of confidential informants, identifying personal information or other items that could reveal investigation techniques.
In fact, she said many law enforcement agencies in New Mexico routinely release redacted versions of incident reports.
“The best way to ensure the public’s trust is to avoid secrecy,” Majors said.
However, Cmdr. Pacheco refused to release redacted versions of LVPD reports, saying he didn’t want it to look like the department was hiding something.
August
Following the Aug. 3 double shooting of Montoya and Carrillo, police arrested 40-year-old Marcos R. Ruiz, a relative of Arturo Ruiz, alleging Marcos Ruiz shot Montoya.
Weeks later, on Aug. 27, District Attorney Richard Flores sent the Optic a press release announcing that Marcos Ruiz was also being charged with an open count of murder in connection with Carrillo’s death.
Marcos Ruiz has since been charged with first-degree murder, and he’s been charged with attempted murder in the shooting of Montoya.
According to court records, Montoya told police that the night of the shootings, Marcos Ruiz picked him up in a car driven by Rhonda A. Greenier.
The three went to a home in the 600 block of Union Street, and there, Montoya said he witnessed Marcos Ruiz “wrestle” with Carrillo before shooting him. Montoya said Marcos Ruiz then turned the gun toward him, and fired it three times. Montoya was hit by all three bullets, but escaped out a side door.
According to obituaries published in the Optic and posted online, Greenier was once married to Gallegos’ father, and Carrillo was Gallegos’ uncle.
LVPD won’t say if Marcos Ruiz is a suspect in Gallegos’ death though, or if he is believed to be linked to the deaths of Lucero or Smith.
When Smith’s body was found Aug. 16, an Optic reporter was on scene, but an LVPD lieutenant would not provide details, instead telling the reporter to contact Chief Bibb. After placing several phone calls and sending multiple emails, nine hours later, Chief Bibb sent the Optic an email confirming it was Smith who’d died. In follow-up emails, Chief Bibb would only confirm Smith’s death was “suspicious.”
On Aug. 30, following a request from the Optic for more information on the case, the department confirmed Smith’s death was being investigated as a homicide, but LVPD would not discuss suspects or persons of interest. The email also stated LVPD would not release the cause and manner of death until the Office of the Medical Investigator released its full report.
OMI told the Optic it could take several weeks until the final report is released, and that it will not release details of preliminary reports.
The search for answers
In early August, the Optic filed another IPRA request with LVPD, this time seeking initial incident reports, initial officer reports, 911 tapes and transcripts, dispatch tapes and mugshots relating to the deaths of Gallegos and Lucero, as well as the still-unsolved 2018 shooting death of Jeromy Vasquez, who was found dead in a home on New Mexico Avenue.
The City of Las Vegas denied the request, refusing to release any documents in any of the three cases, again citing that doing so could compromise LVPD’s investigation.
According to the IPRA compliance guide, the exception for law enforcement records does not protect information subject to disclosure under the Arrest Record Information Act.
These records include radio and dispatch logs, 911 tapes and any original records of entry compiled chronologically. Still, LVPD refused to release any records.
LVPD has also stated in press releases that police reports relating to homicide cases won’t be released until a suspect is named, implying that once a suspect has been named, those reports will be made available to the public.
On Aug. 14, the Optic filed a third IPRA request, this time seeking initial incident reports, initial officer reports, 911 tapes and transcripts, radio and dispatch tapes, and mugshots related to the shootings of Montoya and Carrillo.
Although Marcos Ruiz has been named as a suspect — and while some of the records sought have been filed in San Miguel Magistrate Court, and are therefore already public records — on Sept. 5, the city and LVPD denied the Optic’s request to inspect these records.
The Optic has since filed two complaints with the New Mexico Attorney General’s office regarding the city and LVPD’s refusal to provide records under New Mexico law.
Assistant Attorney General John Kreienkamp has sent a copy of the complaints to the City of Las Vegas, asking that it respond by Friday, Sept. 20.
