Tag Archives: Arpaio

Follow up: Rulings Against Sheriff Arpaio

A while back images where shown of Sheriff Arpaio, from Arizona, having 220 immigrants march in a line with shackles.  (One story here).  This story, among others, prompted lawsuits against Arpaio. The first case granted an injunction against Arpaio and the Sheriff’s Office.  The second case ruled that the Human Smuggling Act (which allowed the arrest and prosecution of immigrants).

It is interesting to point out that these decisions came before the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals decision (Oct. 8, 2013), discussed here, which held Arizona S.B. 1070 was void and preempted.

In Manuel de Jesus Ortega Melendres v. Arpaio, No. CV-07-02513-PHX-GMS (D. Ariz. Oct. 2, 2013), U.S. District Court Judge Snow granted an injunction and listed reforms in which Arpaio and the Maricopa Sheriff’s Office must comply with.  This list includes, for example:

  • Supervisors shall provide effective supervision necessary to direct and guide Deputies.  Some of these include, for example: Respond to certain arrests; confirm the accuracy and completeness of Deputies’ daily reports;and hold Deputies accountable.
  • Supervisors enforcing Immigration-Related laws will directly supervise law enforcement activities.
  • Appointment of a federal independent monitor;
  • Hiring a Community Liaison Officer who is a sworn Deputy fluent in English and Spanish; and
  • Video recorder in every patrol car to record every traffic stop.

In We are America v. Maricopa County Bd. of Supervisors, No. CIV 06-2816-PHX-RCB (Sept. 27, 2013), U.S. District Court Judge Broomfield enjoined Arizona’s Maricopa Migrant Conspiracy Policy.

Sheriff Arpaio created this policy based on the Human Smuggling Act, Ariz. Rev. Stat. 13-2319 which allowed for the arrest and prosecution of immigrants for “conspiring to transport themselves within Maricopa County.”

District Court Judge, like the reasoning of the 9th Circuit a few days later, ruled that the statute was preempted by the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.

The court also certified the class, which included “all individuals who pay taxes to Maricopa County and object to the use of county tax revenues to stop, detain, arrest, incarcerate, prosecute or penalize individuals for conspiring to transport themselves, and themselves only, in violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. 13-2319 [Human Smuggling Act].”

via Courthouse News Service.

Advertisements

Leave a comment

Filed under civil rights, courts, discrimination, federal, immigration, legal decision, state

Arpaio ruling by 9th Circuit

Sheriff Joe Arpaio may not detain suspects based solely on a belief that they are in the country illegally, the 9th Circuit ruled on September 25 2012.  You can read the decision here.

The federal appeals panel in San Francisco late Tuesday upheld a preliminary injunction in a class action over the sheriff’s alleged pattern of racial profiling. Other issues in the action went to trial in Phoenix in late July.

U.S. District Judge G. Murray Snow issued the preliminary injunction in 2011, prohibiting deputies from “detaining any individual ‘based only on knowledge or reasonable belief, without more, that the person is unlawfully present within the United States.” Snow has yet to rule on other aspects of the case, which was the subject of seven-day bench trial in July. Whatever his ruling, the case is likely to return the 9th Circuit on appeal.

In Tuesday’s limited review of the preliminary injunction, a three-judge appeals panel found that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed with their Fourth Amendment claims, and that they were likely to be profiled again in the absence of a court order.

“Even if the plaintiffs comply with all criminal laws enforceable by the defendants, under the defendants’ view of the Fourth Amendment, the plaintiffs remain vulnerable to unlawful detention solely because an officer has reasonable suspicion or knowledge that they are not authorized to be present in the United States,” wrote Judge J. Clifford Wallace for the unanimous panel.

The panel found the plaintiffs’ case strong and likely to succeed because “mere unauthorized presence is not a criminal matter, [and] suspicion of unauthorized presence alone does not give rise to an inference that criminal activity is ‘afoot.'”

“While the seizures of the named plaintiffs based on traffic violations may have been supported by reasonable suspicion, any extension of their detention must be supported by additional suspicion of criminality,” Wallace wrote. “Unlawful presence is not criminal.Nor does illegal presence, without more, give rise to reasonable suspicion of violation of Arizona’s human smuggling statute, as the defendants maintain.”

via Courthouse News Service.

Leave a comment

Filed under civil rights, immigration, legal decision

DOJ Threatens to Sue Sheriff Joe Arpaio for Civil Rights Violations

From ABA Journal News:

The U.S. Justice Department is threatening to sue a controversial Arizona sheriff for civil rights violations because of his treatment of Hispanics.

The department’s civil rights division revealed a possible lawsuit after settlement talks broke down with Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, according to Reuters and the Washington Post. “We believe that you are wasting time and not negotiating in good faith,” the department said in a letter to Arpaio’s lawyer.

A Justice Department report released in December accused the sheriff’s department of using racial profiling against Hispanics in police stops and denying them services in jail.

The DOJ says Arpaio’s lawyers have twice called off settlement negotiations at the last minute, according to the Post account. After cancelation of a March 1 meeting, Arpaio held a news conference to claim President Obama’s birth certificate is a forgery. Now Arpaio is complaining about the feds’ demand for a court-appointed monitor.

via DOJ Threatens to Sue Sheriff Joe Arpaio for Civil Rights Violations – News – ABA Journal.

Leave a comment

Filed under civil rights

Arpaio’s office to pay $200,000

From Courthouse News Service:

Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s office will pay $200,000 to settle claims Arpaio’s deputies violated the rights of a U.S. citizen and a long-term permanent resident by forcing them from their truck, zip-tying and arresting them during an immigration raid.
     Julian Mora, 68, and a legal U.S. resident for 30 years, and his son Julio Mora, a 21-year-old U.S. citizen, were arrested outside of Handyman Maintenance, Julian Mora’s employer. They were taken to a worksite immigration raid, where they were handcuffed and held for 3 hours without water, food, or permission to use a bathroom.
     “Sheriff Arpaio’s deputies are not free to ignore the Constitution when they are enforcing immigration laws,” Annie Lai, a staff attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona and lead counsel for the Moras, said in a statement.
     “County officials should take heed that the Moras and hundreds of other Latino residents who have been detained in the raids without any evidence of wrongdoing have recourse in the courts.”
     U.S. District Judge David Campbell ruled in April that the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office violated the Moras’ 4th Amendment rights by arresting them without cause, but dismissed the Moras’ emotional distress, state constitution and 14th Amendment claims.

Leave a comment

Filed under civil rights, immigration