I initially addressed this topic in a Pit thread, with Arpaio the Pittee, as seems fitting – at least among Dopers, for the most part – but, prowling about the Intertubes, one finds that public opinion is not quite so one-sided and Sheriff Joe does have his defenders, and even admirers. So, let’s give 'em a chance here.
(Peruse the comments at the bottom and you’ll see what I mean.)
And, apparently, the situation in Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office is even worse than the above makes it look; just to take one example of several given here:
Here’s the Complaint. What we call the “prayer clause” at the end –
– demands no money, only a court order to make Arpaio and his department stop doing this shit.
Now, set on the other side (not legally, but politically, socially, etc.) of this are such considerations as states’ rights and local autonomy, which are still important to many Americans, I suppose. Also the consideration of border control; but I don’t see how anything Arpaio or his department has been doing is necessary or helpful to effective border control.
Does anyone care to make a case here that Arpaio should not be sued, or that he has Done the Right Things, or at any rate things a sheriff should be allowed to do?
I’m not a lawyer, but that seems like a might big “if”, no? I read through about half the charges and it seems to me that they’re just trying to throw every conceivable they can think of against him. Much of it seems to assume that the actions were unlawful, based on an overall predetermination of guilt as far as the most severe charges.
Also, much of involves the issue of “profiling” and the degree to which it might make sense and be legal. And, OMG, the officers used discretion. I’d say that if Scandinavians were being included in some of these actions as much as those of Hispanic descent, that would be mind-blowing dumb and the people should be fired for sheer stupidity and incompetence. I do not know if the numbers cited make for a strong case or a weak case. Kind of like a claim that 98% of the people arrested in Harlem in 199X were Black or Hispanic. I’m curious to hear the defense for each of the charges.
So, for now, do not condemn sherif Joe. Clone him.
Paragraph 45 details an instance in which the probable cause reported for the stop was that the car’s occupants were disheveled and wearing dirty clothing and laying on top of one another, but pictures of the stop show “neatly dressed passengers sitting comfortably” in the car.
Assuming that the pictures are as described, and the report says what is alleged – in other words, assuming that the allegations in the complaint are true – what do you imagine an effective defense might be?
First of all, let’s dismiss one issue. Sheriff Joe is extremely anti-illegal immigration and most illegal immigrants in the US are Hispanic and almost all illegal immigrants in Maricopa County are Hispanic. If you are targeting illegal immigration then most of those affected will be Hispanic. That in of itself does not make it racist and leads to conflict like when he raided an outspoken public officials office and arrested illegal immigrants.
Once again, being anti-illegal immigration does not mean being racist or anti-Hispanic!!!
That being said, Phoenix was one of the most racist places I’ve ever been in and Sheriff Joe reflects that [DigitalC]. I think he does hassle Hispanics in the name of illegal immigration. I think Joe is also a lightning rod for all of the contraversy of illegal immigration. Remember above the raid on another public official’s office? Of course that guy talked about racism and Arpaio overstepping his bounds but he completely ignored that he had employed illegal immigrants in violation of state and Federal law. And this statement in the OP
Wherefore are illegal immigrants entitled to Constitutional protection? I know SCOTUS gave them those protections as they are considered “residents” under the 14th Amendment but we are rapidly drifting into “illegal immigrants” = “citizens without papers” territory and Sheriff Joe objects to that. BUT even if you agree with him on that you can’t agree with him on targeting all Hispanics to try to catch them.
I am a lawyer and that’s exactly how you draft a complaint, whether you’re suing a government official or the guy who rear-ended your client. Every count you can think of and think you can prove goes in.
See above. Of course the party bringing the suit will assert the law is on his side on every point.
No, it shouldn’t. In fact, however, you know as well as I do that if the illegal-immigration pressure were coming from Canada instead of Mexico, the Minutemen would not exist, and you never would have heard of any Arpaio-analogue in any border county of North Dakota.
Well, if it’s as you describe, I’d say the only defense is that whoever wrote the report is insane. It seems to be a blatant lie. My guess is that there are some individual instances where the cops acted inappropriately,and even illegally. I’m sure that happens in just about any large place department. And when it does, I’m all for punishing the individuals to the fullest extent of the law. And then some. But what I think is happening here is that they’re taking every possible situation which maybe could be construed as inappropriate behavior and broad brushing all of them with “racist!”. And it’s all based on people’s disagreement with Arizona’s law and Arpaio’s tough stance on crime and his being tasked to use the law as a tool to help address Maricopa County’s illegal immigrant problem.
It’s not really a legal problem, it’s a philosophical difference. and his opponents are using the law to bludgeon him. Damn lawyers.
Yeah, I’m aware of that. But tell me, is it common that SO MANY things would be thrown in? (I’m surprised that preference away from Mexican food wasn’t thrown in.) I’s think a judge would find that highly annoying. I know I wold. Charge the guy for the actual things he did wrong and call it a day. Just because he may be guilty of doing something wrong doesn’t mean he does everything wrong. But if it, as you say, is common, how common might it be that the lawyers bringing the suit get bitch slapped by the judged?
But thanks for the instructive answers.
I explained what I meant in that same paragraph in which what you quoted appeared.
Yes. And now Arpaio’s lawyers get to prepare a motion for summary judgment as to each count where they think they have a good argument; that’s how it works.
You have to bring a frivolous count to annoy a judge (and violate rules of professional ethics). A frivolous count is a purely talking-out-your-ass count on which you could never hope to win on any facts.
See above. In a DoJ lawsuit it is, I should think, extremely rare; they have the best lawyers anywhere.
