House bill 60: Relating to crime; revising the definition of “criminal offense”

The legislative session has just ended and though there was significant effort the bill I have been championing for almost 10 years did not pass.

Last year, I wrote in this column about how hard it is to get a bill passed and a law changed. That remains true today.

Eleven years ago, after successfully prosecuting the murder of Rio Rancho Police Officer Greg Benner who was gunned down during a traffic stop, I vowed that I would work to get an amendment to the Victims of Crime Act to ensure that law enforcement officers would have the same rights as other victims of violent crimes.

To make this happen the first thing is that a sponsor must be secured (a representative or senator) then the bill needs to be drafted. Once the bill is introduced, it gets filed and is assigned a number. This year, my sponsors were Nicole Chavez, Andrea Reeb and William A. Hall. The bill became House Bill 60.

The next steps are committee hearings wherein the bill is referred to one or more committees (in the case of my bill it was referred to House Consumers and Public Affairs and the House Judiciary Committees).

The committees study the bill, hear public testimony and then each committee votes to pass or table the bill. I spoke on behalf of the bill in both committees where the bill passed unanimously. The bill then moved on to the floor of the house for debate where it passed with a large majority.

It is important to emphasize that this bill is not proposing a new law, rather an amendment to an existing law, the Victims of Crime Act. There are 13 enumerated rights in this act which all victims of violent crime are entitled to.

Article II of this act states that these rights are designed to ensure that victims are treated with fairness, dignity and respect throughout the criminal justice process.

My bill proposes to amend the existing law to extend these same rights to law enforcement officers who are victims of crimes committed while in the line of duty. This amendment is not exceptional.

My research shows me that these rights are afforded to law enforcement officers in all our surrounding states and beyond. This is a crucial point as it affects morale, recruitment, and retention.

This year and last the bill passed through the House and got stuck in the Senate and there it died. During this past legislative session, there were numerous bills proposing new laws, which were debated endlessly as should be the case.

While I am not defeated, I do admit to some frustration. Hearing comments from legislators to the effect that “getting hurt in the line of duty is what the officers signed up for” is infuriating.

Law enforcement officers injured in the line of duty, as victims, should also have the right to be treated with respect, protected from the accused, notified of the proceedings, heard at sentencing and receive restitution.

House Bill 60 is a simple straightforward amendment to a law which everybody across party lines supports. As I said in this space a year ago, I will return for the next session and the session after that until this bill is passed. Unfortunately, this means starting at the beginning each time.

I’m still of the belief that this bill is in the best interests not just of law enforcement officers but everyone regardless of political affiliation. How can we ask law enforcement to have our backs when we don’t have theirs?

At a time when law enforcement morale, recruitment and retention is at an all time low, we can only blame ourselves if police officers leave our state for one of the surrounding states all of which afford victims’ rights to police. We are all less safe when this happens. I will see it through.

(Barbara Romo is district attorney for the 13th Judicial District, which includes Valencia, Sandoval and Cibola counties.)