Greene Sterling writes: "A few days after the 'Toughest Sheriff in America' oversaw his 60th Latino-harassing raid in the Phoenix area, the Obama administration's top civil-rights lawyer flew to Phoenix and slapped Sheriff Joe Arpaio and his office with a monumental civil-rights tort alleging rampant constitutional abuses."
Inmates walk alongside Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio in Phoenix. (photo: Time)
Joe Arpaio Faces a New Sheriff in Town
12 May 12
few days after the "Toughest Sheriff in America" oversaw his 60th Latino-harassing raid in the Phoenix area, the Obama administration’s top civil-rights lawyer flew to Phoenix and slapped Sheriff Joe Arpaio and his office with a monumental civil-rights tort alleging rampant constitutional abuses, including widespread racial profiling of Latinos. The suit also claims the sheriff violated the civil rights of his critics by "illegal retaliation" that included baseless lawsuits and meritless administrative actions.
Now 79, Arpaio claims he’s innocent and dismisses the lawsuit as politicking by the Obama administration in an election year.
"This isn’t about politics," Thomas Perez, assistant attorney general for the civil-rights division of the Department of Justice, told The Daily Beast during an interview at the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Phoenix. The lawsuit isn’t about money, either, he said. It’s about changing the culture in the sheriff’s office, putting in place "systems that improve the department and make the community safer."
"This is about public safety," said Perez. "It’s about the Constitution."
The most disturbing allegations made by Team Perez center on violence against Latina women.
In one case, the suit says, a five-months’ pregnant American citizen was stopped as she pulled into her driveway. Officers ordered her to sit on the hood of her car. She refused. They slammed her into the car three times—fetus-side first. Next, they placed the woman in a patrol car without air conditioning for half an hour. She was released and cited with failure to provide identification. Later, the charge was changed to "failure to provide proof of insurance."
In another case, deputies trailed a U.S. citizen to her home, then knocked her to the ground, kneed her in the back and handcuffed her when she tried to run into her house, the suit alleges. They charged her with disturbing the peace. (A judge dismissed the charge.)
In the jails, some Latinos were placed in solitary confinement because they didn’t speak English, the lawsuit says. On some streets, Latinos were nine times more likely to be stopped than non-Latinos. And sheriff’s officials detained dozens of Latinos because "probable cause" included smelling of "strong body odor" or appearing nervous and avoiding eye contact, the lawsuit says.
Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio at a news conference in Phoenix, Jan. 10, 2012 (Matt York / AP Photos)
The Department of Justice first began investigating Arpaio in 2008. In 2010, it sued the sheriff to get documents. In 2011, it accused the sheriff of engaging in rampant racial profiling and proffered a 128-page consent decree that would change the culture in the sheriff’s office. But the sheriff balked at having a monitor, saying "I will not surrender my office to the federal government!" Five months later, the Justice Department filed the lawsuit. On the night before the suit was filed, Arpaio submitted a plan to bring his office up to civil-rights snuff, but still balked at the monitor idea. Perez said it was too little too late.
The son of politically persecuted Dominican immigrant parents who taught him "always to give back and make sure the ladder is down for everybody," Perez said he believes enforcing civil-rights law is a "solemn and sacred obligation."
A slender, bespectacled man who rarely smiles, Perez doesn’t take the sheriff lightly and doesn’t seem to get sidetracked by Arpaio publicity stunts, such as forcing inmates to wear pink underwear. Instead, Perez likes to say things like: "No one is above the law."
Many Latinos wonder why it took Perez so long to come to their aid. At a yogurt store across from the sheriff’s office in Phoenix, 27-year-old banker Pete Aranda said it’s "not good" when American citizens live with the possibility of getting "pulled over for being brown."
In a statement, Danny Ortega, the chairman of the National Council of La Raza and a Phoenix lawyer, said: "The wheels of justice move slow ... our community has been waiting close to four years for today, with a lawsuit that’s finally filed against Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio. Make no mistake, that our community has been under the cloud of fear for far too long. And this lawsuit in large part validates the fear that we have felt."
The DOJ civil-rights lawsuit, filed Thursday in U.S. District Court in Phoenix, also names Maricopa County as a co-defendant with the sheriff and the sheriff’s office. The reason: the county gets funds from the feds and passes them on to the sheriff.
Perez told The Daily Beast he hasn’t ruled out filing a separate administrative action that seeks to halt federal funding to the county, and the sheriff, because federal money can’t be distributed to organizations that violate the Constitution.
It’s not a lot of money, compared to the overall budget. Last year, the feds gave the county about $155 million. Its total budget was about $2.2 billion. The county, in turn, funneled $5.3 million in federal funds to the sheriff’s office, which operates on a $260 million budget, said Cari Gerchick, a spokeswoman for the county.
The Maricopa County Board of Supervisors has been unwilling and unable to handle their contentious sheriff. But the sheriff is expensive—since he took office in 1993, he’s cost the self-insured county $55.8 million in legal fees.
In part, that’s because they can’t fire him. He’s an elected official. Absent expensive and politically suicidal court actions, the county board of supervisors has remained paralyzed.
"I’m glad the Department of Justice finally took off the gloves," former Maricopa County Attorney Rick Romley, a moderate Republican and Vietnam veteran who first clashed with Arpaio when he decided to investigate and prosecute a wrongful death of an inmate in the jail, told The Daily Beast.
Arpaio "would have me followed," Romley said, and the sheriff’s office filed bar complaints against him, which were subsequently dismissed. Then Arpaio poured "about three quarters of a million dollars" into successfully fighting Romley’s reelection. It’s a common practice, Romley said, for the sheriff to do "anything to intimidate" critics.
Romley and other local leaders recently wrote the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Phoenix, asking for a resolution of a separate federal criminal probe of the sheriff that centers on abuse-of-power allegations. (If Sheriff Joe’s found guilty of a felony in that case, he won’t be able to hold office.)
In the wake of a recent U.S. Supreme Court hearing on SB 1070, the immigration law that makes it a crime for unauthorized migrants to be in Arizona, the federal civil-rights lawsuit filed by Perez shows what can happen when police officers turn into immigration cops. Arpaio is a strong supporter of SB 1070 and vows to enforce it vigorously.
"We’ll see what happens," said Perez as he prepared to return to Washington. The Arizona law won’t impact the current lawsuit, he said, but he noted SB 1070 is not "a permission slip to engage in racial profiling."
And, he added, the feds have their eyes on Arizona.
"We’re here," he said.
|
THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community. |
 18 May 2013
|
 19 May 2013
|
 20 May 2013
|
 18 May 2013
|
 19 May 2013
|
 18 May 2013
|
 18 May 2013
|
 20 May 2013
|
 19 May 2013
|
Comments
We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.
General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.
Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.
- The RSN Team
Are ou for real? I've never read a more foamig-at-the-m outh illiterate crank online rant, and I've seen some doozies.
"Sterrif Jow" may be your hero, but if I have to pick between him and "that friggin illegal Muslim communist in the White House," give me the FIMC. (By the way, just how does one get to be both a Muslim and a Communist, seeing that Communists are supposed to be atheists?)
As far as i am aware, Arpaio has contributed absolutely nothing to Arizona and he's an embarrassment to the entire country.
Both our civil society and all of our dominant religions preach respect to the stranger within our gates (let alone those whose families have been here for generations).
The way he hates Latinos, and appeals to white retirees to hate Latino, is absolutely despicable.
And that's just one of his many problems.
Many of the people that Arpaio and his department have arrested under racial profiling, were AMERICAN CITIZENS.
More White Americans have perpetrated acts of terrorism in the last 20 years than any other race. White Americans have been thieves, murderers, and rapists. Lots of them are drug addicts. Some of them are even ADMITTED WAR CRIMINALS.
You're certainly showing _your_ racist attitude with all your epithets against Mexicans. There are more white people on tax-supported social programs than there are blacks or Hispanics. Many Mexicans, working under false Social Security cards, have taxes taken out, and they are unable to file tax return to get any of it back. They probably pay MORE in taxes than you do. They also DON'T claim welfare benefits, because THEY DON'T QUALIFY, and they might tip their presence to ICE. Anyone should be able to go to the emergency room if they need medical treatment, but most of them don't. I this area, they are treated by a foundation that is funded by donations and by the local hospitals.
There is NOTHING patriotic about Arpaio.
Orcs? did you stop playing a computer game to come read this? Maybe you should go back and keep playing. I hear Diablo is coming out soon so maybe you can play that also.
When the negative number (right now 44) reaches 100, I will donate again. So keep hitting the thumbs down.
Can it be assumed that you and "american" are both WHITE?
I've also read recently that the flow across the border is reversing, as many undocumented Mexicans are hired as domestic help by the rich, who are feeling the pinch of the economic downturn. The jobs have dried up here, but Mexico's economy is improving.
Arizona's racist law SHOULD be overturned by the Supreme Court. It's unconstitutiona l, as the Constitution specifically gives the Feds jurisdiction over immigrants (which is actually what the Federal suit is about). It also targets American citizens, who are NOT required by law to carry proof of citizenship.
Can you _prove_ citizenship on the spot, if asked?
Obama is a US born, American citizen. (Hawaii IS a state, not just a popular vacation spot.) There is nothing about his being in the White House that is illegal.
The war criminal George W. Bush, on the other hand, was unconstitutiona lly appointed by the Supreme Court, in violation of Article II, Section 1, which specifically gives the method of choosing Electors to the state legislatures. The Supreme Court of Florida's ruling was an interpretation of state law, completely consistent with prior state court rulings dating back almost a century.
By unconstitutiona lly interfering in the state's process, the US Supreme Court also bypassed the legal process in the Constitution for choosing a president if nobody gets a majority of the votes in the Electoral College. The Constitution provides that the House of Representatives shall vote in this instance, which means that George W. Bush probably would have LEGALLY become president. As it is, his entire administration was UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
So, are you saying we should deport him? Let's deport him to the International Criminal Court, and send Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, and most of the rest of that entourage along with him.
It was quite wise of you not to mention "write our language," or you would have invited even more ridicule.
· Discriminatory and otherwise unconstitutiona l law enforcement actions ... on the basis of race, color, or national origin;
· Discriminatory jail practices ... and
· Illegal retaliation against their perceived critics ...
And to:
· Develop and implement new policies and procedures and train MCSO officers in effective and constitutional policing;
· Implement systems to ensure accountability and improve the quality of policing throughout the county; and
· Eliminate unlawful bias from all levels of law enforcement decision.
May be for the best -- and should be applied everywhere.
Just to be clear, this is all about politics, shoring up the latino vote for Obama's re-election effort.
Anyone who thinks otherwise is dumb as the day is long.
There is a much longer list of necessary policy changes that this administration has either decided poorly on, has been slow to implement, or intentionally neglects, and has also committed far more egregious civil rights abuses that have far reaching implications and chilling effects on liberty.
Before hypocrites get too comfortable pointing righteous fingers, look at the big picture and be honest about likely motives -- at least.
Congratulations on baiting us.
The Republicans are the party of the corporations, and the corporations are owned by a few very wealthy people whose goal in life is to gain the most control both politically and financially. To do that they pay enormous sums to lobbyists to make sure that they continue to get massive tax breaks (oil & tobacco for example... why would you want to subsidize tobacco in this day and age??? Remember it's OUR tax dollars doing the subsidizing!)In their ideal world no-one would ever retire or have health insurance, vacations or savings... in fact they'd just be indentured servants working non-stop and never able to catch-up. It would be even worse than Communism! At least in a Communist society the State provides a basic safety-net! In the Right-wing world that you want, we would have no rights, and would live in fear for our old-age. Is that really what you want? The Republicans are already trying to remove our rights as women and as unions! Wouldn't you prefer to be able to hold your head up in the world as a country that has a better standard of living than anywhere else? To do that, we need to start coming-up with a Democratic solution, since the Reps have had 30 years to 'test' their laissez-faire economics, and it has been a total disaster. The current economy is the living proof of that.
It is the Reps you should fear,not Dems!
It ironically shows how ridiculous americans can be.
The lawsuit is about enforcing the Federal Constitution, which puts the control of immigration in the hands of the Federal government. It isn't about "shoring up the Latino vote", because Republicans never had it, and they are doing a _very_ good job, all on their own, of alienating Latinos ... and most of the rest of us.
It is also the white man's fear of losing control that is causing the "War on Women"!
When women started getting jobs they began to realize that they didn't 'have' to rely on a man if the man beat them up or hurt them, or if they simply didn't get along. The next step has been a more recent event. Now women realize that they can have kids without even sleeping with a guy!
So they are competing in the workplace, and are causing men to feel 'emasculated'. This is the perfect scenario for the religious right to step in and change the laws to make it virtually impossible for women to do anything without a man's approval. Think about it... Taking away the right to use contraceptives means that women will stand a good chance of getting pregnant if they have sex outside of marriage. This would label them as 'sluts'. Abortion? No way, Jose! Meanwhile guys can do whatever they want and will never get caught.
It's a scary world to any thinking woman.
Perhaps Sheriff Joe could be the first occupant.
And in the end, the Love take is equal to the Love you make.
And in the end the only people who will show up at your hateful funeral, Joe (et al), will be there to make SURE that you are DEAD.
This my last post on this site.
If the right wingers want to hear their stupidity validated they will have to go to a Fox News forum where the prejudice and twisted facts are.
RSS feed for comments to this post