Sheriff Joe Arpaio Has Now Been Held In Criminal Contempt

Discuss political news items / current events.
Post Reply
User avatar
Joel
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 7043

Sheriff Joe Arpaio Has Now Been Held In Criminal Contempt

Post by Joel »


User avatar
OBeWise
captain of 10
Posts: 30
Location: Vernal, UT

Re: Sheriff Joe Arpaio Has Now Been Held In Criminal Contempt

Post by OBeWise »

Good.

User avatar
Joel
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 7043

Re: Sheriff Joe Arpaio Has Now Been Held In Criminal Contempt

Post by Joel »


larsenb
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 10813
Location: Between here and Standing Rock

Re: Sheriff Joe Arpaio Has Now Been Held In Criminal Contempt

Post by larsenb »

OBeWise wrote:Good.
Not good.

scottja
captain of 100
Posts: 424
Location: Gilbert, AZ

Re: Sheriff Joe Arpaio Has Now Been Held In Criminal Contempt

Post by scottja »

The problem is that Sheriff Joe is very visible and seems to be the only one willing to uphold the laws of this great nation.

The judicial system, is saying that he doesn't have the authority to uphold federal law. (and granted this is the point of law that they are focusing on.) They say it is an issue of jurisdiction. Sheriff is County, and should uphold county laws. Nothing more , nothing less. Yet every city police officer will also willingly cite someone for violating city, county, and state law - where are the justices forcing city departments to not cite and enforce state laws???

Sheriff Joe has observed that nobody is enforcing the federal immigration laws. When he picks up someone for an offence against county or state law, and identifies them as someone who is not documented, he turns them over to ICE, who never come to pick up their responsibility, or if they do pickup, they kick them loose same day.

Yet the same judicial system turns a blind eye to the requiring the federal agency to enforce the federal laws.
Even though there are federal laws already on the books, for some reason, the bought and paid for judicial system does not want those laws enforced - either by a State, County or City agency, or by their own federal agency.

User avatar
Joel
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 7043

Re: Sheriff Joe Arpaio Has Now Been Held In Criminal Contempt

Post by Joel »


larsenb
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 10813
Location: Between here and Standing Rock

Re: Sheriff Joe Arpaio Has Now Been Held In Criminal Contempt

Post by larsenb »

Joel wrote:
Too bad. Arpaio is a good, gutsy man, in my view.

User avatar
Elizabeth
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 11796
Location: East Coast Australia

Re: Sheriff Joe Arpaio Has Now Been Held In Criminal Contempt

Post by Elizabeth »

Yes indeed.
larsenb wrote: Too bad. Arpaio is a good, gutsy man, in my view.

User avatar
Joel
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 7043

Re: Sheriff Joe Arpaio Has Now Been Held In Criminal Contempt

Post by Joel »

Murray Snow: The man judging Sheriff Joe

G. Murray Snow, the federal judge weighing contempt of court charges against Sheriff Joe Arpaio, is known as a stern and meticulous "straight shooter" and a conservative Republican, not an activist.

Federal judges tend to speak from the bench like gods thundering down from the heavens. They run tight courtrooms, hold lawyers to the rules, and demand that motions be filed along strict guidelines.

And occasionally they threaten to hold elected officials — like Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio — in contempt of court.

Arpaio and his top officers have been in front of U.S. District Court Judge G. Murray Snow since summer 2009, shortly after they managed to get Judge Mary Murguia to recuse herself from their case because of remarks made by Murguia's sister, who leads a Latino advocacy organization.

In May 2013, Snow ruled that the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office indeed engaged in racial profiling. And nearly a year later, Snow chastised Arpaio for violating the court order, leading to the current contempt hearings.

Now Arpaio wants Snow to recuse himself as well for running down questions about two fruitless but troubling investigations.

One investigation was into an alleged conspiracy among Snow, the Department of Justice and other politicians; the other into statements Snow's wife might have made in a restaurant about Snow's supposed bias against Arpaio.

Snow has stayed the contempt proceedings while he ponders the arguments from the sheriff and from the American Civil Liberties Union, which brought the racial profiling suit and wants Snow to remain on the case.

Snow has stated outright that he intends to find Arpaio and others in civil contempt of court for disobeying court orders to end racial profiling of Hispanics by sheriff's deputies. At issue was whether he would refer Arpaio and others to the U.S. Attorney's Office to pursue criminal contempt charges.

Legal ethics experts and courthouse regulars are split on whether Snow crossed a line and compromised himself or if Arpaio is trying to force Snow off the case by creating conflict, thus being even further in contempt.

Federal judges do more fact-finding and ask more questions than state judges do, so he may have been well within bounds.

But was he getting too personal? Clearly he waded deep into the dispute, and even when the sheriff told him the investigations were dismissed as "junk" and dropped, he pressed for more information.

Or was he too political? Is it true, as a tipster told Arpaio, that Snow's wife said the judge wanted Arpaio out of office? That would certainly suggest bias.

One legal ethics expert said that "from 60,000 feet," it might look as if Snow had blundered into a conflict. But from up close, the expert said, Snow would be remiss by not asking those questions.

This is not the trial to determine whether the Sheriff's Office had racially profiled, the expert stressed, but rather a hearing to determine whether the sheriff and his associates were in contempt of court — and trying to get the drop on the judge who handles your case might fit under the definition of contempt.

Who is Murray Snow?

Judges are not supposed to be political.

Their job is to weigh cases against the law, to determine whether acts and arguments fit within the U.S. Constitution, though politicians often assume that a judge will rule in their favor if they think he or she is of their philosophy.

As many self-named conservatives learned when the immigration laws of SB 1070 hit the U.S. Supreme Court, that is not the case. Constitutional is constitutional. Contempt is contempt.

Snow is considered a judge's judge and a legal scholar.

"I know him to be very prepared," said former U.S. Attorney for Arizona Paul Charlton. "He puts up with no nonsense. His reputation is that he's very conservative politically, but I haven't seen it in the courtroom."

More than one of the sources who talked to The Arizona Republic labeled Snow as a very conservative Republican.

Arpaio's supporters have suggested that Snow is an activist, which "makes people on the legal bar chuckle," as one of Snow's former law partners said.

Most of Snow's friends and associates refuse to talk about him for the record. Snow, unsurprisingly, would not sit for an interview: Federal judges are closed-mouthed. The clerk of the District Court would not even confirm Snow's age.

His friends and associates are mostly attorneys and judges, state and federal. They call him a straight shooter and an open-minded man, fond of discourse.

He takes meticulous account of details, and it has been clear from his commentary in the Arpaio case that he has read every brief and examined every piece of evidence.

"He has an excellent bulls--t detector," attorney Dan Barr said.

"He's not one to throw his weight around," said Jack LaSota, a former Arizona attorney general.

Snow is said to be a devout Mormon and a warm and caring family man.

"He's one of the smartest guys I know and he's incredibly compassionate," said Phil Alvidrez, a TV producer who was Snow's longtime neighbor.

A personal side

Grant Murray Snow was born in in 1959 in Boulder City, Nev. He did his undergraduate and law degrees at Brigham Young, then clerked at the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. In 1987, he went to work directly out of law school for the law firm that became Osborn Maledon.

In the 1990s, he was hit by a truck while crossing Central Avenue near Thomas Road and was hospitalized with serious injuries, though one friend said, "It did more damage to the truck," again given Snow's large frame.

LaSota said, "He was always very forgiving of the truck driver," while another friend noted that it ended his participation in pickup basketball games at Monterey Park in Phoenix, for better or for worse.

Former associates at Osborn Maledon said Snow was the person that everyone turned to for personal advice.

His work in the church was important to him, friends said.

"Murray was really good at seeing the best in people," Alvidrez said of the time that Snow served his Mormon ward as a bishop.

The judge told Alvidrez that as he looked out at the congregation, "I see rows and rows of heroes," because Snow knew the hardships they had endured because they had come to him for counsel.

It was in contrast to his demeanor in the courtroom.

One lawyer who has known him out of court and practiced before him said, "On the bench he's surprisingly stern. It's surprising because it's a departure from his personality off the bench."

Snow was appointed to the Arizona Court of Appeals in 2002 by Gov. Jane Hull, and then to the U.S. District Court by President George W. Bush in 2007. In effect, he had to learn to be a trial court judge when he went to federal court because appellate judges do not preside over trials.

But federal judges have more resources to work with than state judges, bigger staffs who can research the law and help with briefs. It is understandable that they can delve more deeply into a case rather than just "calling balls and strikes" as judges and lawyers are prone to say.

And they are tenured for life. They don't have to campaign for general election or stand for retention. They have better retirement programs than state judges, so they don't have to stay on the good side of attorneys who could offer them work after they leave the bench. They tend to take that authority into the courtroom with them.

"They don't have to walk the line," as one judge said.

They are consequently less easily intimidated.

More than one acquaintance said that Snow was recently asked by the U.S. Marshals Service to stop riding the light rail or driving to court each day given the case against Arpaio, and Arpaio's tendency to follow and investigate those he perceives as political foes.

The sources said that marshals were bringing Snow to court instead.

One of Snow's friends said, "If I were to follow someone around waiting for him to do something illegal, Murray Snow is the last guy I would follow."

User avatar
Joel
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 7043

Re: Sheriff Joe Arpaio Has Now Been Held In Criminal Contempt

Post by Joel »

Starts at the 10:37 mark

User avatar
Joel
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 7043

Re: Sheriff Joe Arpaio Has Now Been Held In Criminal Contempt

Post by Joel »

Judge Rejects Arpaio’s Request For Contempt Response Extension

The federal judge who found Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio in civil contempt of court has denied the sheriff's request for an extension to respond to the findings.

Snow set a hearing for May 31 to discuss the civil remedies that will be imposed in the case. He gave the parties two weeks to respond in writing to the 162-page ruling ahead of the hearing.

In a motion filed Wednesday, attorney Justin Ackerman argued the sheriff’s defense team needed more time to respond to an order of this length.

“As this Court must be painfully aware, the Court’s Order is 162 pages, containing over 900 individual paragraphs,” Ackerman wrote. “This proceeding also involved over 20 days of trial testimony amounting to approximately 5,000 pages of trial transcripts and over 300 admitted exhibits.”

But Judge Murray Snow said in an order on Thursday that the timeline will remain in place.

Snow clarified that he was only inviting the parties to respond to matters pertaining to civil remedies, not substantive challenges to the court’s findings.

“The Court advised the parties that all issues of fact must be presented during the hearing and gave the parties a full opportunity to make arguments pertaining to that factual evidence,” Snow wrote. “The Court will not now, after its detailed review of the evidence and exhaustive factual findings, provide any party with a new opportunity to reargue the facts.”

lundbaek
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 11123
Location: Mesa, Arizona

Re: Sheriff Joe Arpaio Has Now Been Held In Criminal Contempt

Post by lundbaek »

Sheriff Arpaio is detested by many Mormons who believe that latino illegal immigrants should be permitted to remain in the U.S.A. in spite of the laws pertaining to immigration which they are in violation of. I appreciate Arpaio's efforts to rid the country of illegal immigrants and I would prefer that Judge Snow be replaced by an non-Mormon judge.

User avatar
notjamesbond003.5
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1840
Location: Cary NC
Contact:

Re: Sheriff Joe Arpaio Has Now Been Held In Criminal Contempt

Post by notjamesbond003.5 »

Living near Phoenix Az and having met Sherrif Joe at a few functions simply put: he is being railroaded.

The sheriff is one of my favorite friends on Facebook.com account

Njb

samizdat
captain of 1,000
Posts: 3511

Re: Sheriff Joe Arpaio Has Now Been Held In Criminal Contempt

Post by samizdat »

The guy has his controversies. I don't agree with everything he does, but the tough guy mentality that the dude has as sheriff is something I would want all of the LEOs to emulate.

User avatar
Joel
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 7043

Re: Sheriff Joe Arpaio Has Now Been Held In Criminal Contempt

Post by Joel »

10 Key Findings From The Civil Contempt Ruling Against Sheriff Joe Arpaio


On May 13 U.S. District Court Judge Murray Snow found Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio and three others in civil contempt of court for violating court orders that stemmed from a long-standing racial profiling case.

In a 162-page order, Snow concludes that Arpaio and others deliberately violated court orders and acted in bad faith, paving the way for a possible referral to a prosecutor to pursue criminal contempt charges.

1. Defendants intentionally violated court orders.

2. Arpaio and Sheridan both made “multiple intentional misstatements of fact while under oath.”

3. Arpaio had his deputies ignore the 2011 preliminary injunction because he believed it would help his re-election.

4. Arpaio's confidential informant Dennis Montgomery purported to investigate Snow, and Arpaio's testimony to the contrary was not credible.

5. Arpaio attempted to conceal Montgomery’s records from the court.

6. At least 157 immigrants were wrongfully detained by MCSO and turned over to federal agents for deportation, and will need to be compensated.

7. MCSO failed to conduct adequate internal investigations into officer misconduct, and some completed internal investigations must be voided.

8. No other deputies were disciplined for the items in Armendariz’s garage despite evidence others were involved.

9. Individuals who were not named as defendants in the contempt case also violated court orders, including one of the sheriff’s lawyers.

10. MCSO may have put surveillance on a witness in order to see if she was giving information to the Phoenix New Times.

Snow is the same judge who ruled in 2013 that the sheriff’s immigration enforcement tactics racially profiled Latino motorists. Snow ordered sweeping changes at the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office, including new training, protocols, body cameras and an independent monitor to oversee compliance.

But the following year, new evidence surfaced showing the sheriff’s office never implemented a pre-trial preliminary injunction Snow issued in 2011. The order forbade officers from detaining suspected unauthorized immigrants who could not be charged with any state crimes. Because the sheriff’s office had disregarded the order, the illegal detentions continued for 17 months. It also became apparent that sheriff’s deputies had been recording videos of traffic stops for years, but those videos had not been turned over to plaintiffs before the trial — a violation of the rules of discovery. Furthermore, the sheriff and his staff bungled the judge’s instructions in May 2014 for how to recover video footage from deputies once its existence was known.

Snow cited those three violations when he ordered a civil contempt of court evidentiary hearing in April 2015. The hearing dragged into the fall when the sheriff’s lawyers missed deadlines for completing internal investigations and turning over documents, plus new information surfaced, creating new lines of inquiry. Ultimately there were more than 20 days testimony in the contempt hearing, which concluded on November 20.

Almost six months later, Snow filed his findings of fact and conclusions of law on May 13. The sheriff’s lawyers have indicated they disagree with some of the findings. All the parties are supposed to submit responses May 27 and then will meet on May 31 for a hearing to discuss remedies. Snow rejected a request from the sheriff’s attorneys’ for an extension.

1. Defendants intentionally violated court orders.

Arpaio and his chief deputy, Jerry Sheridan, acknowledged in March 2015 that they violated court orders and could be found in civil contempt of court. But they insisted their missteps were unintentional. Their defense lawyers focused on that theme during the civil contempt evidentiary hearing. When those hearings were finally over in November 2015, Arpaio’s lawyer John Masterson summed things up this way:

“Were there mistakes made? Absolutely. Were Court orders violated? Absolutely. But the key we wanted to get across to the court, and the public for that matter, is it was not intentional.”

But Snow concluded the opposite in his findings of facts. Snow writes:

“[T]he 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. They have demonstrated a persistent disregard for the orders of the Court, as well as an intention to violate and manipulate the laws and policies regulating their conduct…”
Furthermore, Snow explicitly found that Arpaio and Sheridan both “knowingly and intentionally failed to implement the preliminary injunction.”

Snow has long threatened that at the conclusion of the civil contempt case he will decide whether to refer the case to a federal prosecutor to pursue criminal contempt charges. The finding that the violations were intentional is significant because it paves the way for Snow to do just that, since intent is a necessary element for a criminal prosecution.

Plus, Snow’s strong wording in the ruling makes it increasingly unlikely he would find strictly civil remedies to be a sufficient resolution. Civil contempt remedies are not intended to be punitive, and are just supposed to ensure compliance with court orders and compensate those harmed by the contempt. A criminal contempt finding on the other hand can result in punishment for the defendants, such as fines or incarceration.

2. Arpaio and Sheridan both made “multiple intentional misstatements of fact while under oath.”

Throughout the order Snow concludes that various statements Arpaio and Sheridan made in the evidentiary hearing were not truthful. For example Snow finds Sheridan’s assertion that he had never heard of the 2011 preliminary injunction until 2014 as “demonstrably false.” The judge also takes issue with Arpaio’s testimony under oath that he did not know of any investigations into Snow, since it later came out that Arpaio’s confidential informant Dennis Montgomery was trying to link Snow to a conspiracy and gave Arpaio timelines and drawings with information about that theory. The judge found that Arpaio’s statements on the issue “constitute deliberate misstatements of fact made in bad faith.”

Former U.S. Attorney Paul Charlton told KJZZ federal prosecutors should be paying close attention to these findings.

“If a judge makes a finding that the head of one of the largest law enforcement agencies in the state made an intentional misrepresentation under oath and did so more than once, that is something that a prosecutor especially, a federal prosecutor, should be paying very close attention to — regardless of whether the judge eventually refers that case to the US Attorney’s office for prosecution,” Charlton said.

3. Arpaio had his deputies ignore the 2011 preliminary injunction because he believed it would help his re-election.

Arpaio argued on the stand that he did not intentionally violate the 2011 preliminary injunction forbidding sheriff’s deputies from detaining suspected immigrants who could not be booked on state charges, because he relied on his attorneys and subordinates to institute the order.

But Snow did not buy that argument, finding “In light of the evidence and testimony at the evidentiary hearing, that explanation is neither credible nor acceptable as a matter of fact or law.”

The judge even concludes that Arpaio intentionally violated the 2011 order in an effort to help his 2012 reelection bid.

Snow points out that Arpaio testified in the 2012 initial racial profiling trial that MCSO still had the authority to detain immigrants even when no state criminal charges could be filed. Snow concluded that “does not indicate a failure to understand the preliminary injunction, but rather a refusal to abide by it.”

In the fall of 2012, Arpaio began to complain to the media that Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials would no longer allow sheriff’s deputies to turn over suspected unauthorized immigrants for deportation who were not charged with state crimes. Arpaio began to publicize to the media that he was using a so-called “back-up plan” to turn these unauthorized immigrants over to Border Patrol instead. But detaining immigrants who could not be charged with state crimes for any length of time — even for the purpose of turning them over to federal agents — violated Snow’s 2011 order.

In October 2012, shortly after the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed Snow’s preliminary injunction and weeks before the election, Arpaio put out a press release saying “My back-up plan is still in place and we will continue to take these illegal aliens not accepted by ICE to the Border Patrol.”

Snow concludes that Arpaio wanted to continue to show voters he was enforcing federal immigration law, despite the court order not to.

“Sheriff Arpaio’s persistent and publicized violations of the Preliminary Injunction were motivated by his belief that such activities would benefit his upcoming reelection campaign,” Snow writes.

4. Arpaio's confidential informant Dennis Montgomery purported to investigate Snow, and Arpaio's testimony to the contrary was not credible.

A major theme that emerged in the contempt hearing was whether the sheriff used a confidential informant based in Seattle to investigate Snow in an effort to discredit the judge and retaliate against him after Snow ruled against the sheriff’s office in the underlying racial profiling case.

Snow first asked the sheriff about the so-called “Seattle Investigation” in April 2015, in response to a June 2014 Phoenix New Times article that alleged the sheriff was using a confidential informant named Dennis Montgomery to investigate Snow and link him in a false anti-Arpaio conspiracy with the U.S. Department of Justice.

"Did you ever — you see that the article says that what Montgomery was actually doing was investigating me. You see that that's what the article says?" Snow asked the sheriff on April 23, 2015.

"It's not true," Arpaio said at the time.

“Are you aware that I've ever been investigated by anyone?” Snow asked.

"You investigated?" Arpaio asked back. "No, no."

Arpaio testified that Montgomery was hired to investigate an alleged plot by the CIA to illegally harvest banking records from Maricopa County residents, and that any reference to Snow was because he was a possible victim.

But records emerged revealing that Montgomery had created timelines and drawings trying to link Snow in a conspiracy, and that Arpaio had added his own information with handwritten notations on one of the timelines. There was also testimony that when the Seattle investigation began, Arpaio’s posse leader Mike Zullo instructed Montgomery to type the name “Murray Snow” into Montgomery’s database.

On the stand this past October when Snow asked Arpaio why he had not been forthcoming about Montgomery’s investigation, Arpaio said that he did not consider what Montgomery did to be an “investigation” of Snow. In his ruling, Snow finds that testimony is not credible. Snow also dismisses Arpaio’s testimony Montgomery was only looking into the judge because he was a possible victim of the alleged CIA scheme.

Further Snow finds that there was “ample evidence of Arpaio’s enthusiasm for and participation in the investigation.”

“The MCSO’s “Seattle” investigation involving Mr. Montgomery demonstrates Sheriff Arpaio’s many intentional misstatements under oath and his attitude of hostility toward the court’s order,” Snow writes.

5. Arpaio attempted to conceal Montgomery’s records from the court.

Snow finds that not only did Arpaio make misstatements about the nature of Montgomery’s work for the sheriff’s office; he tried to conceal some of Montgomery’s records from the court.

After Snow first grilled Arpaio on the stand about Montgomery in April, the judge demanded Arpaio turn over records relating to Montgomery’s work immediately.

While the sheriff’s office did turn over some records right away, it did not hand over 50 hard drives of Montgomery’s material. The court’s independent monitor discovered their existence in July, prompting the judge to take the dramatic step of ordering the sheriff’s office to turn the drives over to U.S. Marshals.

The sheriff’s office also initially failed to turn over a report from two former National Security Agency computer specialists, Thomas Drake and Kirk Wiebe, who the sheriff’s office asked to evaluate Montgomery’s work to see if it was credible. They concluded Montgomery’s database was fraudulent and did not contain records from the CIA as Montgomery had suggested. “We have found that he is a complete and total FRAUD,” the former NSA employees concluded.

In the ruling Snow speculates about the reasons why the drives were not turned over initially.

“There were many reasons Sheriff Arpaio would not have wanted the hard drives and their fraudulent nature disclosed,” Snow writes. “First, Mr. Montgomery committed a fraud on the MCSO. Having paid large sums of money to Montgomery for his investigations, the MCSO was a victim of that fraud. Disclosure could therefore bring embarrassment to Sheriff Arpaio and the MCSO.”

6. At least 157 immigrants were wrongfully detained by MCSO and turned over to federal agents for deportation, and will need to be compensated.

While the sheriff’s office was in violation of the 2011 preliminary injunction for 17 months, officers detained at least 157 suspected unauthorized immigrants who had not been accused of committing any state crimes.

Snow finds the violation of the injunction went beyond those 157, since they “resulted in harm to many class members who were detained when they otherwise would not have been regardless of whether they were ultimately transferred to ICE or the Border Patrol.”

Snow invites the parties to suggest how individuals harmed by the violation of the 2011 preliminary injunction should be compensated.

7. MCSO failed to conduct adequate internal investigations into officer misconduct, and some completed internal investigations must be voided.

Snow’s ruling includes scathing passages about the sheriff’s internal affairs department, which is supposed to investigate internal misconduct and mete out discipline.

“To escape accountability for their own misconduct, and the misconduct of those who had implemented their decisions, Defendants, or their proxies, named disciplinary officers who were biased in their favor and had conflicts,” Snow writes.

There was an internal investigation into how the sheriff’s office failed to implement the 2011 preliminary injunction. The person Arpaio appointed to lead the investigation, Chief Mike Olson, was Sheridan’s subordinate and yet Sheridan was one of the principals under investigation. While Olson initially sustained findings against several individuals, including Sheridan, Olson ultimately reversed all the findings. That meant in the end, not a single person in the agency was disciplined for failing to implement the 2011 preliminary injunction.

“The Court finds that as a matter of fact, Sheriff Arpaio achieved what he desired in appointing Chief Olson to the position—a biased decision-maker who imposed no discipline on anyone for the MCSO’s 17 month violation of this Court’s orders,” Snow writes.
Snow also was displeased that the sheriff’s office uses a more lenient discipline matrix for internal investigations stemming from this court case versus other incidents.

“As a result of this special policy, the MCSO generally treated misconduct that harmed members of the Plaintiff class less seriously than the uniform level of discipline that MCSO policy otherwise requires,” Snow writes.

Snow also alludes to manipulations of timing so that the investigators would not be able to impose serious disciplinary measures. He flags instances where investigators took on cases despite conflicts of interest, and notes one case where a detective was notified by a friend as soon as a witness came forward with an allegation against him that was supposed to be confidential.

Because of these deficiencies and others, Snow determines that at least four internal investigations are either invalid or void. One investigation was supposed to evaluate supervisors’ failures in overseeing Ramon “Charley” Armendariz, a former deputy and star of the Human Smuggling Unit who hung himself after drugs, illegal weapons, a cache of IDs, license plates, credit cards and other items were discovered in his garage.

The other internal investigations were into the misconduct related to the items in Armendariz’s garage (more on that in item 8) and allegations that deputies had a widespread practice of seizing identifications and other possessions, including from Latino drivers in the plaintiff class.

Snow indicates major reforms to the internal affairs division are needed and invites the parties to weigh in. He also asks the parties to comment on how the voided investigations can be reopened, and how future internal investigations related to this case should be handled in the future. In the ruling he suggests the possibility they be done by a third party outside of the supervision of Arpaio.

8. No other deputies were disciplined for the items in Armendariz’s garage despite evidence others were involved.

In May 2014 the sheriff’s office discovered one of its deputies in the Human Smuggling Unit, Ramon "Charley" Armendariz, had stashed an illegal weapon, hundreds of IDs, license plates, credit cards, cell phones, drugs, CDs and videos of his own traffic stops in his garage. Armendariz resigned and hung himself at his home days later.

Immediately Snow raised questions about whether Armendariz was shaking down immigrants.

Before Armendariz died, he alleged in an interview with the MCSO that the items in his garage belonged to the entire Human Smuggling Unit. He said a female coworker removed items stored in HSU offices and placed them in his garage because she “got word of an upcoming inspection by the Internal Affairs Division.” Though Montoya initially denied any involvement, she later acknowledged dropping some items off at Armendariz's residence and loading other items into his vehicle.

But Snow finds that “[e]ven after Officer Montoya confessed as much, there was no further investigation or reassessment of her involvement, or that of anyone else, in the possible mishandling or theft of property in either an administrative or a criminal investigation.”
Montoya was apparently spared from taking a polygraph test after experiencing a panic attack, according to testimony in the contempt hearing. Neither she nor anyone else received any discipline in connection to the items in the garage that were apparently stolen from members of the public.

The sheriff’s office has acknowledged that some of the IDs found in Armendariz’s garage resulted from traffic stops made by other officers. But Snow notes that Sergeant David Tennyson, who led the internal investigation, was not able to explain at the evidentiary hearing how they wound up in the garage.

Snow finds that the sheriff’s office only investigated 28 items of personal property found at Armendariz’s home, even though there were over a thousand items. Snow finds the sheriff’s office never investigated any of the weapons, credit cards, CDs or cell phones found at the home.

One of the items that was investigated was a license plate that belonged to a woman by the name of Manuela Ruiz Hernandez. Snow’s ruling says Hernandez reported that a female deputy took the plate after asking her if she was a citizen, a Mexican and whether she was “illegal” and a “wetback.” Snow writes there is evidence the stop was made by Deputy Amie Duong, but MCSO only sustained allegations of misconduct against the deceased Armendariz, not Duong.

Snow also finds the sheriff’s office purposely delayed internal investigations related to Armendariz’s garage so they could not be evaluated in the evidentiary hearing.

9. Individuals who were not named as defendants in the contempt case also violated court orders, including one of the sheriff’s lawyers.

After the discovery of all of the IDs in Armendariz’s garage in May 2014, Snow wanted to know if there was a widespread practice of improperly seizing IDs from the public, and the plaintiff class of Latino motorists in particular. He ordered any IDs in the possession of the MCSO should be turned over to the court. The sheriff’s office was also under an order to notify the court as soon as there is an internal affairs investigation that relates to this case.

In early July a sergeant tried to put 1,459 IDs in the agency’s Property and Evidence department for destruction. The supervisor, who was aware of the court order, refused. Internal Affairs investigators were notified about the IDs, as was one of the sheriff’s attorneys, Michele Iafrate.

The sheriff’s office did not notify the court’s independent monitoring team about the IDs or the internal investigation into them, since Iafrate said she was going to research whether the IDs in this instance fell under the court’s order. Chief Deputy Jerry Sheridan suspended the investigation.

When members of the monitor’s team visited later that July, they sat down in a meeting with several members of the sheriff’s staff. Testimony varies on the exact question asked, but a monitor asked either if there were any other pending investigations regarding IDs, or if anymore IDs had been found.

Captain Steve Bailey, the head of the Professional Standard Bureau, testified in the contempt hearing that, “I was asked the question, and I just glanced at [Iafrate], and she looked at me and said no.”

Snow finds Bailey, Iafrate and Sheridan violated his orders.

“When Captain Bailey answered “no” to the Monitor’s question pertaining the identifications, regardless of the phrasing of the question, he knowingly violated the orders of the Court. Chief Deputy Sheridan, Captain Bailey, and Ms. Iafrate violated the specific and direct orders of this Court without a justifiable basis for doing so.”

It remains to be seen if this finding will have any ramifications for Iafrate. The State Bar of Arizona can choose to investigate cases where there are allegations that an attorney has violated the rules of professional conduct.

10. MCSO may have put surveillance on a witness in order to see if she was giving information to the Phoenix New Times.

One of the most dramatic twists in this saga came in June 2014 when Phoenix New Times reporter Stephen Lemons wrote that the sheriff’s office had hired Dennis Montgomery to engage in a covert investigation to expose Snow was colluding with the U.S. Department of Justice and others in an alleged anti-Arpaio conspiracy.

The sheriff’s office had in fact quietly hired Montgomery as a confidential informant, and it became a mystery who had tipped Lemons off. That article was the basis for Snow questioning Arpaio under oath in April 2015 about Montgomery.

Snow finds in his ruling that MCSO may have put surveillance on a witness who came forward with allegations of misconduct against a detective in order to see if she was Lemons’ source of information.

Maryann McKessy, an attorney with the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office and a former girlfriend of Detective Brian Mackiewicz, put in a complaint of misconduct against Mackiewicz in August of 2014. Mackiewicz was assigned to working with Dennis Montgomery on the Seattle investigation, and McKessy alleged that he was billing his hours improperly and had Montgomery build him a personal computer. She also alleged Mackiewicz had a romantic relationship with a domestic violence victim he met on a case he investigated, and used steroids.

Snow finds that MCSO investigators — who were friends with Mackiewicz — subverted the investigation, failed to follow up, and improperly notified Mackiewicz about McKessy’s allegations.

“[T]hey discussed Ms. McKessy’s allegations, and the possibility that she was the snitch Sheriff Arpaio wished to identify who had disclosed the substance of the Seattle investigation to The New Times...They in fact apparently initiated some sort of surveillance on Ms. McKessy to determine if she was in contact with Steve Lemons...In their phone conversation the next day, in which Sergeant Tennyson continued to discuss with Detective Mackiewicz the details of McKessy’s allegations against him, Mackiewicz comments to Tennyson that “f Maryann [McKessy] goes to Lemons we’ll know it’s her,” to which Tennyson responds, “exactly.””

The Arizona Attorney General’s Office has since taken over the investigation against Mackiewicz.

User avatar
Joel
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 7043

Re: Sheriff Joe Arpaio Has Now Been Held In Criminal Contempt

Post by Joel »

Civil rights attorneys want Sheriff Arpaio criminally investigated, to pay $300,000 to victims

PHOENIX - Civil rights attorneys against Sheriff Joe Arpaio in his ongoing racial profiling lawsuit want the Sheriff to be referred to federal prosecutors for criminal contempt charges and personally pay $300,000 into a victim compensation fund.

Those requests were two of many filed Friday by attorneys for the American Civil Liberties Union in the ongoing lawsuit Melendres v. Arpaio.

Judge Murray Snow asked all parties involved in the case to submit recommended remedies to the court after he found Arpaio and his Chief Deputy Jerry Sheridan in civil contempt two weeks ago.

The ACLU requested that Arpaio and Sheridan be referred to the U.S. Attorney’s Office for investigation of criminal contempt and other charges, including perjury and obstruction of justice.

Attorneys for the civil rights group also asked for sweeping reforms and greatly increasing the power of a federal monitor to oversee and run several functions of the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office. Their proposal also included a victim compensation system that would pay people who were illegally detained by sheriff’s deputies.

Attorneys for Arpaio said they are working with the ACLU to set up a fund for the victims and would consent to further monitoring. The Sheriff’s attorneys also suggested that Arpaio and a top aid pay a combined $100,000 to a Hispanic charity and make a public apology.

But the $100,000 falls well short of what was proposed by the ACLU.

The civil rights organization, which sued on behalf of multiple people who claimed they were illegally detained, asked for Arpaio to personally pay the $300,000 by July 1. The plaintiffs further want to see three other Arpaio aids pay additional money.

Snow will hold a hearing on the proposals Tuesday.

User avatar
Joel
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 7043

Re: Sheriff Joe Arpaio Has Now Been Held In Criminal Contempt

Post by Joel »


User avatar
Joel
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 7043

Re: Sheriff Joe Arpaio Has Now Been Held In Criminal Contempt

Post by Joel »

Sheriff Joe Arpaio Agrees To Cede Some Authority After Contempt Finding

Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio has agreed to a list of proposed remedies after a federal judge found him and three of his aides in contempt of court. Meanwhile, the plaintiffs in the case are asking the judge to refer the case to a prosecutor to pursue criminal charges.

Earlier this month, U.S. District Court Judge Murray Snow found Arpaio and others intentionally violated court orders, made deliberate misstatements under oath and had subverted internal investigations to cover up officer misconduct.

Snow set a hearing for May 31 to determine what must be done to ensure the sheriff’s office follows court orders, as well as how to compensate people who were wrongfully detained during a 17-month period in which the sheriff’s deputies continued making immigration arrests after the judge ordered that practice must stop.

Snow proposed making major changes to the Internal Affairs division in charge of investigating officer misconduct, including appointing an independent entity to assume control over certain investigations and resulting discipline. He invited all parties involved in the case to weigh in on his proposals by Friday.

The filing from Arpaio’s attorney began by saying the sheriff and his aides were “devastated” to read the court’s contempt finding.

“They desire to do everything in their power to restore the court’s and community’s confidence in them and the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office,” Arpaio’s attorneys wrote.

So far, Arpaio and Chief Deputy Jerry Sheridan have volunteered to personally donate $100,000 to a Latino civil rights organization and publicly acknowledge their violations of the court order.

The sheriff agreed to cede a limited amount of control over certain internal investigations to an outside party. He said in cases of officer misconduct involving Latino motorists, an outside entity could review the investigation and determine the final discipline.

Arpaio, however, said he wants to retain control over any decision to terminate an employee, which promises to be a sticking point with the plaintiffs in the case.

The sheriff agreed that individuals who can prove they were unlawfully detained by his deputies in violation of the 2011 order should get monetary damages, though the various parties are at odds over several details — including who should pay.

A lawyer for Maricopa County argued in his filing that if sheriff’s employees willfully violated court orders, the county was not liable for those actions.

“The county respectfully requests that the court, in fashioning remedies, bear in mind the inherent unfairness of saddling taxpayers with substantial financial burdens for the misdeeds of a few individuals the court has found to have engaged in contemptuous conduct,” attorney Richard Walker wrote.

Lawyers representing the Latino plaintiffs who initiated the underlying racial profiling lawsuit are asking the judge to make Arpaio personally pay $300,000 toward the program. They also argue the three aides found in contempt, along with the county, should also be liable to pay for the program's costs beyond the $300,000 cost.

“[F]or more than eight years, Sheriff Arpaio has defied this Court and his obligations in the litigation,” lawyers for the plaintiffs wrote. “He has proved unwilling to comply with the law.”

They argued civil remedies alone will not be adequate to address the sheriff’s wrongdoing. They requested the judge ask the U.S. Attorney’s office to investigate Arpaio and Sheridan for criminal contempt, and possibly other federal charges — including perjury and obstruction of justice.

The penalties for criminal contempt could be fines or imprisonment.

User avatar
Joel
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 7043

Re: Sheriff Joe Arpaio Has Now Been Held In Criminal Contempt

Post by Joel »


User avatar
Rose Garden
Don't ask . . .
Posts: 7031
Contact:

Re: Sheriff Joe Arpaio Has Now Been Held In Criminal Contempt

Post by Rose Garden »

Joel wrote:
A fitting charge.

User avatar
Joel
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 7043

Re: Sheriff Joe Arpaio Has Now Been Held In Criminal Contempt

Post by Joel »


kennyhs
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1537

Re: Sheriff Joe Arpaio Has Now Been Held In Criminal Contempt

Post by kennyhs »

OBeWise wrote:Good.
Not good at all!

User avatar
Joel
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 7043

Re: Sheriff Joe Arpaio Has Now Been Held In Criminal Contempt

Post by Joel »


User avatar
Joel
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 7043

Re: Sheriff Joe Arpaio Has Now Been Held In Criminal Contempt

Post by Joel »


User avatar
Joel
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 7043

Re: Sheriff Joe Arpaio Has Now Been Held In Criminal Contempt

Post by Joel »


Post Reply