Pervasive Police Corruption in Albuquerque Explains Why a Teetotaler Was Arrested for DWI
A driver who was acquitted of drunk driving joins a class action lawsuit provoked by a bribery scheme that went undetected for decades.

A couple of weeks ago, Jose Vasquez learned that former Albuquerque police officer Honorio Alba Jr. had pleaded guilty to taking bribes from a local defense attorney in exchange for making DWI cases disappear. "I almost fell out of my bed because I was watching the news that day, and I just, I couldn't believe it," Vasquez told KRQE, the CBS affiliate in Albuquerque. "I was like, there it is. This is it. It did have to do with money."
Alexander M.M. Uballez, the U.S. attorney for New Mexico, says Alba was just one of "many officers" who participated in a bribery scheme that began decades ago and eventually involved nearly every cop assigned to the Albuquerque Police Department (APD) unit charged with apprehending drunk drivers. For Vasquez, one of 14 plaintiffs in a recent lawsuit provoked by the corruption scandal, the news of Alba's guilty plea definitively solved a mystery that began more than four years ago.
On a Sunday in September 2020, Alba stopped Vasquez for speeding on Paseo Del Norte Road in northeast Albuquerque. But instead of simply writing him a ticket, Alba alleged that Vasquez was driving while intoxicated. Vasquez was dismayed by the accusation, since he had not been drinking and in fact had given up alcohol for health reasons.
Alba claimed he could smell alcohol on Vasquez's breath, which was also strange, because both men were wearing face masks as a precaution against COVID-19. "I knew that I hadn't been drinking," Vasquez told KRQE. "And I was like, 'I have a mask on. How can you smell? You have a mask on, like what? How are you going to be smelling the smell of alcohol?'"
Sensing that something was amiss, Vasquez's wife began recording the encounter on her cellphone. "Do I look like a drunk person?" Vasquez asked Alba and Sgt. Nelson Ortiz, another officer who would later be implicated in the corruption scandal. "You can all tell he's not," his wife added. But after Vasquez refused to undergo field sobriety tests, Alba and Ortiz arrested him. And even though a breath test confirmed that Vasquez was not under the influence, they charged him with DWI, along with speeding, obstructing or evading an officer, and negligent use of a deadly weapon.
Compounding the puzzle, the officers advised Vasquez to contact Thomas Clear, a lawyer they said could arrange for the charges to be dismissed. Vasquez hired a different lawyer, and in 2021 a judge found him not guilty of all charges except for speeding.
Carlos Sandoval-Smith had a similar run-in with Officer Joshua Montaño in June 2023.* According to a lawsuit that Sandoval-Smith filed last October, Montaño stopped him for speeding, then "unlawfully expanded the scope of the stop by initiating a DUI investigation without reasonable suspicion that [Sandoval-Smith] was driving under the influence." Montaño charged Sandoval-Smith with DWI even though he "performed very well" on field sobriety tests and a breath test put his blood alcohol concentration well below the legal limit. Like Alba, Montaño recommended Clear as a lawyer who could get DWI charges dismissed.
The motivation for these strange encounters became clear after the federal corruption investigation became public in January 2024, when the FBI searched Clear's office and the homes of several officers. Last month, Clear's investigator, Ricardo Mendez, pleaded guilty to federal bribery, extortion, and racketeering charges. Montaño and Alba pleaded guilty to similar charges on February 7, followed by Clear himself last week.
"Since at least the late 1990s," Clear said in his plea agreement, he had been running what prosecutors call the "DWI Enterprise," a scheme that involved "almost the entire APD DWI unit over a lengthy period of time." In exchange for cash, "discounted legal services, gift cards, hotel rooms, and other gifts," officers would either refrain from filing charges against DWI suspects or deliberately miss pretrial interviews, motion hearings, trials, or administrative driver's license hearings. Based on those prearranged absences, Clear would move for dismissal, allowing his clients to avoid prosecution and keep their licenses.
The lawsuit that Vasquez joined, which aims to represent people victimized by the "DWI Enterprise" as a class, describes how all of this worked from the perspective of drivers who were pulled over by Alba and his colleagues. The plaintiffs include three other drivers who declined to hire Clear, all of whom say they were arrested for DWI without probable cause.
In August 2023, for example, Pedro Gonzales ran out of gas while driving from Socorro, New Mexico, to his home in Albuquqerque. Montaño stopped and approached Gonzales, who said he had drunk "two beers" in Socorro. Unsatisfied by Gonzales' performance on roadside sobriety tests, Montaño arrested him for DWI. But according to the complaint, Montaño "never planned on actually prosecuting" Gonzales. Instead, Montaño took Gonzales home, retained his driver's license, and gave it to Mendez, who called Gonzales the next day.
For $8,000 up front or $10,000 later, Mendez said, Gonzales would get his license back and his case would be dismissed. Gonzales "decided to inform federal law enforcement of the extortion." His DWI charge was ultimately dismissed in January 2024, around the time that news of the FBI investigation broke.
The other named plaintiffs tell similar stories. Officers would retain their licenses or other personal effects and give them to Mendez as an incentive to hire Clear. Mendez would offer Clear's help in exchange for a cash fee of $6,000 to $10,000. While those drivers all turned Mendez down, the plaintiffs also include 10 unnamed individuals who accepted his offer.
Clear and Mendez kept the racket going with the help of senior APD officers, who recruited new participants and agreed to make sure that no one interfered with the "DWI Enterprise." As they moved up in the ranks, former members of the DWI unit—including the commander of the department's internal affairs division, his deputy, a lieutenant who likewise was supposed to be rooting out abuse and corruption, and two other lieutenants—were in a position to deliver on that promise.
The lawsuit, which alleges multiple violations of state and federal law, argues that none of this could have happened if the city had properly trained and supervised its officers. In addition to the city, the defendants include Clear, Mendez, Alba, 13 other current or former cops, and Albuquerque Police Chief Harold Medina. The lawsuit also names the Bernalillo County Board of Supervisors and the New Mexico Department of Public Safety because Clear and Mendez have said they bribed employees of the Bernalillo County Sheriff's Office and the New Mexico State Police as well as the APD.
"On information and belief," the complaint says, the city and Medina "knew of the agreement between Defendant Officers and Defendants Clear and Mendez." It is not clear whether that is true. But it is fair to say that Medina should have known what was going on. He joined the APD in 1995, shortly before Clear says the "DWI Enterprise" got started. Medina has held senior positions for more than a decade and has run or helped run the department since 2017. As chief, he assigned former DWI officers to internal affairs, putting foxes in charge of the henhouse.
According to the lawsuit, the APD's Court Services Unit was supposed to keep track of officers' appearances at criminal and administrative proceedings but manifestly failed to do so. It says the city and Medina "ratified the conduct of Defendant Officers by failing to intervene after receiving multiple notices that Defendant Officers were violating the law." In December 2022, for example, the APD got a tip that DWI officers, including Alba, were getting paid to make sure that cases were dismissed.
The fact that several drivers reported their disturbing encounters with cops and Mendez to the FBI rather than the APD suggests they did not trust local authorities to look into the situation. With good reason, says the lawsuit, which alleges that Medina "did not adequately investigate" evidence of irregularities until an FBI probe forced him to do so. According to Medina, who has repeatedly promised to "make sure that we get to the bottom of this," he had no clue that anything was amiss until he was briefed on the FBI investigation in October 2023.
The city and Medina have declined to comment on the lawsuit. But it raises serious questions about the policies and practices that allowed such pervasive corruption to go unnoticed for as long as it did.
"The way that the city has responded to date is more or less taking a victory lap, saying we stopped it, but not saying why it happened," Taylor Smith, one of the attorneys who filed the lawsuit, told KRQE. "And that's the problem. And if our own leadership is not willing to take accountability and make sure that the change happens, then we need new leadership."
* CORRECTION: The original version of this article misstated Montaño's first name.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
These cops doing the jobs illegals won't do.
They’re doing the illegal jobs good people won’t do.
How many judges were in on this? Seriously, how many times does the same attorney have to come before you with the police failing to show up for trial before you start to have questions?
The whole system is rotten, cops, prosecutors, public defenders, but the judiciary in the lower courts are a particularly rotten clump.
Judges know better than to ask those sorts of questions.
There are positions where you know to cultivate a shield of ignorance - because if you knew you would have to act and you know you're actually powerless to act.
So you pretend you don't know and then you can keep pretending you have power.
Judges are some of the worst people out there.
He said without a hint of irony.
None. They didn't need to be.
Why would the lawyer need to pay off judges when the cops he bribed are already doing the only necessary thing to get the cases thrown out?
I know this is wrong, but I lost some sympathy because he was wearing a mask while driving in a car with his wife.
More money needed for training.
Yuh, right? They all missed the unit that explained that extortion was bad. Maybe they had to take it out to shoehorn the DEI crap in.
There are over 18,000 police departments in the country. I'll bet hundreds if not thousands do the same thing. This can't be isolated.
Anecdotally I knew a guy who got into an accident while drunk and got charged with DUI. His dad paid five grand to a lawyer who was buddies with the DA and the charges were dropped. This was twenty years ago.
There are rackets like this all over the country.
The cop on the scene should have shot your friend in the throat since he was breaking the law and might have been armed.
But after Vasquez refused to undergo field sobriety tests, Alba and Ortiz arrested him.
That's 100% legit. Refuse the tests, and you ARE getting a ride in a police car.
That said, it's also the recommended path if you're NOT drunk. Field sobriety tests are way too subjective and partial towards the cops. Don't consent to them.
That that said, if you ARE drunk and you refuse the breathalyzer when you get to the station - you're losing your license. Nothing criminal about it. A condition of your driver's license is that you'll submit to legit (ie. NOT field) breathalyzer tests when demanded. You'll win your criminal case - they'll have ZERO evidence - but your license is going on administrative bye-bye.
So, long story short - if you're not drunk, refuse the FST, and submit to the real one.
If you are drunk, I don't really care Margaret.
And even though a breath test confirmed that Vasquez was not under the influence, they charged him with DWI, along with speeding, obstructing or evading an officer, and negligent use of a deadly weapon.
Which suggests that you left some details out of this rEpOrTiNg, Jakey Fakey.
The lawsuit that Vasquez joined, which aims to represent people victimized by the "DWI Enterprise" as a class, describes how all of this worked from the perspective of drivers who were pulled over by Alba and his colleagues.
That's stupid. Why would they do that as a class action? That'll just diminish whatever judgment they're awarded. Obviously we don't want LEGIT DUI cases to be getting a payout from this lawyer's scheme - right?
Right?????
Just the ones that would have had ZERO basis for filing DUI charges. The ACTUAL drunks they scooped up deserve nothing. They were wronged in no way whatsoever. In fact, they (obliviously) benefitted from this lawyer's scheme. They don't deserve a copper cent.
The other named plaintiffs tell similar stories.
All three of them. Don't think your intentional phrasing went unnoticed, ACAB Fake News.
"On information and belief," the complaint says
And now we're into the Emma Camp rEpOrTiNg phase of this story.
But it raises serious questions about the policies and practices that allowed such pervasive corruption to go unnoticed for as long as it did.
What policies and practices do you think would have prevented it, fake news hack?
Pretty sure there's ALREADY policies and practices against taking bribes. As there are policies and practices about showing up to court appearances.
But just like all the scumbags you routinely defend, cops - like anyone else - are completely capable of ignoring them. Especially when they know there's not going to be any meaningful enforcement.
So... what is it you want, Jakey Fakey NeWs Hack - do you want a State that applies its laws and enforces them against criminals (which I KNOW you don't), or do you want one that doesn't?
Or do you just want to whine about cops in general, in which case show me on the doll where the mean man touched you. Fag.
"That's 100% legit. Refuse the tests, and you ARE getting a ride in a police car."
And you are presumed guilty of a DUI with no evidence and automatically lose your license, not to mention criminal penalties, plus now you can't travel freely to Canada or Mexico.
A violation of so many Amendments I don't get how this stands, other than FYTW.
And you are presumed guilty of a DUI with no evidence and automatically lose your license
There's no presumption of guilt either way. You simply refused to comply with the terms of your licensure to operate a motor vehicle. So, they're taking it away.
not to mention criminal penalties, plus now you can't travel freely to Canada or Mexico.
I already explained how the criminal penalties - unless you're sloppy falling down throwing up in the cell drunk - are darn near completely avoidable.
Also, travel? Sure you can. Get a passport. Who reaches adulthood without having gotten one, ffs.
A violation of so many Amendments I don't get how this stands
Well, I mean, forgive me for saying - but you seem pretty ignorant on the subject in the first place. You were conflating things like "criminal" and "administrative" right out of the gate. You think "Amendments" are in play, when they're not. You also don't seem to understand the concept of licensure. Agree or disagree with it, whatever fits your pleasure, but you seem to fail to understand how any of this operates in the first place.
Are you sure you should be even commenting on this subject with such limited knowledge of it?
Canada won't let you in with a DWI on your record, passport or not. (Also subjective and/or subject to limitations. I know people with DWIs who were let across the border and who were stopped; not sure if it was time since the DWI, whether or not they admitted it, how attractive they were, etc.)
Again, if you haven't been convicted of a DWI, it's not an issue. And believe me, they're not going to get a conviction unless A) you admit you're drunk; B) you blow over the limit in the drunk tank; or C) you're falling down sloppy and puking in the drunk tank obviously three sheets to the wind.
Because the US Supreme Court said so.
Or the cops piled on some extra bullshit charges in an attempt to intimidate the guy into doing as they wanted, which was going to their dirty prosecutor pal.
Surely you're not presuming guilt of the guy who had all charges dismissed except speeding, right? Of course you are, copsucker.
I got involved in a bar brawl once and was arrested and thrown in the tank for the night. The next day when I was arraigned (sp) the judge read the charges and I laughed out loud. Disturbing the peace. Trespassing. Obstructing justice. Resisting arrest. And some others I don't recall.
A libertarian was born lol.
A friend of mine who was a cop in NH told me once about a guy who was with his friend and their girlfriends in his apartment drinking. The guy chucked an empty beer can at a passing cop car in the parking lot below. The cop stopped, went in and arrested the guy for, among other things, inciting a riot because there were at least two other people nearby.
https://gc.nh.gov/rsa/html/LXII/644/644-1.htm
Language.
And even if they did, this guy knew he was legit, right? He was a teetotaler, according to the headline (Jakey Fakey never really bothered to explore that, mind you).
So they charged him with DWI - which he could have beat.
And speeding - which he probably couldn't have.
And obstructing/evading - which he could have beat.
And negligent use of a deadly weapon - we don't even know why he was charged with that. Fake Sullum didn't bother.
Hey gee golly gosh darn and heck and shocker Chippy, how much you want to be that Jose Vasquez didn't know his rights? Let's get him in here and pop quiz him - first ten. Just rattle them off the top of your head.
Betcha he can't. And not even because of any name-based stereotypes - MOST Americans can't. And, as a person I highly respect once put it so articulately: "if you don't KNOW your rights, how would you ever know if someone took them away?"
You don't need to go out and get a juris doctor, Chip - to know and have a basic understanding of what to do/say at a traffic stop. Nor do you even need to know the nuances of administrative and criminal law. You just need to know what your rights are, and then exercise them.
Losertarians always complain about their rights (and really, they're not complaining about their rights per se, as they are just whining about ACAB). Few even know what their rights are. It's pathetic.
"A Republic, if you can keep it."
Gotta want to first, pal.
Language.
Fuck off.
And even if they did, this guy knew he was legit, right? He was a teetotaler, according to the headline (Jakey Fakey never really bothered to explore that, mind you).
It's right in the article, dimwit.
What did you want, a link to his medical records?
Hey gee golly gosh darn and heck and shocker Chippy, how much you want to be that Jose Vasquez didn't know his rights? Let's get him in here and pop quiz him - first ten. Just rattle them off the top of your head.
You're talking about the guy who refused the field sobriety test, which you yourself said was the right thing to do if you weren't drunk. And he ignored the cops' advice to go to their dirty prosecutor, got his own lawyer instead, and beat all charges except for speeding.
Did you even read the article?
Language.
It's right in the article, dimwit.
Oh, so just because that's what he said, we're just going to automatically believe him because Narrative!™
You're talking about the guy who refused the field sobriety test, which you yourself said was the right thing to do if you weren't drunk. And he ignored the cops' advice to go to their dirty prosecutor, got his own lawyer instead, and beat all charges except for speeding.
Which is weird, incidentally. Because if he was stone sober (health reasons lol!), he probably COULD have blown into a PBT and then drove off with a speeding ticket.
Go back and reread what I said. Refuse the roadside if you're legit drunk, or think you might blow over the limit. And then, when you get to the station - either take the risk and blow under, or refuse and get an administrative suspension.
The latter is better than a DUI conviction.
This guy had no reason at all to think he might be drunk and fail a roadside/PBT. Because health reasons, assuming we just take that on its face (we'll never know, because Fakey never asked).
Did you even read the article?
Admittedly, after its fourth or fifth iteration, you just kind of gloss over them at that point. I don't know what kind of business model Reason has where they pay people to just rewrite the same articles over and over, but apparently that's their thing.
Go back and reread what I said.
Good god, you don't even read your own posts.
If you've been drinking at all - as opposed to 100% sober, which this clown claimed - then don't consent to them. You cannot fail a PBT/FST with a 0.0 BAC. And even if by some lightning strike of coincidence you do, when you go do the real one downtown, I guarantee it will not register anything that will serve as evidence for a conviction.
FFS, do I need to get crayons for you? I'm starting to think you're just ACAB contrary for the sake of it. That your NPC programming at work??
Or was this all just a deflection to avoid addressing the point that our so-called "health reasons" "teetotaler" should have refused a test he KNEW he'd pass? What isn't Jakey Fakey telling us about this guy? Why aren't you asking?
You cannot fail a PBT/FST with a 0.0 BAC.
Of course you can. All the cop has to do is claim you failed. And we're talking about a cop who claimed to be able to smell alcohol with a mask over his face and a mask over Vasquez's face. A cop who it turns out was taking bribes for bringing people in for DUIs/DWIs and then steering them to a dirty prosecutor with the intention of not showing up to court to defend his claims. It's noteworthy how you swallow whatever claims the cops, however dirty they turn out to be, make while distrusting the claims of the person who was acquitted in court. Does your FOP Junior Woodchuck membership require this?
And we're also talking about a victim who passed a breath test at the station and was still arrested as if he had failed it.
Of course you can. All the cop has to do is claim you failed.
And then he has to submit the PBT test, its calibration chart, and possibly even the device itself. Which won't help him in court, and probably get him in trouble for intentionally deceiving the courts as one of its officers.
It's noteworthy how you swallow whatever claims the cops, however dirty they turn out to be,
What claims in particular are you talking about? Because I haven't done that here.
And we're also talking about a victim who passed a breath test at the station and was still arrested as if he had failed it.
Facts not in evidence, Counselor. Notice a very critical absence of a claim between #38 and #39?
And then he has to submit the PBT test, its calibration chart, and possibly even the device itself. Which won't help him in court, and probably get him in trouble for intentionally deceiving the courts as one of its officers.
What court, since the plan is to just not show up to the preliminary hearings or interviews?
It's noteworthy how you swallow whatever claims the cops, however dirty they turn out to be,
What claims in particular are you talking about? Because I haven't done that here.
Key word highlighted for your benefit.
And we're also talking about a victim who passed a breath test at the station and was still arrested as if he had failed it.
Facts not in evidence, Counselor. Notice a very critical absence of a claim between #38 and #39?
RTFA, nitwit.
What court, since the plan is to just not show up to the preliminary hearings or interviews?
Which means case dismissed. So... what's the issue?
You seem to be conflating multiple ideas into the same jumbled incoherent ACAB nonsense, moving seamlessly between injustices you claim happen at the roadside traffic stop to failures at the courthouse when the cop accepts a bribe not to show up, all at once as if it's all one instantaneous action.
But that's your prejudice at work. Your ACAB(/Marxist) critical theory programming automatically puts them in the Oppressor column so that nothing they do or say at any point could ever be regarded as acceptable. Which invariably leads you into that kinds of confusion and incoherence you're facing now.
Key word highlighted for your benefit.
I call the cops out on bad behavior just as much as I do defend them when they're justified. If it seems slanted to you, I would suggest you look less at my replies - and more at the overt bias with which Reason chooses to slant their ACAB NPC regurgitations.
38. Defendant Montaño transported Plaintiff to the police substation downtown to perform a breath test.
39. After performing a breath test on Plaintiff and deciding to formally charge him, Defendant Montaño moved Plaintiff out of the visual and audio reach of his body-worn camera, which he had removed and placed on a counter.
Notice the omission? The complaint oddly does not mention the results of the blood alcohol test. Which is a weird thing to omit if it were favorable to their factual narrative.
Which means case dismissed. So... what's the issue?
The issue is that someone was falsely arrested for a crime they could not have committed. That you don't think it's an issue is telling.
You seem to be conflating multiple ideas into the same jumbled incoherent ACAB nonsense, moving seamlessly between injustices you claim happen at the roadside traffic stop to failures at the courthouse when the cop accepts a bribe not to show up, all at once as if it's all one instantaneous action.
Nope, I responding directly to your own ridiculous assertions. In this case, specifically that a cop would have to submit evidence to prove an arrest was justified when the plan all along was to not show up in court at all.
Notice the omission? The complaint oddly does not mention the results of the blood alcohol test. Which is a weird thing to omit if it were favorable to their factual narrative.
Oh, so presumption of innocence for police, presumption of guilt for everyone else? Is that how you operate?
The issue is that someone was falsely arrested for a crime they could not have committed. That you don't think it's an issue is telling.
Actually, they could have committed it. And very likely DID commit it. Hey, maybe this guy didn't - he had "health reasons" or whatever.
Restitution WILL be made in such cases. So, again, what's the issue?
In this case, specifically that a cop would have to submit evidence to prove an arrest was justified when the plan all along was to not show up in court at all.
Assuming he got a bribe for doing so. Now we're back to the lawyer.
Also, this is pig ignorant of police procedure. If a cop makes an arrest, he HAS to do a whole lot of paperwork to go along with it. That means writing up the basis to justify said arrest.
His not showing up to court has nothing to do with that. It means that when said paperwork is questioned (by the shady lawyer), the Court has nobody present to vouch for it.
THAT was the scheme. How you are so stupid as to not understand any of this at its most basic levels is beyond me.
HAHA, no it's not. ACAB NPC.
Oh, so presumption of innocence for police, presumption of guilt for everyone else? Is that how you operate?
IT'S A CIVIL COMPLAINT YOU IGNORANT DOLT.
I know you're a cop-lover--I've read plenty of your tirades; personally, I'm a cop respecter who also knows that there are bad cops--but you seem WAY overly focused on the one story and seem to be missing the forest for that tree.
So, about the FBI investigation...did you miss this part of the article?
"The motivation for these strange encounters became clear after the federal corruption investigation became public in January 2024, when the FBI searched Clear's office and the homes of several officers. Last month, Clear's investigator, Ricardo Mendez, pleaded guilty to federal bribery, extortion, and racketeering charges. Montaño and Alba pleaded guilty to similar charges on February 7, followed by Clear himself last week.
So, about the FBI investigation...did you miss this part of the article?
No, but Sullum also keeps downplaying that central aspect of it - because he's trying to give his articles a far more ACAB tone. When the REAL story is that the ringleaders of this little scheme were the lawyer (Clear) and this... fixer, for lack of a better term (Mendez).
His obsession with everything anti-cop is jaundicing his ability to report the story objectively. At the end of the day, the cops just took bribes. Bad behavior, deserving of punishment, sure - but Jakey Fakey and the ACAB cheerleaders here act like they're the top of the pyramid. They're not.
But that doesn't keep the leftist NPCs from pretending otherwise, does it.
(They also misplace the victims in this whole thing. Hint: it wasn't the motorists.)
ABQ. A very corrupt blue city in a very corrupt blue state. Coincidence?
I live here, and our police chief reminds me of Chief Wiggum...
Trump pauses Foreign Corrupt Practices Act enforcement.
His reasoning is that it ‘makes American companies less competitive’. What it actually did, before he announced the non-enforcement, is put foreigners on notice that American companies won’t pay bribes and then pass those costs on to the consumer. Enforcing the laws against bribery also reduces corruption in general and increases competitiveness in general because American companies and foreign companies then have to innovate and be the best or lower cost to get business instead of pay money to get business. The message to business is ‘bribe away’. There’s a way to reduce over enforcement without announcing it like this.
Um, no, the foreign companies don't have to innovate, they just have to pay bribes.
Because, see, the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act only applies to U.S. persons and/or persons acting in U.S. territory.
If a Chinese company bribes an Indonesian official? The FCPA explicitly doesn't apply. (And even if it didn't explicitly say so, how would the US government enforce it against a Chinese company anyway?)
The continuing injustice is that innocent taxpayers are forced to compensate victims. Why do we not insist on malpractice insurance on the part of [all!] public employees?
Why don't public employee unions offer malpractice insurance as a guarantee of the ethical practices of their members? Very inexpensive, right? -- for well-behaved public employees.
If you think insurance companies are refusing to pay for claims now ... just wait until they have to pay for police power-tripping offences. If it was mandatory, you wouldn't have any police with active coverage to work.
Sullum is really good when he stays in his lane.
Looking for a deep pocket, the attorneys allege that the city should be liable for failure to train its officers. That's a laugh. How do you train dishonest people to be honest?
Putting the dishonest ones in prison, that's how.