ShareThis Page
Nation

Judge can't trust Arizona sheriff Arpaio to fix some problems in racial profiling case

| Tuesday, May 31, 2016, 10:21 p.m.

PHOENIX — A judge presiding over a racial profiling case against an Arizona sheriff said Tuesday that he does not trust the sheriff's office to fix some of the problems involved in a recent contempt-of-court ruling against the famously defiant lawman.

U.S. District Judge Murray Snow said he does not think Sheriff Joe Arpaio's office can conduct adequate internal investigations into allegations of wrongdoing by employees, including a decision to prolong immigration patrols for months after the court ordered the practice stopped.

“I don't have confidence anymore in the direction of the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office,” Snow said at a hearing.

The judge convened the session to discuss possible punishment after his May 13 finding that Arpaio was in civil contempt for ignoring his orders. The decision could lead to a criminal contempt case involving possible fines or jail time.

Several dozen anti-Arpaio activists protested outside the courthouse during the hearing.

The protesters chanted, “Arrest Arpaio, not the people” and played music for more than four hours. They also carried signs and pulled a giant balloon caricature of the sheriff along the sidewalk.

The profiling case that Arpaio lost three years ago prompted contempt-of-court proceeding after Snow accused the sheriff and some of his aides of violating court orders. It also has resulted in a bruising review of the sheriff's internal investigations, which have been criticized as being fraught with biased decision-making and conflicts of interest.

Snow has not yet imposed punishments but is expected to order an overhaul of the agency's internal affairs investigations and create a fund to pay damages to Latinos who were illegally detained when Arpaio ignored the order to stop the patrols.

Snow also raised the possibility of holding a new round of contempt-of-court hearings to force the sheriff's office to do more to overhaul of the agency's policies and practices. The overhaul is aimed at guarding against future racial profiling.

An official hired to monitor the sheriff's office on behalf of the judge has said the agency is unacceptability slow in carrying out the court-ordered overhaul. Snow raised the possibility of imposing fines and jailing sheriff's officials who drag their feet in making the changes.

Arpaio was slumped back in a chair throughout most of Tuesday's hearing. He rested his cheek on one of his fists as he watched lawyers make arguments to the packed courtroom in Phoenix.

Snow said he wants to throw out the agency's inadequate internal investigations into officer misconduct and have someone else re-examine the allegations and impose discipline. He rejected Arpaio's bid to retain his power to reverse discipline in those cases.

Lawyers argued over whether Arpaio should have to pull money from his own pocket to help taxpayers compensate hundreds the Latinos who were illegally detained.

The judge sided with Arpaio's foes in saying he's inclined to accept that a person should be paid $1,500 for the first hour of an illegal detention.

But the judge was skeptical about a proposal that says illegal detentions longer than one hour would cost the county $1,000 for each 20-minute increment. Instead, the judge said he's willing to accept $200 for each additional 20 minutes.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.

click me