LAS CRUCES, NM- Law Enforcement Today has been one of the leading media outlets reporting on the case of Las Cruces police officer Brad Lunsford, who was found guilty in the death of a man who seized his partner’s taser and whom Lunsford shot and killed in defense of his and his partner’s life. We have outlined the decision of New Mexico Attorney General Raul Torrez to insert himself in the case and force Lunsford’s prosecution, and the series of questionable decisions by Torrez and by the trial judge that we believe have deprived Lunsford of his rights. Now, the National Police Association (NPA) is asking Attorney General Pam Bondi to conduct a federal civil rights investigation into Torrez.
In a press release dated April 16, the NPA, a non-profit organization dedicated to promoting the interests of law enforcement officers, formally requested that the Department of Justice open an investigation into Torrez “over his politically charged prosecution of Las Cruces Police Officer Brad Lunsford.”
The release explained the circumstances surrounding the event that has changed Lunsford’s life.
The Reader’s Digest version is that Lunsford responded to a theft-in-progress call on Aug. 2, 2022. During the course of the investigation, the suspect, Presley Eze, “violently resisted arrest, knocked Officer Lunsford’s partner to the ground, and seized his department-issued Taser. Forced with the threat of serious harm or death to himself and others, Officer Lunsford discharged his firearm to neutralize the danger. Investigations concluded that Lunsford acted appropriately and within department guidelines.”
According to Law Enforcement Today’s assessment of Las Cruces department policy, New Mexico police training guidelines, and New Mexico state law, Officer Lunsford acted within the scope of his training and applicable law. Despite that, Torrez, a George Soros-funded stooge, indicted Lunsford for voluntary manslaughter.
The NPA's request for a federal investigation was prompted by the perceived political nature of Torrez's prosecution of Lunsford, which they believe was not based on the merits of the case but on a broader anti-police sentiment. They noted that, according to statistics, there have been fifty-three (53) similar incidents to the one involving Lunsford. At the same time, prosecutors declined to prosecute in forty-two (42) of them. Moreover, only one of those incidents that were prosecuted resulted in a conviction of the officer, in that case under federal civil rights statutes.
When Torrez had Lunsford indicted, he issued the following statement:
Our office is committed to upholding the principles of justice and accountability. It is our duty to ensure that law enforcement officers are held to the highest standards, that their actions are transparently examined, and that any misconduct is addressed with the utmost seriousness. This is not only an essential step in maintaining public trust but also a fundamental part of promoting safety, fairness, and the well-being of our community. We will continue to work tirelessly to foster a society where the rule of law is applied equally and without prejudice.
The NPA believes that Torrez’s pursuit of a grand jury indictment of Officer Lunsford was not a matter of ‘committing to the principles of justice,’ but was indeed both an ‘essential step’ and a ‘foundational part’ of furthering a grossly misguided notion of ‘safety, fairness, and the well-being of [a] community’ through the politically motivated pursuit of diminishing the protections afforded to law enforcement officers.”
Torrez, the NPA wrote, was trying to tie Lunsford’s prosecutions to national controversies about alleged “systematic brutality” instead of solely on the merits of his own particular actions.
“In the wake of high-profile incidents from other states, it appears that NMAG Torrez chose Officer Lunsford as a convenient scapegoat–a means to make a political statement that ‘no one is above the law.’”
NPA writes that Torrez appeared to have engaged in “selective prosecution” of Officer Lunsford, which violates the Constitutional guarantee of Equal Protection under the law. They wrote that “law enforcement officers enjoy these protections and expectations as well and should not be subject to arbitrary classification and pursuit.”
[...]
“...standing for the proposition that prosecuting a law enforcement officer solely on the basis that the individual is a law enforcement officer would likely violate the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution. The Equal Protection Clause prohibits selective prosecution based on arbitrary classifications such as race, religion, or other unjustifiable standards.”
[...]
“No American should be made a victim of the law’s ire due to prejudice or politics, and that includes the brave men and women of law enforcement. To do so otherwise is to create a two-tiered system of justice–one for the politically favored, and one for the politically inconvenient. Such a system is an anathema to our Constitution.”
In the case of Officer Lunsford, NPA believes that Torrez held him to different standards than ordinary citizens would be held to, specifically the right to self-defense. Despite two different reviews determining that his use of force was appropriate and just, Torrez still saw fit to seek his indictment.
“Respectfully, there exists an inescapable conclusion that Officer Lunsford is being treated differently because of who he is–a police officer dedicated to protecting the public–and what this case signifies to certain political interests, rather than what he did or the justice of the matter,” the NPA wrote.
The NPA’s press release suggested that Torrez violated “Lunsford’s constitutional rights under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, including substantive and procedural due process, and raises concerns about the selective prosecution based on political bias against law enforcement officers.”
NPA spokesperson Sgt. Betsy Branter Smith (Ret.) said, “This is not justice–it is persecution. Officer Lunsford followed his training, protected his partner, and survived a life-threatening encounter. Now, he faces prison not because he broke the law, but because he wore a badge.”
The NPA’s letter didn’t detail some other disturbing issues about Lunsford’s case, which Law Enforcement Today has extensively reported on. That includes the aforementioned refusal of the trial judge to admit exculpatory evidence into the trial, as well as reports that one of the jurors, the jury foreperson, lied during the voir dire process about previously expressed anti-police sentiments. If any case is crying out for a DOJ investigation, the case of Officer Brad Lunsford is it.
“This case goes beyond one man,” Smith added. “It sends a chilling message to every officer in America: even if you follow department policy, even if you act to save a life, you may be sacrificed to score political points. If this continues unchecked, the thin blue line will crumble under fear and hesitation.
“The United States is a nation of laws–not of mobs, not of headlines, not of political agendas,” Smith concluded. “If we abandon that principle for our police officers, we abandon it for everyone.”
The NPA’s letter to AG Bondi may be found here.
