First, Justice gives Az. sheriff deadline in rights case, dated August 3, 2010:
WASHINGTON (AP) - The Justice Department says an Arizona sheriff known for his efforts against illegal immigrants has refused to cooperate with a civil rights investigation and the department is threatening to sue.
Since March 2009, the U.S. Justice Department has been investigating Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio's office in Phoenix for alleged discrimination and for unconstitutional searches and seizures. Arpaio says the inquiry is focused on his immigration efforts.
In a letter, assistant attorney general Thomas Perez gives the sheriff's office until Aug. 17 to turn over documents first requested last year in what the department calls an inquiry into claims of discrimination based on national origin.
Further information can be found from a local competitor news station. From Justice gives Az. sheriff deadline in rights case, also posted this afternoon:
Since March 2009, the U.S. Justice Department has been investigating Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio's office in Phoenix for alleged discrimination and for unconstitutional searches and seizures. Arpaio says the inquiry is focused on his immigration efforts.
In a letter, assistant attorney general Thomas Perez gave the sheriff's office until Aug. 17 to turn over documents first requested last year in what the department calls an inquiry into claims of discrimination based on national origin.
Arpaio and his legal counsel said a year ago that the sheriff's office would not cooperate with the inquiry.
The office "has continued its unwarranted refusal to cooperate," Perez wrote.
In June, the office supplied a position statement regarding the operation of its jail facilities.
The statement says "nothing at all about the allegations of discriminatory police practices," and includes no agreement to provide access to sheriff's office facilities and personnel, Perez said in the letter to the sheriff department's legal counsel. The letter also said a limited production of accompanying documents fails to respond to the first request for material made 17 months ago.
Allegedly, the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office signed a contract with the federal government for assisted programs, and the contractual agreement stipulates that the federal government gets access to documents that the MCSO is denying.
The devil is always in the details with federal programs.
There is a website devoted to removing Sheriff Arpaio from office, which alleges abuse of authority, lies, deceit, etc. Sheriff Arpaio's own website is down as of this afternoon:
On a slightly different (?) note, a press release by the MCSO states:
Court of Appeals Rejects Former Candidates Claims
(Phoenix, AZ) An ex-Mesa police officer and former Buckeye Police Chief who tried and failed twice to unseat Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio in the 2004 and 2008 elections, lost to Arpaio again today - this time in the Arizona Court of Appeals.
Dan Saban and his attorney Joel Robbins have tried for the past several years to convince Arizona courts that Sheriff Arpaio defamed Saban, invaded his privacy and intentionally inflicted emotional distress upon him relating to accusations made by Saban's adoptive mother that the candidate for Sheriff sexually assaulted her several years ago.
Accusations about the sexual charges were reviewed by the Sheriff's Office and turned over to another law enforcement agency for investigation. The accusations were subsequently the subject of several media reports in 2005.
Saban sued Arpaio, his chief deputy, a local Channel 15 reporter and two Sheriff's deputies in 2005. In 2007, after an 11 day trial, a jury found in favor of the Sheriff and awarded him the taxable costs in the litigation.
Today's decision upholds that jury verdict in Saban vs. Maricopa County, et al., CV2005-007294.
"I have always said Saban's charges against me and others in my office were without merit and that he was motivated strictly by his desire to win an election," Arpaio says.
This particular case resulted from a leak about a possible investigation into an alleged rape from decades ago - an allegation too old for the Pima County Sheriff's Office, to whom the case was transferred, to pursue. In Saban denied new trial in suit vs. Arpaio, dated July 9, 2008, in the summer before the last election when Dan Saban was running for election against Sheriff Joe Arpaio, we get the story.
Apparently, the allegations about Saban - allegations that he had sexually assaulted his adoptive mother in the 1970's - were then alleged to have been leaked to the press for political purposes in 2004, presumably to tip the scales in the race for sheriff. In response, Saban alleged that his adoptive mother had molested him.
Both Arpaio and Saban supporters have accused the other side of using the case for political gain, but as the case continues to move forward - Saban's attorney has vowed to appeal - Arpaio could benefit more from his opponent's tenacity than Saban ever could from proving sheriff's officials intentionally made defamatory statements, observers say.
"I think there's two completely different perspectives: From a standpoint of electoral politics, it's probably just as well to let it drop, 'cause, wow, that's heavy stuff," said Michael O'Neil, founder of O'Neil Associates, a Tempe public-opinion research firm. "I suspect this goes a lot deeper than politics.
"You can have a human being who is injured by what they feel are completely false accusations and they're angry. My guess is that it's not smart practical politics that's running this."
Saban filed suit after Channel 15 (KNXV) ran a story in April 2004 in which Norman alleged that Saban raped her 30 years earlier. The investigation was ultimately transferred to the Pima County Sheriff's Department in Tucson. That agency closed the case, saying it was too old to pursue.
Saban claimed that Arpaio's chief deputy, Dave Hendershott, leaked the story to a TV reporter to discredit him as he challenged the sheriff's re-election bid.
My question: how much of what is going on in Maricopa County deals with real concerns, and how much might just be political tit-for-tat or political smear?
The question is pertinent, because Sheriff Arpaio is now under attack for his pursuit of illegal immigrants - a pursuit for which he has received notoriety on the Internet. There are many Facebook pages, some supporting him, and a few against him; one even calls for his candidacy for President!
Much of the positive attention has come due to Sheriff Arpaio's apparent tough stance on illegal immigration. However, during campaigning, Dan Saban has alleged that this has come at a price. From Arpaio's Challenger: Race Boils Down to Celebrity Vs. Pro, dated March 31, 2008 (I fixed a typo):
Saban said the sheriff's race offers voters a clear choice.
"Do you want a celebrity or do you want a professional law enforcement person? That's what it is," said Saban, who lost to Arpaio four years ago.
[snip]
"We're going to take his (Arpaio's) name off everything. I'm just going to write "your." It's YOUR Maricopa County Sheriff's Office, and I'll be YOUR Maricopa County sheriff.
"There's money put into programs and gimmicks for self-promotion. I'm completely against that. I think the money and the efforts have got to be to provide the basic level of service to the county residents first," he said.
[snip]
Saban said he would cut nearly two-dozen executive staff positions in the office and use that money for crime-fighting efforts, restoring an emphasis on serving outstanding warrants and cutting gang activity. He suggested Arpaio's focus on illegal immigration is excessive.
"If I have two people who are running from me -- one's an undocumented immigrant who's committed no crime, one's a known felon on our list of 40,000 outstanding felony warrants -- the best investment is to get the one we know has committed felony crimes," he said.
So, what is the real story? The question is especially important, considering the lead Maricopa County seems to be taking in dealing with illegal immigrants, and considering that there is a movement to nominate Sheriff Arpaio for Security of Homeland Security (presumably under a Republican administration?), and a small, fledgling movement to have Sheriff Joe occupy the Oval Office itself!
Local Arizona politics will certainly have an impact on immigration, border security, US politics, and even international politics, so I am starting a new label: Arizona Politics.
No comments:
Post a Comment