Tim Pacheco/Courtesy photo

BY MAIRE O’NEILL
maire@losalamosreporter.com

Tim Pacheco, 63, of Los Alamos will be back in First Judicial District Court Thursday morning before Judge Anastasia Martin to face allegations that he violated the strict conditions of release the Court granted to him May 22.

See: https://losalamosreporter.com/2026/05/23/district-judge-grants-release-of-tim-pacheco-from-detention-pending-trial-subject-to-very-strict-conditions-of-release/ for detailed account of the May 22 hearing and links to previous articles on Pacheco.

The case involves 28 counts of criminal sexual penetration in the first degree (child under 13) related to alleged incidents between 1986 and 1995 involving two male juveniles.

During the conditions of release hearing, Judge Martin was very specific on what Pacheco could and could not do.

“You are not allowed to access the internet in any way. You’re going to be placed on electronic monitoring and you’re going to be on house arrest. You are to be hooked up with electronic monitoring prior to your release. House arrest means house arrest. You’re not going to the store. You’re not going to the gas station. You’re not even going across the street to your girlfriend’s residence. You’re on house arrest in your house,” Judge Martin said.

A motion filed by Assistant District Attorney Haley W. Murphy July 27 in District Court seeks revocation Pacheco’s conditions of release and his remand to the Los Alamos County Detention Center pending trial.

The motion notes that the state agreed to place Pacheco on house arrest with the understanding that conditions could be crafted that would “closely mirror incarceration” and protect the community.

“The Court stated at the May 22 hearing that the defendant was not allowed to shop while on house arrest and could have someone bring him his groceries,” the motion states.

On July 22, Tim Pacheco was allegedly observed at the Motor Vehicles Division office in Los Alamos. Shortly thereafter, the motion states that Assistant District Attorney Elizabeth Counce encountered Pacheco at Smith’s grocery store in Los Alamos and said to him. “Hey Tim, you’re not allowed to be here”.

“The defendant said to her, ‘You’re not my mama. Good for you being the district attorney’. He then walked away saying, ‘You’re not my (expletive) mama and I don’t have to listen to you. It’s none of your (expletive) business.’ He then went grocery shopping when his mother grocery shopped for herself, went to the car by herself and was observed as perfectly mobile and able to care for herself,” the motion states.

“On the same day, Ofc. Jason Osborn with the Los Alamos Police Department went to Smith’s after being directed to go there due to information that the defendant had been at MVD and was observed at Smith’s. ADA Counce is not the individual who contacted Dispatch. Ofc. Osborn captured his encounter with the defendant on his body worn camera. The defendant claimed to Ofc. Osborn that his pre-trial supervisor allowed him to go to Smith’s to shop. This is not permitted under the Court’s conditions of release,” the motion says.

It notes that the state is aware of other behavior on Pacheco’s part including a retirement part at his home, where he allegedly gathered a large group of people to celebrate his retirement.

“While this is not directly prohibited by his conditions of release, it is against the spirit of house arrest that the defendant is holding celebrations at his home as it is impossible to monitor who attends or their behavior at the residence,” the motion states.

Ironically, also on July 27, Pacheco’s attorney Tom Clark filed a motion with the Court asking for a change in conditions of release that would allow Pacheco to access the internet “for lawful purposes subject to any reasonable limitations the Court finds appropriate and grant such other relief as the Court deems proper.”

The motion says that since the entry of the condition of release, “it has become apparent that the complete prohibition of internet access imposes significant hardship and interferes with the defendant’s ability to engage in lawful and productive activities”. It asks for Pacheco to be allowed to access the internet for medical care/appointments/prescriptions, upcoming court appearances/access to court research. contact with attorney, retirement accounts/social security records, home maintenance/personal maintenance, assist elderly parents with maintenance of online accounts including banking and payment of online bills.

“The defendant has complied with all other conditions of release and there is no evidence that permitting limited internet access would present a danger to the community or increase any risk of nonappearance. The requested modification is reasonable, narrowly tailored, and consistent with the purposes of pretrial release. The defendant’s prohibition against any online social media access shall remain in place as a previous condition of release,” the motion states.

Mr. Clark added that counsel for the state had been contacted and opposes the motion.

\