She had 42 kilos of cocaine in her car. A federal magistrate judge in Texas found "no probable cause."
Re: Judicial Conduct Complaint No. 05-23-90120
I hereby petition the Fifth Circuit Judicial Council for review of a complaint of misconduct against U.S. Magistrate Judge Juan F. Alanis of the Southern District of Texas.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
On 10 June 2023, Denisse Ahumada MARTINEZ, a citizen of Mexico and an elected councilwoman of the city of Reynosa, state of Tamaulipas, was arrested and taken into federal custody at the Falfurrias Checkpoint, located in Brooks County, Texas, after U.S. Border Patrol agents found 42 kilograms (92.6 pounds) of cocaine concealed inside the vehicle she was driving. U.S. Border Patrol contacted DEA Special Agents who proceeded to Falfurrias Checkpoint and interviewed Ms. MARTINEZ.
A copy of the Criminal Complaint is attached. According to the statement of facts attached to the Criminal Complaint (Attachment A):
MARTINEZ admitted she drove the white Mazda SUV from Mexico into the United States through the Hidalgo Port of Entry. She stated she was to transport the narcotics concealed in the vehicle to San Antonio, Texas. MARTINEZ also stated she has transported narcotics in the past as well.
It was reported that on 15 June 2023, “the court did not find probable cause and [Ms. MARTINEZ] was remanded to custody until an order of dismissal was filed.” (Steven Masso, “Drug charges to be dismissed against Reynosa city councilwoman.” Valley Central, 15 June 2023).
Ms. MARTINEZ was subsequently “arrested on a fugitive warrant out of Brooks County on a charge of possession of a controlled substance” and, “a day later,” she “was booked into the Hidalgo County Jail on the warrant from Brooks County.” (Steven Masso, “Reynosa city councilwoman arrested on state drug charges after federal charges dismissed.” Valley Central, 17 June 2023).
Upon Ms. MARTINEZ’s second arrest, Brooks County Sheriff Urbino “Benny” Martinez told a reporter, “I always believe that we shouldn’t let people walk after a crime. There needs to be consequences. It’s a bad signal when you just let people walk […]. That’s the norm for Brooks County to adopt cases from the checkpoint. That’s the agreement we have with them. There are certain cases that just don’t quite meet the criteria that [federal authorities] have […] so we adopt them.” (Sandra Sanchez, “South Texas sheriff weighs in on decision to arrest Mexican councilwoman on cocaine charges.” Border Report, 23 June 2023).
On 23 June 2023, Ms. MARTINEZ was indicted by a grand jury “before U.S. Magistrate Judge Juan Alanis in federal court in McAllen. He is the same judge who on June 15 dismissed federal drug trafficking charges against her during a hearing in which he said federal prosecutors had lacked probable cause to arrest her.” (Sandra Sanchez, “New federal drug charges leveled against Mexican councilwoman; Texas state drug charges also pending against Reynosa councilwoman.” Border Report, 28 June 2023).
Sheriff Martinez, in a phone conversation with me on 14 August 2023, confirmed the facts as reported by the news outlets cited above. He further advised that after Judge Alanis dismissed the charges against Ms. MARTINEZ and released her, a new arrest warrant for Ms. MARTINEZ had also been obtained by the DEA.
COMPLAINT
In the interest of upholding the impartiality and legitimacy of the judiciary, this panel should review Judge Alanis’ finding of no probable cause in light of the principles enshrined in Canons 1 and 2 of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges [Code of Conduct] and the Judicial Council of the Fifth Circuit’s Rules for Judicial Conduct and Judicial Disability Proceedings [Fifth Circuit Rules].
Canon 1 of the Code of Conduct prescribes: “a judge should uphold the integrity and independence of the judiciary” and emphasizes the necessity of high standards of conduct “so that the integrity and independence of the judiciary may be preserved.” Canon 2 emphasizes the need for judges to “avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all activities,” and to “act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.” Canon 2A Commentary reads:
An appearance of impropriety occurs when reasonable minds, with knowledge of all the relevant circumstances disclosed by a reasonable inquiry, would conclude that the judge’s honesty, integrity, impartiality […] or fitness to serve as a judge is impaired. Public confidence in the judiciary is eroded by irresponsible or improper conduct by judges […]. A judge must avoid all impropriety and appearance of impropriety.
At Ms. MARTINEZ’s probable cause hearing on 15 June 2023, Judge Alanis’ dismissal of the Criminal Complaint — when the Complaint, on its face, was without question sufficient to support probable cause — displays an absurd degree of tolerance for the smuggling and trafficking of narcotics in the Southern District of Texas. An arrestee’s bare assertions of an affirmative defense is not sufficient to negate probable cause for arrest. See Ryan P. Sullivan, Revitalizing Fourth Amendment Protections. Iowa Law Review, Vol. 105:687 at 717, n.148. The decision constitutes “irresponsible or improper conduct” tending to erode public confidence in the judiciary.
Under the rules of the Fifth Circuit, “cognizable misconduct does not include an allegation that calls into question the correctness of a judge’s ruling.” Art. II, R. 4(b)(1). The rationale for this rule, as discussed in Comment 4.1, is that “[d]isagreements with a judge’s rulings should be raised through the normal appellate review process because these judicial misconduct procedures are not a substitute for or supplement to a proper appeal […].” However, a court’s determination that the government has not met its burden in a probable cause hearing is not an appealable ruling under the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.
The [government] has no appeal from errors of law committed by a magistrate upon preliminary examination and the discharge [of a criminal defendant] on a preliminary [examination] would operate as an unchallengeable acquittal. […] The only way an error of law committed on the preliminary examination prejudicial to the [government] may be challenged or corrected is by a preliminary examination on a second complaint. Tell v. Wolke, 21 Wos.2d at 619-620 (cited in Fed. R. Crim. P. R 5.1, Notes of Advisory Committee on Rules — 1972, par. 13).
Thus, since there is no other mechanism by which the actions of Judge Alanis may be reviewed, application of Rule 4(b)(1) would lead to the absurd result that a judge’s capricious dismissal of a Criminal Complaint and release of a narcotics smuggling suspect — who had admitted guilt to multiple felonies — would evade Judicial Council scrutiny.
Moreover, the precedent set by the dismissal of the Complaint and release of Ms. MARTINEZ, without review for misconduct, would give rise to the absurd implication that an arrest for narcotics smuggling — as well as the seizure of a vehicle with 42 kilograms (92.6 pounds) of cocaine — may have constituted an unlawful arrest and seizure in violation of a defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights, potentially giving rise to a Bivens action against federal officers. As there is no appeal avenue from the dismissal, it is the duty of the Judicial Council to accept jurisdiction and to find that its scrutiny of Judge Alanis’ actions is proper under the Fifth Circuit Rules.
Judge Alanis’ decision to release Ms. MARTINEZ unconditionally, rather than permit transfer to state custody, was improper and — but for the vigilance of the DEA and sheriffs — would have been prejudicial to the administration of justice.
Ms. MARTINEZ was caught by federal officers in the act of narcotics smuggling; her admissions — including that she “has transported narcotics in the past as well” — indicated mens rea to commit the crime. Even if Judge Alanis reasonably could have found the government had failed to meet its burden to establish probable cause for arrest for a federal crime, his choice to release Ms. MARTINEZ from custody rather than transfer her to state custody calls into question his fitness to serve as a judge.
Judge Alanis’ decisions in this matter are not judicial rulings subject to appeal and are within the purview of the Judicial Council. He abused his discretion; his decisions were objectively unreasonable; these errors are egregious enough to present the appearance of impropriety calling into question the integrity of the court; the decisions are conduct prejudicial to the effective administration of the courts; and the decisions constitute cognizable misconduct. This serious matter warrants further investigation and appropriate disciplinary measures signaling that Judge Alanis’ apparent tolerance for narcotics smuggling is strongly repudiated by the Fifth Circuit Judicial Council.
Under penalty of perjury I attest to the truthfulness of the statements made herein.
________<signed>________
Amy Suzanne Martin, MA JD
Wow. Jaw dropping.
Really begs the question if the judge is on the Cartel payroll....most people would be suspicious. Crossing the border is the one place they can turn your vehicle upside down and search your person.
What is also interesting is the Cartel is now using US elected officials as MULES. Hmmm...