ÃÛèÖÖ±²¥

The federal investigation into the killing began immediately, but today it remains, in the customary term of the FBI, “ongoing.�

When I interviewed José Antonio’s mother, Araceli Rodríguez, in December 2012, she complained about the slow pace of the American investigation. She hadn’t seen anything yet. What she didn’t know is that such prolonged probes are typical of federal investigations into shootings by Border Patrol agents.

Still, even I naively thought this investigation would come to a faster resolution. There are eyewitnesses to the shooting, one of whom told my colleague Perla Trevizo last year that José Antonio was walking along the sidewalk when shot, not throwing rocks as the Border Patrol originally alleged. There’s also video from a mounted camera along the border. And there’s a growing sense of public concern about this and other cases.

That hasn’t made a difference. Federal prosecutors would not explain the delay, but defense attorney Sean Chapman, who represents the agent who shot José Antonio, told me prosecutors are waiting for Mexican officials to hand over evidence related to the autopsy.

The lack of a decision doesn’t mean there hasn’t been action. Elena’s killing and more recent cases of alleged misconduct by Border Patrol agents have shown that going around the feds is the only way to ensure justice is done in a timely manner. In cases of possible misconduct by federal agents, local law enforcement and civil attorneys are the ones who can force the wheels of justice to turn for victims.

As for the accused agents, they’re pretty much forced to wait, in limbo, for the feds to make up their minds.

“My clients would rather that they didn’t take a long time, because they have it hanging over their heads forever,� said Chapman, himself a former federal prosecutor.

Perhaps the clearest recent example of federal reticence came to light last month. The Santa Cruz County Attorney’s Office filed a felony assault charge against a Nogales Border Patrol agent, Aldo Arteaga, who slugged a teenage detainee in the stomach.

The Jan. 30 incident was clearly visible on a video camera mounted in the detention cell. The video shows Arteaga, with no visible provocation, punching the teen once in the stomach, and the teen staggering back onto the floor. The blow isn’t exceptionally vicious — what jumps out from the video is the casual nature of the punch. It makes you wonder how many times this happens and nobody finds out.

Federal prosecutors watched the video Feb. 12 and decided a month later that the punch “did not appear egregious enough to warrant prosecution,� The Associated Press reported Friday.

The agency didn’t act to discipline Arteaga either. But in late September the agency’s Office of Professional Responsibility asked the Santa Cruz County Attorney to review the case. It was the local prosecutors who quickly made the simple decision that it was an assault, though they were forced to refile the charge as a misdemeanor because the victim was not younger than 15, as they had thought.

In yet another case this year, friction arose between Pima County sheriff’s deputies and Border Patrol agents after the May 30 killing in Green Valley by Border Patrol agent Daniel Marquez of smuggling suspect Jose Arambula. Marquez had been chasing Arambula on foot, when, Marquez said, Arambula turned and made punching out motions with his hands, as if he was firing a gun. But he was unarmed when Marquez opened fire.

At the scene, agents grew angry, according to Pima County Sheriff’s Department reports, because they felt the investigators were treating them like criminals. As my colleague Carmen Duarte reported, one deputy’s report offered this eyebrow-raising description of the federal agents’ reaction. “Some of the comments I heard included: ‘We are all cops; why are you treating us like this? This is ridiculous, and there is no need for this.’ �

Chapman, the ÃÛèÖÖ±²¥ attorney who represents Agent Marquez, told me the friction also arose because investigators did not allow Marquez to speak with Chapman for 2Æ’ hours.

Eventually, the Pima County Attorney’s Office declined to press charges, deciding that the shooting was justified, but the unsympathetic posture of the sheriff’s investigators on the scene encourages me, because it gives at least the impression of an unbiased investigation. In the end, it also gives more confidence in the prosecutor’s decision not to file charges. And the quicker decision removes the agent from limbo.

No local law enforcement has been willing to take up the investigation of José Antonio’s killing, in part because of the jurisdictional difficulties caused by the cross-border shooting. But his family ran out of patience, got legal help and filed suit July 29. The American Civil Liberties Union joined the family’s Nogales attorney, Luis Parra, in filing the wrongful-death suit, giving it a little extra oomph.

I know from speaking with Parra in 2012 that he had planned to file suit only after hearing first whether the government decided to pursue charges.

In retrospect, it’s no surprise that they haven’t yet decided. There seems to be a reticence permeating the federal government to hold agents accountable for shootings. The Border Patrol’s acting internal-affairs chief acknowledged that the agency has not internally disciplined any of the agents responsible for 46 killings that have occurred since 2004, the ÃÛèÖÖ±²¥ Republic reported Sept. 14.

Perhaps the agency’s internal disciplinarians have been deferring to federal prosecutors’ decisions. But then, who are the FBI and federal prosecutors deferring to? Don’t forget: They’re not deciding whether the agent’s guilty — they’re deciding whether a jury should decide guilt.

Until federal investigators show some sense of urgency in resolving these cases, expect more civil suits and local-police investigations of Border Patrol agents’ actions. These are the only ways the public can know for sure that agents are being held accountable.