Pierce v. Albuquerque, et. al.

Jul 28, 2008

OUTCOME: Trial Pending

The Davis Law Firm (in conjunction with the Law Office of Brad Hall) filed a lawsuit on behalf of Katherine Pierce and the Estate of Scott Pierce against Albuquerque Police Department (APD) for the unt ... imely murder of Scott Pierce at the hands of a known career criminal, Clifton Bloomfield. On June 28, 2008, Mr. Pierce died from a shotgun blast to his neck in front of his newly wed wife. Scott and Katherine had been married for only six days when Bloomfield broke into their home in the middle night and fatally shot Mr. Pierce in an apparent case of mistaken identity. Katherine Pierce alleges that Bloomfield, however, should have been free to murder Scott Pierce because he committed numerous crimes prior to June 28, 2008 including several murders. On December 3, 2007, seven months before the murder of Scott Pierce, Bloomfield brutally murdered Tak and Pung Yi in their home in the northeast heights of Albuquerque. In committing the heinous crimes, Bloomfield left his complete DNA profile under Tak Yi’s right fingernail. Bloomfield’s DNA profile was indexed in the Federal CODIS database for violent crimes Bloomfield committed in Arizona several years earlier. APD, however, failed to process and obtain a hit on the DNA profile found under Mr. Yi’s fingernail until after Bloomfield had already murdered Scott. APD failed to process the DNA because APD chose instead to blame the murders of Tak and Pung Yi on two travelling salesmen based on a demonstrably false confession from one of the travelling salesmen. If APD had done even basic investigation into the travelling salesmen’s alibi on the day of the murder, APD would have realized that it was physically impossible for them to murder the Yis. The travelling salesmen were more than seven miles away from the murder scene when Bloomfield murdered the Yis. The salesmen’s airtight alibi was proven through receipts, cashed checks, and eye witnesses from the day of the murders. APD had all of this information well before Scott Pierce’s death. At the time Bloomfield murdered the Yis and Scott Pierce, he was on probation for a violent home invasion he committed in November, 2005. Throughout Bloomfield’s time on probation, July 2007 until July, 2008 (arrest for Scott Pierce’s murder), Bloomfield committed several other crimes that violated New Mexico law and the terms of his probation. In fact, APD reported that Bloomfield committed the following crimes throughout 2007 and 2008: August, 2007—Felony False Imprisonment, Telephone Harassment and Domestic Violence; October, 2007—Battery; November, 2007—Felony Aggravated Battery, Felony Domestic Violence, and Felony False Imprisonment; February, 2008—Robbery Suspect. APD created police reports for each of these crimes, but it failed to follow up with an investigation, failed to issue arrest warrants for Bloomfield, and failed to contact either the Court or probation and parole regarding Bloomfield’s crimes. If probation had been contacted regarding any of these crimes, then Bloomfield’s probation officer would have arrested Bloomfield and immediately began proceedings to revoke Bloomfield’s probation; taking a dangerous killer off the streets of Albuquerque. After Bloomfield was caught for the murder of Scott Pierce, he confessed to murdering Tak and Pung Yi, Scott Pierce, but also two unsolved murders: Carlos Esquibel and Josephine Selvage in 2005. A partial DNA profile from Bloomfield was also located at these murder scenes. Katherine Pierce and the Estate of Scott Pierce filed a lawsuit against APD because APD chose to violate the safety rules the require every APD officer to investigate and capture anyone violating the laws of New Mexico a/k/a the Duty to Protect. The Plaintiffs alleged that had APD followed the safety rules and investigated and arrested Bloomfield for any of the crimes he committed throughout 2007, then Bloomfield could not have murdered Scott Pierce.