AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The case involves the Honorable Stephen S. Salazar, a municipal court judge in Española, New Mexico, who admitted to misconduct related to the issuance of an ex parte order for the return of a towed motorcycle. The motorcycle, owned by David Vigil and involved in a criminal case, was towed by the police. Salazar, after being contacted by Vigil, directed the drafting and signed an order for the motorcycle's return without a hearing, notice, or jurisdiction, and embossed the order with the court's seal despite no related case being filed in his court (paras 2-4).

Procedural History

• First Judicial District Court, June 30, 2011: Granted a Petition for Writ of Prohibition and Superintending Control, quashing Salazar's order (para 6).

Parties' Submissions

• Judicial Standards Commission: Argued that Salazar's conduct constituted willful misconduct in office, violating several provisions of the Code of Judicial Conduct, and recommended suspension, public censure, probation, and restitution (paras 7-8).
• Respondent (Salazar): Admitted to the conduct leading to the discipline, including the issuance of the ex parte order and the violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct (paras 2-4, 8).

Legal Issues

• Whether Salazar's conduct in issuing an ex parte order for the return of a towed motorcycle constituted willful misconduct in office.
• Whether Salazar violated the Code of Judicial Conduct by engaging in ex parte communications, issuing an order without jurisdiction, and failing to maintain integrity and impartiality.

Disposition

• Salazar was suspended without pay for ninety days, placed on probation for the remainder of his term, required to pay restitution to the injured parties, pay all costs associated with the disciplinary process, and received a public censure (para 1).

Reasons

• The Supreme Court, per Chief Justice Petra Jimenez Maes, concurred by Justices Richard C. Bosson, Edward L. Chávez, and Charles W. Daniels, found that Salazar's actions constituted willful misconduct in office. Salazar admitted to engaging in ex parte communications, issuing an order without jurisdiction, and failing to give notice or an opportunity to be heard to the affected parties. These actions violated multiple provisions of the Code of Judicial Conduct, undermining public confidence in the judiciary's integrity and impartiality. The Court emphasized the importance of maintaining high standards of conduct within the judiciary to preserve its integrity and independence. Despite Salazar's previous probation and mentorship, his repeated misconduct demonstrated a disregard for judicial discipline and the need for significant disciplinary measures to prevent future violations (paras 7-21).