Executive Summary
- The family of Brian Padilla filed a wrongful death lawsuit against Bernalillo County and the Sheriff’s Office.
- The suit alleges Deputy Jeremy Ruckman used excessive force seconds after arriving at the scene of a mental health call.
- Plaintiffs claim the deputy failed to identify himself or use de-escalation techniques before shooting Padilla.
- The lawsuit criticizes the Sheriff’s Office for an alleged lack of transparency regarding the release of case information.
The family of a New Mexico man has filed a wrongful death lawsuit against Bernalillo County and the Sheriff’s Office, alleging that a deputy used unnecessary deadly force during a mental health crisis call. The complaint, filed in the 2nd Judicial District Court, centers on the death of 35-year-old Brian Padilla, who was fatally shot by law enforcement on March 6.
According to the lawsuit, Padilla’s relatives called 911 for assistance because he was experiencing hallucinations and holding a knife while walking in his neighborhood. The plaintiffs allege that Deputy Jeremy Ruckman arrived on the scene and fired multiple shots at Padilla just seconds after exiting his patrol vehicle. The filing states that Padilla’s father was present and pleading for medical intervention when the shooting occurred.
Attorneys for the family assert that Deputy Ruckman failed to properly identify himself as a law enforcement officer or activate his vehicle’s emergency lights, making it difficult for Padilla to recognize him in the dark. The suit further claims that the deputy did not utilize appropriate mental health resources or de-escalation techniques before resorting to lethal force. A statement from the family’s legal counsel described the event as a recurring issue where police respond to mental health episodes with deadly force.
The lawsuit also details prior interactions between the Bernalillo County Sheriff’s Office (BCSO) and Padilla regarding his mental health. It notes that a mobile crisis team had assisted Padilla two days prior to his death. While the Sheriff’s Office has stated that they had offered resources to the family on multiple occasions, the plaintiffs contend these previous checks were brief and insufficient.
Additionally, the complaint criticizes the department’s handling of public information following the incident. The family alleges that despite their request for prior notification, the Sheriff’s Office held a press conference on April 30, 2025, which the plaintiffs characterized as an effort to influence public perception of the shooting.
Civil Liability and Procedural Review
This litigation highlights the critical examination of law enforcement protocols regarding the use of force during mental health emergencies. The proceedings are expected to focus on whether departmental policies for de-escalation and officer identification were strictly followed. It is important to note that the claims presented in the lawsuit are allegations made by the plaintiffs, and all parties are presumed to be acting within the law until proven otherwise in a court of law.
