“There are officers, like Miguel [Pacheco] who feel and act like the rules don’t apply to them,” says a Lieutenant familiar with Pacheco. “He is a problem child for the department.”

Chief Peter Pacillas is ignoring problems within the department. According to one Lieutenant, some officers are problem children. There is a lack of transparency and accountability. But it can change.

20 December 2024, El Paso, Texas, Steven Zimmerman—It’s not as if this media outlet seeks to target the El Paso Police Department. Lately, EPPD has become a target-rich environment due to its own actions or inaction.

We are also not anti-police, as some have indicated. We’re doing what the Chief of Police should be doing: listening and attempting to effect change that will better serve the honest, hardworking officers of the El Paso Police Department.

Sergeant Miguel Pacheco: A Bad Example – Southwest News Today

“He [Pacheco] will do more work trying to get out of work than actual work,” says an officer who used to work closely with him. “He’s the epitome of just collecting a check.”

On 26 November 2924, I wrote an article about Police Sergeant Miguel Pacheco, who, in at least one police report, identified himself as belonging to the EPPD’s “Tactical Section.”

On September 26th, the Undersigned was working a traffic assignment at the intersection of Betel and Warwick during the Del Valle H.S. Homecoming Parade when the victim approached the Undersigned and said that another woman had just assaulted her. The Undersigned found the alleged offender, and she cooperated with the initial investigation. However, there were no independent witnesses to the alleged assault. Both the victim and the offender provided conflicting stories about the incident. Both the victim and offender were issued an incident information card and were advised of the follow-up procedures.

Sgt. M. Pacheco #2220

Central Regional Command Center

Tactical Section

The above snippet is from an incident that has caused questions and speculation about body-worn cameras and when Officers should be wearing a department-issued body-worn camera.

His body-worn camera is not visible in this photo, taken during Pacheco’s interaction.

Texas police officers must wear body-worn cameras (BWCs) in certain situations, but they have discretion over when to activate them: 

• Mandatory: Officers must wear their BWCs during investigations. 
• Discretionary: Officers can choose not to activate their BWCs during non-confrontational encounters, such as interviews with witnesses or victims. However, they must note the reason for not activating the camera in their incident report. 
• Situational: Officers should turn on their BWCs when they observe suspicious or criminal behavior, respond to calls for service, or make officer-initiated contacts. This includes arrests, field contacts, and traffic stops. Officers should also turn on their BWCs during prisoner or witness transports. 
• Incidental contacts: Officers can choose to record or not record incidental citizen contacts. However, officers must begin recording if the encounter becomes confrontational or reasonable suspicion or probable cause arises.

Four days ago I submitted a Freedom of Information Request Act seeking answers to the following questions:

“…This is our second request. For El Paso Police Department Case Number 24-270204 (See attached incident report) we have asked why Sgt. Pacheco was not wearing a body-worn camera.

We understand that all officers, when in uniform are to wear a body-worn camera. For this incident, Pacheco was not wearing that camera. We would like to know the following:

1. Why was he not wearing a body-worn camera?

2. What measures have been taken by the department to ensure all officers wear body-worn cameras?

3. What action has the department taken against Pachchaco for not wearing his body-worn camera.

Thank you”.

Erica Gandara, Public Records Coordinator for the City of El Paso, with the Office of the City Attorney, sent the following reply:

“Please be advised that I have been informed that there are no responsive documents pertaining to your request.  As no responsive documents have been located, there is no charge associated with this response and your request is now considered closed.”

Pacheco was on duty, working on a traffic assignment, and was not wearing his department-issued body-worn camera. There was then an alleged altercation between individuals, and Pacheco began an investigation of that incident. Here are the problems with what happened.

During Pacheco’s investigation, he was required to activate his body-worn camera had he been wearing it.

On 1 September 2021, Bo’s Law went into effect. Bo’s Law is named after Botham Jean, who was killed in his apartment in 2018 by off-duty police officer Amber Guyger.

Part of the law will require police officers across the state to have their body cameras on when conducting an investigation, without exception.

Tactical Sergeant Pacheco then violates Texas law, and there seems to be little care about what an officer must do when it comes to body-worn cameras in El Paso, Texas.

Officers can choose not to activate their BWCs during non-confrontational encounters, such as interviews with witnesses or victims. However, they must note the reason for not activating the camera in their incident report.

In the incident report provided by the El Paso Police Department, Pacheco does not indicate that his body-worn camera was not activated, nor does it suggest that he even had one that day.

In the FOIA request, I asked: What measures have been taken by the department to ensure all officers wear body-worn cameras?

The City of El Paso and the El Paso Police Department have indicated that such a policy does not exist. Again, “no responsive documents” seem to exist for body-worn cameras.

The Texas Occupations Code – OCC 1701.655. Body Worn Camera Policy says:

(a) A law enforcement agency that receives a grant to provide body-worn cameras to its peace officers or that otherwise operates a body-worn camera program shall adopt a policy for the use of body-worn cameras.

(b) A policy described by Subsection (a) must ensure that a body-worn camera is activated only for a law enforcement purpose and must include:

(1) guidelines for when a peace officer should activate a camera or discontinue a recording currently in progress, considering the need for privacy in certain situations and at certain locations;

(2) provisions relating to data retention, including a provision requiring the retention of video for a minimum period of 90 days;

(3) provisions relating to storage of video and audio, creation of backup copies of the video and audio, and maintenance of data security;

(4) provisions relating to the collection of a body-worn camera, including the applicable video and audio recorded by the camera, as evidence;

(5) guidelines for public access, through open records requests, to recordings that are public information;

(6) provisions entitling an officer to access any recording of an incident involving the officer before the officer is required to make a statement about the incident;

(7) procedures for supervisory or internal review; and

(8) the handling and documenting of equipment and malfunctions of equipment.

(c) A policy described by Subsection (a) may not require a peace officer to keep a body-worn camera activated for the entire period of the officer’s shift.

(c-1) A policy described by Subsection (a) must require a peace officer who is equipped with a body-worn camera and actively participating in an investigation to keep the camera activated for the entirety of the officer’s active participation in the investigation unless the camera has been deactivated in compliance with that policy.

(d) A policy adopted under this section must be consistent with the Federal Rules of Evidence and Texas Rules of Evidence.

The El Paso Police Department’s Policy and Procedures Manual has the following when it comes to body-worn cameras:

Just what is going on within certain ranks of the El Paso Police Department?

“There are officers, like Miguel [Pacheco] who feel and act like the rules don’t apply to them,” says a Lieutenant familiar with Pacheco. “He is a problem child for the department.”

Even cilivians have issues with Pacheco.

“He [Pacheco] was one of the officers who came when I had a gun pulled on me,” says Robert Maxwell of El Paso. “The officers and him, they didn’t want to do anything. It’s like they have a job, but that job is just to get a check and go home without getting their hands dirty.

Chief Peter Pacillas is ignoring problems within the department. According to one Lieutenant, some officers are problem children. There is a lack of transparency and accountability. But it can change.

This is an opportunity for Chief Pacillas to ensure his legacy as Police Chief. He can listen to the officers on the street, hear the issues they long for him to address, and correct them. He could be remembered as the Chief who fixed a broken department or be counted as part of the problem.

Pacillas, the ball is in your court.