Log In


Reset Password
News Education Local News Nation & World New Mexico

Montezuma sheriff candidate faced charges in California

Mike Steele says he has ‘nothing to hide’ about case
Steele

The Montezuma County sheriff’s race heated up recently when Mike Steele announced he was throwing his hat into the ring.

Steele made his intentions known in an April 8 email to the Cortez Journal, saying it would be an honor to serve Montezuma County as the next sheriff. He indicated he had more than two decades of law-enforcement experience, having served in operational, leadership and training levels in patrol, jail, investigations, homicide, narcotics, tactical and street gang divisions.

Montezuma County Clerk and Recorder Carol Tullis said Steele had filed an affidavit of intent to campaign as a write-in candidate in the Nov. 4 general election. As an unaffiliated candidate, Steele’s name will not appear on the June 24 Republican primary ballot.

In the general election, Steele’s write-in effort will have to overcome Republican incumbent Sheriff Dennis Spruell or GOP challenger Steve Nowlin. They will face off in the primary. No Democrat is running.

In his email to the Journal, Steele failed to mention he had faced criminal charges in California.

“Mr. Steele worked at a bail bond agency, and the charges involved business practices that were conducted in an unlawful manner,” San Bernardino Deputy District Attorney William Lee told the Journal.

A quick check by the Journal initially uncovered that Steele was charged, along with 19 others, by the San Bernardino County District Attorney’s Office in connection with a bail-bond kickback scheme. According to media reports published in 2004, the scheme, which involved bail agents paying inmates for referrals while they were in jail, was disclosed after a two-year investigation.

According to California Superior Court records, Steele initially was charged with a single felony count of unlawful solicitation of bail and two felony counts of conspiracy in connection with the case. The felony count of unlawful solicitation was reduced to a misdemeanor charge as a result of a plea deal, both counts of conspiracy were dismissed and Steele was fined $3,000, court records show. Seven others were convicted in the case.

During an hourlong interview with the Journal earlier this week, Steele said he was never arrested, booked or fingerprinted in connection with the charges. He argued that he got “wrapped up in the case” because of a friend’s betrayal, a co-defendant convicted in the case.

“This was somebody else’s problem that I got dragged into,” he said.

“This is not a skeleton in my closet,” he said. “Skeletons are things you try to hide. This is not a secret. I have nothing to hide.”

Steele said he agreed to work under contract for his friend’s California bail bond company starting in February 2002. He said he had no idea the company was under investigation when he accepted employment with the same company in 2004, six weeks before search warrants were issued in the case. A cease-and-desist order was placed on the bail bond company, and Steele said he immediately broke ties with the company the same day warrants were issued. He said he then agreed to work under contract for a separate insurance company responsible for the company’s outstanding liabilities.

Steele said a three-way phone conversation, in which an attorney alleged Steele accepted money for referring a client, tied him to the case. According to Steele, the attorney later recanted, saying he’d never met Steele.

“The last piece of any physical evidence of wrongdoing was dated 10 months prior to my employment with the bail bond company,” Steele said.

He said he had every intention of proving his innocence by a jury of his peers until his own attorney demanded an additional $75,000. He said he had previously paid his lawyer a total of $65,000.

“I entered the plea deal, but I didn’t want to do it,” he said. “I simply couldn’t afford the attorney fees.”

Steele said prosecutors had dropped the charges twice before refiling the charges a third time based on a new law “fabricated” by California insurance authorities to avoid civil litigation.

“This is a very humiliating part of my life, but at no time during this mess did I ever feel that I did anything wrong,” he said.

“A write-in campaign is certainly not the easiest or preferred method, but it allows the people of Montezuma County a real choice in selecting a candidate for sheriff whose allegiance is not subject to political whim or avarice,” he said.



Reader Comments