Alfonso Lopez Aguirre told the San Luis City Council on Aug. 21, 2025, that San Luis Police Department officers and U.S. Customs and Border Protection detained him on Aug. 21, 2023, and that officers did not read him his Miranda rights while he was treated as a suspect. He asked the council to investigate and to require the city attorney and police chief to explain the department’s handling of the case.

Lopez Aguirre said the department’s internal affairs reports “confirmed the Miranda violation” and that a teletype broadcast was issued before he was questioned, which he said created “false suspicions” and exposed the city to legal and financial risk. “Because of this arrest… I lost a career opportunity that is a direct probable… economic loss in addition to reputational harm,” he told the council. He said he has video showing an officer “who cannot state basic constitutional rights.”

Lopez Aguirre characterized the issue as a training and policy failure and urged the council to exercise oversight: “Ask why documented violations are being defended instead of corrected. Ask the city attorney and police chief to explain why is it worth risking millions of taxpayer dollars defending this case rather than resolving it.”

The comment came during the council’s Call to the Public, which the meeting packet framed under ARS subsection 38 4 31 0 1. Council members did not take action on the complaint during the meeting; no staff report, investigation timeline or directive from council is recorded in the meeting transcript.

Why it matters: Lopez Aguirre framed the claim as both a constitutional and a fiscal issue, saying the city faces potential civil-rights liability and urging transparency and corrective training if the internal-review findings are accurate.

What happened next: The transcript records no formal motion, direction to staff, or response from the city attorney or police chief at the meeting. The council acknowledged the comment and proceeded with the agenda.

Context and limits: Lopez Aguirre said an internal affairs report exists and described a video; the meeting transcript does not include the report text, the video, any response from the police chief, nor any formal council directive. The article does not assert the city’s liability or the factual accuracy of the allegations beyond what Lopez Aguirre stated on the record.

For follow-up: Council members or staff would need to provide the internal affairs report, the police department response, and any policy or training actions to substantiate or refute the claims.