Tweet
Arpaio contempt hearing this week: Intent is key
The Arizona Republic / azcentral.com
Megan Cassidy
4/20/2015
Excerpt:
In May 2013, U.S. District Judge G. Murray Snow delivered what seemed a crushing blow to Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio and his political platform.
Arpaio's deputies had racially profiled the county's Latino drivers as part of Arpaio's immigration-enforcement efforts, Snow concluded. His subsequent order would require millions of county dollars to reform the office, including more deputy training, videotaped traffic stops and a court-appointed monitor to oversee compliance.
At the time, Arpaio seemed characteristically defiant. He'd faced setbacks before, each time promising to deliver the same brand of law enforcement that made him a conservative darling in the immigration debate.
He vowed an appeal and used the ruling to his advantage in March 2014 when rallying for campaign funds in case he ran for governor: "Rampant, unfounded charges of racism and racial profiling" may threaten his chances, a campaign e-mail sent to supporters said.
This week, in a contempt-of-court hearing scheduled to begin Tuesday, Arpaio's words may come back to haunt him.
Arpaio and Chief Deputy Jerry Sheridan have already admitted to civil contempt for failing to follow some of Snow's orders and have proposed a settlement that has been rejected. So the key question to be answered this week is a matter of intent: Were the failures inadvertent, or did Arpaio and his aides purposely disregard Snow's orders?
While the defendants don't dispute contempt allegations, evidence of intentional violations could result in steeper sanctions, broader oversight of the agency or a referral for criminal contempt of court.
"We don't know the full story of how the violation of the court orders has happened — that has not come out yet," said Cecillia Wang, a plaintiffs attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union. "Without hearing that evidence, we don't know yet what a remedy looks like."
Height of power
By the late 2000s, Arpaio had become one of the most powerful foes of illegal immigration, a potent blend of political rhetoric and law-enforcement authority.
His deputies were authorized to act as federal immigration agents on the streets, allowing them to question and detain people solely on suspicion of being in the country illegally. The agreement with Immigration and Customs Enforcement, known as 287(g), also allowed screening in Maricopa County jails to check for immigration status.
Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio (center), PETA spokeswoman Pamela Anderson and PETA Senior Vice President Dan Mathews serve vegetarian food at the Maricopa County Jail on April 15, 2015. (Photo: Nick Oza/The Republic/azc)
Meanwhile, workplace raids and patrol sweeps through Hispanic neighborhoods became the backbone of the agency's policing efforts. But even as lawsuits and federal officials gradually stripped him of his immigration powers, Arpaio stuck to the platform that made him famous — a stance that some say landed him in this week's courtroom.
"He believed all the hype, and he doesn't know how to back down," said Maricopa County Supervisor Steve Gallardo. "That hype and what is required and allowed under state and federal law collided."
But while critics question the public-safety merits of large-scale roundups of undocumented immigrants, Arpaio's supporters say the sheriff's priorities are always rooted in crime suppression.
"The sheriff's political actions in his campaign are separate from the MCSO's duties," said Tom Liddy, one of Arpaio's attorneys in the racial-profiling case. "Law enforcement is non-political."
The Sheriff's Office had the backing of key local and state officials, many of whom felt the federal government had not done its job enforcing illegal-immigration laws. Then-County Attorney Andrew Thomas won his seat on an anti-illegal-immigration platform and teamed up with Arpaio to enforce Arizona's employer-sanctions law by way of workplace raids.
And former Gov. Jan Brewer's signing of a sweeping immigration law, Senate Bill 1070, in 2010 sent a message that the state's lawmaking majority aligned with Arpaio's controversial policies.
..............................................
View the complete article, including photo and video, at:
http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/...-key/26050811/
The Arizona Republic / azcentral.com
Megan Cassidy
4/20/2015
Excerpt:
In May 2013, U.S. District Judge G. Murray Snow delivered what seemed a crushing blow to Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio and his political platform.
Arpaio's deputies had racially profiled the county's Latino drivers as part of Arpaio's immigration-enforcement efforts, Snow concluded. His subsequent order would require millions of county dollars to reform the office, including more deputy training, videotaped traffic stops and a court-appointed monitor to oversee compliance.
At the time, Arpaio seemed characteristically defiant. He'd faced setbacks before, each time promising to deliver the same brand of law enforcement that made him a conservative darling in the immigration debate.
He vowed an appeal and used the ruling to his advantage in March 2014 when rallying for campaign funds in case he ran for governor: "Rampant, unfounded charges of racism and racial profiling" may threaten his chances, a campaign e-mail sent to supporters said.
This week, in a contempt-of-court hearing scheduled to begin Tuesday, Arpaio's words may come back to haunt him.
Arpaio and Chief Deputy Jerry Sheridan have already admitted to civil contempt for failing to follow some of Snow's orders and have proposed a settlement that has been rejected. So the key question to be answered this week is a matter of intent: Were the failures inadvertent, or did Arpaio and his aides purposely disregard Snow's orders?
While the defendants don't dispute contempt allegations, evidence of intentional violations could result in steeper sanctions, broader oversight of the agency or a referral for criminal contempt of court.
"We don't know the full story of how the violation of the court orders has happened — that has not come out yet," said Cecillia Wang, a plaintiffs attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union. "Without hearing that evidence, we don't know yet what a remedy looks like."
Height of power
By the late 2000s, Arpaio had become one of the most powerful foes of illegal immigration, a potent blend of political rhetoric and law-enforcement authority.
His deputies were authorized to act as federal immigration agents on the streets, allowing them to question and detain people solely on suspicion of being in the country illegally. The agreement with Immigration and Customs Enforcement, known as 287(g), also allowed screening in Maricopa County jails to check for immigration status.
Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio (center), PETA spokeswoman Pamela Anderson and PETA Senior Vice President Dan Mathews serve vegetarian food at the Maricopa County Jail on April 15, 2015. (Photo: Nick Oza/The Republic/azc)
Meanwhile, workplace raids and patrol sweeps through Hispanic neighborhoods became the backbone of the agency's policing efforts. But even as lawsuits and federal officials gradually stripped him of his immigration powers, Arpaio stuck to the platform that made him famous — a stance that some say landed him in this week's courtroom.
"He believed all the hype, and he doesn't know how to back down," said Maricopa County Supervisor Steve Gallardo. "That hype and what is required and allowed under state and federal law collided."
But while critics question the public-safety merits of large-scale roundups of undocumented immigrants, Arpaio's supporters say the sheriff's priorities are always rooted in crime suppression.
"The sheriff's political actions in his campaign are separate from the MCSO's duties," said Tom Liddy, one of Arpaio's attorneys in the racial-profiling case. "Law enforcement is non-political."
The Sheriff's Office had the backing of key local and state officials, many of whom felt the federal government had not done its job enforcing illegal-immigration laws. Then-County Attorney Andrew Thomas won his seat on an anti-illegal-immigration platform and teamed up with Arpaio to enforce Arizona's employer-sanctions law by way of workplace raids.
And former Gov. Jan Brewer's signing of a sweeping immigration law, Senate Bill 1070, in 2010 sent a message that the state's lawmaking majority aligned with Arpaio's controversial policies.
..............................................
View the complete article, including photo and video, at:
http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/...-key/26050811/