New Mexico Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and

New Mexico

Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Relatives

TASK FORCE REPORT

Report to the Governor and Legislature on the

Task Force Findings and Recommendations

In Partnership with the Native American Budget Policy Institute

DECEMBER 2020

Table of Contents | 1

Acknowledgments

Introduction

SECTION I: DEFINING MISSING AND MURDERED INDIGENOUS WOMEN AND RELATIVES (MMIWR)

Historical Overview of the Legislation and Task Force Plan of Action House Bill 278

Summary of Plan of Action

Data Collection Plan

Covid-19 Limitations

Task Force Collaborations

SECTION II: BACKGROUND AND CONTEXTUAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR INDIAN COUNTRY

New Mexico Tribes

Pueblo Lands

Navajo Lands

Border Towns

Tribal Crime

Indian Law and Criminal Jurisdiction

The Role of Law Enforcement

SECTION III: PRELIMINARY RESULTS FROM DATA ANALYSIS

Data Collection Procedures and Findings

Classifying and Investigating Missing Persons

Human Traicking

Homicide and Violence Case Findings

Existing Support Services and Limited Resources

Program Service Gaps

SECTION IV: TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS

Support Services for Survivors and Families

Support Tribal Justice Systems with Resources

Education and Outreach, and Other Prevention Measures Are Needed

Identified Law Enforcement Recommendations

Next Steps and Considerations for MMIW Task Force – Phase 2 Goals

Conclusion

APPENDIX

Appendix A: Existing Support Services

Appendix B: Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Relatives Narratives

Appendix C: Task Force Members

Appendix D: Project Timeline

Appendix E: IPRA/FOIA Request Law Enforcement Agency Responses

Appendix F: Community Perspective

2 | Acknowledgments

This report and the work done by the Missing

and Murdered Indigenous Women and Relatives

Task Force would not be possible without the

contributions of our stakeholders and consulting

partners. The task force would like to acknowledge

and thank the individuals, organizations and

agencies that contributed to this eort. The task

force oers heartfelt gratitude to those who made

the public meetings possible. This huge undertaking

could not have been accomplished without the

generosity and hard work of public oicials and

employees from the state, federal, county and city

governments, tribal representatives, local businesses

and concerned citizens.

The task force would also like to thank the Native

American Budget and Policy Institute (NABPI)

research team – Dr. Kimberly R. Huyser, Dr. Gabriel

Sanchez, Lia Abeita-Sanchez, Maria Livaudais and

Carmela Roybal – for their contributions as research

consultants on the project.

We would also like to thank University of New

Mexico clinical law students Krista Thompson,

Vanessa Hidalgo and Felisha Adams (2021 Juris

Doctor candidates), under the supervision of Samuel

Winder, and Amber Holland and Heather Tanner,

under the supervision of Christine Zuni Cruz, from

the Southwest Indian Law Clinic at the University of

New Mexico School of Law, for draing sections of

this report.

Finally, we would like to extend our gratitude to

Samantha Wauls, Christina Castro and Christine

Means for contributing to this report and for

supporting the work of the task force. Your expertise

and commitment to this cause guided and enhanced

this work.

Although there is a wealth of valuable information summarized in this report, the task force would like to

acknowledge the countless hours of work that still needs to be done in the year ahead. This is an important

and sensitive topic that must be approached with all appropriate care and respect for the communities facing

challenges related to missing persons. This takes time, and data collection has been severely impacted by the

coronavirus outbreak, which has limited our ability to meet and connect with the agencies and individuals we

originally planned to interview in person. This report therefore reflects the major findings of our joint eorts

since the formation and initial meetings of this task force. In our conclusion, we identify some of the goals we

have for the next year, as the task force and our research partners are committed to continuing the important

work we have started together.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

More Work Ahead for the Task Force

Introduction | 3

INTRODUCTION

“My sister, Dione Thomas, was found lifeless in a

hotel room along Route 66 in Gallup. Five years later,

the case is unsolved. The last call made was to 911

because she was bleeding and unconscious. They

named a suspect but charges were never filed.”

– Sister of Dione Thomas

“My little cousin Tiany Reid. Sixteen years old,

she went missing. We haven’t seen her. We haven’t

– we have no idea where she’s at. One of the

biggest struggles my family is facing is trying to get

communication between law enforcement agencies.”

– Relative of Tiany Reid

Narratives surrounding Dione and Tiany’s disappearance and death provide a window into the experience of

hundreds of Indigenous women and girls and their families in the state of New Mexico. Their experience begs

several questions: Why are so many women going missing and found murdered? Why are women and girls in

the state of New Mexico experiencing elevated rates of violence? And finally, why have these women and their

families not received justice? These are the dominant questions that served as the foundation for the work

summarized in this report.

Both Dione’s and Tiany’s stories, summarized in more detail in Appendix B, demonstrate the systemic failure

of public safety agencies charged with preventing the loss of life. These two case studies reflect what is

occurring far too oen in New Mexico. The inability for the state’s public safety and criminal justice systems to

protect women who are from Indigenous communities continues to force grieving families and communities

across the state to take on the role of investigators and advocates for their missing and murdered daughters,

mothers and children. Families are forced to become investigators, detectives and advocates amid much grief

and pain.

Violence against Native American women is a national crisis that has only recently reached the attention of

the media and national policymakers. According to the National Crime Information Center, in 2017 there were

more than 5,700 reports of missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls (MMIWG), not even counting

the cases that have yet to be entered into crime databases. In 2018, the Center for Disease and Control and

Prevention reported homicide as one of the leading causes of death among American Indian and Alaska

4 | Introduction

Native women. In some areas, women and girls are murdered at a rate that is 10 times the national average.

Furthermore, MMIWG face physical and sexual violence at greater rates than women from all other racial and

ethnic groups.

Although this is a national crisis, the state of New Mexico provides an ideal case study for the broader

challenges facing Native American communities across the country. Despite having the fih-largest Indigenous

population in the nation, the state of New Mexico has the highest number of MMIWG cases in the country.

This context motivated the foundation of the New Mexico Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and

Relatives (MMIWR) Task Force, which set out in 2019 to study the scope of this crisis in the state. Initial findings

in this report represent the work of the MMIWR Task Force over the past year and demonstrate significant

discrepancies in the data available for analysis by our research team; the findings also point to jurisdictional

barriers that make addressing this issue challenging. The MMIWR Task Force has also identified a lack of

awareness about the severity of this issue, which suggests the need for a major education campaign across

the state of New Mexico.

This report is informed by the relatives of missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls, along with

advocates, law enforcement, legislators, organizations and community members. Our goal is to share the

words and experiences of families to expose gaps in our justice system and in the resources and services

for families, victims and survivors. Our hope is that this report reflects the voices and experiences of our

communities and every person who has been impacted or knows someone who has been impacted by this

profound crisis in our state.

The MMIWR Task Force would like to recognize everyone who shared their experiences and contributed to this

report and for eorts to bring awareness, justice, critical change and real solutions to the state of New Mexico.

This report consists of four main sections, as outlined below:

• The first section provides an overview of the MMIWR legislation that serves as the foundation for the work

of the task force and the research summarized in this report.

• The second section is an overview of the background and contextual considerations for MMIWR in New

Mexico.

• The third section provides a summary of the findings of the research conducted for the state of New

Mexico so far. This includes analysis of data provided by jurisdictions and case studies of information

provided by families.

• The fourth section is an overview of the core findings from our research, and policy recommendations

generated by this research and the wider community. We conclude this fourth section with a discussion of

the next steps for the MMIWR Task Force and research partners.

Section I | 5

The Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Relatives (MMIWR) Task Force considers all genders, rather

than focusing exclusively on women. The need to be comprehensive in our focus became clear as the task

force initiated conversations with the wider community. The quote below reflects suggestions made by the

community to broaden the work of the task force.

“They – and I mean ‘they’ like boys, men and our LGBTQ – should have

been included at the beginning...because this is not just a crisis with our

women and girls. The more research we do, there are more men that are

missing or murdered than there are women. But a lot of people are not

talking about that.”

– Community Member

For the purpose of this report, Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Relatives (MMIWR) refers to

Indigenous women, men, children and all our relatives who are impacted by the high statistical rates of

targeted violence in New Mexico. This acronym expands on the original scope provided for in House Bill 278,

which created the MMIW task force. It is understood that the use of the MMIWR acronym throughout the report

includes other impacted Indigenous populations and demographics. The task force recognizes the colonial

origins of MMIWR and the colonial legacy of violence in New Mexico. Such violence began with the Spanish

invasion of Indigenous communities and the subsequent promotion of human traicking, slavery and violence

on Indigenous bodies, all of which European Americans and settler colonialism further exacerbated.

As nongovernmental organization (NGO) initiatives and other awareness eorts have developed, the MMIW

definition and social media hashtag has evolved into more inclusive adaptations, not limited to the following

examples:

MMIR Missing and Murdered

Indigenous Relatives

MMIW2T Missing and Murdered Indigenous

Women Two Spirit and Trans

MMDR Missing and Murdered

Diné Relatives

MMIWG

Missing and Murdered Indigenous

Women and Girls

SECTION I

Defining Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Relatives (MMIWR)

6 | Section I

Historical Overview of the Legislation and Task Force Plan of Action

House Bill 278: “Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women Task Force”

In 2019, House Bill 278 was passed by the New Mexico Legislature and signed by Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham.

This legislation created the “Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women Task Force” in New Mexico. The

sponsors of the legislation – Representatives Andrea Romero, Derrick J. Lente (Sandia Pueblo), Melanie A.

Stansbury and Wonda Johnson (Diné) – passed this bill with the intent of creating a task force to address

jurisdictional gaps and resource gaps, and to bring attention to this crisis in New Mexico. In addition, the bill

sponsors ensured that junior bill monies were appropriated to support the work of the task force.

The task force was mandated to study and provide recommendations to the Legislature, the Governor and all

relevant partners regarding the MMIWR crisis in New Mexico and to research specific questions and perform

certain tasks, which are listed below:

• Identify how the state can increase resources for

reporting and identifying cases of MMIWR.

• Collaborate with tribal law enforcement agencies

to determine the scope of the problem and

identify barriers to address the problem.

• Create partnerships to improve reporting and

investigations of MMIWR cases.

• Work with tribal governments and communities.

• Collaborate with the DOJ to improve information

sharing processes and coordination of resources

for reporting and investigating cases of MMIWR.

The legislation supporting the creation of the task force was introduced in response to a 2017 report published

by the Urban Indian Health Institute (UIHI),

which spotlighted the Missing and Murdered Indigenous

Women and Girls (MMIWG) crisis across the county. New Mexico was named in this report because it has two

cities included in the list of “Top Ten Cities with the Highest Number of MMIWG Cases.” The two cities were

Albuquerque, which had 37 cases, and Gallup, which had 25 cases. This context motivated a request to both

cities for more in-depth data for our team to analyze, which is included in our report. As a state, New Mexico

had the highest number of MMIWG cases out of all the states studied, with 78 cases of MMIWG.

Particularly concerning lawmakers in New Mexico were the statistics highlighted in the report, noting 506

unique cases of missing and murdered American Indian and Alaska Native women and girls across 71 selected

cities in the United States. Of the 506 cases:

Section I | 7

The data included in these reports were collected from missing persons databases, searches of local

and regional news media online archives, public social media posts and direct contact with families and

community members who volunteered information on missing or murdered loved ones.

Of the 506 cases:

were missing persons cases.

Summary of Task Force Plan of Action

The MMIWR Task Force held several meetings over the last year, both in person and virtually. Each meeting

had a defined objective and a specific focus based on the goals and objectives defined in House Bill 278. The

task force’s goal was to understand the current state of the MMIWR crisis in New Mexico and to learn from

stakeholders, especially families and survivors, about how to improve prevention, reporting, investigating and

support services for Indigenous Peoples in the state. The task force decided to narrow its goals and objectives

to focus on what could be accomplished during the allotted time for its work. The goals and objectives that

were identified are below.

• Develop a shared vision and vocabulary for describing and

addressing MMIWR.

• Identify how justice systems are coordinating investigations,

prosecutions and reporting of MMIWR cases.

• Identify the number of open, closed and pending MMIWR cases

across law enforcement agencies/news and media outlets and in

community and family member accounts.

• Use mapping to identify where the MMIWR cases are occurring.

• Identify barriers as detailed in testimony of survivors, family

members, advocates, experts and law enforcement.

• Identify the existing support services and resources for families

impacted by MMIWR.

To understand the scope of the

MMIWR crisis in New Mexico.

Goal 1 Objectives

128 (25%)

were murder cases.

280 (56%)

had an unknown status.

98 (19%)

was the median of MMIWG victims.

8 | Section I

• Identify and build trust with core stakeholders to ensure inclusive

and comprehensive input is being collected. Core stakeholders

include survivors, family members, advocates, experts and law

enforcement.

• Convene and gather input from core stakeholders through

community hearings and surveys.

• Outline recommendations to further address the issue from core

stakeholders.

To create the foundations and

foster partnerships to further

address the issue.

Goal 2 Objectives

Data Collection Plan

One of the first conclusions of the task force was that any recommendations we made needed to be data-

driven. However, it became very clear quickly that two of the major challenges we would face were a lack of

outcome data sorted by race and ethnicity, and data that was uneven across jurisdictions, which would require

some original data collection. The table below outlines the task force’s data collection plan that intended to

fill some of these gaps in existing data. The table shows what the task force planned on accomplishing at the

outset of this work, the tasks that have been completed so far, and work that is still in progress and remains a

priority for the task force moving forward.

As the table below reflects, our data goals and overall timeline required modification due to the significant

challenges Covid-19 has presented for data collection. Due to the extremely sensitive nature surrounding

MMIWR, all events were originally planned to take place in person, including listening sessions, outreach

events, public forums, workshops and one-on-one meetings. The task force canceled in-person plans and

quickly pivoted to manage all task force events safely online to meet state health requirements.

Not being able to meet personally with families, state, county and other criminal justice and public safety

agencies has been daunting. Without the ability to conduct qualitative in-depth interviews and focus

groups, our team shied to less invasive approaches for data collection. As the state of New Mexico and

tribal communities sheltered in place, the task force continued its attempts to gather data. However, limited

broadband internet access and reliable cell coverage in rural New Mexico and throughout Native communities

created communication and access issues for scheduled online events.

Covid-19 Limitations

Section I | 9

Law Enforcement Agencies & Federal Partners Completed

Incomplete

Inspection of Public

Records Act (IPRA)/FOIA

Request

First: Aggregate data, protocols, and forms

Second: Case files for Indigenous women and girls

Oice of the Medical

Investigator (OMI)

Reports

Evaluate OMI reports for the past five years (2014-

2019) to determine the number of murder cases

involving Indigenous women and girls.

Surveys

Survey LEAs to identify barriers and develop

recommendations to address this crisis.

Tribal Community, Services, Advocates & Experts Completed Incomplete

Community Hearings Convene six (6) community hearings.

Develop Definitions

and Terms

What language or terms are best to use or avoid

when describing and talking about the MMIWR

crisis?

Surveys

Survivors and family members

Service providers

Advocates and experts

What are the appropriate trauma-informed and

victim/survivor-centered language or terms to use

when describing and talking about the MMIWR

crisis?

Relationship building with community and local partners has been and continues to be something that the

task force is working to improve. The simple fact that this is a state task force creates barriers to reaching tribal

communities and establishing partnerships. Despite these challenges, the task force developed data collection

tools with guidance from community partners who advised the task force.

Task Force Collaborations

Although we have made substantial progress, we will remain focused on addressing the incomplete tasks

identified below for as long as doing so takes. While most of the data collection activities were accomplished,

the results were not as robust as they likely would have been had all planned events been held in person. We

have secured the commitment from our research team and other stakeholders to collect all needed data, even

if doing so takes us well beyond the end dates in our original scope of work.

10 | Section I

In addition to building relationships with local organizations, the task force partnered with local research

groups, law students, community members and experts who served on the Stakeholder Advisory Committee.

Moreover, the work of the task force would not be possible without the guidance and support of our

communities. It is clear there is much work remaining to be even more inclusive and to ensure that we expand

our reach and elevate voices that are oen le out.

Introduction / Section I Notes

1. Ronet Bachman, Violence Against American Indian and Alaska Native Women and the Criminal Justice Response: What Is

Known, National Institute of Justice (Jan. 2009) https://nij.ojp.gov/library/publications/violence-against-american-indian-

and-alaska-native-women-and-criminal-justice.

2. Kimberly R. Huyser, Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women & Girls A Briefing Report, Native American Budget Policy

Institute, Center for Social Policy (June 2019) https://nabpi.unm.edu/assets/documents/mmiwg-briefing-paper.pdf.

3. Id.

4. Annita Lucchesi, Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women & Girls- A snapshot of data from 71 cities in the United States,

Urban Indian Health Institute (Nov. 2018) http://www.uihi.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Missing-and-Murdered-

Indigenous-Women-and-Girls-Report.pdf.

Section II | 11

SECTION II

Background/Contextual Considerations for Indian Country

The crisis of Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Relatives is not new. While much attention has

been focused on this crisis in recent years, most considerations fail to connect the current acts of violence to

those that have occurred throughout this nation’s history. Women and children have always been at the center

of violence between tribal nations and foreign governments. Indigenous Peoples have endured through the

various stages of United States’ federal Indian policies, which began with nation-to-nation treaty negotiations,

recognizing tribes as sovereign nations. However, throughout history at each era of federal Indian policy, tribal

sovereignty – the ability to self-govern – was diminished by laws and policies of the federal government. In

many instances, each era of federal Indian policy cost tribes in the United States their land, culture, children

and language.

Tribes across the United States have fought to preserve their way of life. Still today, external threats target

Indigenous values, culture, identity and relationships. Moreover, many tribal people are coping with layers

of trauma resulting from this painful history, which most of our society fails to understand or acknowledge.

The federal government, which has a trust responsibility with tribes based on this historical relationship,

is failing to meet its treaty obligations of providing health care, education, public safety, housing and rural

development to tribes.

The unmet needs and failures of our government are still very evident today. This is especially true when it

comes to the well-being and safety of Native women, children and relatives. The eort by our government

to address the brutality and wrongs of the past is minimal and fails to meet the glaring inequities that exist

today. For instance, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights reported

that in 2009, the BIA found that then-

current funding met only 42 percent of need for law enforcement personnel in Indian Country. Moreover,

Federal Indian Law and policies have created a jurisdictional maze that limits tribal courts from being able to

prosecute non-Indians and, in some cases, tribal members who violate tribal laws.

12 | Section II

New Mexico is home to 23 sovereign nations – 19

Pueblos and four Tribes – each with its own land

base bordering either state or federal lands. In

addition to our sovereign nations, the state also

has a mixture of dierent communities that include

urban population hubs and border towns, and much

of our state is rural. Each of these areas is unique.

Each has its own history, race relations, political

dynamics and jurisdiction.

When law enforcement is asked to respond about

a possible missing or murdered person, sometimes

confusion may arise about which agency should

respond, depending on jurisdiction, especially

when jurisdiction is not clear – for instance, in areas

New Mexico Tribes

of the state where land status varies mile to mile.

Dierent land holdings across New Mexico impact

law enforcement response time, investigation

and prosecution. These issues become further

complicated in certain areas of the state where tribal

lands adjoin towns and cities. In some cases, good

working relationships between law enforcement

agencies minimizes these challenges; while this is

the goal, it is not the reality across the state.

Checkerboarded lands across the state impact law

enforcement response. This is especially true when

the relationship with surrounding jurisdictions is

strained, making collaboration and coordination

diicult.

Crownpoint

Navajo Reservation

Acoma

Zuni

Laguna

Tohajiilee

Cochiti

Kewa

San Felipe

Jemez

Zia

Santa Ana

Isleta

Alamo

Navajo Reservation

Jicarilla Apache

Mescalero Apache

Taos

Tesuque

Pojoaque

Nambe

Picuris

Santa Clara

Ohkay Owingeh

San Ildefonso

Sandia

Farmington

Los Alamos

Ruidoso

Ramah

Navajo Reservation

Chama

Shiprock

Navajo Reservation

Section II | 13

Pueblo Lands in New Mexico

New Mexico has a unique history that diers greatly

from any other state. Unlike other tribes across the

country, the Pueblo Nations of New Mexico had their

property rights recognized by Spain, Mexico and the

United States. Following the ratification of the Treaty

of Guadalupe Hidalgo, which ceded New Mexico and

Arizona to the United States, uncertainty remained

about whether Pueblo lands were considered a part

of Indian Country. Following conflicting court rulings

over the applicability of the Non-Intercourse Act on

the Pueblos, the court in United States v. Sandoval

held that Pueblos maintained a dierent Legislative

and Executive relationship with the U.S. government

because they owned their land in fee simple title,

due to their previous relationship with the Spanish

government. This was a relationship that diered

from tribes, whose land is held in trust by the federal

government. With respect to jurisdiction, the Federal

District Court has determined that when an Indian

commits a crime on a parcel of land owned by a non-

Indian, that crime falls within the exterior boundaries

of a Pueblo and that federal jurisdiction is proper.

However, when a non-Indian commits a crime in

the same location, state jurisdiction is proper.

Pueblo lands include an extensive history shaped

by complex case law that is unique to New Mexico.

Despite a clearer picture of who has jurisdiction over

crimes occurring within Pueblos, the issue of funding

and resources for those responding to crimes

remains.

Navajo Lands in New Mexico

New Mexico’s largest tribe is the Navajo Nation; it is

also the largest land-based tribe in the United States,

spanning more than 27,427 square miles across

three states (Arizona, New Mexico and Utah), with

more than 350,000 enrolled members.

The Nation

is comprised of 110 Chapters, or local governments,

within the Navajo Nation.

In New Mexico, an

additional 80,000 enrolled members, reside in

dependent Navajo communities, allotments and

border towns.

Another land issue, not unique to New Mexico, but

particularly challenging in the state, is jurisdictional

confusion associated with allotted lands. The eastern

portion of the Navajo Nation is “checkerboarded,”

which means that not only are there tribal trust

lands, but similar to the Pueblos, parcels of land that

are privately held by individual Navajo Nation tribal

members and some non-Indians.

To decrease “jurisdictional impediments,” the Navajo

Nation has chosen to form partnerships with state

and county police through cross-commissioning

agreements. Despite the mix of territorial

boundaries, cross-commissioned oicers can enforce

both Navajo and state law accordingly.

14 | Section II

Border Towns in New Mexico

Border towns are towns and cities that are located

near or adjacent to reservations, and these towns

see economic gains from the neighboring Indigenous

Peoples who shop there. The history of border towns

typically includes racial tensions, and some towns

may see increased rates of crime against Native

Americans. More research must be done in this area

to better inform the state about how the dynamics

around border towns contribute to cases of MMIWR

in the state.

Border towns are geographically located on state

land where responding law enforcement is normally

city and/or county agencies. Thus, jurisdiction

is non-tribal. The investigation and prosecution

processes follow local municipal and/or county

requirements. Although jurisdiction falls on city or

county law enforcement, the close proximity to tribal

lands can create barriers and limit investigations.

Should a witness, suspect or person of interest

reside on tribal lands, law enforcement would need

to engage with tribal law enforcement to complete

a full investigation. The section below on the Role of

Law Enforcement further details these complexities.

Crimes that occur in border towns will be tracked

and reported by city or county law enforcement.

Therefore, it is of extreme importance that data is

reported and collected accurately to fully understand

the scope of MMIWR.

A critical need recognized by the task force is

gathering information to understand barriers and

challenges in New Mexico’s border towns more

fully. Organizations that have voiced these concerns

for years now must have a seat at the table to fully

express their concerns and recommendations to

help improve current conditions. More studies are

needed to help capture the experiences and current

conditions of racial issues, race relations, inequities

and to identify recommendations for justice.

Although this task force did not have the ability to

further develop and study the relationships of all

border towns in New Mexico and MMIWR, we know

that the environments that exist in these towns

have long been a factor in the cases of missing and

murdered relatives. This is evident when we look at

the case studies of border towns summarized in this

report.

The previously cited study from the

Urban Indian Health Institute (UIHI)

lists two border towns in New Mexico

that are of particular importance

due to their designation of having

the highest number of MMIWG cases

nationally: Gallup and Albuquerque.

Although we summarize the data we have been

provided from both urban areas in the next section of

this report, we highlight significant concerns about

how that data is recorded and its overall accuracy

due to the potential that not all cases are being

documented in reporting systems.

Section II | 15

Tribal Crime in New Mexico

When crimes occur in Indian Country, tribes and the

federal government have concurrent jurisdiction.

In New Mexico, the wide variety of land ownership

status, oen referred to as the “checkerboard,”

creates diiculties in determining whether federal,

tribe or state law enforcement has jurisdiction

to respond, investigate and prosecute a crime.

Unfortunately, MMIWR victims suer significantly

from this jurisdictional maze.

In addition to jurisdictional complexities, limited

funding creates further challenges.

According to Congressional

findings, only 43 percent of the total

estimated need for law enforcement

oicers was met as of May 6, 2019.

Consequently, Indian Country

is currently under-policed by 57

percent, and jurisdictional gaps

continue to perpetuate violent crime

against women, children and men.

According to Navajo Nation Council Delegate Amber

Crotty, the Navajo Nation only has 0.85 police

oicers per 1,000 individuals living in the Nation.

Significantly, the Federal Bureau of Investigation

(FBI) has reported that violent crime has fallen by

48 percent nationwide; however, the same data

reflects an inverse trend on the Navajo Nation with

an increase of violent crime occurring over that

same period of time.

Should Congress appropriate

additional funding to meet the needs of tribal justice

systems and for the hiring of additional tribal law

enforcement, we could see a decrease in violent

crime and MMIWR; however, jurisdictional gaps

may still outweigh the possibility of any significant

decrease.

In some states, suspects have learned more about

the types of crimes they can and cannot get away

with. For example, in 2017, a non-Indian male

reported himself to tribal police aer beating his

girlfriend. The non-Indian taunted tribal police by

stating, “[you] can’t do anything to me anyway.”

Typically, when crimes occur outside the exterior

boundaries of a reservation, federalism serves as

the dominant theme to distinguish state and federal

jurisdiction. In most cases, states have jurisdiction

since federal laws are limited in scope.

Indian Law and Criminal Jurisdiction in New Mexico

Cases involving missing and murdered Indigenous women oen fall into a perfect

storm of federal, tribal and state jurisdiction – oen referred to as the “multi-

jurisdictional maze.”

16 | Section II

Qualitative data gathered at public task force

meetings included concerns of how information and

data was shared when an individual’s case involved

multiple jurisdictions. Jurisdictional complexities

between tribal, state and federal law enforcement

pose the biggest challenge in determining who has

legal authority to proceed over a criminal case.

Simply determining who retains jurisdiction over a

crime requires a multi-faceted analysis, beginning

with identifying where a crime occurred and whether

a victim or perpetrator is an Indian.

The Supreme Court initially acknowledged federally

recognized tribes as sovereign nations having

inherent jurisdiction over everything that occurred

within tribal boundaries – including criminal acts.

Over time, the federal government has diminished

tribal sovereignty. Congress enacted laws that

provided limited jurisdictional authority to the

federal government by enacting the General Crimes

Act

and Major Crimes Act.

The passage of the Major Crimes Act by Congress,

which was prompted by the case Ex parte Crow Dog,

allows federal jurisdiction over “major crimes”

committed by Indians within Indian Country.

The

seven enumerated major crimes listed are: murder,

manslaughter, rape, assault with intent to kill, arson,

burglary and larceny.

Tribal governments’ sovereignty was further

diminished in Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe.

This case stated that tribal governments do not

have inherent jurisdiction to prosecute non-Indians

for crimes committed on the reservation without

a clear statement from Congress.

While Oliphant

has created jurisdictional gaps that still exist today,

Congress has passed legislation with hopes of

reviving tribal sovereignty to prosecute crimes

committed by non-Indians on tribal lands. Since

Oliphant, Congress has responded legislatively

by enacting the Tribal Law and Order Act of 2010

(“TLOA”)

and Violence Against Women Act of 2013

(“VAWA”).

More recently, aer much work and support from

Congressional legislators from both sides of the aisle,

President Trump signed both Savanna’s Act and

the Not Invisible Act into law on October 10, 2020.

Savanna’s Act is dedicated to improving coordination

among law enforcement agencies and allows tribal

agencies to access law enforcement databases to

help solve cases involving MMIWR. The Not Invisible

Act is dedicated to improving coordination among

federal agencies by establishing a tribal and federal

stakeholder commission to address and recommend

solutions to the Department of Interior and

Department of Justice (USDOJ) on how to combat

the MMIWR crisis. Currently, no national database

or collaboration exists between federal agencies to

track the MMIWR cases.

Section II | 17

The Role of Law Enforcement

In New Mexico, multiple governments exercise

jurisdiction over criminal conduct in Indian

Country, including tribes, the state and the federal

government. As discussed earlier, jurisdiction

depends on the type of criminal conduct alleged

and the Indian or non-Indian status of the alleged

perpetrator and victim. This complex maze of

jurisdiction oen slows and hampers an eective

response to the MMIWR crisis. Commission

agreements, cross-commissions and memorandums

of understanding (MOU) are all tools that must be

explored and implemented across the state to more

eectively respond to criminal conduct that occurs

in areas where jurisdiction is unclear and results in a

delayed police response.

There are three possible avenues for commissioning

tribal law enforcement. Commissions may occur by a

county sheri’s grant of their traditional authority, by

the Mutual Aid Act or by following the requirements

under NMSA § 29-1-11 (2005). Under the historic

authority of a county sheri, formal commission

agreements, minimum training certification and

articulation of the division of liability between the

sheri and the tribe is not required. Commissioning

may also occur under the Mutual Aid Act, which

authorizes state law enforcement agencies to enter

into mutual aid agreements

with tribes when

“assistance from city and county law enforcement

agencies [is necessary] to enforce . . . regulations.”

These written agreements must be approved by the

state agency, tribe and the Governor of New Mexico.

Finally, commissioning may also occur by following

the requirements under NMSA § 29-1-11 (2005).

Under this statute, formal commission agreements

require tribes to submit public liability and property

damage insurance for vehicles and professional

liability insurance from a company licensed to sell

insurance in the state. In addition, tribes are required

to complete 400 hours of basic police training and

maintain certification requirements.

Agreements between state and tribal law

enforcement are limited by the cost of required

insurance, agreeing to the scope of the commission,

the area that the agreement will apply, required

procedures for determining how o-reservation and

on-reservation pursuits will be handled, supervising

authority and questions of waivers of sovereign

immunity. Additionally, the ever-changing nature of

tribal government where leadership may only serve

one-year terms poses challenges with consistency;

for instance, agreements reached can change when

a new tribal leader is elected or appointed. Layered

over all these considerations are the political

tensions that exist in some areas of the state. Despite

the New Mexico Supreme Court explicitly airming

the authority of tribal law enforcement to issue civil

traic citations to non-Indians,

non-Indian law

enforcement authorities view tribal police enforcing

citations on non-Indians as “a shakedown of non-

native citizens.”

These historic racial tensions

prevent law enforcement from working cohesively to

protect New Mexicans.

18 | Section II

Section II Notes

5. U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. Broken Promises: Continuing Federal Funding Shortfall for Native Americans, p.48

(December 2018) Available at https://www.usccr.gov/pubs/2018/12-20-Broken-Promises.pdf.

6. 231 U.S. 28 (1913).

7. United States v. Antonio, 936 F.3d 1117 (10th Cir. 2019) (determining oense occurred in Indian Country, so that

jurisdiction was proper).

8. Missing and Murdered: Confronting the Silent Crisis in Indian Country: Hearing Before the U.S. Senate Committee on

Indian Aairs Oversight Hearing (2018) (statement of Honorable Amber Kanazbah Crotty 23rd Navajo Nation Council

Delegate).

9. Id.

10. Id.

11. Paul Spruhan, Standard Clauses in State-Tribal Agreements: The Navajo Nation Experience, 47 TULSA L. REV. 503 (2012).

12. Tribal Law and Order Reauthorization and Amendments Act of 2019, S.210, 116th Cong. (1st Sess. 2019).

13. Missing and Murdered: Confronting the Silent Crisis in Indian Country: Hearing Before Senate Committee on Indian

Aairs, 115th Cong. (2018) (statement of Honorable Amber K. Crotty, 23rd Navajo Nation Council).

14. Id.

15. Angela Riley, Crime and Governance in Indian Country, 63 UCLA L. Rev. 1564, 1603 (2016).

16. Id.

17. 18 U.S.C. §1152.

18. 18 U.S.C. §1153.

19. 109 U.S. 556 (1883).

20. Supra at note 18.

21. Id.

22. 435 U.S. 191 (1978).

23. Id.

24. Pub. L. No. 111-211, 124 Stat. 2258 (2010).

25. Pub. L. No. 113-4, 127 Stat. 54 (2013).

26. A fuller discussion of these two acts is available here: https://indianlaw.org/swsn/savanna_not_invisible_laws

27. Oice of the Attorney General, N.M.A.G. Op. No. 87-48 (Aug. 24, 1987).

28. NMSA § 29-8-3 (1971).

29. Id. See also Loya, 2015-NMSC-017, 24.

30. Loya v. Gutierrez, 2015-NMSC-017, 5 (citing Duro v. Reina, 495 U.S. 676, 696–97, 110 S.Ct. 2053, 109 L.Ed.2d 693 (1990));

31. Sheri Challenges Tribal Police: James Lujan believes non-natives are being ‘shaken down’ on State Road 68 and U.S.

84/285, Barron Jones and Wheeler Cowperthwaite, Rio Grande Sun, August 27, 2015, http://www.riograndesun.com/

news/sheri-challenges-tribal-police/article_ba00fad7-aba1-5fa2-81fe-fa56a20391d8.html (last accessed Nov. 22, 2020).

Section III | 19

SECTION III • PRELIMINARY RESULTS FROM DATA ANALYSIS

MMIWR Task Force Data Findings from IPRA/FOIA Requests and

Data Collection Procedures

To conduct data and research analysis, the task force utilized several approaches to be as comprehensive as

possible in our eort to better understand MMIWR issues in New Mexico. The task force’s first approach was

to gather data from state law enforcement agencies through aggregate data compilation. The data collection

process started with Inspection of Public Records Act (IPRA) and Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests

to gather data by race and ethnicity on missing persons, homicides, suspicious deaths and deaths in custody

in the State of New Mexico and within local law enforcement. The task force focused on New Mexico counties

with tribal lands and/or counties that had greater than 4 percent of the population who identified as American

Indian or Alaska Native (AI/AN) alone, according to 2010 Census data from the American Community Survey.

Each request made by the task force asked for:

• Department or agency policies

and guidelines for handling

incidents or cases of missing

persons, homicides and/or

suspicious deaths.

• Blank copies of incident

report forms and incident

intake forms to help our team

understand how this data

is compiled and tracked by

agencies.

• Data counts from 2014-2019

of solved and unsolved

cases of missing persons,

homicides, suspicious deaths

and deaths in custody. This

included a request for detailed

information including race,

ethnicity and sex, if identified

in the report or data set.

The requests were submitted on March 30, 2020, with requests sent to 23 agencies throughout the state. To

date, the task force has received responses from 20 of the 23 agencies. Unfortunately, the dominant response

by law enforcement agencies was that the request was “excessively burdensome or broad” or that the agency

was unable to create the report. This obviously has limited our ability to come to any broad conclusions drawn

from all agencies in the state.

• Eight of the agencies provided the task force with their policies and procedures. Agencies that were

contacted are represented in Table 2 in Appendix E.

• Ten agencies were able to provide aggregate numbers based on our request, however not all data could be

analyzed based on how the data was collected by the agency.

20 | Section III

• Two county law enforcement agencies (McKinley County and San Juan County) provided detailed

information that the task force was able to analyze and compare for this report. The characteristics from

San Juan and McKinley counties are not representative of the state trends. However, they provide some

insight to the trends and frequency of case types.

• We have also received data from three municipal police departments – Gallup, Farmington and

Albuquerque – which are included in our report.

• Only one county law enforcement agency (McKinley County) provided data on unattended/attended death

and suicide case characteristics.

As presented in Figure 1, the New Mexico Missing Persons Information Clearinghouse (2014-2019) has reported

986 missing person cases from 2014-2019. Of this total, only 32 cases (3%) were classified as solved and 954

cases were unsolved (97%). When we look at the missing persons cases by race, we see important racial

inequalities across New Mexico. For example, among the total solved cases in the state during this period, 75%

were white (24 cases), 16% were American Indian/Alaskan Native (5 cases), 6% were Black/African American

(2 cases) and 3% were unknown (1 case). Twenty-three of the solved missing cases were male (72%) and nine

were female (28%).

Of the much larger number of unsolved cases, 655 (69%) of unsolved cases were white, 92 or 9.5% are

American Indian/Alaskan Native, and 51 (5.3%) are Black/African American. A large number of missing cases

(152 cases) are unknown in regard to their race, which reflects roughly 16% of all cases. This could mean that

the percentage of Native American missing cases is larger than the data for this period reflects.

Unsolved Missing Persons

Figure 1: Missing Persons Cases from New Mexico Person Clearing House

(Year 2014 – 2019)

152

655

Solved Missing Persons

Black Unknown AI/AN White Asian Americans

Section III | 21

The percentage of unsolved cases is therefore likely higher for Native American residents of New Mexico than

their overall share of the population in the state. Reinforcing the task force’s decision to focus not just on

women in the eorts to identify missing persons, among the 954 unsolved missing person cases, 508 were

male (53%) and 446 were female (47%).

As presented in Figure 2, “Missing Persons by Race Among Two NM Counties,” the data from McKinley County

and San Juan County suggest that inequalities facing Native Americans are much greater when we look

deeper than the state’s overall data. More specifically, across these two counties, overall half (52%) of the

cases were from American Indian/Native American, 46% were white and 2% were Black/African American.

of October 23, 2020, there are 38 American Indian/Alaska Native reported cases from New Mexico published

in the National Missing and Unidentified Persons System (NamUs), representing seven dierent counties.

According to this report, San Juan County has the highest number of missing persons cases reported.

The age breakdown for these two counties is

presented in Table 3 below. Consistent with the

data presented in Table 1, female missing persons

were younger than male missing persons in these

two specific counties. Also, American Indian/

Alaskan Native missing persons tend to be younger

than missing persons from other racial and ethnic

groups. More specifically, the median age for Native

American females in McKinley County and San Juan

County indicates that half of all missing Native

American women are younger than 27 years of age.

Figure 2: Missing Persons by Race

in Two NM Counties (Year 2014 – 2019)

46%

52%

White

AI/AN

Black

Age

Mean

Median

Mode

32.59

315

35.38

194

28.12

121

Male

35.27

Female

31.64

Male

37.67

Female

26.7

Male

22.8

Female

All Persons Male Female White AI/AN Black

Table 3: Age Characteristics of Missing Persons in Two New Mexico Counties (Year 2014 – 2019)

22 | Section III

Figure 3 below presents the missing person cases by race and sex in McKinley County and San Juan County.

This intersectional approach helps clarify the combined eect of race and gender in these two specific

counties. Among American Indian/Alaskan Native cases, 41.3% of the cases were identified as female,

compared to 16.7% of Black/African American who were identified as female, and 33.8% of white cases. It is

therefore clear that for Native Americans, women are more likely to be missing than men when we compare

race and gender to other communities in these counties.

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

AI/AN Black White

Female

Male

Table 3: Age Characteristics of Missing Persons in Two New Mexico Counties (Year 2014 – 2019)

Only one county provided the task force with characteristics of the unattended/attended death and suicide

cases. Table 4 and Figure 4 below present the trends from McKinley County. It must be noted that this data is

obviously not representative of cases in New Mexico.

Table 4 identifies that American Indian/Alaskan Native

unattended/attended death and suicide cases are among younger individuals than the rest of the population

in that county.

Approximately 45% of the unattended/attended death and suicide cases are AI/AN. Among the AI/AN cases,

23.8% were female. Approximately 7% of the unattended/attended death and suicide cases were unknown

race, sex and age.

Section III | 23

Table 4: Age Characteristics of Unattended/Attended Death & Suicide Cases

in McKinley County (Year 2014 – 2019)

Age

Mean

Median

Mode

52.37

165

52.17

115

52.84

Male

63.40

Female

66.28

Male

45.41

Female

40.63

Male

Female

All Persons Male Female White AI/AN Black

Hispanic

Male

46.89

Female

FemaleMale

White AI/AN Black Hispanic Unknown

Figure 4: Unattended/Attended Death and Suicide Cases by Race & Sex in McKinley County

24 | Section III

Analysis of Police Department Data

We requested data from police departments across the state and were successful in obtaining data from

three police departments: Farmington Police Department, Gallup Police Department and Albuquerque Police

Department. When we analyze all three departments collectively, we find that Native Americans are highly

over-represented among missing persons in Farmington and Gallup, but not in the major urban core of

Albuquerque, where their representation of missing person cases is roughly equivalent to their share of the

overall population. However, given the high population in Albuquerque, the raw number of Native American

people missing during these five years is much higher than in the other two cities combined. The results of

our analysis of the data for each specific police department are below. Women were more likely to be missing

among Native American in Gallup and Farmington, but not in Albuquerque.

Farmington AlbuquerqueGallup

48%

76%

11%

660

Percentage of Native American Missing People

among all Cases (Year 2014 – 2019)

Native American Missing People

(Year 2014 – 2019)

Farmington Police Department

Farmington Police Department pulled data from its records management system for 2014-2019. The data

shows a total of seventy-three (73) missing persons during this five-year period. Nearly half of the cases were

Native American (48.5%), and 66% of the Native American cases were missing females. The Farmington Police

Department has had high levels of success in solving those missing person cases, with 70 of 73 being resolved

in 2014-2019. Of the three missing person cases that are still active, one is a Native American male.

The Farmington Police Department also provided its homicide data, which shows 17 homicides during this

period. Of the solved homicide cases (14 of 17 total), Native Americans represent 43% of cases. All three of the

active homicide cases are Native American males.

Section III | 25

Gallup Police Department

The City of Gallup’s Police Department also provided data that we were able to include in our report. This is

a key city for our analysis, as it represents a border town whose overall population is just over 44% Native

American. According to the Gallup Police Department’s missing person cases report from 2014-2019, there

were 675 missing persons, 53% of whom were women. When we analyze the missing person cases by race, we

find that Native Americans comprise a robust 76% of all of the missing person cases in Gallup over this five-

year period. The high proportion of Native Americans among the missing person cases is consistent across all

years in our analysis.

The Gallup police department data indicates that in 2014-2019, there were 15 homicide cases in Gallup;

among those 15 cases, 13 were Native American. This means a robust 87% of all homicide cases in Gallup

during this period were Native American.

Albuquerque Police Department

The City of Albuquerque’s Police Department

provided data categorized by race and ethnicity. The

number of reported missing persons is indicated in

the chart below. The agency is in Albuquerque, an

urban center that houses one of largest urban tribal

populations in the United States. The agency data

indicates that between the years 2014-2019, there

were 6,280 missing people in the state’s largest

city. When we analyze the missing cases by race

and ethnicity, Native Americans represent 10.5%

of cases. This is a considerably smaller ratio than

Native American representation in missing cases in

Farmington and Gallup. Of the total Native American

missing persons (660), 287 missing cases are women,

Female

Male

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

Total

287

373

Missing American Indian and Alaska Native Women and Men (Albuquerque Police Department)

which represents 43% of all Native American missing

persons over this period. The higher proportion of

men among Native American missing persons (57%)

supports the goal of the task force to include men in

the focus of the work. In 2019, the agency reported

145 new cases, 63 of which were women.

The Albuquerque Police Department also provided

our team with data on murdered persons in 2018-

2019. There were nine Native Americans who were

murdered over this time period whose cases were

solved; eight of those nine victims were men. There

were five unsolved murder cases between 2018-19

and 80% of those cases were males.

26 | Section III

Limitations and Concerns with Data Quality and Accuracy

Although we believe that the data analysis provided

in this report identifies some important findings that

can help the task force devise recommendations

for interventions, it is important to note the data

limitations and challenges we have faced. Most

importantly, our data is restricted to jurisdictions

that had the capacity to respond to our request

and that collected data by race and ethnicity.

Given that the majority of entities we requested

information from noted that the data we have

asked for was beyond their current capacity, with

others responding that they unfortunately do not

have data that would allow for Native American

individuals to be pulled out of the larger database,

one of our major recommendations is to push

entities to improve their data collection eorts. This

is consistent with NABPI’s prior brief on MMIWR,

which included the need for more and better data

collection to allow researchers to identify more clear

patterns to inform policy recommendations.

The task force had also intended to include the

extent to which Native American men and women

have homicide rates higher than other racial and

ethnic groups in New Mexico. However, we were

not able to acquire the race or age for the majority

of the 71 homicides that were reported by the law

enforcement agencies that responded to our request

for information from 2014 to 2019.

Finally, there are significant discrepancies in the

reported number of missing persons across the

data sets that we were able to access. For example,

the data from NamUs does not align with the data

compiled by the state’s Missing Persons Information

Clearinghouse. NamUs reported 38 total cases for

the entire state, with 4 cases reported in Bernalillo

County (including Albuquerque) as of October 23,

2020. This statewide total is lower than the 44 cases

in Albuquerque alone that the Missing Persons

Information Clearinghouse reported as of November

12, 2020. These totals are also much lower than data

from the City of Albuquerque, which shows 63 new

cases of missing American Indian and Alaska Native

Women and 82 Native American men in 2019 (the

data does not indicate how many of these cases

were resolved). The task force will continue its eorts

to identify areas in which data can be collected

more uniformly and accurately. The task force also

recognizes that there are individuals and cases not

yet identified as a missing person or murder case

in data counts and tracking systems. In our public

meetings, we heard repeated testimonies from

families and advocates on behalf of their loved ones

who are either missing or murdered but have yet to

be entered into data systems. We acknowledge that

the data provided here does not account for those

persons whose cases have not been investigated

and handled justly so that they may be counted as a

missing person or murder case.

Section III | 27

Jurisdiction Challenges in the Process of Classifying

and Investigating Missing Persons

At its meeting in February 2020, the task force

brought together law enforcement from all parts

of the state. The task force heard from the Navajo

Nation Police Department, the Navajo Nation

Criminal Investigations Department, the Gallup

Police Department, the Southern Pueblo Agency

for the Bureau of Indian Aairs, and tribal law

enforcement for the Pueblo of Isleta.

During the discussion, law enforcement oicers

reported that no matter where a person goes

missing, they will always take a report and input it

into the National Crime Information Center (NCIC).

With respect to investigating the missing person

case, the response from law enforcement varied.

While law enforcement can report missing persons

regardless of jurisdiction, where the person went

missing impacts who can investigate the case. For

instance, if someone went missing on the Navajo

Nation and the family made the report in Gallup, the

Gallup Police Department should take that report

and input the missing person into the NCIC. While

the Gallup Police Department cannot send oicers to

the Navajo Nation to investigate the case, they can

contact the Navajo Nation Police and provide them

with the information that they have collected.

Law enforcement barriers discussed at this meeting

included staing and not having enough workforce

to complete investigations.

In addition to the lack of resources,

reporting can pose challenges

because the NCIC’s forms do not

have dedicated fields requiring tribal

ailiation to be entered into a missing

person report.

Moreover, law enforcement may not be trained to

appreciate the significance of each reporting field

and the impact that each field has on the state’s

collective data; this is especially significant when

it comes to Native Americans, who have a smaller

population and oen get misclassified or are merged

into an ambiguous “other” category.

28 | Section III

NM Missing Persons Clearinghouse & Missing Person Alerts

The New Mexico Department of Public Safety is statutorily mandated (NMSA § 29-15-3) to manage the New

Mexico Missing Persons Clearinghouse. The sole purpose of the clearinghouse is to serve as a statistical

repository for all missing persons. In addition, the clearinghouse must collect, process, maintain and

disseminate records on missing persons. The clearinghouse also provides training to law enforcement

agencies and supports families by serving as a liaison between law enforcement and families. In addition, it

helps families access resources such as therapy and counseling.

The Missing Persons Clearinghouse also manages the state’s Amber Alert system. The system notifies and

disseminates information as rapidly as possible about a child abduction so that law enforcement, agencies

and citizens are made aware when a child under the age of 18 is reported to have been abducted, is in

imminent danger, and there is specific information available about the child or the child’s abductor that

may assist in an expedient and successful end to the abduction. The procedures for initiating an Amber alert

pursuant to the Amber Alert Law are available to all law enforcement agencies in New Mexico.

• Silver Alerts are issued when an individual is over

the age of 50 and presents clear indications of

irreversible deterioration of intellectual faculties

(Alzheimer’s, dementia, other degenerative brain

disorder or brain injury).

• Brittany Alerts are issued when someone

is missing and has a clear indication of a

developmental disability and there is concern

that a person’s health or safety is at risk.

• Missing Persons Alerts are issued for endangered

persons. They are triggered when someone

is missing and there is a potential of foul

play, sexual exploitation, a life-threatening

situation, absence from the home for 24 hours

or the missing person was with others who are

considered dangerous.

1. Immediately request entry into the NCIC and

NM’s Missing Persons Clearinghouse.

2. Notify the requester of Amber Alert System.

3. The authorized requester (State Police) will

determine if the request meets stringent criteria.

Based on this, an Amber Alert may or may not be

approved.

4. Amber Alert is sent out region-wide following

existing protocol.

Amber Alert Procedure: Other missing person alerts that community

members and law enforcement must be aware of:

Section III | 29

To assist in the eort to locate and identify

missing and unidentified persons in the state, the

Department of Public Safety is now required under

House Bill 16 (2019) to share all information in its

missing persons information clearinghouse with

the National Missing and Unidentified Persons

System (NamUs). This database was created by

the United States Department of Justice’s National

Institute of Justice. In addition, pursuant to the 2019

amendments to the Missing Persons Information and

Reporting Act, public notice is now required when a

“silver alert” has been issued.

The NamUs database oers law enforcement

agencies, medical examiners, coroners, family

members and victim advocates powerful tools for

reporting and resolving missing and unidentified

persons cases. The task force learned from the

Missing Person Clearinghouse that in response

to House Bill 16, they have been working with

NamUs to integrate New Mexico’s data system of

missing persons into the NamUs database. NamUs

and New Mexico now have an agreement that any

information supplemented into the NamUs database

will be shared with New Mexico’s Missing Persons

Clearinghouse.

It is critical that all missing persons in

the state are included in the NamUs

database;

NamUs can match individuals with other states’

reports of unidentified remains and can help provide

closure to many families who are still seeking lost

loved ones. For this same reason, no matter how

long it has been since a family member may have

gone missing, it is never too late to make a report to

the Missing Persons Clearinghouse.

Human Traicking

For centuries and throughout colonization, the traicking of Indigenous Peoples has taken place, resulting

in intergenerational trauma and the many issues that follow, which are felt by Native communities today. A

community member from the Navajo Nation made a statement at a public meeting of the task force in Gallup

(December 2019) about the history of traicking:

“This has been happening since our people were incarcerated in Ft.

Sumner. The cavalry used to steal the Navajo women. On the trail (long

walk) they murdered kids, they murdered the Navajo women.”

Participants at public meetings shared testimony about their experiences and concerns. This grounded

the task force’s initial gathering of qualitative data on the intersections of crime, human traicking and

MMIWR. Participants who shared their personal experiences stated that current policies can be a disservice

30 | Section III

to Native victims and families when it comes to jurisdiction, impeding investigation and prosecution. Tribal

communities must create policies that address the crime of sex traicking, even VAWA jurisdiction does not

include sex traicking as a crime that can be prosecuted.

Homicide and Violence Case Findings

Indigenous Peoples experience violence at rates higher than the national average. According to the Bureau of

Justice Statistics (2003), the average annual number of violent victimizations for Native Americans was 214

violent crimes per 1,000 persons, which was more than four times the national average (50 per 1,000 persons).

In New Mexico, homicide is the leading cause of death among children ages 10-14; it is also the third-leading

cause of death among teens and adults 15-34 years of age.

Homicide, or death caused by intentional

assault, is a crisis among Native Americans in the state of New Mexico. Recorded homicide trends from 1999

to 2017 demonstrate that Native Americans in the state have been subjected to elevated rates of violence and

premature death for decades.

Between 2013 and 2017, Native Americans had significantly higher homicide

rates compared to Hispanics and whites.

Native Americans between the ages 25-34 are victims of homicide

at a rate of 26.6 per 100,000, doubling that of their Hispanic (15.9 per 100,000) and white (10.2 per 100,000)

counterparts.

According to the Attorney General’s Human

Traicking Task Force, human traicking oen

occurs in plain sight. Traickers use public services

and can rely on the transportation industry to

recruit, move and control their victims. New Mexico

has two major interstate roads – Interstate 40, a

west-east corridor, and Interstate 25, a south-north

corridor. These trucking routes have several stops on

Indian lands and communities at gas stations, casino

and hotel properties. The National Drug Intelligence

Center notes that practically every highway and

interstate in the United States is used for traicking

and transporting drugs from distribution centers. In

February 2020, Jana Pfeier from the New Mexico

Attorney General’s Oice, Special Investigations

Division, Human Traicking Unit, presented to the

task force and noted “When you have a casino, you

definitely have activity that’s going to be coming

from outside of your community that’s going to be

coming onto Indian land.”

While the task force did not host a

public meeting specific to human

traicking, it was continuously

identified as a contributing issue

to and factor within MMIWR. The

task force recognizes a need for

prevention and treatment services

that include human traicking.

Lack of missing persons data that includes

Indigenous women in New Mexico is problematic.

Future studies, data gathering and policy

development must include traicking crimes.

Section III | 31

Native American women in New Mexico have the highest rate of homicide among

all racial and ethnic groups.

Native American women experienced a rate of 6.1 per 100,000, compared to Hispanics (3.9 per 100,000)

and whites (2.5 per 100,000). Females in the state are most likely to be murdered with a firearm or sharp

instrument.

Racial Misclassification of Homicide Data

The racial misclassification of Native Americans may

impact injury and homicide data and oen skews

the numbers, resulting in an undercount of actual

murders.

Native Americans are oen classified

as Hispanic or “other,” depending on where the

homicide takes place and on the law enforcement

agencies that handle the crime.

The racial misclassification of Native

Americans in New Mexico may impact

numbers by presenting a reduced

number of actual crimes committed

against Indigenous Peoples in the

state.

The Hispanic surnames of Native Americans in

the state make this plausible and raise questions

regarding classification procedures that law

enforcement implements.

Justice for Violent Crimes and Murder on Tribal Lands

At each stage, the successful investigation, prosecution and sentencing of violent perpetrators who commit

violent crimes on tribal lands requires flawless coordination and communication between tribal police, tribal

detectives, federal oicers and in some situations, state law enforcement. Moreover, rapid response, eicient

collection of evidence and witness testimony, along with proper documentation and proper chain of custody

all must be executed perfectly to guarantee a case will be accepted for prosecution by the United States

Attorney’s Oice (USAO).

32 | Section III

As mentioned earlier in this report, the ability of tribes to incarcerate, charge and sentence violent

perpetrators who commit acts of violence on tribal lands is severely impacted by the history of criminal

jurisdiction in Indian Country. Jurisdictional limitations placed on tribes limit the ability to prosecute and

sentence Indians and non-Indians. Since tribes are unable to prosecute non-Indians for crimes committed

in Indian Country, this places a significant burden on federal law enforcement to pursue non-Indian

prosecutions. Major crimes

that occur on tribal lands are also prosecuted federally. However, the federal

government may decline cases that are submitted for federal prosecution. A federal declination means that

the United States Attorney declines to prosecute a case. This results in a full dismissal, resulting in no justice

for that survivor, family or community. Aer a case is declined, it will be sent back to the tribe to be prosecuted

under tribal law, assuming that the tribe has a law in place that addresses the specific oenses.

While a tribe retains control over the case, limitations may impede the tribe’s ability to prosecute the case.

Depending on the tribe or pueblo, a lack of resources available to dedicate to a single case can hinder

prosecution, as can time limitations. Tribes may not have enough time to file charges due to statute of

limitations issues; in cases where the United States Department of Justice declined a case, the tribe may have

little time remaining to prepare a case for trial in tribal court. Each one of these circumstances impacts the

ability of survivors, families and communities to receive justice.

FBI Reasons for Declining a Case

The 2017 U.S. Department of Justice (USDOJ): Indian Country Investigations and Prosecutions Report noted

that approximately 79.5% (1,511 out of 1,900) of the Indian Country criminal investigations opened by the FBI

were referred for prosecution. The FBI closed 699 Indian Country investigations; 21% of them were closed

because the case “did not meet statutory definitions of a crime or USAO prosecution guidelines.”

Reasons

for the non-prosecutions were due to lack of evidence that a crime was committed, and because the deaths

being investigated were a result of an “accident, suicide, or natural causes (i.e., non-homicides).”

This is also

consistent with the reason why 84% (141 out 167) of the death investigations were closed by the FBI in 2017.

In 2017, 37% (891) of all (2,390) Indian Country matters resolved were declined.

The most common reason the USAOs declined to take a case was insuicient

evidence.

Section III | 33

USAO Reasons for Declining a Case

The United States Attorney’s Oice (USAO) prosecutes crimes in Indian Country that are included in the

General Crimes Act and the Major Crimes Act.

There are two primary reasons why the U.S. Attorney’s Oice

decides not to take a case: an immediate declination and a later declination.

An immediate declination is

when the USAO does “not open a file on a referral and does not pursue prosecution of the referral.” Examples

of the types of cases that are immediately declined:

• A crime that was thought

to have been committed on

Indian lands, which upon

further examination, turned

out to have been committed on

state land. The state – not the

Federal Government – would

have jurisdiction to prosecute.

Other examples of immediately declined cases include sexual assault referrals, such as if Native juveniles are

involved and the assault occurred in Indian Country.

The reason for this is because the USDOJ believes that

tribal systems have the resources to deal with the case more eectively than the federal government.

Later declinations occur when the “USAO opens a file on the referral, conducts a more significant amount of

work on the matter, but ultimately does not pursue prosecution of the referral.”

Both types of declinations

must be entered into CaseView, the OUSA’s case management system.

CaseView allows the person inputting

the data to choose from six reasons when recording a declination.

• A crime that involves a Native

American victim and defendant

but that does not violate the

Major Crimes Act. The tribal

court would have exclusive

jurisdiction to prosecute in this

instance.

• A crime committed on tribal

lands that involves two non-

Indians. In this case, the state

ordinarily would have exclusive

jurisdiction to prosecute.

Insuicient Evidence 71%

Referred to Dierent Jurisdiction 13%

Prioritization of Federal Interest 6%

Alternative to Federal Prosecution 6%

Legally Barred 4%

Defendant Unavailable 1%

Categories for declining a case include: (1) Legally Barred; (2) Defendant Unavailable; (3) Matter Referred

to Another Jurisdiction; (4) Alternative to Federal Prosecution Appropriate; and (5) Prioritization of Federal

Resources and Interests.

The chart above shows that a large percentage of cases (71%) are declined due to

insuicient evidence.

2017 US DOJ Indian Country Investigations and Prosecutions Executive Summary

Percentage of Declinations

71%

13%

34 | Section III

The United States Attorney’s Oice District of New Mexico

The USAO’s main oice is in Albuquerque with

branches in Las Cruces and Santa Fe. The District of

New Mexico Oice has a Victim-Witness Assistance

Unit that supports and assists victims and witnesses

by providing court proceeding information, case

status, crisis intervention, access to other federal

services and financial assistance with travel and

lodging for witnesses in a case.

It also oers a

Public Safety in Indian Country program, which

focuses on the “prosecution of violent crime and the

reduction of violence against women and children.”

Some of the more recent eorts of the USAO-NM

include appointing both a Special Assistant United

States Attorney (SAUSA) and a Missing and Murdered

Indigenous Persons (MMIP) Coordinator. Both eorts

may help improve investigations and prosecution

by designating an expert to begin addressing the

jurisdictional gaps that hamper investigations and

training tribal prosecutors so they have the expertise

to prosecute violent oenses that occur on tribal

lands in tribal or federal court, or both.

On September 17, 2020, John C. Anderson, U.S.

Attorney for the District of New Mexico, announced

that the Laguna Pueblo received a $450,000 award

through the Oice of Violence Against Women (OVW)

to appoint a SAUSA.

The SAUSA will be appointed

by the tribe and the USAO, working collaboratively

with both the USAO and tribal prosecutor’s

oice.

The SAUSA will be trained as a federal

prosecutor and will dedicate 50 percent of their time

prosecuting domestic violence, dating violence,

sexual assault and stalking cases.

One of their goals

is to promote “higher quality investigations and

better inter-governmental communication.

On November 22, 2019, the USDOJ announced the

creation of the MMIP Initiative, which invested $1.5

million in hiring MMIP coordinators to work in the

U.S. Attorney’s Oice in 11 states, which includes

New Mexico.

Denise Billy was appointed by

U.S. Attorney John Anderson to be the first MMIP

Coordinator in New Mexico.

Ms. Billy’s duties

consist of outreach to tribal communities, assisting

in creating and implementing community action

plans, and coordinating with state, tribal, local and

federal law enforcement to “develop protocols and

procedures for responding to and addressing MMIP

cases, and improve data collection as well as assist

tribal partners and advocacy groups.”

Existing Support Services and Limited Resources

Programs that provide support services are a key component in addressing the MMIWR crisis. Programs

throughout the state provide an array of services such as behavioral health services, domestic violence

prevention and education, sexual assault prevention and education, counseling and legal services. A list of

service providers can be found in Appendix A.

Section III | 35

The lack of dedicated funding for victim services and programs, combined with a limited understanding of

the needs of MMIWR survivors and impacted family members across communities, were identified as key

contributing factors that have widened the gap between the demand for services and the capabilities of

existing programs to provide those services. By understanding the service gaps and unmet needs of survivors,

communities may begin to develop coordinated community responses to address the needs of impacted

survivors and families.

Program Service Gaps

HOUSING

Programmatic service gaps consist of the lack of available and accessible housing, safe houses, transitional

housing and longer-term housing, along with mental health and substance abuse counseling and treatment

services. Despite being in significant demand by MMIWR survivors and their families, these programs

were described as being highly inaccessible and unavailable because they are either non-existent in rural

communities or are always at capacity. Shelters and safe houses in urban and rural areas are not able to meet

the needs for emergency shelter; the programs that do exist are frequently inappropriate for addressing the

healing and safety needs of younger and older survivors. Supportive and safe long-term housing is essential to

victims who are fleeing from unsafe situations and who are recovering from their victimization and trauma.

MENTAL HEALTH AND SUBSTANCE ABUSE

Task force members and community members expressed frustration about the lack of available and accessible

mental health and substance abuse treatment services. Mental health and substance abuse treatment services

with improved crisis response capabilities operate at capacity, with long waiting lists for appointments.

Additionally, urban and rural communities lack specialized mental health care services and mental health

professionals who are trained to work with the MMIWR populations, including youth. Available and accessible

mental health and substance abuse treatment services are key to ensuring the victims’ safety and security

and to support survivors’ recovery and the healing from their victimization experiences. A testimonial from

a parent who attended a public meeting of the task force commented on the lack of available services for

survivors:

“I’m hearing a lot of stories about the missing, but my daughter was

missing, and one of the stories I haven’t heard is what happens when

you come home. I’m sorry. My daughter came home – my daughter came

home, and we didn’t bury her. That’s all you pray for. You’re not ready for

36 | Section III

how they were when they come home. The one thing I found since she’s

been home, there’s no support. It was a struggle to find her, and what

we went through to bring her home, it never came up. You never hear

anything about what happens aer.”

Geographic Service Gaps

Identified geographic services gaps in rural areas of New Mexico consisted of the lack of specialized medical,

mental health, and legal services, limited crisis prevention, limited substance use prevention, and inadequate

family shelters/housing programs. Victim service providers in rural communities experience major challenges

in addressing fundamental and presenting victim needs, including safety, survival and security. Tribal law

enforcement programs identified major gaps in data collection due to IT infrastructure needs and the lack of

sharing of best practices when conducting investigations.

YOUTH SERVICES

Youth key stakeholders identified several service

gaps. Major service gaps include the lack of networks

to support youth who experience mental health,

substance use and suicidality in both rural and

urban areas; these youth are at great risk for suicide

and becoming MMIWR. The lack of youth-focused

services that promote cultural safety, a sense of

belonging and unconditional acceptance, as well as

physical safety with wrap-around support services,

is extremely problematic in both rural and urban

communities.

LGBQ TRANS/S+ SERVICE GAPS

Key stakeholders from the LGBQ Trans/2S+

community identified major service gaps as the lack

of advocacy services, the need for safe resources,

the lack of coordination of services and the need

for sensitivity training. Members expressed feeling

invisible and overlooked in existing policies,

legislation and advocacy, and in broader discussions

about MMIWR which is, in part, due to communities’

exclusive emphasis on binary views of gender.

Many LGBQ Trans/2S+ community members lack

access to needed health care and other services.

Resources must be available and eective to allow

tracking of sexual violence rates among Trans/2S

LGBQ community members to continuously create

opportunities to identify and address barriers and

unmet needs.

Section III | 37

Section III Notes

32. Hispanic ethnicity was not collected in similar ways in the two counties; thus, the cases were dropped from our

analysis.

33. The Missing Persons Report for NM was provided by NamUs Operations on October 26, 2020; this data reflects current

cases as of October 23, 2020.

34. In this county, Hispanic identification was entered as a racial category.

35. Kimberly R. Huyser, Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women & Girls A Briefing Report, Native American Budget Policy

Institute, Center for Social Policy (June 2019) https://nabpi.unm.edu/assets/documents/mmiwg-briefing-paper.pdf.

36. New Mexico Homicide Data. Retrieved November 2020 from New Mexico Department of Health, Indicator-Based

Information System for Public Health Website: http://ibis.health.state.nm.us/

37. Native American Homicide Data. Retrieved November 2020 from New Mexico Department of Health, Indicator-Based

Information System for Public Health Website: http://ibis.health.state.nm.us/

38. Id.

39. Id.

40. J R Sugarman, R Soderberg, Racial misclassification of American Indians: its eect on injury rates in Oregon,

1989 through 1990, American Journal of Public Health, 681 (1993). https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/

PMC1694695/?page=1 (last visited Nov. 25, 2020).

41. Murder, manslaughter, rape, assault with intent to kill, arson, burglary and larceny.

42. U.S. Department of Justice, Indian Country Investigations and Prosecutions (2017) https://www.justice.gov/tribal/

page/file/1113091/download (last visited Nov. 18, 2020).

43. Id.

44. Id.

45. Id.

46. Id.

47. The U.S. Attorney’s Oice District of New Mexico, Public Safety in Indian Country (July 8, 2019), https://www.justice.

gov/usao-nm/public-safety-indian-country; See also 18 U.S.C. § 1152, 18 U.S.C. § 1153.

48. U.S. Department of Justice, supra note 42.

49. Id.

50. Id.

51. Id.

52. Id.

53. Id. at 20

54. Id. at 24

55. Id. at 26

56. Id. at 32. (Percentages have been rounded up)

38 | Section III

57. Id.

58. U.S. Department of Justice, District of New Mexico Programs. https://www.justice.gov/usao-nm/programs (last visited

Nov. 25, 2020).

59. U.S. Department of Justice, Public Safety in Indian Country. https://www.justice.gov/usao-nm/public-safety-indian-

country (last visited Nov. 25, 2020).

60. U.S. Attorney’s Oice, U.S. Attorney John C. Anderson Announces $450,000 Award to Laguna Pueblo. https://www.

justice.gov/usao-nm/pr/us-attorney-john-c-anderson-announces-450000-award-laguna-pueblo (last visited Nov. 25,

2020)

61. Id.

62. Id.

63. Id.

64. The United States Attorney’s Oice District of New Mexico, U.S. Attorney John Anderson Appoints Denise Billy as the

Missing and Murdered Indigenous Persons Coordinator for the District of New Mexico (July 28, 2020), https://www.justice.

gov/usao-nm/pr/us-attorney-john-anderson-appoints-denise-billy-missing-and-murdered-indigenous-persons (last

visited Nov. 18, 2020).

65. Id.

66. Id.

Section III Notes, Continued

Section IV | 39

SECTION IV • TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS

Task Force Recommendations to Address MMIWR in New Mexico

The following recommendations were created by the New Mexico MMIWR Task Force based on information

and testimony gathered at public task force meetings. In addition to quantitative data gathered, the task force

sta tracked qualitative data during meetings with stakeholders, families and others about the MMIWR crisis in

New Mexico.

• Support increased data-gathering capacity

across law enforcement agencies (LEAs) to

increase accountability and ability to understand

frequency, type and location of crimes. In order

to support changes to data gathering, policies

and legislation need to be created or adjusted to

include more information.

• Establish a data institute to track and study cases

of Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women,

Girls, Trans/2S+ and LGBQ community members

that also documents tribal-specific data.

• Tribal governments need to pass laws and

policies that require reporting of all missing

persons cases to the State Missing Persons

Clearinghouse.

• The state needs to consistently report missing

persons cases to NamUs as required by House

Bill 16 (2019).

• Enact federal legislation requiring NCIC to track

tribal ailiation and ethnicity data in the missing

persons reporting forms.

• Include tribal ailiation when documenting

missing persons, traicking, and cases of

homicide to improve data gathering and policy

development.

• Initiate in-depth data collection by examining

case files to help document gaps in the

investigation and prosecution processes. The

task force has identified the individual cases that

it recommends for review.

Data Must be Reported and Documented Accurately

Public testimony and quantitative data that the taskforce collected has indicated discrepancies in reporting

of missing persons and murder cases throughout tribal communities. Task force recommendations are as

follows:

40 | Section IV

Support Services for Survivors and Families

There is a need for shelters and programs for people seeking protection from domestic violence, who also

need safety and support services. Task force recommendations are as follows:

• Establish secure and confidential shelters

within tribal communities and border towns for

individuals, families and youth in crisis.

• Expand support services to include housing

support, mental health, substance abuse and

traicking aercare (e.g., The Life Link in Santa Fe).

• Provide more victim-centered resources and

availability of victim advocates and/or a family

liaison.

• Increase state and local funding to provide

resources and programs that can support

survivors and families.

• Inclusive service programs need to include

community members from youth, LGBQ Trans/2S

and rural locations.

• Strengthen services provided for long-and short-

term housing to improve crisis response and

increase access to mental health and substance

abuse treatment.

Support Tribal Justice Systems with Resources

Tribal justice systems face severe funding shortages that prevent implementation of federal laws such as TLOA

and VAWA and the continued development of tribal codes to support successful prosecution of crimes. Task

force recommendations are as follows:

• Address the extreme underfunding of tribal

justice systems and related infrastructure that is

needed to adequately respond to crime in Indian

County. Doing so means TLOA and VAWA can be

fully enacted.

• Support actions to increase funding for tribal

courts (safety, equipment, and technology) and

expand resources to strengthen tribal courts and

laws.

• Tribal governments need to pass laws and

policies that prohibit human traicking on tribal

land.

• Advocate for additional New Mexico grant

opportunities that fund additional Special

Assistant United States Attorney (SAUSA)

positions in tribal courts.

• Improve coordination and collaboration between

tribal, state, city, county and federal agencies

by establishing liaison positions, meeting

regularly to address challenges, and developing

agreements to streamline processes.

Section IV | 41

Education and Outreach, and Other Preventative Measures Are Needed

Task force recommendations are as follows:

• Invest money for scholarship opportunities to

increase student and Native youth participation

in criminal justice and rehabilitation programs to

ensure that tribes and the state build expertise

and expand the future workforce.

• Expand youth programs and community

education to raise awareness and prevention of

sexual violence and domestic violence.

• Raise awareness of MMIWR with informational

materials and media campaigns that will be

posted in public places and businesses.

• Secure updated equipment and implement

training for investigations and crime scene

documentation.

• Request training for agencies from the New

Mexico MMIWR task force and from the human

traicking task force.

• Develop education, outreach and training for

community members and law enforcement to

identify signs of human traicking and domestic

violence.

Identified Law Enforcement Recommendations

Task force recommendations are as follows:

• Create law enforcement MOUs. Develop tribal

law enforcement agreements between state/

county/city agencies and tribal agencies to

help fill the gap between agencies and increase

communication and collaboration.

• Tribal nations should meet with the Department

of Public Safety to review successful

commissioning and cross-commissioning

models and identify solutions to jurisdictional

gaps that prevent rapid response.

• Establish a permanent MMIWR task force,

including a cold case review team composed of

BIA and state cold case investigators.

• Pass legislation that provides tribal law

enforcement oicers who meet New Mexico

training standards with similar law enforcement

powers of New Mexico law enforcement oicers.

This would eliminate the need for NMSA § 29-1-

11 because every tribal oicer who graduates

from the Federal Law Enforcement Training

Center (FLETC) would also be recognized to have

New Mexico law enforcement powers.

• Pass legislation that mandates BIA or tribal

police to be included in the New Mexico

Department of Homeland Security Emergency

Management Fusion Center. This will provide

better collaboration between state and tribal

42 | Section IV

entities for murdered and missing persons

investigations and will include New Mexico

tribes in a comprehensive, consolidated

and coordinated program of mitigating and

collaborating for these types of incidents. Tribes

should also have the ability to post or send info

out via the New Mexico Fusion Center that will

be viewed by all New Mexico law enforcement

entities when needed for better response and

collaboration, especially when timing is critical.

• Establish agreements with New Mexico’s

tribal nations to include tribal members in a

registry with the state so tribal ailiation can be

determined.

• Require mandatory MMIWR reporting to the state

from all law enforcement agencies.

• Support all New Mexico tribes’ participation

in the 2013 VAWA act, which will give their law

enforcement oicers criminal jurisdiction over

non-Indians in domestic violence cases, dating

violence and criminal violations of protection

orders.

• Streamline the process to commission state

police oicers with the Special Law Enforcement

Commission (SLEC), which allows state police

to act as FBI or BIA oicers who can more oen

quickly increase manpower and response times

in rural areas. The current application process

is tedious and all paperwork must be sent to

Washington, D.C. before the oicer is approved

for the commission. Even then, once the oicer

takes the course and passes the class, it takes

several months to a year for that oicer to

receive his SLEC commission from Washington

(BIA). The current SLEC, once issued, is also only

valid for five years and there is no renewal or

recertification class. The oicer must complete

the entire process again every five years.

• Implement an agreement between the BIA and

NMDPS to provide the SLEC training to all NMSP

recruits during their initial training.

• Establish a mandatory protection order

sharing between tribes and New Mexico Law

Enforcement oicers via NCIC.

Develop Community Resources for Strong Responses

Task force recommendations are as follows:

• Identify trusted community members who can

be trained to serve as facilitators for grief and

loss support groups.

• Educate youth about MMIWR, emphasizing

prevention.

• Develop Multi-Disciplinary Teams (MDTs) within

tribal communities to spread awareness about

MMIWR, focused on prevention. Educate the

community about available resources, including

the following partners: schools, Indian Health

Services, behavioral health services and law

enforcement.

Section IV | 43

• Create a strong community response, including

youth prevention and education programs that

are based in culture and healthy relationships.

• Provide healing options for victims and reentry

programs to ensure reintegration and healing.

Next Steps and Considerations for MMIW Task Force – Phase 2 Goals

Task force recommendations are as follows:

• Secure funding for MMIWR task force.

• Establish a permanent position within the state

(ex: MMIWR Director/Tribal Liaison).

• Complete a MMIWR clearinghouse with task force

work products.

• Enhance qualitative and quantitative data

collection.

• Create a MMIWR data institute.

• Establish a network with agencies and

organizations, nationally and locally.

• Help develop and steer policy guidance.

• Conduct tribal consultation.

• Develop manual for law enforcement.

• Develop outreach and education material.

• Strengthen evaluation of crime against

Indigenous Peoples in border towns.

Conclusion

In conclusion, this report is the first step to gather information surrounding the MMIWR crisis in New Mexico.

Since the formal appointment of the task force, between October 2019 and November 2020, we spent time

listening to stories and creating safe spaces by centering gatherings and acknowledging the pain and love of

families and survivors. This was a diicult but necessary part of the first phase and will serve as an important

part of the work as it continues. We learned that families and survivors must be centered and must continue

guiding this work moving forward as knowledgeable resources on all areas of MMIWR. The willingness and

participation of these brave voices guided the work of this task force.

The intentions of the task force and this report are to recognize that this is not a final report but instead,

an ongoing work in progress. During the last 13 months as an oicial task force, we identified barriers, best

practices and future recommendations that we can learn from as we continue expanding this work. The task

• Develop community aid and response to

check on vulnerable people (youth, people

with disabilities and elders) during pandemic

isolation.

44 | Section IV

force would like to thank the New Mexico Legislature for supporting this work; moving forward, we hope for

further opportunities to build on the momentum gained to address this crisis in the state. We see possibilities

for continued collaboration and fiscal support. We hope that this work can serve as a starting point to further

understand the scope and severity of MMIWR.

The task force was able to hold several meetings, both in person and virtually. We navigated limitations of

the Covid-19 pandemic while continuing to gather data and meet objectives outlined in House Bill 278. The

task force’s goal was to understand the current state of the MMIWR crisis in New Mexico and to learn from

stakeholders, especially families and survivors. As a task force, members wanted to identify how to improve

reporting, prevention, investigations and support services. The task force identified two main goals: to un-

derstand the scope of the MMIWR crisis in New Mexico, and to create foundations and foster partnerships to

further address the issue. Each of these goals had objectives, which shaped the data collection, community

meetings and other activities over the last several months. We coordinated with members of the task force,

the U.S. Attorney’s Oice, tribal leaders, non-government organizations, law enforcement, concerned citizens,

advocates, legal experts, grassroots organizations, and survivors and families of MMIWR. The work of the task

force strived – above all else – to build trust with core stakeholders to ensure that we collected inclusive and

comprehensive input.

The task force took significant strides to address the state’s MMIWR crisis. Its data collection eorts revealed

major gaps in the law enforcement data collection protocols at the city, county and state levels. Its eorts also

laid the foundation for future studies and policy eorts. One of the task force’s major findings brought to light

major discrepancies in the number of MMIWR across agencies and highlighted the need for further examina-

tion in urban centers such as Albuquerque, Farmington and Gallup. According to the Albuquerque Police De-

partment (2020), a total of 287 Native American women were reported missing between 2014 and 2019; these

and other findings merit further investigation and illustrate the need for a comprehensive analysis of reported

cases as well as the underreporting by agencies across the state.

We recognize the deep love and respect that was conveyed for all the missing and murdered persons, women,

girls and two spirit relatives. They were mothers, sisters, daughters, aunties, cousins, grandmothers, siblings

and so many other important roles in our families and communities. Their lives mattered and they were highly

valued by their loved ones. Our gratitude is best stated in the words of a community member:

“And for all my sisters, my mother, my aunties, my daughters here, be

strong. Thank you for taking care of us. Thank you for cooking for us.

Thank you for holding us, hugging us and forgiving us.”

Appendix A | 45

APPENDIX A

MMIWR Existing Support Services

Albuquerque Healthcare for the Homeless

Chief Executive Oicer, Jennifer Metzler

505-766-5197 • www.abqhch.org

Albuquerque Indian Center

505-268-1751 • www.abqindiancenter.org

Albuquerque SANE Collaborative

Director, Susan Green

Suz[email protected]

505-883-8720 • www.abqsane.org

Barrett Foundation Inc.

Executive Director, Connie Chavez

cchavez@barrettfoundation.org

505-246-9244, ext. 117 • barrettfoundation.org

Coalition to Stop Violence Against Native Women

Executive Director, Angel Charley

info@csvanw.org

505-243-9199 • www.csvanw.org

Crime Victims Reparation Commission

Director, Frank Zubia

505-222-6449 • www.cvrc.state.nm.us

Eight Northern Indian Pueblos Council, Inc.

PEACEKEEPERS

Director, Charlene Tsoodle-Marcus

505-753-4790, 800-400-8694 • www.enipc.org

Enlace Comunitario

Executive Director, Claudia Medina

info@enlacenm.org

505-246-8972 • www.enlacenm.org

Domestic Violence Resource Center

dvrc@dvrcnm.org

505-843-9123 • www.dvrcnm.org

Esperanza Shelter

Executive Director, Anji Estrellas

info@esperanzashelter.org

505-474-5536 • www.esperanzashelter.org

Family Advocacy Center

FAC Coordinator, Bev McMillan

505-975-7484 • www.uwcnm.org/FAC

First Nations Community Healthsource

505-262-2481 • www.fnch.org

Five Sandoval Indian Pueblos, Inc.

505-867-3351 • www.fsipinc.org

https://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/

ca1672_25f9e182fbfb44aaa1d1b7197e0060ba.pdf

Haven House, Inc.

Executive Director, Roberta Radosevich

505-404-9365 • www.havenhouseinc.org

Heading Home

Female and Family Dorm Supervisor

505-595-6547 (shelter) 505-344-2323 (main)

info@headinghome.org • www.headinghome.org

HEAL and the Nest

Director of Operations, Sue Francis

575-378-6378 • www.helpendabuseforlife.org

Hopeworks NM

Executive Director, Greg Morris

[email protected]

505-242-4399 • www.hopeworksnm.org

Joy Junction

CEO, Elma Reynalds

Info@JoyJunction.org

505-877-6967 • www.joyjunction.org

The Life Link

Michael DeBernardi, PsyD, MS

505-438-0010 • www.thelifelink.org

Missing and Murdered Diné Relatives

Project Manager, Jolene Holgate

navajommdr@gmail.com • www.navajommdr.com

46 | Appendix A

Navajo Nation- Strengthening Families Program

Acting Supervisor, Michele Jones

928-871-6851

www.nndss.navajo-nsn.gov/DSSPrograms/

StrengtheningFamiliesProgram.aspx

Navajo Nation Missing Persons Updates

Founder, Meskee Yatsayte

NavNatMisP[email protected]om

www.facebook.com/NNMPU

New Day Youth and Family Services

Executive Director, Steve Johnson

[email protected]

505-938-1060 • www.ndnm.org

New Mexico Coalition Against Domestic Violence

Executive Director, Pam Wiseman

pwiseman@nmcadv.org

505-246-9240 • www.nmcadv.org

New Mexico Coalition to End Homelessness

Executive Director, Hank Hughes

info@nmceh.org

505-982-9000

New Mexico Dream Center

info@nmdreamcenter.org

505-900-3833 • www.nmdreamcenter.org

Rape Crisis Center of Central NM

info@rapecrisiscnm.org

505-266-7712 • www.rapecrisiscnm.org

S.A.F.E. House

Executive Director, Patricia M. Gonzales

pgonz[email protected]g

505-247-4219

Saranam

Executive Director, Tracy Sharp Weaver

505-299-6154 x 102 • www.saranamabq.org

Sexual Assault Services of Northwest New Mexico

Executive Director, Eleana Butler

505-325-2805 • www.sasnwnm.org

Steelbridge Ministries

info@mysteelbridge.org

505-346-4673 • www.mysteelbridge.org

Street Safe New Mexico

Associate Director, Kathleen Burke

streetsafenm@gmail.com

www.streetsafenewmexico.org

Tewa Women United

Executive Director, Corrine Sanchez

info@tewawomenunited.org

505-747-3259 • www.tewawomenunited.org

Transgender Resource Center of New Mexico

CO-Directors, Adrien Lawyer & Zane Stephens

505-200-9086 • www.tgrcnm.org

TWU’s V.O.I.C.E.S. Program

Program Manager, Nikki Bustos

nikki@tewawomenunited.org

505-747-3259 x1208

www.tewawomenunited.org/programs/our-voices-

program

Valencia Shelter

505-565-3100 • valenciashelterservices.org

Women’s Housing Coalition

505-884-8856 • www.womenshousingcoalition.org

Zuni Pueblo – New Beginnings

505-782-4600 • www.ashiwi.org/Programs.html#iqiuwy

NATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS

National Indigenous Women’s Resource Center

Executive Director, Lucy Rain Simpson

TTA Specialist, Gwendolyn Packard

gpack[email protected]g

406-477-3896/855-649-7299 • www.niwrc.org

National Indian Youth Council

Executive Director, Tina M. Farrenkopf

tfarrenkopf@niyc-alb.org

ABQ Field Oice: Melissa Wassana, 505-247-2251

www.niyc-alb.com

Appendix B | 47

APPENDIX B

Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Relatives Narratives

Dione’s story was the first story that the task force heard that graphically demonstrated the systemic failure

of our justice system, resulting in a lost life and subsequent lack of justice. These failures forced the grieving

family to become investigators, detectives and advocates amid much grief and pain.

Dione’s Sister Tells the Story

I came to the New Mexico Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women’s

Task Force in October 2019, when I was desperate for help. My sister,

Dione Thomas, had been gone for almost five years. In 2015, her life ended

in a hotel room along Route 66 in Gallup, New Mexico. Circumstances

surrounding the day were deemed suspicious and a possible homicide.

Dione’s murderer is yet to be charged.

Dione was a vibrant mother and relative. She was intelligent, family

oriented with a positive outlook on life. She was the eldest of six children, and the mother of four beautiful

daughters. Her parents, siblings, nieces and daughters all had a special and unique relationship with Dione.

Over the 40 years of her life Dione had established relationships and roles; as a mother, sister, cousin, friend,

niece and daughter. Her witty sense of humor and perspective on life is truly missed by her family and loved

ones.

On Saturday April 25, 2015 Dione was found unconscious in a hotel room along Route 66 in Gallup, New

Mexico. She had suered life-threatening injuries. Prior to discovering Dione, the Gallup Police Department

was called multiple times, as callers notified them of suspected signs of foul play and violence going on in the

hotel room where Dione was staying. According to police reports there was yelling, fighting and all the signs of

struggle and abuse.

On the day of my sister’s death, the Gallup Police Department was called and responded three times. These

multiple calls to the police reported yelling, fighting and suspected abuse. The last call was made to the 911

dispatcher because Dione was bleeding and unconscious. Reports and witnesses tell us there were only three

people in the hotel room that day: my sister, a close friend and the man who violently abused her for years.

As the day turned dark, hotel owners, guests and witnesses watched as the U-shaped parking lot o Route 66

48 | Appendix B

came alive with lights, police and ambulance arriving. Some of the people there watching were the guests who

had called police earlier in the day for help. That day, a police report was filed with charges against Dione’s

boyfriend for aggravated battery of a household member. The next morning, aer being flown to the UNM

Hospital’s Trauma Center, Dione passed away. The cause was blunt force trauma to the head. Within the next

few days, the hotel room – the crime scene – would be made available for rent, and her boyfriend would move

doors down to another room, taking my sister’s belongings with him. To us this seemed like grossly negligent

behavior on the part of the property owners.

The death of my sister was devastating to a whole family. Her children’s lives were greatly impacted in such

diicult ways as they navigated the overwhelming grief and responsibilities of life. The damage from her life

ending in such an awful way le us distraught, scrambling for answers and more information. We were beyond

frustrated and devastated when no charges were filed and her boyfriend, the named suspect, was released.

For months and years, we received little to no communication or progress on the open case. The investigation

seemingly went nowhere. Our calls and meeting requests went unreturned, with no answers on charges or the

investigation process.

Our family experienced years of cycling through the justice system seeking answers without support and little

success. We reached out to the police department and multiple organizations for help. The truth was that

in the years following Dione’s death, I had lost trust in the justice system. Over the course of the last several

years, we reached out to multiple oices and organizations for help. Each time, there was a report filed, a

phone call, a screening, an advocate assigned; we hoped and prayed that this would be the right combination

of resources needed for justice.

What if responding police oicers had been properly trained to respond to an escalating domestic violence

scene? What if they were equipped with a shelter and safe home to refer victims to? What if the judges, who

repeatedly for years saw a violent oender, took action with appropriate charges rather than dismissing

them? What if the hotel business owners and city of Gallup established and maintained a higher standard of

operation for the community they serve?

I implore you to support the recommendations in this report. The reality is that for my one story, there are

countless more victims and families broken by a cycle of our systems: victims and families desperately seeking

healing, dignity, peace and justice. Thank you for your time, energy and compassion for our loved ones and for

the hope we seek.

Appendix B | 49

Tiany’s Story

This testimony about Tiany initiated the MMIWR task force’s work in New Mexico. The task force has heard

more stories of families with missing relatives – missing sons, daughters, sisters, brothers and other relatives.

Tiany’s case is an illustration of one of many cases reported missing that have not been entered into the

NCIC. While searching for answers, Tiany’s cousin reached out to multiple agencies to try to get help. Aer

several attempts without response from law enforcement, she began attending community meetings held by

the Chief of Police in Shiprock, N.M. She spoke with criminal investigators about why Tiany’s name had not

been entered into the missing persons database, only to find out that according to the investigator, all missing

persons information had, at one time, been purged. Her cousin describes her experience below:

Tiany’s Cousin Tells the Story

Tiany Reid has been missing since May 17, 2004. She was last seen on her

way to school in Shiprock, N.M. at 8:20 a.m., yet she never arrived and has

never been heard from again. Years have passed, and Tiany’s family has

yet to hear anything regarding her missing person’s case. Tiany’s mother,

Dedra Wheeler, spent over 14 years searching for her daughter until the

time of her death in 2019. I have since picked up the case of Tiany and

began conducting my own search.

A few years ago while I was at work, I heard Tiany’s name over the police scanner. Someone was using her

name and information with law enforcement. I drove to the area that I heard mentioned on the scanner and

approached the female who was using Tiany’s information. The female would not talk to me when I asked

her why she was using Tiany’s information. During this time, I learned Tiany was not entered into the NCIC

(National Crime Information Center) as a missing person. I was confused and did not understand why she was

not entered into the NCIC, since she had been missing for so many years.

I have attempted to get help multiple times. I have been bounced back and forth from Criminal Investigations

to the Police Department. More than 16 years aer she disappeared, Tiany is still not entered into the NCIC

To date Dione’s case has not been solved and her killer remains at large. Dione’s case provides insight to the

systemic failures of the criminal justice system and the experiences of hundreds of families in New Mexico. Her

family implores that anyone reading this report take these recommendations seriously.

50 | Appendix B

as a missing person. I have tips from dierent people who have given us information regarding Tiany and

the case. These tips range from she is alive and living in Albuquerque, N.M., to she is in Colorado, to she was

murdered and here are the names of people responsible. I have photos that were sent to us saying this is

Tiany. But I can’t get anyone from law enforcement to listen. I have been told Criminal Investigations does

not have any case files for Tiany’s case, so now we don’t know if there is even a report. Tiany’s case is a cold

case and from what I understand, the Navajo Nation does not have a cold case investigator. I explained to him

that I had been trying to get someone to contact me but have yet to get a response from anyone. I asked if he

could help me but again was told to contact Criminal Investigations and if I didn’t get anywhere, to contact

him once again. This was the first time I experienced being pushed o by law enforcement, receiving w no

help. It was a frustrating and angering feeling.

It has been years, and yet we have no answers, and we have no way to get anyone’s attention. Being bounced

back and forth from one agency to another is frustrating. During my time advocating and attending meetings, I

have learned my family is not alone and there are many other families experiencing the same issues.

I learned that Criminal Investigations and the Navajo Police are two separate departments, and that they don’t

get along and don’t work together. We go unheard and no one within the Navajo Nation Law Enforcement

division wants to listen.

Tiany’s case is not forgotten. Her memory and spirit live on in the lives of her family that continue to search

for answers. Tiany’s family, like many families, has found solace by attending community meetings and

knowing that many families are going through similar challenges.

Appendix C | 51

APPENDIX C

Task Force Members

The following individuals served on the task force; some task force members were appointed by the Governor

of New Mexico and others represented a state agency. We would like to extend our gratitude to the following

individuals for their participation and commitment to this work.

Task Force Member

Lynn Trujillo

Beata Tsosie-Peña

Sharnen Velarde

Bernalyn Via

First Lady Phefelia Nez

Matthew Strand

and

Rose Rushing

Linda Son-Stone

Elizabeth Gonzales

Becky Joy Johnson

Captain Troy Velasquez

Brenda Gonzales

and

Kathy Howkumi

Representing

Secretary of New Mexico Indian Aairs Department (Task Force Chair)

Pueblo Nations Representative

Jicarilla Apache Nation Representative

Mescalero Apache Tribe Representative

Navajo Nation Representative

DNA People’s Legal Services – Representing an organization that

provides legal services to Indigenous women

First Nations Community HealthSource – Representing an organization

that provides counseling services to Indigenous women

Representing the Oice of the Medical Investigator

Representing survivors of violence and families who have lost a loved

one to violence

Representing the New Mexico Department of Public Safety

Representing the U.S. Bureau of Indian Aairs, Oice of Justice Services

Table 1

52 | Appendix D

APPENDIX D

Project Timeline

March – October 2019

November 2019

Albuquerque, NM

December 2019

Gallup, NM

October – November 2020

Santa Ana Pueblo, NM

February 2020

Albuquerque, NM

Public Meetings

House Bill 278 passed the House

and Senate on March 14, and it was

chaptered on March 28, 2019.

Task force appointments took months

to finalize. Sta at the Indian Aairs

Department completed outreach

to tribal leadership and requested

nominations for representatives. Most

of the representatives on the task force

had to complete the appointment

process.

Introduce Task Force, review task

force protocols, hear testimony from

survivors, impacted family members

and community members.

Discuss goals and objectives, begin

discussing data collection. Hear

testimony from survivors, impacted

family members and community

members.

Closed working session to establish

a framework for the final report,

establish subcommittees and create a

data gathering plan for secondary data

collection and original data collection.

Convene Law Enforcement Agencies

(LEAs) within the State of New Mexico

to understand the current response to

missing persons and murder/homicide

cases, which included reporting and

investigating protocols and challenges

across LEAs.

Data Collection

Meeting with organizations, legislators

and experts to start planning the

approach to this work.

Began seeking a project assistant to

support the task force.

Compiled research and other reports

to help develop a foundation for

understanding.

Literature review and Community

Testimony.

Missing & Murdered Diné Relatives

Forum #3.

Literature review and Community

Testimony.

American Indian Justice Conference.

Meet with research partners and

develop scope of work.

Finalize data collection plan and

initiate collection.

4th Annual New Mexico Human

Traicking Task Force Conference.

Appendix D | 53

February 2020

Albuquerque, NM

March 2020

Virtual Meeting

April 2020

Virtual Meeting

May 2020

Virtual Meeting

June – July 2020

No meetings held.

Public Meetings

Convene Law Enforcement Agencies

(LEAs) within the State of New Mexico

to understand the current response to

missing persons and murder/homicide

cases, which included reporting and

investigating protocols and challenges

across LEAs.

Convene tribal community

organizations, grassroots groups,

to gain additional insight, to

identify existing eorts and to

foster collaboration among critical

stakeholders.

Convene urban Native victim

service providers, law enforcement

Chaplain, and community members

to provide testimony on the

MMIWR crisis, existing barriers and

recommendations to provide healing

and support services to survivors and

impacted family members.

Understanding national missing

person databases and advocacy

through presentations from National

Missing and Unidentified Persons

System (NamUs) and National Center

for Missing and Exploited Children

(NCMEC).

Data Analysis and Report Draing.

Closed Task Force Meeting to revise

and approve the dra report.

Ensure continued funding for task

force activities during the 2020 Special

Session.

Data Collection

Begin developing IPRA requests,

identify scope of request.

Gather law enforcement contact

information for requests.

Begin developing survey tools.

Submit IPRA Requests to LEAs.

Meeting with MMIW Task Force Core

Stakeholder Group.

Start Hiring Process for DV/Community

Advocates to support data collection.

Monitor IPRA Responses, respond to

requests for more information.

Reassess community testimony.

Subcommittee meetings held to dra

sections of the final report.

Collection of IPRA responses & data

analysis.

Report draing.

Request support from All Pueblo

Council of Governors (APCG) to

allow survey distribution in tribal

communities.

54 | Appendix D

August – September 2020

No meetings held.

October – November 2020

Virtual Meeting

Public Meetings

Contracting to bring on additional

sta.

Reviewing the dra report.

Public outreach events.

Introductions to new federal partners:

Operation Lady Justice & MMIP

Coordinator for New Mexico.

Convene youth and members of the

Trans/2S+ and LGBQ2S community

to discuss barriers that exist when

accessing services and how the

crisis of MMIR aects them and their

communities.

Finalize dra memorandum and

continue data gathering for final

report.

Data Collection

Review of dra report.

Analysis of IPRA responses collected.

Attend meetings & presentations for

further data collection.

Submitted data sharing agreements

to tribal leaders for approval of survey

distribution.

Distribute and collect surveys from

tribal service providers and tribal

LEAs.

Appendix E | 55

APPENDIX E

IPRA/FOIA Request Law Enforcement Agency Responses

Albuquerque Police

Department

Bernalillo County

Sheri

Bureau of Indian

Aairs

Cibola County

Sheri

Crownpoint District –

Navajo Police

Farmington Police

Department

Gallup Police

Department

NM Law Enforcement

Records Bureau

Lincoln County

Sheri

Luna County

Sheri

McKinley County

Sheri

Send

Acknowledgment

of Request to

Fask Force

Responded that the

Request – Excessively

Burdensome/Broad or

Unable to Create Response

Sent Policies

and Procedures

Sent Case

Numbers by

Race/Sex

Table 2: Law Enforcement Agency Response to IPRA/FOIA Request

56 | Appendix E

Otero County

Sheri

Rio Arriba County

Sheri

Ruidoso Police

Department

San Juan County

Sheri

Sandoval County

Sheri

Santa Fe Police

Department

Santa Fe County

Sheri

Shiprock Police

Department

Socorro County

Sheri

Taos County

Sheri

Torrance County

Sheri

Valencia County

Sheri

Send

Acknowledgment

of Request to

Fask Force

Responded that the

Request – Excessively

Burdensome/Broad or

Unable to Create Response

Sent Policies

and Procedures

Sent Case

Numbers by

Race/Sex

Appendix F | 57

APPENDIX F

Community Perspective

Disclaimer: This Community Perspective does not serve to speak for any individual, or respective tribal

community, task force members or law enforcement, and is the opinions and personal truths of Pueblo and Diné

women, based on lived experience.

Un’bi’agin’di.

As we write this introduction, our tribal communities have been directly impacted by Covid-19 and many have

lost family members. The Navajo Nation has been particularly aected, as have several of our state’s Pueblos.

During this pandemic, tribal rights to designated emergency funding were withheld until recently, and

according to crisis response organizations addressing violence, sexual assault and domestic violence cases

have risen alarmingly.

Recent deaths of Black Americans from state-enacted violence are only a continuation of the untimely

deaths of Black, Transgender, and Indigenous Peoples whose lives are routinely cut short by police brutality

and systemic racism. Like the violence directed at our Native/Indigenous women, girls and relatives, Black

lives lack value by the White, cis-hetero-patriarchal, capitalist American system. It must be stated that law

enforcement is a Western construct that did not previously exist in our Indigenous Communities. The first

organized policing systems in America began in the South with slave patrols whose sole purpose was to

uphold the power and profit of the slaveholders. These self-elected patrols were armed and had broad powers

to arrest, search and detain slaves, guard against rebellions and search for runaway slaves.

There is a plethora of statistical information available that shows Black and Indigenous people are twice more

likely to be killed by police violence than their White counterparts and experience various types of physical

violence in encounters with police. The systemic racism embedded in colonial society does not center or

protect the lives of Black, Brown and Indigenous people; rather it provides a structural institution for White

supremacists or those with internalized oppression, posing as police oicers, to enact violence. Racial

misclassification, in and near, Native and Alaska Native communities results in underreporting and continued

tensions between law enforcement and Indigenous people.

Spanish conquistadors once enacted unspeakable violence against Pueblo Peoples in the name of their

religion and desire for gold and material wealth. The colonial values that enable patriarchal male and state

violence against Native women, girls, relatives and LGBTQ2S+ are the same that attempt to separate Peoples

58 | Appendix F

from the land and perpetuate the policies and structures of environmental racism that exist today. Our

ancestors stood up for Native women in our communities and did not tolerate any violence against those most

vulnerable. We are still fighting for justice today.

The movement in New Mexico to protect missing and murdered Indigenous women began with the brutality of

Spanish colonialism. In 1540 and 1598, settler and mercenary expeditions arrived to conquer the region under

the Crown of Spain, with the backing of the Catholic Church. Validated by a genocidal papal bull declaring

a “Doctrine of Discovery,” they massacred, raped, and dehumanized First Peoples. This policy whose very

premise is White supremacy is still being used against First Nations Peoples to deny the return of stolen lands

in U.S. Supreme Court cases.

In our state, detribalized mixed blood Indigenous Peoples, known today as “Genizaros,” were stolen from

their Pueblos and surrounding tribes and over time settled in small communities throughout the state. These

ancestors were comprised of the first missing and murdered Indigenous relatives because of post-colonial

human traicking. This was part of an extended period of land the which has contributed to current issues of

poverty, division and continued exploitation in both land grant and Native communities.

Border violence in New Mexico against southern Indigenous Peoples is another example of state violence that

has resulted in chronic abuse of families and children. Thousands of Indigenous children are unaccounted for

and essentially disappeared in U.S. custody. When Indigenous people die while incarcerated, at the hands of

police, or die or are disappeared in an immigrant detention facility, this constitutes being classified as Missing

and Murdered Indigenous Relatives, according to community definition. The combination of militarization,

racism, poverty and environmental violence as a direct result of ongoing colonization all contribute to the high

rates of MMIW in our state.

The National Crime Information Center reports that, in 2016, there were 5,712 reports of missing American

Indian and Alaska Native women and girls. The Department of Justice’s federal missing persons database,

NamUs, only logged 116 cases that same year. The Center for Disease Control and Prevention reports that

murder is the third-leading cause of death among American Indian and Alaska Native women and the

Native Youth Sexual Health Network’s report, “Violence on the Land, Violence on our Bodies” (2016) directly

correlates extractive industry with the rise in missing and murdered relatives. With New Mexico being

dependent on oil and gas for state revenue, it is no surprise that New Mexico currently has the highest rate

of MMIWR cases in the nation and Albuquerque is the city with the second highest. Additionally, seventy-one

percent of American Indian and Alaska Natives live in urban areas, yet there is currently no formalized process

for data collection about violence among this critical demographic.

Appendix F | 59

On reservation and tribal lands, issues around MMIWR are complex due to jurisdictional barriers, routine lack

of prosecution, mis-categorization of cause of death and limited data collection. Understanding the history

of colonization on Native women is fundamental because federal law is based on policies that continue to

undermine tribal eorts from realizing the full sovereignty to protect our relatives. Self-determination can

uproot the systemic oppression that we have had to assimilate to as tribal peoples to survive colonialism. It

no longer serves our peoples to continue to enable and uphold a set of values that are not Indigenous to this

place.

The high rates of violence against Native Peoples and lack of accountability for these acts are tied to federal

intrusion that continues to render our communities vulnerable. This pattern continues and is reflected in the

lack of prosecutions and found relatives. There is still little, if any, consequence against violence by non-Native

perpetrators.

Taking into account the lasting eects of generational trauma due to: the eras of Indigenous genocide, removal

policies, forced western education through boarding schools, termination policies, forced sterilization,

broken treaties, laws that continue to dehumanize Indigenous Peoples – specifically women and girls – and

the ongoing degradation of the earth in the name of greed and progress, all perpetuate the ongoing MMIWR

crisis. Our people’s intergenerational strengths have provided us with the resiliency to resist and adapt despite

colonial impacts and ongoing harm. There is much to be gained through Black, POC and Indigenous solidarity

across the nations.

The continued policing of Indigenous bodies through medicalized, institutional racism, as seen in the recent

racial profiling of Native American mothers and families being investigated at Lovelace Women’s Hospital in

Albuquerque, is yet another example of ongoing racial profiling and dehumanization. It is concerning that this

backwards step has been taken, despite Indigenous Peoples having endured decades of forced sterilization.

Prior to first contact, Pueblos were matrilineal societies who birthed in our own homes with the assistance of

traditional midwives and assistants. We had ceremonies upon birth that defined one’s role in the community

and recognized our children as members. Up until the implementation of blood quantum policy forced

on our peoples, matrilineal lineage superseded colonial, federal membership into a tribe. By abolishing

blood quantum and working to eradicate prejudice against our LGBTQ2S+ relatives, we will no longer be

marginalizing our own children, making them vulnerable to lateral violence and becoming victims of crime. It’s

time to restore traditional birthing practices and ensure that our families have the full range of reproductive

choices and birthing options.

60 | Appendix F

We must discuss the issue of assimilated toxic patriarchy in our tribal communities. Women and LGBTQ2S+ are

trying to survive while raising awareness and advocating publicly. We need the active support of the men and

protectors in our communities. Based on public testimony from Pueblo Peoples during New Mexico MMIWR

Task Force meetings, the following must begin to be addressed: men in positions of power being protected

from prosecution, the suppression of publicly outing violent and abusive community members, victims being

expected to live with the harm rather than speak out in fear of community retribution, spiritual leaders who

have used their role to enact harm under the guise of healing, and men suppressing female leadership. We

also recognize that the lateral violence and intergenerational trauma in our communities is a direct result

of U.S. federal assimilation policies, including five generations forced to attend boarding schools run by

perpetrators. It will also take several generations to undo this harm and remember our original instructions of

love, care, and respect.

We can no longer aord to be apologetic for violence towards women, children and our LGBTQ2S+ relatives.

We must upli and support the voices of survivors to end the culture of violence that is not of our making or

our tradition. Restoring matrilineal society means a restoration to balance, and not any one demographic

having unequal power over another. We already have the collective strength of our peoples to heal our

communities.

A Community Response from Missing and Murdered Diné Relatives

The Navajo Nation comprises twelve counties and expands into three dierent states. Missing and Murdered

Diné Relatives Working Group (MMDR) was established in 2019, through the leadership of Council Delegate

Amber Kanazbah Crotty, to begin addressing the ongoing crisis of missing and murdered relatives on the

Navajo Nation. MMDR is actively working to assist and empower Diné community members in the process of

seeking justice for their missing and murdered loved ones. They seek to elevate voices of impacted families

and listen to their truths wholeheartedly.

MMDR is made up of a dynamic, interdisciplinary team and network that is developing a framework for:

establishing an MMDR database, mobilizing community action, developing a missing persons community

action toolkit, creating and providing prevention awareness, leading on the ground eorts to recover missing

relatives and providing direct support to families of MMDR.

MMDR’s Jolene Holgate asserts that when in dialogue with state and federal partners, they oen claim that

victims “never reported it to us” and that is because of the inherent distrust in the current justice system and

Appendix F | 61

law enforcement. Tribal community members do not want to share their most sensitive information with the

systems that have oppressed them. Survivors are more willing to speak with trained community members,

leaders and grassroots organizers, thereby creating opportunities for collection of firsthand accounts. There is

a strong need for funding to support the training of victim advocates, like Meskee Yatsayte, who do the tireless

work on the ground.

MMDR expresses the importance of creating an awareness and prevention curriculum that is community

driven. Tribal communities must further invoke sovereignty to take ownership of the process of collecting and

retaining their own data. There also needs to be ongoing opportunities to have safe, brave spaces within our

communities to have critical conversations that are supported by tribal council and spiritual leaders. There is a

need for more victim services and healing and recovery care for perpetrators and impacted families, as well as

community support. Traditionally, our people dealt swily with threats against our wholeness, whereas now

we wait for colonized legal systems to punish and enact trauma.

Finally, when relatives are recovered from missing status, more support is needed. A majority of relatives

that go missing suer from mental health issues. We need wrap-around mental health care, improved crisis

response and education for families on how to identify and address “at risk behaviors” and “at risk youth.”

According to the National Association of Missing Persons, eighty percent of missing person cases are underage.

We must apply innovative thinking from our own Peoples, establish better relations with community members

and supportive agencies and transition from our dependency on IHS and federal institutions.

With minimal support from law enforcement or tribal leadership, MMDR has been able to have a significant

impact on the Navajo Nation. They are able to gather important information from families because they

are already vested in the community and people know they can come to them for support, providing

opportunities to build bridges of trust. When it comes to victim advocacy, the top-down approach simply will

not work. Upon building their capacity, MMDR intends to assist other tribes with their MMIR eorts.

In closing, there must be more Indigenous ways of knowing to respond to the variety of needs that arise

amongst our Peoples. We can no longer wait for bureaucratic responses from federal or state entities that do

not prioritize love and care for our communities. Only then will we see more of our relatives being named as

“Found and Loved” instead of “Missing and Murdered.”

Contributors to this Community Introduction are Dr. Christina M. Castro, New Mexico MMIWR Task Force

Project Assistant; Beata Tsosie Peña, New Mexico MMIWR Task Force Pueblo Representative; and Jolene

Holgate, Missing & Murdered Dine Relatives (MMDR).

62 | Appendix F

Sources:

Onate was no hero; tear down the statue, Serrano A., Medium.com

Rise of the Warrior Cop: The Militarization of America’s Police Forces, Balko. R.

Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women & Girls, Urban Indian Health Institute.

MMIW: Understand the Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women’s Crisis Beyond Individual Acts of Violence, A

Statement Prepared by NIWRC Policy Team Members Jacqueline Agtuca, Elizabeth Carr, Brenda Hill, Paula

Julian, and Rose Quilt.

Layout and Design by Iroots Media, LLC