Joseph Michael Arpaio (born June 14, 1932) is a former law enforcement officer and American politician. He served as the 36th Sheriff of Maricopa County, Arizona for 24 years, from 1993 to 2017, losing re-election to Democrat Paul Penzone in 2016.
Arpaio set himself up as "America's Heaviest Sheriff". Beginning in 2005, he took a blatant stance against illegal immigration. In 2010, he became a hotspot against the Arizona Arizona Arizona anti-illegal immigrant law, most of which was beaten by the United States Supreme Court. Arpaio is also known for investigating the birth certificate of former US President Barack Obama, and, by 2018, he continues to claim without proof that it is forged.
Arpaio has been accused of various types of police abuse, including abuse of power, misuse of funds, failure to investigate sex crimes, improper case cleaning, immigration law enforcement in violation of law, and violation of election law. A federal court overseer is appointed to oversee the operation of his office due to complaints about racial profiling. The US Justice Department concluded that Arpaio oversaw the worst racial segregation pattern in US history, and then filed a lawsuit against him for unlawful discriminatory police action. Arpaio's office paid more than $ 146 million in fees, settlements and court awards.
During his career, Arpaio became the subject of several federal civil rights lawsuits. In one case he was a defendant in a decade-long lawsuit in which a federal court issued an order prohibiting him from doing "immigration swelling". The federal court later found that after the order was issued, Arpaio's office continued to hold "people for further investigation without the reasonable suspicion that a crime has been or is being committed." In July 2017, he was found guilty of criminal defamation of the court, a crime he was pardoned by President Donald Trump on August 25, 2017. In the case of a separate racial profile concluded in 2013, Arpaio and his subordinates were found to have unfairly targeted Hispanics in the past cross stopped.
Arpaio stated in an interview in September 2017 with American Free Press that he would consider running again, including the United States Congress, if the President of Trump asked him. Arpaio has announced his intention to seek a Republican nomination for the US Senate in 2018. Early life
Arpaio was born in Springfield, Massachusetts, on June 14, 1932, to Italian parents, both from Lacedonia, Italy. Arpaio's mother died in childbirth, and she was raised by her father, who runs an Italian grocery store. Arpaio finished high school and worked in his father's business until the age of 18 when he was enrolled in the United States Army. He served in the Army from 1950 to 1954 in the Medical Department and was stationed in France for part of the time as a military policeman.
After the army's departure in 1954, Arpaio moved to Washington, D.C., and became a police officer, moving in 1957 to Las Vegas, Nevada. He served as a police officer in Las Vegas for six months before being appointed as a special agent with the Federal Narcotics Bureau, which later became part of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). During his 25-year tenure with the DEA, he was stationed in Argentina, Turkey, and Mexico, and advanced through the ranks to the head of the Arizona DEA branch.
After leaving the DEA, Arpaio was involved in a travel venture through his wife's travel agent, Starworld Travel Agency, based in Scottsdale. While there, he sells parts to the Phoenix E space rocket, which is expected to take off from Edwards Air Force Base or Vandenberg Air Force Base on the 500th anniversary of Christopher Columbus's cruise to the new world. Although he claimed in 1988 that the first 19 flights from Phoenix E had been booked, no flights had ever been made.
Video Joe Arpaio
​​â € <â € < ​​â € <â €
Arpaio was first elected sheriff in 1992. He was re-elected in 1996, 2000, 2004, 2008 and 2012. During his tenure as a sheriff, Arpaio sought out media coverage. He is featured and profiled by news media around the world and claims an average of 200 television appearances per month. In late 2008 and early 2009, Arpaio appeared in Smile... You're Under Arrest! , a three-episode Fox Reality Channel series where people with extraordinary warrants were deceived into presenting themselves for arrest.
The jail condition
Arpaio's prison detention practices include serving prisoners who recover from saving food and limiting eating up to twice a day. He also forbids inmates from having "sexually explicit material" including Playboy magazine after women officers complain that inmates openly masturbate when viewing the article. The prohibition was challenged on the basis of the First Amendment, but was upheld by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. In February 2007, Arpaio set up a radio station at home that he called KJOE, broadcasting classical music, opera, hit Frank Sinatra, patriotic music, and educational programs five days a week, four hours daily.
Federal Judge Neil V. Wake decided in 2008 and 2010 that Maricopa District jails infringe on the prisoners' constitutional rights on medical and other related issues.
In 2013, National Geographic Channel features Arpaio prison in the episode of "Redes of Arizona" Banged Up Abroad. The episode tells the story of Ecstasy dealer Shaun Attwood who started the Jon's Jail Journal blog.
Arpaio founded the "City of Tents" in 1993 as an extension of Maricopa County Prison for convicted and convicted prisoners. Arpaio describes the City of Tent as a concentration camp. The City of Tent is located in the courtyard next to a more permanent structure. On July 2, 2011, when temperatures in Phoenix reached 118Ã, Â ° F (48Ã, Â ° C), Arpaio measured the temperature inside the tent of the City of Kemah at 145Ã, Â ° F (63Ã, Â ° C). Some inmates complain that fans near their beds are not working, and their shoes are thawing hot. During the summer of 2003, when outside temperatures exceed 110 ° C (43 ° C), Arpaio said to complain to the detainees, "It's 120 degrees in Iraq and the soldiers live in tents and they do not commit any crime , so shut up! "
Tent town prison
In 1997, Amnesty International said the Arpaio tent town jail was not "a viable or humane alternative to put inmates in... a suitable prison facility." The city of Tent is criticized by groups who argue that there are human rights violations and constitutional rights. Arpaio said he ordered the sentence to stay in the City of Tabernacle "for those who have been convicted." In April 2017, it was announced by the newly elected Sheriff Paul Penzone that the prison would be closed.
In 1995, Arpaio restored chain gangs. In 1996, he expanded the concept of a chain gang by instituting female volunteer group gangs. Female prisoners work seven hours a day (7 am to 2 pm), six days a week. He also instituted the first teenage volunteer gang chain in the world; volunteers get high school diploma credits. One of Arpaio's public relations actions is the requirement that prisoners wear pink underwear to prevent theft by freed prisoners. He claimed this saved the $ 70,000 county in the first year of the rule. Arpaio then began selling customized pink boxers (with Maricopa County Sheriff's logo and "Go Joe") as a fundraiser for the Sheriff's Posse Association. Despite allegations of misuse of funds received from this sale, Arpaio refused to give any tally for the money.
Arpaio's success in getting press coverage with pink underwear resulted in him widening the use of color. He introduced the pink handcuffs, using events to promote his book, Sheriff Joe Arpaio, America's Heaviest Sheriff. Arpaio said, "I can be selected in pink underwear... I've done it five times." In 2004, Arpaio ordered all illegal immigrants who are currently in prison registering for a Selective Service System.
In November 2010, Arpaio created an illegal armed immigration operation to help his deputies enforce immigration laws. Members of the posse include actors Steven Seagal, Lou Ferrigno, and Peter Lupus. Since the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office (MCSO) has lost its authority to enforce immigration laws (both with the authority of 287 (g) and through Federal court orders at Melendrez v. Arpaio, the posse is no more active. While the MCSO website claims 3,000 members of the posse, on July 29, 2015, the posse has 986 members.
Arpaio is a controversial sheriff. His practice was criticized by government agencies such as the US Department of Justice; United States District Court; and organizations such as Amnesty International, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU); Arizona Ecumenical Council; American Jewish Committee; and Arizona chapter of the Anti-Defamation League. The editorial board of The New York Times called Arpaio the "Worst Sheriff in America". The controversy surrounding Arpaio includes allegations of racial profiling, in which the ACLU sues the sheriff's office.
The claim that the sheriff's office failed to investigate serious crimes with serious
In 2000, it claimed that the sheriff's office failed to investigate serious crimes, including the rape of a 14-year-old girl by a classmate, and the rape of a 15-year-old girl by two foreigners. These cases are reported as "very clean" (solved) by MCSO without investigation or, in one instance, without identifying a suspect - contrary to Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) standards for exceptional permits. In the case of a 15-year-old girl, the case was closed within a month and before the DNA test was even complete, a 13-year-old boy because her mother did not want to "continue this investigation," and a 14-year-old because the suspect did not appear to be questioned. In a statement to ABC15, the sheriff's office declared "The Goldwater Institute report cites the FBI Reporting Manual [sic] , which is a voluntary criminal reporting program for collecting statistical information and reports.UCR is not intended for oversight of how law enforcement agencies remove the case... The Sheriff's Office has its own criteria for solving the case. "Arizona Public Security Department, which functions as a repository for Arizona case permit statistics, told 12 News that the guidelines in the Uniform FBI Crime Reporting Handbook are mandatory for all law enforcement agencies Arizona. The Guidance establishes that a case can be escorted with an exception only when the identity and location of the perpetrator is known and there is sufficient evidence to support the prosecution, but, because of special circumstances (such as a suspect dies, or extradition is not possible), an Arrest can not be made.
In an interview on the ABC Newsline program, when asked to explain why 82 percent of cases were declared clean with an exception, Arpaio said, "We are doing a higher percentage removal than that, I know that. , many cases - not 18 percent. " Nightline contacted the MCSO after the interview and was informed that of 7,346 crimes, only 944, or 15%, had been released by arrest.
Under Arpaio, MCSO may have been deleted incorrectly (reportedly solved) as much as 75% of cases without appropriate arrests or investigations.
Investigating sex crimes
During the three-year period ending in 2007, more than 400 sex crimes reported to the Arpaio office were not adequately investigated or not investigated at all. While providing police services to El Mirage, Arizona, MCSO under Arpaio failed to follow up on at least 32 reported child molestation, even though the suspects were known in all but six cases. Many of the victims were children of illegal immigrants.
In a controversial case, Arpaio's office is accused of neglecting Sabrina Morrison, a teenage girl who suffers from a mental disability. On March 7, 2007, the 13-year-old boy was raped by his uncle, Patrick Morrison. He told his teacher the next day, and his teacher called MCSO. An instrument of rape has been taken, but the detective assigned to the case told Sabrina and her family that there were no signs of sexual violence, no semen, or signs of trauma.
As a result of detective statements, Sabrina was branded by her family as a liar. Her uncle continued to rape her repeatedly, saying she would kill her if she told anyone. She became pregnant by him, and had an abortion. Families do not know that rape equipment has been tested in the state lab and shows the presence of semen. The lab asked the detective to get a blood sample from the suspect, Patrick Morrison. Instead of getting a blood sample, or making an arrest, the detective filed a criminal record and closed the case for four years.
In September 2011 the sheriff's office received blood samples from Patrick Morrison, which was a DNA match with semen taken more than four years earlier. Patrick Morrison was arrested and charged in February 2012; he pleaded guilty and sentenced to 24 years in prison.
In December 2011, responding to ongoing media coverage of the controversy, and apparently unaware that there were hundreds of casualties in these cases, Arpaio stated in a press conference, "If there are victims, I apologize to the victims."
In August 2012, Sabrina Morrison filed a notice of claim against Arpaio and Maricopa County for his negligence. In April 2015, the case was settled for $ 3.5 million.
An internal memo written by one of the detectives assigned to the Morrison case blames the high caseload, saying the special victim unit has gone from five detectives to just three, and the remaining detectives are often called out of their case to investigate a special assignment. This includes cases of credit card fraud involving Arizona Diamondbacks and mortgage fraud cases in the Arpaio home town of Fountain Hills.
When regional supervisors provided more than $ 600,000 to fund six additional detective positions to investigate child abuse in fiscal 2007, nothing was added to the sex crimes squad. The Sheriff Administrator concluded they did not know where the position was added or what became money after being added to the budget.
Target political opponents
In October 2007, Mike Lacey and Jim Larkin, founders and leaders of the Phoenix New Times, were arrested after publishing news articles about a grand jury investigation involving Arpaio's office. On the night when the article was published, Lacey and Larkin were captured by plain-clothes sheriff deputies, "handcuffed, put in a dark SUV with dark windows and taken to jail." After the public uproar over the arrest, all charges were handed down against Lacey and Larkin. Lacey and Larkin filed a federal Part 1983 suit for their civil rights violations, and in 2012 the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that they could sue the Maricopa County Sheriff Office for his arrest. In 2013, the Maricopa District Supervisory Board voted to settle the $ 3.75 million lawsuit. Lacey and Larkin used the outcome to establish a professorship awarded at Walter Cronkite School of Journalism and Mass Communication, and to establish Lacey & amp; Larkin Frontera Fund, which advocates migrant rights and freedom of speech in Arizona.
Between 2008 and 2010, Arpaio and former Maricopa County Lawyers Andrew Thomas jointly conducted a number of government-corruption investigations targeting political opponents, including judges, supervisors and district administrators, resulting in criminal prosecution of several individuals, lawsuits against The District Council of the Maricopa Supervisor, and a federal civilian squeeze suit against the superintendent, four judges, and lawyers working with the county.
In early 2010, Arpaio and Thomas attempted to create a grand jury accusing a number of Maricopa County magistrates, Maricopa District supervisors, and employees of the Maricopa District Supervisory Board. The grand jury, in unusual rebuke, ordered the investigation to end. This act has been described as meaning that "the case is so bad, no further evidence can be brought" to prove it. Legal experts agree this is a rare step.
Arpaio and Thomas lost in every case, either by court decision or by dropping the case.
The actions of Arpaio and Thomas in these matters lead to Thomas's helplessness by the disciplinary panel of the Supreme Court of Arizona, which finds Thomas "a highly exploited force, clearly growing fear and improperly misusing the law" while serving as the DA Maricopa. The Panel found "clear and convincing evidence" that Thomas brought unfounded and unlawful criminal and civil charges against political opponents, including four state judges and the Arizona Attorney General. "Is this a criminal case," the panel concluded, "we are confident that the evidence will build this conspiracy without any doubt."
At least 11 people filed lawsuits or legal claims as a result of being targeted by Arpaio and Thomas. This district completed all 11 cases:
- Gary Donahoe, a retired High Court judge: $ 1,275,000 settlement. County legal costs: $ 767,127.
- Kenneth Fields, retired High Court judge: $ 100,000 settlement. Local legal fees: $ 81,040.
- Barbara Mundell, retired High Court judge: $ 500,000 redemption. Local legal fees: $ 134,273.
- Anna Baca, a retired High Court judge: $ 100,000 settlement. County legal costs: $ 112,588.
- Stephen Wetzel, former director of county technology: $ 75,000 settlement. Local legal fees: $ 107,647.
- Wilson Password, deputy district manager and director of local budget: $ 122,000 settlement. Local legal fees: $ 458,318.
- Don Stapley, former county supervisor: $ 3.5 million settlement. Local legal fees: $ 1,682,020.
- Mary Rose Wilcox, district supervisor: $ 975,000 settlement, plus $ 9,938 in court-ordered legal fees. The legal costs of the current region: more than $ 375,442.
- Susan Schuerman, Stapley's executive assistant: $ 500,000 settlement. County legal costs: $ 200,201.
- Conley Wolfswinkel, Stapley's business partner: $ 1.4 million repayment. Local legal fees: $ 1,586,152.
- Andy Kunasek, regional supervisor: $ 123,110 settlement. Local legal fees: $ 1,150.
In February 2010, Pima High Court Judge John S. Leonardo discovered that Arpaio "misused his office's power to target Supervisory Board members for criminal investigations".
In June 2014, fees for the Maricopa County Taxpayers associated with the failed Arpaio and Thomas corruption investigations exceeded $ 44 million, excluding staff time.
Violation of election law
In July 2010, a committee formed by Arpaio ("Campaign for Re-Elect Joe Arpaio 2012") funded critical advertisements Rick Romley, the prime Republican candidate for Maricopa County Attorney, and Arizona Attorney General Tom Horne, despite the fact that Arpaio not running for re-election at that time (his term does not end until the end of 2012).
In August 2010, after filing a complaint to Maricopa's Electoral Department, the Maricopa County Law Firm found that one of the advertisements, direct mailers, advocated Romley's defeat and contributed in kind to Bill Montgomery (principal of Romley against election), violated Arizona's election law. The order states that civil penalty in the amount of three times the amount of money spent on the sender will be levied on the Campaign to Redirect Joe Arpaio 2012. In September 2010, Arpaio's campaign was fined $ 153,978. Montgomery eventually defeated Romley in the main vote, with Romley stating Arpaio's ads "hurt" the results.
Misinformation
An analysis by the Maricopa District Management and Budget Office, completed in April 2011, found that Arpaio had spent nearly $ 100 million over the previous 5 years.
Analysis shows that money from restricted restricted funds that can legally be used only to pay for prison items, such as food, salaries of detention officers, and equipment, is used to pay employees to patrol in Maricopa County. The analysis also shows that many of the sheriff's office employees, whose fees are paid out of limited detention funds, are working on different work assignments than those recorded in their personnel records. The Arpaio Office maintains a separate set of personnel books detailing the actual work assignment, distinct from the information stored in the official records of the district's human resources.
Arpaio uses detention funds to pay for investigations of political rivals, as well as activities involving human smuggling units.
Analysis also shows a number of inappropriate spending including trips to Alaska where deputies live in a fishing resort, and travel to Disneyland.
A separate investigation by the Republic of Arizona found widespread misuse of public funds and regional policies by Arpaio's office, including high-level employees regularly charging for expensive meals and staying in luxury hotels on their county credit cards.
The Republic also found that restricted prison restricted funds to pay for out-of-state training, staff parties at local amusement parks, and $ 456,000 of buses Arpaio bought violated regional procurement rules.
Misconducting and mismanagement violations
In September 2010, a 63-page internal memo written by Maricopa's Deputy Head, Frank Munnell, was published. The memo was allegedly years of mismanagement and mismanagement by Arpaio's second-of-command and other top MCSO officers, including the use of public corruption task forces to conduct politically motivated investigations into political opponents. The memo alleged that high officials in the MCSO "deliberately and deliberately committed criminal acts by trying to impede justice, tampering with witnesses, and destroying evidence." Arpaio passed the memo to the Pinal City Sheriff's Office, asking them to conduct an administrative investigation. The former MCSO top staff claimed that Arpaio knew of the alleged actions in Munnell's memo, but did not take action to stop them. Arpaio has not commented publicly about the allegations.
In October 2010, the US Attorney for Arizona confirmed that the FBI and the Department of Justice had received copies of Munnell's memo and were conducting criminal investigations into his allegations.
Catching and crashing and completing the wrong trap
In 1999, an undercover MCSO deputy arrested James Saville, then 18, and assigned him to plot Arpaio's killing with a pipe bomb. A local television station has been told to be captured by the MCSO, and airs footage of the night's capture. MCSO held a press conference shortly after the arrest, and Arpaio appeared in an interview on a local television station, saying "If they think they will scare me with a bomb and the other, it will not bother me."
In July 2003, after spending nearly four years in jail awaiting trial, Saville was released by the jury of the Maricopa District High Court. The jury is persuaded that Saville has been trapped by the MCSO as part of the publicity stunt by Arpaio. This is a rare example of a successful trap defense, which is very difficult to prove. The spokesman who was interviewed after the trial said that "they believe that Saville has become a pawn in an elaborate media tactic." A jury spokesman later said: "This is a publicity stunt at the expense of four years of one's life." Another jury stated that "This is a great setting from the start."
In 2004, Saville, following the released Arpaio and Maricopa rulings, demanded the wrong detention and traps. In 2008, the lawsuit was settled, with Maricopa County paying Saville $ 1.1 million. Saville also received unspecified additional compensation from the insurance company in the district.
Allegations and investigations of abuse of power
In 2008, the federal grand jury initiated an Arpaio investigation due to abuse of power in connection with the FBI investigation. On August 31, 2012, the Arizona Arizona Attorney's Office announced that it "closed the investigation into alleged criminal acts" by Arpaio, without filing a lawsuit.
Arpaio was investigated on political and "false" political charges, which the former US prosecutor called "totally unacceptable". Phoenix Mayor Phil Gordon called Arpaio a "long list" of prosecutions in question "a government of terror".
Targets of alleged abuse of Arpaio's authority include:
- Phil Gordon, Phoenix Mayor
- And Saban, Arpaio 2004 and 2008 opponents for the Sheriff of Maricopa County office
- Terry Goddard, Arizona Attorney General
- David Smith, Maricopa County Manager
- Maricopa District Supervisory Board
- Barbara Mundell, High Court Judge Maricopa Judge
- Anna Baca, former Chief Justice of the Maricopa High Court
- Gary Donahoe, Maricopa Criminal Court Judge
- Daniel Pochoda, ACLU lawyer
- Sandra Dowling, former Maricopa County School Supervisor
- Mike Lacey, Editor, Phoenix New Times
In July 2010, only Sandra Dowling was successfully prosecuted. Indicted on 25 counts of crime, Dowling eventually pleaded guilty to patronage for granting a summer job to his daughter, a class 2 crime not counted in the original count, although as part of a defense bargain he also agreed to resign from the District School of Territory Regency of Maricopa. Dowling later filed suit, accused of negligence, malice prosecution, abuse of proceedings and some constitutional violations, although Arpaio won a summary assessment of his claim.
In December 2011, a federal grand jury was investigating Arpaio's office about alleged misuse of criminal authority at least since December 2009 and specifically examined the investigation work of the sheriff's anti-public squad squad.
On August 31, 2012, federal authorities announced that they were ending an investigation of their abuse of power to Arpaio in Arizona without filing a lawsuit against him.
Immigration patrol
In 2005, Arpaio began focusing on immigration law enforcement, after Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas was elected by the campaign slogan "Stop illegal immigration." Arpaio stated that before 2005, he did not see illegal immigration as a "serious legal matter."
Beginning in 2005, Arpaio regularly conducts saturated patrols and immigration cleansing, targeting the Latino environment and day workers. Arpaio also runs many operations targeting businesses that employ Latins, and captures unauthorized immigrant employees for identity theft. According to Arpaio, 100% of people arrested for using stolen IDs in 57 raids conducted until March 2012 are in the country illegally. Until 2011, when the Federal District Court banned stopping practice, Arpaio maintained an immigrant smuggler squad that illegally stopped the car with Latino drivers or passengers to check their immigration status.
Arpaio has said about his immigration law enforcement efforts, "We are an operation where we want to go after illegal, not the first crime... It is a purely program you chase after them, and you lock them up."
Maps Joe Arpaio
Federal class-action settings
Until September 2012, Arpaio was a defendant in a federal class action suit and a lawsuit by the United States Department of Justice, both of whom accused the racial profiling.
Arpaio has repeatedly denied making racial profiling, although MCSO does not have a policy that specifically prohibits such practices or reliable internal methods to ensure that it does not happen.
In 2007 Manuel De Jesus Ortega Melendres, a Mexican tourist who was a passenger in a car stop at Cave Creek, Maricopa County filed a lawsuit (Melendres v. Arpaio) in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona against Sheriff Arpaio, MCSO, and Maricopa County, claimed to have been illegally detained for nine hours as a result of a racial profile. The lawsuit was expanded when several people joined the same complaint.
The plaintiffs are represented by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the Legal Defense and the Mexican-American Education Fund (MALDEF), and the Covington & amp; Burling.
The lawsuit alleges that Sheriff Arpaio and MCSO unlawfully institutionalized the pattern and practice of targeting Latino drivers and passengers in Maricopa County as long as traffic ceased, and that the practice of MCSO was discriminated against on the ground of race in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, prolonged and unrestricted unlawful detention in violation of the Fourth Amendment.
The case was initially assigned to US District Judge Mary Murguia. In June 2009, in response to a motion filed by Arpaio's lawyer, he resigned. The case was later assigned to US District Judge G. Murray Snow.
In his deposition in September 2009 in the case, Arpaio testified that he never read the complaint in the case, was unaware of the details of the allegations about his racial profile in it, did not know the contents of the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution, and never read the Ministry's guidelines The judiciary on racial use in the investigation, which will be applied to his deputies on the ground when they are still operating under the 287 (g) program agreement with US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). He insists, however, that his deputies are not profiles based on ethnicity or race.
In the order of December 2011, Snow Judge approved Arpaio and MCSO for the destruction of the recognized records in the case. Judge Snow also stated:
Sheriff Arpaio has made public statements that fact-finding can mean as supporting racial profiling, as stating that, even 287 (g) of authority, officers can hold people by their speeches, what they are like, if they look like they came from another country '... In addition, he acknowledges that the MCSO does not provide training to reduce the risk of racial profiling, stating' if we do not have a racial profile, why should I do a training program? '"Judge Snow extended the complaint into a class action lawsuit, including all Latino drivers terminated by the Sheriff's Office since 2007, or who will be terminated in the future. He also ordered MCSO and all its officers from" arresting someone based solely on knowledge or beliefs make sense. , without which the person is unlawfully present in the United States, since as a matter of law the knowledge is not as big as a reasonable belief that the person violates or conspires to infringe on an Arizona man smuggling law, or a state or federal criminal law others.
Melendres v. Arpaio class action racist action
On December 23, 2011, US District Court Judge G. Murray Snow ordered Arpaio and MCSO to "arrest a person who is merely based on reasonable knowledge or belief, no more, that person is unlawfully present in the United States," stopping anti-enforcement illegal immigration by MCSO in its current form.
Arpaio appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The court upholds Judge Snow's verdict.
Starting July 19, 2012, a six-day bench trial was held before the Snow Judge. On May 24, 2013, the Snow Judge issued a decision to find Arpaio's policies and discriminatory offices, which violated the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
In June 2013, the US Department of Justice (DOJ) submitted a Statement of Interest in this case, recommending the appointment of "independent monitors to assess and report MCSO compliance with corrective measures ordered by the Court." Adopting DOJ's recommendation, in August 2013 Judge Snow declared in a court hearing that he would commission an independent monitor.
In October 2013, the Snow Judge issued a 59-page final order, providing a list of changes and requirements to the MCSO to be institutionalized and followed. In January 2014, the Snow Judge appointed Robert Warshaw, former Rochester, New York, police chief, to act as a monitor of the MCSO.
Arpaio filed a limited appeal to the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, defying a district court order, insofar as it includes traffic that stops outside of saturated patrol. The appeals court rejected this claim, upheld the judgment of the Snow Judge against a non-saturated patrol in its findings on racial profiling, and defended its decision on corrective action that included training and video recording of traffic stops. The appellate court agreed with Arpaio that the supervision of the court-appointed internal investigations of court investigations was only related to constitutional violations.
After Judge Snow's October 2013 order, Arpaio was recorded during a training session for MCSO deputies, saying "we are not racial profiles, I do not care what everyone says." As a result of this, and the mischaracterizations of court orders by MCSO Deputy Chairman Jerry Sheridan, Snow held a hearing in March 2014 in which he punished Arpaio and Sheridan, saying they had "challenged and even ridiculed his orders to stop selecting Latinos during routine patrols, cross stops and raids at work. "He then orders Arpaio's lawyers to prepare corrective letters arranging straight notes, to be distributed to all MCSO deputies. Due to the right to speak of the First Amendment Amendment of Arpaio, the court did not require him to personally sign a corrective letter.
Two days after the trial, having just been reprimanded for ridiculing the court order, Arpaio sent a fundraising letter denouncing the "Rampant UNFOUNDED [sic] allegations of racism and racism in my office." The Snow Judge responded to this fundraising letter, stating:
I want to be careful and say that the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office has used the race - illegally using race as a factor, and as far as it is a race profile, that's what and that's what I found and the sheriff said people have wrongly accused him of Last Wednesday, which was after the meeting where he was here.
So as far as I have a sheriff, which I will not ban my order mischaracterizing to the public, to the extent that I have an MCSO that is full of misunderstanding of my order and that mischaracterization when they are the ones who have to understand it and apply it, I have a big concern...
On September 11, 2014, the Snow Judge awarded more than $ 4.4 million in attorney fees to four legal organizations filing a complaint with Melendres v. Arpaio . Attorney fees are awarded to the ACLU Human Rights Project, ACLU Arizona, MALDEF, and Covington & amp; Burling.
On June 4, 2014, Phoenix New Times reported that Arpaio had started a criminal investigation of Snow Judge and DOJ. The article cited anonymous sources, including the former detective of the MCSO Special Investigation Division, who claimed the investigation was run directly by Arpaio and based on his belief that the Snow Judge and DOJ had been involved in a conspiracy against him.
Arpaio neither confirmed nor denied the investigation into the Phoenix New Times. However, during the April 2015 civil pretrial trial before the Snow Judge, Arpaio testified that his lawyer, Tim Casey, had hired a private investigator to investigate Judge Snow's wife, and that MCSO had paid Dennis L. Montgomery to investigate whether DOJ had penetrated Arpaio's e-mail as well as those of local lawyers and judges, including the Snow Judge. (This is called "Operation Seattle.") Furthermore, MCSO Vice Chairman Jerry Sheridan testified that there was no investigation of Snow, his wife, or his family. As a result of the potential ethical conflict arising from the testimony of Arpaio and Sheridan, Casey withdrew as a legal advisor to Arpaio and MCSO.
During a status conference on May 14, 2015, the Snow Judge, reading from a prepared statement, said that documents extracted from "Operation Seattle" by court-appointed monitors reveal "attempts to build conspiracies involving this court" as well as other entities and individuals including DOJ , former US Attorney General Eric Holder, former Phoenix Mayor Phil Gordon, and former Chief Executive Officer of MCSO Brian Sands, among others. One week after this status conference, Arpai's criminal defense lawyer filed a motion to disqualify the Snow Judge, claiming that he had moved from an independent referee in the case to a role in investigating "issues involving his own family." Judge Snow temporarily suspended the trial further in this case, but ultimately refused the motion and re-held the hearing. On August 7, 2015, Arpaio requested the Ninth Circuit to remove the Snow Judge from the case. On September 15, 2015, the Ninth Circuit rejected Arpaio's request to remove the Snow Judge, as well as Arpaio's related requests to stop litigation underneath.
As part of the humiliation process, Snow Judge concluded Arpaio and others had made a deliberately wrong statement about attempting to investigate.
Litigation under prison conditions
Graves v. Arpaio : federal court finds unconstitutional jail conditions
Federal Judge Neil V. Wake decided in 2008, and again in 2010, that county jails infringe on the prisoners' constitutional rights in matters relating to medical and other treatments. This ruling is the result of a lawsuit filed by the ACLU alleging that "Arpaio routinely harass preliminary detention in Maricopa County Prison by feeding them moldy bread, rotten fruits and other contaminated food, placing them in cells so hot that harm them, health, deny they care about serious medical and mental health needs, and keep them solid like sardines in holding cells for days at the time of intake. "
In a ruling issued in October 2010, the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ordered Arpaio to comply with the 2008 Judge's Judgment, which required Arpaio to end the density and ensure all detainees receive the necessary medical and mental health care; provided uninterrupted access to all medications prescribed by the correctional medical staff; given access to exercise and drowning, toilets, toilet paper and soap; and served food that meets or exceeds the US Department of Agriculture dietary guidelines.
Braillard v. Maricopa County : wrong death claims and settlement
In 2005, Deborah Braillard, a diabetic, was arrested and detained in a county jail on charges of possession of small drugs. Without medical treatment, Braillard soon fell ill. Although Braillard "groaned and cried for help when he defecated and threw up on himself and others," the guard refused to listen to a medical treatment request for Braillard, who had a diabetic coma and died while being chained to a hospital bed.
In the wrong one death of Braillard v. Maricopa County plaintiff's lawyers cite many reports commissioned and paid for by Maricopa County, since 1996, detailing a "culture of cruelty" in which inmates are routinely denied human health in Maricopa County prisons run by Arpaio. Testifying in this case, Arpaio states he can not deny making a statement that even if he has billions of dollars he will not change the way he runs the prison. Arpaio said that his prisons were meant to be a place for punishment, and that his inhabitants were all criminals, despite the fact that most inmates had not been convicted of crimes and were awaiting trial.
In litigation, the former medical director for state prisons and other witnesses testified about the destruction of evidence, in particular "about the evidence in cases that were swiped and removed from his computer." In 2012, after the judge was assigned to the case "that the jury will be notified of the closure of the MCSO, including the video of the missing prison and the recording of Braillard's phone call," the county completed a litigation of $ 3.25 million. The county spent an additional $ 1.8 million in legal fees on the Braillard case.
Justice Department Investigations on racial profile
In June 2008, the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division began an Arpaio investigation amid allegations of discrimination and unconstitutional search and seizure. The investigation was conducted under the authority of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibited discrimination in connection with programs receiving federal funds.
On July 7, 2009, Arpaio held a press conference and announced that he would not cooperate with the investigation, either by providing documents or allowing interviews with personnel. On September 2, 2010, the Justice Department filed a lawsuit against Arpaio to force his cooperation with the investigation. A Department of Justice spokesman stated that it was unprecedented for an agency to refuse to cooperate with the investigation of Title VI, and that this was the first time the Justice Department had sued to force access to documents and facilities. The lawsuit was settled in June 2011, after Arpaio allowed federal officials to interview the Sheriff's office employees and review hundreds of thousands of documents for investigation.
On December 15, 2011, the Justice Department released their findings after a 3-year investigation from Arpaio's office amid complaints about racial and cultural profiles at the agency's top level. The report states that under Arpaio, the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office has a "widespread discriminatory bias against Latinos" that "reaches the highest level of agency."
The Justice Department accused Arpaio of engaging in "unconstitutional policing" by unfairly targeting the Latins for arrest and detention, and avenged criticism. In the report, an expert from the Department of Justice concluded that Arpaio oversaw the worst pattern of racial patterns in US history.
Based on the Justice Department report on discriminatory policing practices in MCSO, on December 15, 2011, the US Department of Homeland Security revoked MCSO from the 287 (g) program. This decision deprives the MCSO federal authority to identify and detain illegal immigrants.
United States v. Maricopa County
On May 10, 2012, the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) in the United States v Maricopa County et al. (Case number 2: 12-cv-981), filed a lawsuit against Arpaio, the MCSO, and Maricopa County, states that "Maricopa County Sheriff's Office (MCSO) and the Sheriff Joseph M. Arpaio have been involved and continue to engage in patterns or practices violating discriminatory police behavior directed at Latin in Maricopa County and unlawful prison practices discriminating against Latin prisoners limited English skills. "Complaints include allegations that Arpaio and his staff forced women to sleep in their own menstrual blood, attacking pregnant women, ignoring rape, and criminalizing Latinos.
The United States claims in this lawsuit include, but broader than, unconstitutional discriminatory acts that the Court in Melendres v. Arpaio found that MCSO has been involved in the dismissal of traffic related to immigration enforcement.
A DOJ representative said that the agency had no choice but to file a lawsuit after Arpaio's lawyers rejected a request to monitor a designated court to ensure the sheriff's office met any settlement conditions. Arpaio rejected the idea of ​​a court-appointed monitor, and denied that MCSO was involved in racial profiling.
On June 15, 2015, US District Judge Senior Roslyn O. Silver of the United States District Court for the District of Arizona submitted a partial summary review to the DOJ, and against Arpaio, about central racial allegations in the lawsuit. On July 15, Maricopa County's regulatory board decided to settle the lawsuit. But partial settlement does not solve the discriminatory policing claims.
Birther movement
At two press conferences held in March 2012, Arpaio and members of his Cold Posse Case claimed that President Barack Obama's long birth certificate, issued by the White House on April 27, 2011, was computer-generated forgery. The Posse also claims that Obama's Selective Service card is a forgery. The allegations about the birth certificate were repeated at a July 2012 press conference in which Arpaio stated that Obama's long-term birth certificate was "completely fake."
Some of the major claims filed by Arpaio later proved wrong; in particular, the 1961 Vital Statistics Instructions Instructions that Arpaio and his team claim to have contrary to what they claim are said, and the images shown by them, purportedly from the manual, are derived from computer specifications dated 1968 and 1969.
In response to Arpaio's claim, Joshua A. Wisch, a special assistant to the Attorney General of Hawaii, said in a statement, "President Obama was born in Honolulu, and his birth certificate is valid.About the latest allegations from sheriffs in Arizona, they are untrue, misinformed and misinterpreted the law Hawaii. "Arizona state officials, including Governor Jan Brewer and Foreign Secretary Ken Bennett, also rejected Arpaio's objections and accepted the validity of Obama's birth certificate. Brewer also stated that Obama's US citizenship made him a citizen by juiz sanguinis, regardless of where he was born.
During September 2016, Arpaio claimed to be still investigating President Obama's birth certificate, stating, "We see fake documents. On December 15, 2016, Arpaio held a joint press conference with member of the posse of Mike Zullo, detailing the "9 points of forgery" that should have been found on the digital image of Obama's birth certificate.
In 2007, Arpaio said that it was an "honor" for his department to be compared to Ku Klux Klan, a white supremacist terrorist organization. However, on witness in a civil court in 2012, Arpaio resigns, saying that he no longer considers comparisons as honor.
Confidence for contempt of court
In December 2014, after much warning, US District Judge G. Murray Snow told Arpaio there was a very real possibility that he would refer Arpaio to the US Attorney's Office for criminal prosecution on alleged court accusations due to MCSO's failure to comply with a court order to stop the practice racial profile. Snow advises Arpaio to defend criminal defense lawyers. In an effort to protect Arpaio from criminal proceedings, his lawyer filed a written statement with the excuse that the mistake in obeying the court order was unintentional, or the mistakes of the former employee. The Snow Judge found Arpaio's argument inviolable, and, in January 2015, announced that Arpaio would face an insult trial in April 2015 for violating a court order in Melendres v. Arpaio .
In March 2015, a month before the scheduled humiliation session, Arpaio acknowledged that he violated several court orders, and approved a finding of civil contempt against him. Since the issue of criminal defamation is still debated, an initial humiliation trial is held on schedule.
On July 24, 2015, the court directed US marshals to seize evidence, which may be related to contempt for court charges and scheduled to be destroyed, from the sheriff's office.
On May 13, 2016, the court arrested Arpaio with contempt for three counts. On August 19, 2016, the court asked the federal government to file criminal defamation charges against Arpaio and some of his subordinates for failing to follow court instructions. On October 11, 2016, federal prosecutors announced that they would press criminal charges against the court against Arpaio. On October 25, 2016, the allegations were formally filed, although Arpaio will not be arrested and no photos will be taken. The allegations were filed just two weeks before the election in which Arpaio ran for re-election.
On July 31, 2017, Arpaio was found guilty of criminal charges against the court. US District Judge Susan Bolton wrote that Arpaio had "deliberately violated a court order" by failing "to ensure the submission of his subordinates and by directing them to continue detaining those who had no criminal prosecution that could be filed." Arpaio is scheduled to be sentenced in October 2017.
Presidential pardon
On August 25, 2017, President Donald Trump forgave Arpaio for his belief in criminal defamation of the court, a decision that provoked controversy. The pardon includes Arpaio's beliefs and "any other offenses under Chapter 21 of Title 18, United States Code which may arise, or be charged, in connection with Melendres v. Arpaio ."
Trump also announced his decision on Twitter, stating that Arpaio is an "American patriot" who "keep Arizona safe". Arpaio thanked the President in a series of tweets and to "loyal supporters." Arpaio also stated that his belief was "a political hunt by a legacy in the Obama justice department!" The Washington Post's "fact-checker" claims "Four Pinocchios" (his worst judgment), noting that Arpaio was convicted by two federal judges; a federal judge appointed by Bush, and a federal judge respected by both Republicans and Democrats. Lawyers for Arpaio have stated that they moved because the case was dismissed for clemency.
Reactions to forgiveness
The Governor of Arizona Doug Ducey was among the politicians who praised the pardon, crediting Arpaio by helping to reduce crime for a long career, and Ducey also welcomed the certainty given by pardon to all the problems. The forgiveness was criticized by Arizona Senator John McCain for Arpaio not expressing remorse for his actions. Arizona Senator Jeff Flake and House Speaker, Paul Ryan, signaled their opposition to pardon.
A number of law professors and political scientists have described the forgiveness as problematic and unusual. Some experts on authoritarianism portray forgiveness as not liberal and say that it undermines the rule of law.
Next process
After pardon, Arpaio filed a motion to vacate his convictions for criminal defamation. Bolton denied the motion. He argues that Trump's pardon "certainly relieves the Defendant from any punishment that may have been imposed, but not," revision of the historical facts "of the case." Arpaio's lawyer said that he might appeal to the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. One of the ACLU lawyers who have represented the plaintiffs in the underlying racial profiling case agreed with Arpaio's motion rejection, stating, "The court made a detailed finding after the trial of Joe Arpaio's criminal proceedings.The court findings and documents in the case notes must stand and will now stand. "
The legal status of forgiveness continues to be challenged. Although federal prosecutors do not follow its validity, some legal groups challenge the pardon as unconstitutional.
2018 Senate selection
Arpaio stated in an interview in September 2017 with American Free Press that he would consider running again, including the United States Congress, if the President of Trump asked him. Arpaio has announced his intention to seek a Republican nomination for the US Senate in 2018.
Political position
Arpaio has a hard-line view of immigration. Asked what he would do about DREAMER - illegal immigrants brought to the United States as minors - Arpaio said he would tell them, "You will come back... why these people can not be deported back to the country, learn about the country they come from, be an ambassador? "on another matter, NBC News noted that Arpaio" show little understanding of policies ". When asked about his views on health care, trade and tax reform, Arpaio refused that question as a "technical question... when you ask me now, do not forget: I just made the decision to run. Instead of seeing the sports pages, I should start looking at the newspaper. "
Selection results
2000
2004
2008
2012
​​â € <â € <2016
Failed to play the petition, 2007 and 2013
In November 2007, a group calling itself Arizonans for the US Constitution and the Withdrawal of Joe Arpaio filed documents to initiate efforts to recall Arpaio and County Prosecutor Thomas from the office for allegedly disobeying and violating the United States Constitution. and abuse of power. Their plea to get the two officers' recall questions to the next election vote failed when the group could not collect more than 200,000 registered registered voter signatures. In a survey conducted by Walter Cronkite School of Journalism and Mass Communication, while the petition was outstanding, nearly three out of four respondents opposed the recall, and 65 percent of respondents held a positive opinion from Arpaio.
On May 30, 2013, Arpaio's recall failed again just a week after a federal judge ruled that the sheriff's office had systematically discriminated against Latinos in violation of their constitutional rights. Members of Respect Arizona and Citizens for a Better Arizona initiated the recall effort, but were unable to obtain 335,000 valid voter signatures before 5 pm. deadlines.
Personal life
Arpaio married his wife Ava in 1958 and they had two children. In 2008, he lived in Fountain Hills, Arizona.
Work
- Arpaio, Joe; Sherman, Len (1996). America's Hardest Sheriff: How to Win the War Against Crime . New York City: Peak Publishing Group. p.Ã, 262. ISBNÃ, 1-56530-202-8 Ã,
- Arpaio, Joe; Sherman, Len (2008). Joe's Law: America's Hardest Sheriff Takes Illegal Immigration, Drugs, and Other Things Threatening America . New York City: AMACOM Div American Mgmt Assn. p.Ã, 272. ISBNÃ, 0-8144-0199-6. < span>
References
Further reading
- Finnegan, William (July 20, 2009). "Sheriff Joe". Profile. The New Yorker .. 85 (24): 42-53
External links
- Archive 'About Sheriff' page at MCSO.org
- 2018 Campaigns - official website
- Twitter account
Source of the article : Wikipedia
0 Comments