'Misconduct, Dishonesty, and Bad Faith': Joe Arpaio Found in Contempt
"Willing or not, the sheriff will be made to comply with the law."
Notorious Arizona sheriff Joe Arpaio, found guilty in 2013 of racial profiling and violating Latinos' constitutional rights, has now been found in contempt of court for failing to curtail those practices and in fact flouting the judge's orders.
The ruling on Friday from U.S. District Judge Murray Snow "marked one of the biggest legal defeats" in Arpaio's career, wrote the Associated Press, and was expected to lead to greater court oversight of his office.
USA Today reports that the contempt proceedings were based on three alleged violations:
- That the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office failed to turn over video evidence required before the racial-profiling trial.
- That officials continued to enforce immigration law after Snow barred the practice.
- That [Chief Deputy Jerry] Sheridan failed to quietly collect evidence after the trial, as Snow had ordered him to do.
Three of Arpaio's top aides were also found in contempt.
"In short, the court finds that the defendants have engaged in multiple acts of misconduct, dishonesty, and bad faith with respect to the plaintiff class and the protection of its rights," Snow wrote in a 162-page finding of fact in the case.
For example, the Arizona Republic reports, "Snow found that deputies had detained and turned over to federal authorities at least 157 individuals who had not committed state crimes, in violation of his order."
Furthermore, Snow ripped into Arpaio's motives for his flagrant violations: "Sheriff Arpaio knowingly ignored the Court's order because he believed that his popularity resulted, at least in part, from his enforcement of immigration laws.... He also believed that it resulted in generous donations to his campaign."
A hearing has been set for May 31, at which point Snow's court will "enter any applicable orders and determine if it will refer any matters for criminal contempt."
That could have major implications, the Phoenix New Times reports:
Paul Charlton, former U.S. Attorney for Arizona, says the judge's language signals the possibility that Arpaio's case will be referred for criminal prosecution. In April of last year, Charlton notes, Sheridan and Arpaio admitted they were guilty of civil contempt in a bid to stop the trial.
Snow didn't bite.
[...] Criminal contempt of court is defined by federal statute as "willful disobedience" of the court's lawful orders and is punishable by up to six months in prison. A punishment for civil contempt would be coercive rather than punitive in nature, and might involve fines or othersanctions meant to ensure compliance.
The ACLU, which brought the original lawsuit against Arpaio, said the ruling meant that "willing or not, the sheriff will be made to comply with the law."
"The court has found that Sheriff Arpaio intentionally and repeatedly violated federal court orders," said Cecillia Wang, director of the ACLU's Immigrants' Rights Project. "His recalcitrance ends here."
The Maricopa County sheriff is currently running for re-election. He has endorsed Donald Trump for president.
Urgent. It's never been this bad.
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission from the outset was simple. To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It’s never been this bad out there. And it’s never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed and doing some of its best and most important work, the threats we face are intensifying. Right now, with just two days to go in our Spring Campaign, we're falling short of our make-or-break goal. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Can you make a gift right now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? There is no backup plan or rainy day fund. There is only you. —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Notorious Arizona sheriff Joe Arpaio, found guilty in 2013 of racial profiling and violating Latinos' constitutional rights, has now been found in contempt of court for failing to curtail those practices and in fact flouting the judge's orders.
The ruling on Friday from U.S. District Judge Murray Snow "marked one of the biggest legal defeats" in Arpaio's career, wrote the Associated Press, and was expected to lead to greater court oversight of his office.
USA Today reports that the contempt proceedings were based on three alleged violations:
- That the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office failed to turn over video evidence required before the racial-profiling trial.
- That officials continued to enforce immigration law after Snow barred the practice.
- That [Chief Deputy Jerry] Sheridan failed to quietly collect evidence after the trial, as Snow had ordered him to do.
Three of Arpaio's top aides were also found in contempt.
"In short, the court finds that the defendants have engaged in multiple acts of misconduct, dishonesty, and bad faith with respect to the plaintiff class and the protection of its rights," Snow wrote in a 162-page finding of fact in the case.
For example, the Arizona Republic reports, "Snow found that deputies had detained and turned over to federal authorities at least 157 individuals who had not committed state crimes, in violation of his order."
Furthermore, Snow ripped into Arpaio's motives for his flagrant violations: "Sheriff Arpaio knowingly ignored the Court's order because he believed that his popularity resulted, at least in part, from his enforcement of immigration laws.... He also believed that it resulted in generous donations to his campaign."
A hearing has been set for May 31, at which point Snow's court will "enter any applicable orders and determine if it will refer any matters for criminal contempt."
That could have major implications, the Phoenix New Times reports:
Paul Charlton, former U.S. Attorney for Arizona, says the judge's language signals the possibility that Arpaio's case will be referred for criminal prosecution. In April of last year, Charlton notes, Sheridan and Arpaio admitted they were guilty of civil contempt in a bid to stop the trial.
Snow didn't bite.
[...] Criminal contempt of court is defined by federal statute as "willful disobedience" of the court's lawful orders and is punishable by up to six months in prison. A punishment for civil contempt would be coercive rather than punitive in nature, and might involve fines or othersanctions meant to ensure compliance.
The ACLU, which brought the original lawsuit against Arpaio, said the ruling meant that "willing or not, the sheriff will be made to comply with the law."
"The court has found that Sheriff Arpaio intentionally and repeatedly violated federal court orders," said Cecillia Wang, director of the ACLU's Immigrants' Rights Project. "His recalcitrance ends here."
The Maricopa County sheriff is currently running for re-election. He has endorsed Donald Trump for president.
Notorious Arizona sheriff Joe Arpaio, found guilty in 2013 of racial profiling and violating Latinos' constitutional rights, has now been found in contempt of court for failing to curtail those practices and in fact flouting the judge's orders.
The ruling on Friday from U.S. District Judge Murray Snow "marked one of the biggest legal defeats" in Arpaio's career, wrote the Associated Press, and was expected to lead to greater court oversight of his office.
USA Today reports that the contempt proceedings were based on three alleged violations:
- That the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office failed to turn over video evidence required before the racial-profiling trial.
- That officials continued to enforce immigration law after Snow barred the practice.
- That [Chief Deputy Jerry] Sheridan failed to quietly collect evidence after the trial, as Snow had ordered him to do.
Three of Arpaio's top aides were also found in contempt.
"In short, the court finds that the defendants have engaged in multiple acts of misconduct, dishonesty, and bad faith with respect to the plaintiff class and the protection of its rights," Snow wrote in a 162-page finding of fact in the case.
For example, the Arizona Republic reports, "Snow found that deputies had detained and turned over to federal authorities at least 157 individuals who had not committed state crimes, in violation of his order."
Furthermore, Snow ripped into Arpaio's motives for his flagrant violations: "Sheriff Arpaio knowingly ignored the Court's order because he believed that his popularity resulted, at least in part, from his enforcement of immigration laws.... He also believed that it resulted in generous donations to his campaign."
A hearing has been set for May 31, at which point Snow's court will "enter any applicable orders and determine if it will refer any matters for criminal contempt."
That could have major implications, the Phoenix New Times reports:
Paul Charlton, former U.S. Attorney for Arizona, says the judge's language signals the possibility that Arpaio's case will be referred for criminal prosecution. In April of last year, Charlton notes, Sheridan and Arpaio admitted they were guilty of civil contempt in a bid to stop the trial.
Snow didn't bite.
[...] Criminal contempt of court is defined by federal statute as "willful disobedience" of the court's lawful orders and is punishable by up to six months in prison. A punishment for civil contempt would be coercive rather than punitive in nature, and might involve fines or othersanctions meant to ensure compliance.
The ACLU, which brought the original lawsuit against Arpaio, said the ruling meant that "willing or not, the sheriff will be made to comply with the law."
"The court has found that Sheriff Arpaio intentionally and repeatedly violated federal court orders," said Cecillia Wang, director of the ACLU's Immigrants' Rights Project. "His recalcitrance ends here."
The Maricopa County sheriff is currently running for re-election. He has endorsed Donald Trump for president.