Sheriff, DA clash on social media

Quay County Sheriff Russell Shafer on a Facebook post last week levied pointed criticism against 10th Judicial District Attorney Timothy Rose for his office’s handling of a Tucumcari sex offender who was given furlough and fled to another state more than 1,200 miles away.

Rose, while acknowledging a strategic mistake by an aide in the case, responded by criticizing the sheriff’s “sudden and erratic decision to vent on social media” and that the post was “not completely accurate and very misleading.”

By mutual agreement after they met at the sheriff’s office, Shafer deleted the Facebook post Wednesday morning about 12 hours after it went live. Both pledged to patch up differences and continue to work together for the sake of effective law enforcement.

The episode shows the power and peril of social media. It also signals the tensions — not unique to Quay County — between boots-on-the-ground law enforcement officers and prosecutors who have to consider the complications of law and whether they can win a conviction. Such spats usually occur behind closed doors, but seldom do they spill out into the public on Facebook.

The case

Shafer posted his 757-word message (see sidebar) on the “Quay County Sheriff Russell Shafer” page on Facebook the night of Aug. 6.

The sheriff in his post described the case of Pablo Figueroa, 46, of Tucumcari, who’d been convicted of sexual assault in Tennessee in 2007 and failed to register as a sex offender. After Figueroa was arrested in Tucumcari in December 2017, he was released on “very little or no bond,” Shafer wrote. After a high-speed chase in Tucumcari in January 2018, he fled to another state. Figueroa was apprehended in Russellville, Arkansas.

Shafer stated he and another deputy traveled to Arkansas at a taxpayer cost of $2,800 to bring Figueroa back to Quay County. According to online court documents, Figueroa also had been accused of aggravated fleeing of law enforcement officer and felony drug counts.

At Figueroa’s sentencing, he agreed to a plea deal of three years in prison if he were granted a three-day furlough, or release. He fled the state again and was apprehended in Warsaw, Indiana. Shafer said two deputies had to travel to Indiana at a cost of $3,800 in taxpayer money to bring Figueroa back.

Shafer criticized Rose for allowing the furlough.

“District Attorney Timothy L. Rose is either incapable or unwilling to do the job he was elected to do by the citizens of Quay County,” the sheriff wrote. “As the prosecuting attorney he not only allows weak sentencing but seems to encourage plea deals that greatly reduce the severity of the crimes committed by offenders in Quay, DeBaca and Harding Counties.”

Shafer’s Facebook post generated dozens of comments — virtually all in support of the sheriff — and dozens or more likes before it was taken down by late morning Wednesday. The Quay County Sun copied the text and screen-captured the post before it was deleted.

The rebuttal

Rose was seen Wednesday morning in the Quay County Courthouse, heading into an elevator. A deputy confirmed Rose was heading up to the sheriff’s office to talk with Shafer.

Rose later confirmed he went to Shafer’s office to discuss the Facebook post and what to do about it and his relationship with the sheriff going forward. Rose and Shafer were interviewed in Rose’s office Wednesday afternoon.

The prosecutor provided a 687-word response (see sidebar) to the Quay County Sun after Shafer deleted the post.

Rose acknowledged though the work between law-enforcement agencies and the courts “included many heated and frank discussions, we have usually been able to find common ground and work toward common goals in a professional manner.”

Rose wrote he was “frankly shocked and surprised” by Shafer’s post and that he “made absolutely no attempt to contact me” with concerns about the case.

Because the Figueroa case is pending, Rose said it would be “inappropriate for me to comment fully” about it. But he added Shafer’s Facebook comments “were not completely accurate and very misleading.”

Rose stated the district attorney’s office didn’t receive Figueroa’s case for prosecution until after he initially was released from jail, that his office obtained an order to hold him without bond and that he received the maximum sentence for the crime for which he was convicted.

Rose also said he was not the prosecutor at the hearing regarding Figueroa’s furlough request. He didn’t mention who it was, but court records show it was assistant prosecutor Thomas Blakeney. Rose said his prosecutor didn’t oppose the furlough request vigorously enough, resulting in District Judge Albert Mitchell granting it.

Rose said the lack of a strong objection to the furlough was a mistake.

“That’s easy to accept responsibility for, take corrective actions and make sure those type of decisions don’t happen again,” Rose said. “It didn’t need to happen, and I feel strongly it won’t happen again in the future.”

Rose stated in his response while he understood Shafer’s frustrations with the case, “I am disappointed in his sudden and erratic decision to vent on social media posts without attempting to communicate directly with me as professionals.”

Going forward

Peter Kierst, a University of New Mexico senior lecturer and a former trial lawyer for 30 years, was forwarded Shafer’s Facebook post and asked whether the criticism would have a detrimental effect on local law enforcement or endanger Rose’s position.

“Certainly, they will make the relationship between the DA's office and the Sheriff's department more difficult. But I suspect those relations had already deteriorated before the comments were made,” Kierst stated in an email.

“As an elected official, the DA can certainly be adversely effected by public criticism. The same is true of the Sheriff. I am certain the DA has his own take on the situation, and will defend his actions. The public gets to decide who it agrees with.”

In his office, Rose said, with Shafer sitting nearby, that he and the sheriff discussed the reasons for the Facebook post, their frustrations and how they’re going to address them.

“We’ve had issues in the past; we’ll have issues in the future,” Rose said. “There’s enough blame to go around. Nobody’s perfect; all agencies need to make improvements, work together and try to find common ground on how those improvements can be made. We’re in a position where we’ve had a good relationship in the past will continue to have a good, professional relationship in the future, as far as I’m concerned.”

When Shafer was asked whether he had anything to add, he said: “That pretty much sums it up.”

Shafer said if he had the Facebook post back, he would have “worded it differently” and added he’ll be more cautious with social media in the future.

“I wouldn’t have fired it off so fast,” he said. “I do believe it is why I was elected — to inform the public what’s going on. I would have worded it not as frustrations, but as concerns about where our criminal justice system is going.

“I lost my cool a little bit because I got to lose two deputies to drive to Warsaw, Indiana,” Shafer added. “That’s the biggest gist of my frustration. But it is what it is, and I take full responsibility for this.”

Rose said “taking down the Facebook post was a good, symbolic gesture” of Shafer and him working together.

“Rusty and I have known each other since we were kids,” Rose said. “Our families know each other. I believe at the time I first read the post it was based on frustration, and I was frustrated I didn’t get a heads-up and a phone call like I usually would. That’s the reason I wanted to have a meeting this morning — to see where we’re at. As far as I’m concerned, we’re going forward in a positive direction.

Shafer added: “This is not personal. I have a law-enforcement look on life, and Tim Rose has a prosecutorial look on life, and I guess that’s the way the system is the way it is.”