Dona Ana County sheriff files federal lawsuit against 2 county commissioners

The ongoing feud between the Dona Ana County sheriff and the chairman of Dona Ana County’s board of commissioners continues to escalate.

Dona Ana County Sheriff Enrique “Kiki” Vigil has filed a federal lawsuit against two Dona Ana County commissioners he says have violated his civil rights.

Billy Garrett, chairman of the Dona Ana County Board of Commissioners and Wayne Hancock, vice-chairman of the Dona Ana County Board of Commissioners are named as the defendants in the lawsuit.

Vigil said Tuesday the County is trying to censor him and he is being targeted because he has spoken out against a culture of retaliation within County government.

“There is an effort by the chair and vice chair of this commission to censor me from exercising for 1st amendment rights of freedom of speech at county commission meeting,” Vigil said Tuesday.

Vigil says he is trying to do his best, despite not having adequate resources to run his office.

He also accused members of the commission and the County administration of devising schemes to hinder ongoing investigations and discredit his office.

The lawsuit obtained by ABC-7’s I Team lists the problems Vigil said he found when he became sheriff: Old patrol vehicles unfit for law enforcement use, underpaid deputies which resulted in them leaving for nearby, higher-paying law enforcement jobs, reports of abusive behavior by high-ranking officials in the department and reports of abuse of overtime funding grants.

The sheriff “set about, in a vigorous, determined, and professional manner, to address the many inequities, injustices, and disservices to the public and to his staff…”

Vigil said he advocated for “pay equalization” for his officers and civilian staff and brought in auditors to review previous use of grants.

Vigil said Commissioners Garrett and Hancock insisted on imposing a new “Hold Harmless” Gross Receipts Tax even though the other three commissioners, Leticia Benavidez, David Garcia and Benjamin Rawson were not “enthusiastic.”

Vigil claims he met with various commissioners to advocate for 1/3 of the tax increase to be designated for his department.

The lawsuit does not specify which commissioners he met with.

According to the lawsuit, Commissioners Garcia and Benavidez secured a win for Vigil by approving the tax increase with the condition that 1/3 of the revenue be designated for the sheriff’s department.

That’s when, according to Vigil, one of his captains was told by the assistant county manager that the money awarded would be deducted from the department’s budget so they’d be in a “‘break even’ situation.”

As ABC-7 has reported, Sheriff Vigil took to the podium multiple times to protest during the commission’s public meetings.

By April, Commissioner Benavidez proposed to clarify the allocation of the Gross Receipts Tax revenue.

During the meeting, Commissioner Garrett recessed the meeting and the board went into executive session where, the lawsuit alleges, Benavidez was convinced to withdraw her resolution.

The sheriff protested again by filing an Open Meetings violation complaint.

Vigil claims the more he spoke, the more commissioners retaliated against him.

Garrett and Hancock “decided to teach Sheriff Vigil a lesson by filing charges of unethical conduct against him. to that end, they scoured the county ordinances and policies to find a provision that he could accuse Plaintiff vigil of having broken.”

“Defendants’ actions were motivated not by a desire to stop unethical conduct or any other legitimate reason,” the lawsuit states. “Instead, they were motivated solely by a desire to retaliate against Plaintiff for his success in advocating for his Department and for his outspoken criticism” of the commissioners and the county officials.

According to the suit, commissioners Garrett and Hancock won’t say what the alleged violation is, and the sheriff’s lawsuit argues they have no authority to control or discipline a fellow elected official.

Sheriff Vigil is requesting compensatory and punitive damages against the commissioners, in their individual capacity, and an injunction to keep them from preventing Vigil’s exercise of his First Amendment right to Freedom of Speech.