Archive for September, 2007

MCSO appeals View’s victory

Saturday, September 8th, 2007

West Valley View
8/4/07

MCSO appeals View’s victory

Robin N. Clayton
staff writer

The Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office has appealed a Maricopa County Superior Court ruling made early last month ordering it to provide press releases to the West Valley View.
“It is just more of a waste of time for the Sheriff’s Office,” View attorney Dan Barr said.

The View filed a lawsuit against the Sheriff’s Office last March after Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s failure to respond to several public records requests by the View, including requests for press releases routinely sent to other media agencies across the county, but denied to the View.

At a June 28 hearing, Superior Court Judge Margaret H. Downie ruled against the Sheriff’s Office and Arpaio, ordering the agency to provide press releases to the View at the same time it provides them to other news media.

“The judge recognized that the Sheriff’s Office was being petty in its actions,” Barr said.

The Sheriff’s Office is now asking for the appeals court to reconsider Downie’s decision that the releases must be made available to the View at the same time as other media and that a request for all future press releases is sufficient under the public records law.

“It is the [blanket] request for future press releases they are challenging, instead of at the end of the day the View saying, ‘Send us all of today’s press releases,’” Barr said.

“A request for all future press releases is clear, unambiguous, and without undue burden on MCSO. Moreover, such a prospective request is the only feasible way for a media outlet with time-sensitive deadlines to otherwise obtain press releases in a timely manner,” Downie wrote in her ruling.

Arpaio’s office routinely e-mails press releases to news agencies, but the View is not included on that list.

Arpaio’s Public Information Officer, Lt. Paul Chagolla, refused to place the View on the Sheriff’s Office’s media e-mail distribution list, telling View Managing Editor Jim Painter last November it was because “it’s my prerogative to do so,” the lawsuit states.

Arpaio’s refusal to add the View to the Sheriff’s Office’s e-mail distribution list “appears petty,” but does not violate any laws, Downie said in her decision.

“It would obviously be simpler, more professional, and less costly for all involved (including Maricopa County taxpayers) for the Sheriff’s Office to, with a few keystrokes, add the West Valley View to its e-mail distribution list,” Downie said in her ruling.

Painter called the appeal “ridiculous.”

“All it would take for the Sheriff’s Office to add the West Valley View to its press release list would be to type in an e-mail address. It wouldn’t cost anything, it wouldn’t take much time, and we would get the same press releases every other newspaper gets,” he said.

The Court of Appeals will set up a briefing schedule for the case and possible oral arguments, Barr said.

“The court may or may not want to hear oral argument in the case, but they will issue an opinion regardless,” he said.

Barr said he hopes to have a ruling by early next year, depending on the court’s schedule, and possibly sooner if oral arguments are not requested.

Getting the news to West Valley residents and county taxpayers is the important thing, Painter said.

“Residents of the West Valley would be better served if they knew what kind of criminal activity was happening in their neighborhoods and how Sheriff Arpaio was dealing with it – if in fact he is dealing with it at all,” Painter said.

“At this point we have no idea if he is actually solving crimes in our area because he won’t tell us anything about what is going on. For all we know, he is sitting on his butt doing nothing and criminals are running loose because he is not taking the responsibility that he was elected to take and capturing any criminals out here,” he said.

Robin Clayton can be reached by e-mail at rclayton@westvalleyview.com.

People 2, Arpaio 0

Saturday, September 8th, 2007

West Valley View
9/8/07

People 2, Arpaio 0

View report

An Arizona Appeals Court judge has ruled in favor of the West Valley View in its legal battle with the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office over the sheriff’s’ refusal to send press releases to the View.
The Sheriff’s Office appealed an earlier court decision in which a trial judge ruled that the Sheriff’s Office must provide the releases to the View at the same time it sends them to other news media organizations.

The Appeals Court judge upheld a lower court’s decision.

The appellate court judge also reversed the trial judge’s decision not to award the View attorney’s fees and costs from the original trial, and has ordered the Sheriff’s Office to pay attorneys fees and costs at both the trial and appellate levels.

To read the judge’s decison on the Web, visit www.cofad1.state.az.us/opinionfiles/CV/CV060549

Sheriff’s ego costs us all

Saturday, September 8th, 2007

West Valley View
8/21/07
Sheriff’s ego costs us all
Twice now, the courts have ruled that the Maricopa County sheriff should make press releases available to this newspaper – the same press releases he sends to other Valley media outlets as well as to some nationally known conservative pundits. Twice now, the sheriff has told the judges he will not do so, and has now stated his intention to appeal last Thursday’s Court of Appeals’ decision to the Arizona Supreme Court.
For many people reading this the issue might seem to be one of a battle of a stubborn newspaper vs. an equally stubborn public official, but actually several important issues are at stake:

Fiscal responsibility. By continuing to fight this impossible-to-win battle in the courts, the sheriff is squandering public funds that could be used for more worthwhile endeavors.
What would it take for him to avoid spending even more public money in his appeal to the Arizona Supreme Court? The answer: Simply having one of his many public information officers make 24 keystrokes on a computer keyboard. All he has to do is type news1@westvalleyview.com into the Sheriff’s Office’s e-mail address book. That’s all there is to it. We’ve timed it. It takes all of five seconds for someone with only average typing skills.

Court fights like this cost both sides tens of thousands of dollars in attorneys’ fees, which ultimately county taxpayers will have to pay as the sheriff loses one appeal after another.

Public safety. It benefits us all to know when child predators are stalking children in our neighborhoods and near our schools. It benefits us all to know the status of homicide cases in our communities. If your neighbor were murdered, you’d probably want to know if he were the random victim of serial killer, because if he were, you could be next. It benefits us all to know if the people we elect to serve and protect us are doing their job.
But the Maricopa County sheriff refuses to provide you such information because he doesn’t like the West Valley View.

By refusing to release such information to this newspaper, our sheriff is placing all of our lives at risk. His disdain for the West Valley View translates to a disdain for you, the people who depend on him for protection from criminals, the people who voted him into office and the people whose tax dollars make it possible for him to do whatever it is he does on our behalf.

Freedom of speech and a free press. If any court were to rule in the sheriff’s favor in this case, it would send the message to all public officials that it’s OK for them to play favorites when it comes to disseminating public information to news media. If that were to happen, journalists would be afraid to publicly criticize public officials for fear that they would be cut off from the supply of information.
The West Valley View isn’t the only news outlet Sheriff Joe Arpaio has shunned because he’s not happy with their reporting or their editorials; he’s also cut off the Sonoran News, the Phoenix New Times and KPNX Channel 12. He provides press releases and access to crime reports only to news media that cater to his thirst for pro-Arpaio publicity.

If the courts were to rule in his favor, they would open the door to such behavior for all elected officials. If that were to happen, newspapers would be fearful to write editorials or publish news stories critical of any public official from local school boards to the White House.

Furthermore, if government officials can get away with denying the press access to public records, they can also deny the average citizen access to public records. If your home has ever been burglarized or if you’ve ever been involved in a serious automobile accident, you know how important it is to have access to police reports.

Government by the people would cease to exist under conditions in which government officials could pick and choose which members of the public they were going to give information to. People cannot govern themselves or make educated decisions at the polls when the only information they get from their news sources is pro-government propaganda.

FEDS PROBE ALLEGED ABUSE IN COUNTY JAILJOE ARPAIO’S FAMOUS JAIL

Saturday, September 8th, 2007

FEDS PROBE ALLEGED ABUSE IN COUNTY JAILJOE ARPAIO’S FAMOUS JAIL IS NOW THE SUBJECT OF A JUSTICE DEPARTMENT INVESTIGATION INTO POSSIBLE CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS
By Amy Silverman
Published: August 31, 1995

Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio likes to boast about all the attention he receives from the national media, mostly for the spartan life of jail inmates. Now his jails are the focus of a different kind of national spotlight–an investigation by the United States Department of Justice.

New Times has learned that the civil rights division of the Justice Department is investigating whether the constitutional rights of Maricopa County jail detainees and inmates are being violated.

In a letter to county officials dated August 8, Deval Patrick, Assistant U.S. Attorney General for Civil Rights, announced that the investigation would be conducted under a federal civil statute which allows for investigations of patterns of abuse and other inappropriate treatment in jails and prisons.

Arizona U.S. Attorney Janet Napolitano, whose office is assisting in the investigation, says, “While I cannot comment on the actual allegations that gave rise to [the investigation], they have nothing to do with the more publicly known policies of the jail, like the no coffee, the tents, the baloney sandwiches. That is not what this investigation is about at all.”

According to the August 8 letter, the investigation will focus on, but will not be limited to, allegations received by the Justice Department regarding:

ù physical abuse of inmates by staff
ù inadequate supervision of staff
ù staff and administrative failure to address allegations of physical abuse
ù failure to discipline staff found to have abused detainees and inmates
ù false reporting regarding use of force and allegations of abuse
ù denial of access to counsel
ù inadequate medical care

Deval explains that attorneys from his office and the Arizona U.S. Attorney’s Office will review documents and inspect the jail facilities, which include Madison Street Jail, Durango Towers, Estrella Jail and Tent City.

Arpaio, who received a copy of the letter, says he’s aware of the investigation (he insists on calling it an “inquiry”) but says the attorneys have not begun their review yet. Arpaio says he welcomes them.

He says, “I was a high Justice [Department] official with the DEA [Drug Enforcement Administration]. If I can let all the press from around the world come into the jail and talk to the inmates and everything, I’m sure not one to hide anything.”

However, Sergeant John Kleinheinz, a public information officer for the Sheriff’s Office, tells New Times his office will not release inmate complaints regarding jail personnel if the complaints were processed through the office’s internal affairs division.

Arpaio says, “I’ve taken action already” with regard to alleged assaults by jail staff. He says he’s fired two guards in the past three months, and the men will be prosecuted. In addition, Arpaio says, he’s released a training video on the use of force that each guard is required to see.

One case that remains unresolved involves a detainee named Eric Johnson. According to reports in the daily press, a security camera inside the Madison Street Jail videotaped an incident in which a jailer and two other detention officers slammed Johnson against a wall and broke his arm. Johnson was being held on a traffic warrant.

The video was aired on the CBS Evening News. According to the daily’s account, when asked about whether he was aware of the incident, Arpaio replied, “No, I’m not, but so what? . . . I’m sure that my officers had a reason to slam him against the cellblock.”

Kevin VanNorman, one of the attorneys representing Johnson, says Johnson’s claim against the county has not been resolved. He calls Arpaio “a sheriff who doesn’t care about his inmates in the sense of how they are treated. He doesn’t care if they are physically abused or beaten.”

Justice Department officials refused to comment on the specifics of the investigation. Justice spokesman Myron Marlin says it’s typical to notify officials of such an investigation before it begins. He says that once an investigation is completed, jail officials receive 49 days to resolve the matter. The Justice Department can ask the courts to issue an order to tell jail/prison officials to correct conditions deemed unconstitutional.

As of April, 3,081 of the Maricopa County jails’ 5,118 inmates had not been convicted of a crime. Observers say the percentage is even higher now. Arpaio says the jail system set a new record on Monday–the total number of inmates has grown to 6,050.

Napolitano says she’s received full cooperation from everyone involved–including the county Board of Supervisors, County Attorney’s Office and Arpaio. She says, “We’ve all agreed that what we’re interested in is running a strict but safe jail.

Joe Enhancement Fund

Saturday, September 8th, 2007

Joe Enhancement Fund
Sheriff Arpaio used jail-enhancement funds to pay for a lawsuit and videos of hisTV appearances
By Tony Ortega
Published: February 8, 1996

When Sheriff Joe Arpaio sued the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors in 1994, challenging its authority to cut his budget, the action was widely viewed as a publicity stunt.

Not so, argued the sheriff, assuring the public that he was entirely serious. Besides, Arpaio pointed out, taxpayers wouldn’t pay for his constitutional hubris. He claimed his legal fees would be paid by the Maricopa County Deputies Association, a fraternal group, not the public.

Records obtained from the Sheriff’s Office last week indicate otherwise.
Between December 1994 and April 1995, four payments totaling $39,350 were made to the firm which handled Arpaio’s lawsuit–payments that were drawn on the county’s Jail Enhancement Fund, a special source of public money.

Arpaio’s payments to his lawyer were among several questionable expenditures made from this fund, which is overseen by the state Department of Corrections. Collected from surcharges on traffic violations and other infractions, the money is distributed to Arizona’s sheriffs specifically for the enhancement of jail facilities, jail operations and the training of detention officers. During fiscal 1994-95, $2.36 million was distributed statewide; Maricopa County’s share was $718,000.

Other sheriffs say they use the money conservatively, carefully justifying expenditures as plainly jail-related. But records of Maricopa County’s uses of the fund since the sheriff took office in 1993 show a willingness by Arpaio to stretch that definition.

And he’s had little reason not to. Vague statutes, lenient state officials and a lack of legislative oversight have allowed Arpaio to interpret “jail enhancement” widely.

Take his payments to Newscount Inc., for example.
Arpaio pays an average of $900 each month to the video news-clipping service. Since March 1994, Newscount has provided Arpaio with copies of his appearances on PrimeTime Live, Nightline and other programs. Total expenditures for this service from the Jail Enhancement Fund to date: $11,249.15.

Arpaio claims the Newscount service is not only jailrelated, but absolutely essential.

“A lot of things are said in the jails that can be used against you in a civil suit,” Arpaio tells New Times. “I go through the jail, I live in tents, I interrelate with the prisoners. They scream at me, I scream at them. I want to know what they say, and I want to know what I say. I want to know what the press reports. This is a way to protect myself when certain allegations are made.”

When told of Arpaio’s spending of jail-enhancement money for copies of his TV appearances, the state official charged with overseeing the fund does a double take. “He spent it on what?” Larry Beddome asks.

Beddome’s title is intergovernmental liaison, and he’s overseen the Jail Enhancement Fund for the Department of Corrections since the fund was created by the Legislature in 1982. When Arizona sheriffs want an opinion about an expenditure of jail-enhancement money, they call Beddome. In general, he says, he goes along with the borderline cases.

But Beddome says he had no idea that Arpaio has paid Newscount, and he admits that it sounds out of bounds.

“Well, he’s the one that approved it,” Arpaio says of Beddome during an interview last week also attended by four of the sheriff’s subordinates.

“If he didn’t like those, he would have called us,” says Deputy Chief Tim Overton.

“We would hope that he would,” adds Deputy Chief Larry Wendt. “… all of these jail-enhancement funds pass through the DOC before they come to us. And then our report on how we spend them goes to the DOC.”

But copies of the county’s last three annual reports to Beddome’s office make no mention of the Newscount payments. That’s why Beddome hadn’t heard of them until New Times obtained a list of jail-enhancement expenditures.

Beddome says he doesn’t see line-item expenditures of jail-enhancement money from sheriffs because the paperwork would bury him. Besides, he says, even if he didn’t like the way a sheriff spent the money, there’s little he can do about it. That’s up to the Legislature, which gets its reports on the fund from the auditor general.

A spokesman for the Auditor General’s Office says that sheriff’s offices are only audited once every three years, and those audits don’t always include jail-enhancement funds. Maricopa County’s use of the fund hasn’t been audited since January 1993, Arpaio’s first month in office.

Although he says he had no cluethat Arpaio was paying Newscount, Larry Beddome says he was aware of the sheriff’s payments to his lawyer.

Arpaio mounted his legal challenge to the Board of Supervisors’ authority after it cut the sheriff’s 1994-95 budget by $5 million. In January 1995, a judge ruled against the sheriff, and Arpaio, after vowing to appeal, dropped the matter in April.

Arpaio says he was telling the truth on September 16, 1994, when he told an Arizona Republic reporter that no public funds would go to the lawyer, Robert Yen, who represented the sheriff in his lawsuit. He says it became apparent two months later that the Deputies Association wouldn’t be able to cover the legal fees. So Arpaio says he looked for an alternative source of funds.

It was then, he says, that he contacted Beddome to check the legality of using jail-enhancement funds. Beddome okayed the expenditure in a letter he sent the sheriff.

But Beddome’s letter was dated July 19, 1994, nearly two months before Arpaio even filed the lawsuit. So when Arpaio told the media on September 16 that he did not intend to use public money on his lawsuit, he’d already checked with Beddome to make sure he could.

“Why would we go [to Beddome] two months before [we filed the case] when wehad the Deputies Association?” Arpaio says. “That’s not the case. That came in after we ran out of money with the Deputies Association.”

At this point in the interview, two of the sheriff’s subordinates came to his rescue: Wendt and Overton claim they had communicated with Beddome without Arpaio’s knowledge.

When New Times asked for the letter sent to Beddome inquiring about spending jail-enhancement funds on the lawsuit, Overton said the clerk who would have a copy of it was out sick. Beddome said he couldn’t locate the original letter, but is looking for it.

Arpaio refuses to say how much the Deputies Association–which is funded in part by deputies’ dues–paid Yen before the sheriff began dipping into the public fund. A spokesman for the association says those records will take some time to retrieve.

Even after being shown Beddome’s July 19 letter, Arpaio insisted that it was only after his lawsuit was filed on September 16 and after Deputies Association money ran out that he first checked into spending jail-enhancement funds.

“That’s when we discussed it with our attorney, who said it was legal,” the sheriff says. But when pressed to confirm that Yen had assured the legality of spending public funds on the lawsuit, Arpaio backpedals.

“I don’t know. I’m not sure he said it was legal,” the sheriff says.
So where did the sheriff get a legal opinion on the matter?
“We got it from Beddome, right?” Arpaio asks his aides. “Beddome is the guy you talked to?”

Beddome says he did, in fact, get a “legal opinion” on using JEF money to fund Arpaio’s lawsuit–from some attorney general’s staffers he consulted in a bar during a Flagstaff retreat. He says they said it sounded fine to them, and for Beddome that was good enough.

Beddome says that as far as he knows, there is no written opinion by an attorney confirming the legality of Arpaio’s use of public money to sue the county Board of Supervisors.

Arpaio says he doesn’t understand what all the fuss is about. “This is not taxpayers’ money, this is coming out of the prisoners,” he says. “All this stuff is not taxpayers’ money, so, you know, this is great when you can use prisoners’ fines.

“When we think of taxpayers’ funds, we’re thinking more or less of the general fund; you know, county funds. So we can argue the point whether that’s taxpayers’ money or not. I look at taxpayers’ money in the sense of when you pay taxes and it goes into general funds versus whether you receive money directly from fines and so on. So that’s a matter of argument.”

It’s an argument the sheriff is likely to lose. In a 1992 auditor general’s report, there’s no ambiguity about the nature of the money: “As the Jail Enhancement Fund monies meet this definition of ‘public money,’ the Sheriff’s Office is wholly accountable to the citizens of the State,” it reads.

The auditor general is scheduled to examine Arpaio’s use of the Jail Enhancement Fund later this year.

Mutiny At The County

Saturday, September 8th, 2007

Mutiny At The County
Sheriff Arpaio’s deputies say his vaunted posse does little more than waste money and slake their boss’s thirst for publicity
By Tony Ortega
Published: April 25, 1996

Maricopa County taxpayers have paid for the training of 2,694 badge-carrying men and women who make up Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s posse. They have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to train 800 of those posse members to shoot straight.

Yet only 21 warm bodies fill chairs this morning at the Durango Complex.
It’s the second Saturday of Arpaio’s posse drug-bust program, Operation Rolling Thunder, but few posse members have rolled out of bed.

They’re scattered sparsely in a sea of folding chairs, some in plain clothes, others dressed to look exactly like sheriff’s deputies. Most carry sidearms.

Sergeant Rich Rosky of the narcotics division is shuffling papers at a podium. It’s the sworn officer’s job to give the posse morning assignments, and he looks like he’d rather be elsewhere.

He asks the 19 men and two women if anyone would volunteer to answer phones. There’s an agonized silence and some squirming in the folding chairs, and Rosky must cajole them. Finally, a volunteer raises his hand.

The rest, hoping for meatier assignments, breathe a collective sigh of relief.

Rosky then gets the attention of the two women, who sit several rows away from each other.

“I’m going to pair you two together. It’s not a sexist thing, but I figure you two can talk to each other,” he says.

“That is a sexist thing,” one of the women answers.
Giggles wash over the room. The women end up paired together, but they take it good-naturedly, filing out with the rest of the posse to the unmarked cars waiting outside.

Rosky has grouped them into teams that will transport suspects arrested by narcotics officers. Other teams will roam freely, waiting to hear about busts going down. Then they’ll speed to the scene to back up the sworn deputies.

The posse members lucky enough to get this detail are introducing themselves to one another and shaking hands. They tend to be the ones dressed most like deputies, and they stride out of the building in anticipation.

You can almost feel the sworn officers crossing their fingers.
In the three years since Arpaio announced his intention to build up the county’s civilian posse and put it in law enforcement situations, critics have warned of the day that a rash volunteer pulls his weapon and kills someone.

That probably won’t happen soon. Only a small number of the most dedicated volunteers actually turn up regularly for posse programs, and most of the time they’re simply transporting prisoners, answering telephones or selling pink underwear.

Besides, the posse’s already caused plenty of damage without firing a shot. At least that’s what some of the sheriff’s severest critics say.

They say Arpaio has misled the public about the cost and effectiveness of the posse, and that he’s done it solely to boost his popularity. He’s crassly cashed in on the volunteerism of thousands of concerned citizens while putting real law enforcement in jeopardy, particularly in the county’s unincorporated areas.

These critics should know what they’re talking about. They work for Arpaio.
In the past six months, New Times has interviewed dozens of deputies, both active and recently retired, from every division of the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office. They tell of a severe and widespread crisis in morale and a general lack of respect for “America’s toughest sheriff.”

Arpaio’s sworn officers say that law enforcement has taken a back seat to public relations and the posse.

Public records bear them out. Between 1992, the last year of Sheriff Tom Agnos’ administration, and 1994, Arpaio’s second year as sheriff, training hours for posse members increased 6,000 percent. Training the posse has become the primary task of the department’s training division, displacing instruction for enforcement officers, jail detention officers and civilian staff.

Deputies say that while Arpaio tells the public the posse saves the county millions, the opposite–that it has actually cost taxpayers millions–is true. After Arpaio launched his first Christmas season mall patrol in 1993, sworn officers were sufficiently concerned about this duplicity that some of them leaked news about it to the press. Pressured by the leaks, Arpaio called for an internal audit of the program: It showed that the “free” six-week holiday program cost the county $160,000.

Deputies also charge that most of the money spent for posse training is wasted. Officers heavily involved in training say that eight in ten posse members disappear after finishing training and never donate any time to the department. A dedicated posse man who donates more than 1,000 hours of his time each year calls 80 percent a conservative figure, and says getting posse members out for what they call “Joe shows”–posse events staged for media–is like pulling teeth.

Arpaio predicted that Operation Rolling Thunder would mobilize 1,000 posse members; records show that 100 turned out on the first day and the numbers dwindled quickly thereafter. By the fourth week of the highly publicized program, an average of nine posse members was showing up each day to help bust drug dealers. That’s nine of 2,694, or 0.3 percent.

Perhaps most important, the shift in Sheriff’s Office resources to the posse–”Joe’s sacred cow,” according to one retired deputy–has come just as the agency has been put under severe budget restraints. At a time when Arpaio has complained about budget cuts threatening his ability to perform mandated functions (he went so far as to sue the county Board of Supervisors in 1994, saying that he’d have to close jails unless he got more money), he has poured the department’s energy into building up his private civilian army.

Deputies say that shift of resources has had real impact for sworn officers. Advanced training programs have been cut and pay increases are on hold. They say the shift has also put the county’s residents in unincorporated areas at risk: Patrol districts are asked to donate men and vehicles to posse programs targeting incorporated areas where more voters live, and where the press is more likely to pay attention.

And the press has obliged, responding uncritically and perpetuating the notion that Arpaio’s “2,700-strong posse” is acting en masse, throwing bad guys in jail left and right, saving the county millions.

Now the sheriff is holding up his posse as a model for the rest of the country. His book, America’s Toughest Sheriff, repeats his bogus claims for a nationwide audience, encouraging readers to start posses in their own hometowns. At book signings, Arpaio is congratulated and adored, the champion of a public that thinks his programs are effective at fighting crime.

Arpaio’s employees say it isn’t so. And they’re letting him know it.

When Joe Arpaio sits down for an interview, he can’t wait to describe the gun battles he’s survived. Turkey. Mexico. Panama. Name the country, he dodged bullets there when he was an agent for the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration.

What he’s less apt to discuss are the pot shots his own employees have taken at him.

Like the time he and his wife, Ava, returned from a European vacation. It was 1976 or 1977 (Arpaio’s unsure on that point after so many years), and the couple had landed at Boston’s Logan Airport after a flight from Rome. Customs officials, alerted by someone inside DEA to look for a drug runner named Joe Arpaio, detained the couple and interrogated them.

The Arpaios’ luggage was searched and it was some time before Arpaio’s story–that he was a narcotics agent, not a smuggler–checked out.

Arpaio’s former DEA colleagues say he spent the rest of his career there trying to find out which of his employees set him up for the humiliating prank. He still doesn’t know.

“These things you go through when you’re a manager quite often, or when you’re a sheriff or the head of an agency and so on, so that didn’t bother me. But it was a little comical,” he says, sounding more annoyed than amused.

Arpaio is sitting behind his desk, looking haggard; the night before, he was in California to film an episode of Comedy Central’s Politically Incorrect. Never mind that the host called him America’s “stupidest sheriff”–the cable-TV program provided the national exposure he craves. And Arpaio makes it plain that the next journalist is champing to get into his large, wood-paneled office to interview “America’s toughest sheriff.”

But he has enough time to acknowledge that, yes, the Logan Airport story is true. “Yeah, yeah, it was a prank. Yeah, okay. So what?” he asks. He’s incredulous that his men are spreading this story around. “In 1996 someone mentioned that happened, that someone searched my luggage? How the hell? Was it in my book?” (It isn’t.)

If Arpaio were truly the toughest sheriff in America, few of his employees would likely find fault with him. In the mock-military culture of law enforcement, where majors and captains give orders to lieutenants and sergeants, there’s no shortage of machismo. But Maricopa County’s deputies, like anyone who spends more than a few minutes with Joseph M. Arpaio, know that the labels attached to him–variations on the “mean” and “tough” themes–are completely inappropriate.

Arpaio isn’t tough or mean. Bellicose, maybe. In person, the pudgy 62-year-old seems more frail than frightening. Deputies say they’ve been instructed to take it easy if they’re ever transporting the sheriff in their patrol cars.

The toughness thing is an act, and even Arpaio seems fully aware of it. One minute he’s an avuncular paisan who misses the old days when a lawman and a reporter could talk over cigars in a dimly lit tavern. The next minute he’s a self-righteous social reformer shouting most of the get-tough slogans he shouted at four other reporters earlier that day.

That his deputies are talking about him, and not in the kindest terms, doesn’t seem to faze him. Arpaio brushes it off as the grumblings of “two or three disgruntled employees.”

“That’s normal in any organization. But since the deputies association, the Fraternal Order of Police, and the AFSCME, all the unions support the sheriff, I feel pretty good that I have the major support of my troops.”

But when it comes to disgruntled employees–armed, no less–the U.S. Postal Service has nothing on the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office.

“I can’t believe the people of this county think this guy is as great as they do,” says retired deputy chief Bill Miller. “They never sit in morning staff meetings and listen to this guy slapping and pounding the table, acting like an idiot and chewing people out because one of his men talked to the media at a crime scene.” Arpaio’s obsession with controlling press coverage–so that it focuses entirely on him–has worn down the people around him, Miller says.

Miller and other present and former officers portray Arpaio as so consumed with the fear of news leaks that he pursues “dime droppers”–law enforcement cant for officers who speak privately with reporters–with a single-minded viciousness. (When a copy of the Sheriff’s Office internal video magazine was leaked to the press in 1994, Arpaio reportedly went ballistic. He fired staff videographer Gary Josephson, saying publicly that budget shortfalls were to blame. News reports contend Arpaio got the wrong man–another source had leaked the tape–and Josephson is still fighting to get his job back.)

But as Arpaio scrambles to plug the leaks, an increasing number of deputies are coming forward to speak–albeit anonymously–about the crisis facing the Sheriff’s Office. Few are in as good a position as Miller to judge how widely the discontent had spread in the ranks.

“Morale was shitty. It was bad. I was working as watch commander at night. I was out there with the deputies. I was in the jails. I was all over this county. . . . There was just no respect for this man.”

Morale has deteriorated so badly that even Arpaio can’t ignore it, Miller says. In January, at the same time opinion polls identified Arpaio as the state’s most popular elected official, he was so unpopular with his own deputies that he embarked on a four-week, morale-boosting tour in his patrol districts.

At the first stop on his tour–the District 2 substation in Avondale–Arpaio miscalculated badly, giving his deputies essentially the same tough-on-crime stump speech he gives to reporters or Rotary Clubs every day.

“He bangs his chest for 45 minutes and says, ‘You owe your jobs to me,’” says one officer. Arpaio’s arrogance, he says, made the deputies madder than ever.

Attendance at the meeting was mandatory. “If it wasn’t,” says another District 2 deputy, “we wouldn’t have shown up. Arpaio’s lost all respect with us.”

News that the meeting had been a tense one, and that several deputies had made their frustrations plain, spread to the other districts. Things were smoother during the next week’s meeting–in Mesa’s substation–but a deputy there says the district’s captain had made it clear that his men weren’t to embarrass Arpaio, as the Avondale law officers had.

Arpaio’s third stop took him to Sun City and patrol District 3. Concerned about confronting the sheriff directly, District 3 officers anonymously printed up a list of questions for the sheriff. New Times obtained a copy of the list several days before the meeting.

“Why do we have to constantly do their job?” reads one question, referring to the Phoenix Police Department. “Why can’t we concentrate on criminal activity in the county? Contrary to what you tell the press, you aren’t chasing hookers out of Arizona, only to adjacent streets,” a reference to the sheriff’s use of the posse to target prostitutes on Van Buren Street in 1994 and 1995.

“Will the $380,000 profit from those awful pink shorts be used to train posse, so the sworn people can have their training budget back?” reads another. Deputies say that the posse’s moneymaker–souvenir pink shorts that commemorate Arpaio’s gimmick of dyeing inmate underwear pink, ostensibly to keep it from being stolen–is an embarrassment to the department. They’re wildly popular with the public, but the deputy who wrote this question exaggerated their profitability (as does Arpaio every chance he gets). It’s true that gross sales of the pink underwear have exceeded $400,000, but profits have only reached about $170,000.

Still, that’s quite a pile of cash. Arpaio says the Posse Foundation plans to use it to reimburse the posse for such expenses as gasoline used in the mall patrols, but it’s only spent $3,000 for that so far. Twice as much was spent on a half-page ad that appeared in the Arizona Republic during Super Bowl week; the ad warned visitors not to commit crimes. It was widely seen as more political ad than crime deterrent.

The sheriff says he doesn’t remember being presented with questions at District 3. When a reporter hands him a copy of the list, Arpaio says he’s never seen it.

Two District 3 deputies tell New Times that Arpaio did read from the questions, but only the less controversial ones–such as a concern about overweight members of the command staff and the posse hurting the agency’s image.

At one point, a deputy stood up and put it directly to the sheriff–what was he going to do about their concerns about the posse? The deputy said that he and his colleagues had no quarrel with the traditional “mission” posses–the search-and-rescue organizations and community watchdog groups which existed before Arpaio took office–but with the “Arpaio posses,” which were created recently and have drained the department’s precious resources.

The District 3 deputies say Arpaio launched into a long justification of his posses, telling the men and women that they should be proud of them, especially with the posse concept poised to spread all over the globe. Deputies quote Arpaio as saying, “When you use the word ‘posse,’ automatically you get the headlines. Automatically. It’s that magic word, ‘posse.’”

During a subsequent interview, Arpaio elaborates on his response: “I did mention that every time we use the posse for a program, the press seems to emphasize the posse.” But he denies saying it in the context of justifying the posse’s existence. “We were talking about the news media and my response was, unfortunately, every time the posse does something, the press seems to pick up on it. But when a deputy does something, they don’t even print it. . . . That was what I was saying. It wasn’t that we were using posses to get the press.”

The deputies say Arpaio made it clear the posse program would proceed at full tilt. They say he did throw them a bone, however, promising to work hard to get them a long-awaited raise.

Right after he’s reelected, that is.
Arpaio denies the charge, saying he’s never used a pay raise as a bargaining chip to get his deputies’ support.

Later, during the District 3 meeting, Arpaio asked a retired officer in the front row if he’d concealed a tape recorder. Deputies say the man responded by standing, unzipping his trousers and exposing himself.

The incident produced some nervous laughter, which increased after the retiree delivered the punch line: “It wanted your autograph.”

As was the case with the deputies’ questions–and is the case with almost any unflattering event–Arpaio doesn’t recall being flashed in front of the District 3 deputies. “I don’t remember a guy exposing himself, no. If they did, they did. They were having a barbecue and beer, I believe, just prior to that. I don’t know if the guy had too many beers, if he did that. But why would a retired deputy be there? I don’t know. And if he’s retired, maybe that tells you something. If he did that, he should be retired.”

About a quarter of the book America’s Toughest Sheriff is devoted to Maricopa County’s posse, sandwiched between a section on Arpaio’s famous tent jail and shoot-’em-up stories from his narc days.

Len Sherman, the co-author, approached his neighbor Joe Arpaio about a book in 1994, shortly after he had moved to Arizona from his native New York. He found Arpaio wary. Not, he says, because the sheriff wasn’t ready for national exposure, but because, well, Arpaio doesn’t have much use for books.

“Why is anyone going to buy this book?” Sherman says Arpaio asked him. “You go to bookstores and they’re filled with books–nobody’s buying them.”

Sherman finally convinced the sheriff that the book would give him a way to spread his message about fighting crime without having to go through pesky reporters. (The two of them are particularly proud of a chapter that rails against the media, which is ironic, given that local media have been unabashed cheerleaders for Arpaio.)

The toughest task that faced Sherman, and the one at which he was ultimately most successful, was putting the sheriff’s ideas into writing while preserving the sheriff’s inimitable voice. Occasionally, however, Sherman’s own ideas take over.

It was his notion, for example, to begin the posse section with a chapter on search-and-rescue missions. He says he wrote it for the book’s national audience, which he guessed would appreciate an introduction to the traditional sense of the posse.

The chapter contains a heartwarming story of a posse man flying his own plane–on his own time and at his own expense–to find two travelers stranded in the desert.

This is not an Arpaio innovation.
A volunteer search-and-rescue force was the role of the posse before Joe Arpaio took office on January 1, 1993. And, unanimously, deputies and other employees who agreed to talk with New Times say that, unlike “Joe’s posses,” the so-called “mission posses” continue to fulfill their roles admirably. They include the men and women who scour the desert for missing people, the retirees who patrol Sun City, and the divers who can be counted on to plunge into the county’s lakes on a moment’s notice.

Arpaio changed this traditional posse focus with a massive redirection of agency resources that puts volunteers in actual law enforcement situations and makes them as much like real deputies as possible. The idea stirred the Arizona imagination, and soon volunteers were flooding the department to get into training programs.

So many joined that new posses had to be invented to take them. Maricopa County’s posse is actually 53 separate posses of varying size, all under the authority of the sheriff. “Joe’s posses” were created to bring in the new kind of volunteer–the gung-ho crime fighter who wants to wear a gun and a badge. They include the “operations” and “community services” posses, two generically named groups that typify the new influx of volunteers. Arpaio aggressively recruited new posse members with billboards and splashy media events, proudly trumpeting how many Valley residents were answering his call.

What he didn’t tell the public, deputies say, is how much of a burden the flood of volunteers put on the department.

“The bigger the posse gets, the more resources it requires,” says John Thompson, who retired with the rank of major in 1994. “You end up pulling sworn officers away from what they should be doing. Then you’re in deep kimchee.”

The posse buildup was in full swing when he left, Thompson says, and he could see that it was taking its toll on the sworn personnel.

It gives him a sense of deja vu.
In the mid-’70s, Thompson worked for Paul Blubaum, another sheriff who increased the role of the posse. Blubaum gave posse members rank and allowed them to wear insignia during ride-alongs with deputies. Thompson says that gave the impression that posse members outranked the sworn officers, causing considerable friction. It was one of several factors that sent relations between the sheriff and his deputies south.

The latest in a long line of colorful and dubious Maricopa County sheriffs, Arpaio was the seventh that Thompson worked for. None, he says, has had such a negative impact on the agency’s professionalism.

Nor has any sheriff allocated so many resources and trained so many volunteers with such abandon.

Under Tom Agnos, the previous sheriff, 5 percent of the training division’s efforts benefited the posse. Detention officers received the majority of training in 1991 and 1992, with about a 70 percent share; enforcement personnel–deputies–took a 24 percent slice of the training pie.

In 1993, Arpaio’s first year as sheriff, those numbers changed very little.
The shift of training hours to the posse in 1994, however, is remarkable.
Total training hours increased from 356,486 to 609,561 in 1994, and the posse’s share exploded from 5 percent to 71 percent. Meanwhile, training for enforcement, jail detention and civilian employees decreased dramatically, both in total hours and as percentages. Detention officers, for example, saw their share go from 68 percent to only 23 percent. Enforcement employees, meanwhile, saw their total hours go from 91,254 in 1993 to 37,048 in 1994.

While posse training increased, the training division budget didn’t. So advanced programs for enforcement officers–such as classes at the prestigious Bondurant driving school–were cut.

In 1995, training for the posse continued to explode, trebling to a total of more than 1.3 million hours, or almost six times more than all personnel–sworn, civilian, volunteer–received in 1992. Civilian training–classes for clerks and secretaries who must keep on top of a mountain of paper and changing technology–has vanished entirely. Training for detention officers continued to slide, but, in a reversal of the trend–and perhaps because of deputies’ complaints–enforcement employees enjoyed a sharp increase in training last year, to 200,408 hours.

Still, deputies say, they continue to feel the effects of the posse’s virtual takeover of the training division: During 1995, eight out of every ten training hours at the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office were expended on posse members.

It’s another morning at the Durango Complex in the same room where Sergeant Rich Rosky had handed out drug-busting assignments a few weeks earlier. This time 45 posse hopefuls await the start of a CPR class. They seem to fall into two distinct groups: White men in their 20s and white men in their 50s.

“Morning!” exclaims Gary Niki, instructor and posse member.
“Good morning!” the troops bellow back, and it feels like summer camp. Niki talks and gestures to the class like it’s filled with third graders.

“How many people have seen a heart attack, seen someone go down?” he asks. Ten people raise their hands.

“How many have been to a real bad accident?”
About 20 respond.
“Good! I’m glad to see that!” Niki exclaims with Richard Simmonslike enthusiasm. He’s nearly as patronizing as well, and the class proceeds at a glacial rate. The subject is interesting, but it’s hard to gain confidence in an instructor who butchers the word “arteriosclerosis” four times in as many sentences.

Niki’s trying to generate interest in saving lives with humor. Most of it’s insensitive–he’s making cracks about fat people when most of his audience carries hefty spare tires and Niki’s no rail himself. He gets off a zinger about answering calls in “Seizure World” and laughs heartily at his own joke.

“Why do we call it Seizure World? Because there are a lot of seizures out there,” he explains.

Niki turns to the differences in heart-attack risks for men and women, and he asks if anyone can tell him how sex-change operations change those risk factors. Remarkably, no one can.

To get to this point in their crime-fighting education, the posse members in Niki’s class must first submit applications and go through background checks. Sheriff Arpaio has insisted that those checks are as thorough as any deputies face.

Deputies disagree. With the sudden influx of so many volunteers, they say, standards were relaxed to handle the overflow. “The posse applicants have some backgrounds–Jesus Christ, you couldn’t believe they were letting these people in,” retired major John Thompson says.

Those charges are reflected in a memo produced by a former posse supervisor. Lieutenant Roy Reyer’s five-page memo, written in 1994, charged that application standards were dangerously lax, and he cited numerous examples of embarrassing posse fiascos:

“In one instance,” Reyer wrote, “a new posse man was given the assignment of treasurer of the Operations Posse. Over five thousand dollars of this posse’s fund were in his control. A background check of this individual later showed that he had an outstanding out-of-state warrant for fraud.”

The posse man was asked to turn in his badge.
Other posse members, Reyer charged, showed up to class drunk or carrying concealed weapons. Some slept in class.

And there’s the posse member “who was late for boarding a commercial aircraft, flashed his badge and was permitted to board after identifying himself as a deputy sheriff on official business.” The Sheriff’s Office claims that the posse man had accidentally laid his wallet on a ticket counter with his badge showing. The agency insists that it works aggressively to oust undesirables, and says the number of bad apples is remarkably low for an organization its size.

But the posse continues to have problems with some of its members. Notable ex-posse members include:

* Richard Mysliwiec, 1994 Jeep Posse Man of the Year. The Sheriff’s Office says he was asked to leave the posse after officials realized their original background check had failed to turn up a 1993 arrest for theft.

* Sandor Benyik, who was kicked out of the Operations Posse in January when the Mesa Police Department informed the Sheriff’s Office that he had been arrested for child molestation.

* Mike Donnelly, a member of the Litchfield Park Posse, was found in possession of a stolen 1995 GMC Jimmy that he’d outfitted with an emergency light bar. Stolen hand-held radios–their serial numbers scratched off–were also found in the vehicle. Donnelly told investigators he didn’t think it was unusual that he’d paid only $250 to somebody in a river bottom for a $30,000 automobile. The vehicle was returned to its owner and, despite a deputy’s report that in his opinion Donnelly knew the vehicle was stolen, the county attorney returned the case for more investigation.

Although a list of posse members released by the Sheriff’s Office five months later still includes Donnelly, a spokesman says that’s because of a computer error, and that Donnelly was asked to leave the posse immediately after he was found in possession of the vehicle.

It’s apparent that Joe Arpaio believes there’s no such thing as bad publicity. Arpaio craves publicity like a smoker craves nicotine.

Attorney General Grant Woods was livid in 1993 when he discovered that New Times had lured him to be photographed buying a hot dog from an escapee from Arpaio’s jail system. The embarrassing photo was reprinted in several national publications.

A short time later, Arpaio cornered a New Times writer to complain that he hadn’t been asked to pose.

Arpaio has built a well-paid staff that’s consumed with the task of getting him press coverage. It’s another story, however, when a reporter asks for facts to back up what the sheriff says.

“You’re burying us with your [records] requests,” Lisa Allen gripes to a New Times reporter one sunny March morning.

Behind her, the Sheriff’s Office is doing some burying of its own–a chain gang is filling in the last foot of soil on the grave of some nameless pauper at the county’s potter’s field.

Allen, a former TV reporter, is the sheriff’s “community relations coordinator,” and she’s paid $46,000 a year to massage national and international media.

Arpaio’s executive assistant, Tom Bearup, gets a whopping $76,000 to “coordinate public affairs activity,” and two public information officers make $50,000 each to handle local press.

Allen and Bearup watch contentedly as reporters swarm over Arpaio’s cemetery media event. Journalists have been summoned in an attempt to quell clergy criticism of Arpaio’s latest PR stunt–a program dubbed “Scared Stiff,” which uses chain gangs to bury indigents (something jail inmates have done for years). Allen had written to the clergy members, inviting them to the burial and explaining that the Sheriff’s Office couldn’t prevent journalists from photographing them with the sheriff. The ministers recognized that Allen was attempting to use them as props in a photo opportunity, and although two attend the burials, they refuse to be photographed with the sheriff.

That doesn’t prevent the interments from turning into another Arpaio media love fest. Camera operators jockey for the best angles; one drops prone to get the best shot of chains jangling as the inmates walk by. “I saw one of the inmates cry!” a reporter says excitedly, scribbling in a notepad.

On that evening’s news, the chain-gang controversy will be told on Arpaio’s terms. No reporters will raise thornier questions about the political motivations behind “Scared Stiff,” which, not coincidentally, was unveiled the day America’s Toughest Sheriff hit the bookshelves.

News organizations have been slow to report developments that disparage Arpaio, even if the reporting would have required a single phone call.

Last August, the Department of Justice notified Arpaio that it would investigate charges of abuse in his jails, including allegations of physical abuse of inmates by staff, covering up instances of abuse, and withholding access to lawyers and medical care.

After New Times broke the story of the investigation, however, other Valley media waited ten days before deciding it was newsworthy.

Arpaio says he isn’t concerned about the investigation, but when it comes to shielding himself from lawsuits, he says he needs all the protection he can get.

Protection from lawsuits is the pretext under which the Sheriff’s Office purchases video compilations of Arpaio’s TV appearances, at a cost to taxpayers of about $900 each month.

Arpaio pays for this service from state funds earmarked specifically for jail facilities. After New Times disclosed that the Jail Enhancement Fund was being tapped to pay for the videos–among other questionable uses–the county attorney asked the state auditor general to investigate.

Arpaio claims the video service protects his agency from litigation. But when he’s asked what criteria the video service use to decide which shows to record, he answers: “When I talk.”

Sheriff Arpaio not only acknowledges the huge amount of training going to the posse, he boasts about it. A particularly tedious chapter in his book dwells on the stages of a posse member’s education, from the initial interview, background check and legal-issues classes to advanced weapons training. It’s all free, Arpaio says, with volunteers teaching volunteers, so the more’s the better.

Public records say otherwise. The county does expend funds to train posse members and to deploy them. Quite a lot of money, actually.

The explosion in posse training in 1994 was accompanied by a huge jump in ammunition purchases. And unless the sworn deputies suddenly found themselves in the mother of all gun battles, that increase came because of the truly incredible amount of lead fired by posse members in training.

About three in ten posse volunteers go on to complete weapons training, enabling them to carry firearms during posse operations. To attain that status–called QAP for qualified armed posse man–volunteers must complete 70 hours of training at the county firing range. Bullets are provided by the taxpayers of Maricopa County.

Under the previous administration, the Sheriff’s Office purchased $32,000 in ammunition in 1991 and $41,000 in 1992.

Under Arpaio, ammunition purchases have averaged $160,000 per year. During his three years as sheriff, Arpaio has expended $359,000 more than if he’d maintained ammunition purchases at the 1992 level.

In his book, Arpaio says county residents shouldn’t begrudge posse members the few bullets they receive as a kind of graduation present for completing QAP training.

But that coy statement can’t obscure that the sheriff is fully aware how much money goes to posse firearms training.

“I save millions and millions and millions and millions of dollars on this county budget, and no one ever talks about it,” Arpaio told the committee drawing up the county’s new charter in February. “If you want a list of the millions that I saved as sheriff, I’ll be glad to give it to you.”

Arpaio claims that the posse saved the county $10 million in 1995.
A deputy who has worked closely with the posse says those numbers are bogus. He says he knows because he’s helped fudge them in the past.

“Those are phantom figures,” he says. “We calculated them from what it would cost to pay for the cars and horses the posse members provided on their own. We wouldn’t have bought that shit anyway.”

The Sheriff’s Office insists that it calculates the money saved by the posse in the man-hours donated by volunteers. In other words, the sheriff asks the public to believe that the county would otherwise pay $10 million yearly for the services of faux deputies with no real law enforcement powers. (Arpaio applies similarly twisted justification for his claim, made on Tom Snyder’s national Late Late Show, that he’s saved Maricopa County taxpayers $100 million. When New Times asked Arpaio to document the savings, he explained that a new jail would cost $100 million, and that because he hasn’t demanded a new jail, he has saved $100 million.)

On their own, posse men and women have no more ability to do police work than any other citizen. It’s only when they’re in the presence of sworn officers that posse members attain a sort of quasi-deputyhood, and can assist in detaining suspects, transporting prisoners and taking fingerprints. In the major “Joe shows,” then, there are often as many sworn personnel present as volunteers, and the cost of Arpaio’s “free” posse shoots upward.

During Operation Rolling Thunder, the recently completed posse drug program, sworn man-hours outnumbered volunteer hours 8,840 to 5,356. But when Arpaio brags about the success of the operation–346 arrests and seizures of two kilos of methamphetamine, one of cocaine, and 388 marijuana plants–it’s not the sworn officers who get the credit. Valley media cooperate willingly, giving the public the impression that the arrests and seizures would never happen without Arpaio’s volunteers.

In fact, Arpaio deploys his paid employees so as to exaggerate the effectiveness of the posse.

Spokesmen for the sheriff deny the charge. They do acknowledge, however, that paid personnel outnumbered volunteers in the “posse” operation. And that’s something Arpaio knows is the biggest problem with his grand plan for the posse.

Although he continues to claim that the posse is cost-free, in his book he calls for using pink-underwear money to pay off-duty officers to do what they do now: baby-sit posse members on county time.

Much of it is overtime.
A memo obtained by New Times shows that deputies in the patrol districts were asked to sign up for shifts during Operation Rolling Thunder, but only on their regularly scheduled days off. In other words, deputies were called in from the county’s unincorporated areas to provide law enforcement for the City of Phoenix, and were paid overtime by the county to do so.

At time and a half, the 8,840 hours expended in Operation Rolling Thunder would have cost county taxpayers approximately $200,000.

Chief David Hendershott oversees Sheriff Arpaio’s posse program, and he still insists it doesn’t cost a dime. “I think that’s a matter of semantics,” he says. “The posse is free.”

That’s not what posse members themselves are told, however. Potential QAP trainees are told they’d better be serious about becoming arms-qualified because it costs the county so much to train them.

Posse man Donald Sroufe says a deputy made that clear to him when he decided to qualify with a weapon.

“He told me it cost so much to train posse men to go through QAP training that they want to make sure we were going to stick with it. I told him I would,” says Sroufe, a bartender and college student.

In return for the resources expended on his behalf, Sroufe says the Sheriff’s Office asked him to donate eight hours each month to posse activities.

He says he would like to have followed through on that commitment. If only he didn’t have such a full work schedule behind the bar, and so much schoolwork as well.

In the eight months since his graduation, Sroufe had donated only 20 hours to the posse, with about eight hours going to activities directly related to law enforcement.

According to a deputy who was heavily involved in posse deployment, that’s a high rate of return. The deputy says that officers who work with the posse expect the bulk of posse members to disappear without a trace after they earn their badges.

A dedicated posse man who logs more than 1,000 hours each year thinks the situation is actually bleaker. He wouldn’t allow his name to be used because there’s no appeal mechanism for the posse–if he’s kicked out for talking to New Times, he’ll have no recourse. He even asked that the name of his posse be kept out.

He says that the number of truly dedicated posse members is embarrassingly small. Maybe 50 hard-core souls keep the “Joe shows” going, he says. And getting the large numbers out, especially when Arpaio wants them for the cameras, well, that’s gotten increasingly difficult.

“I couldn’t figure it out,” he says. “We tried everything. We tried hammering them, telling them, ‘If you don’t come out, you’ll lose your badge.’” He says many of the people who enter the posse full of enthusiasm burn out quickly as the monotony of police work becomes evident.

“Some get disenchanted when they realize it’s not all red lights and sirens,” he says.

It’s not news to him that the sworn deputies are unhappy with the posse. “You have to prove yourself to the deputies. I can’t blame them for how they feel. I blame the posse,” the posse man says.

After thousands of volunteer hours, he says he’s earned the respect of several deputies who are glad to let him ride as a second man.

A deputy from one of the patrol districts says that posse ride-alongs are mostly unwelcome among his colleagues. As for himself, he refuses to let a posse member ride shotgun.

“In a serious call, we have to concentrate on this asshole sitting next to us with a gun,” he says. “You have to keep an eye on him to make sure he doesn’t shoot you in the back or trip and kill himself.”

The dedicated posse man says he understands the deputy’s frustration. “One of the biggest problems with the guys in charge of us is that they’re very good people, but they don’t have the skills to run a large volunteer organization,” he says.

That’s just what Arpaio has tried to turn the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office into.

Posse men Kent Keller and Jeff Grossman patrol 27th Avenue, inside Phoenix, waiting to hear of a drug bust going down. Operation Rolling Thunder is in its second week, and Keller and Grossman have been selected to roam freely, ready to back up sworn deputies making arrests.

Keller, a retired Phoenix police officer, says he and Grossman often ride together, and they’ve been targeting the prostitution on 27th Avenue. Keller says they’ve heard stories of a “watch house” in the neighborhood; the prostitutes tell them it’s an underground place where people pay to watch couples have sex.

“It’ll be fun to find that one day,” Keller says.
Saturday morning seems to be a slow time for hookers. The only prostitute on the street is talking to some abortion protesters outside a clinic.

Keller’s Bronco is a posse member’s dream. It’s equipped with two police radios, grill-mounted red and blue lights, and Sheriff’s Office decals. The mounted police radios aren’t working properly, so Keller fiddles with them and then gives up. Luckily, he and Grossman have hand-helds and they stay in radio contact with headquarters.

But there’s nothing happening. It’s been two hours since they got their assignments, and Keller and Grossman haven’t heard a peep out of the sworn deputies who are supposed to be sweeping down on crack houses.

Keller decides to stop and do some surveillance on two drunks sitting on the sidewalk outside a 7-Eleven. Keller says he’s pretty sure the younger one is dealing crack, and he’s been videotaping the suspect, hoping to catch him doing it. Today Keller and Grossman are just going to sit and see what they can see.

Keller parks his Bronco at a curb about 50 yards away in a no-parking zone, in full view of the quarry, who appear to be Native Americans. But the suspects look totally blitzed, and don’t notice that they’re being watched. They seem to be hitting up passers-by for smokes and striking out.

As Keller and Grossman settle in for the stakeout, a motorcycle missing its license plate pulls up next to the Bronco and stops for a red light.

“What’s this?” Keller says as he starts the Bronco. He waits for the motorcyclist, a young black man, to make a left onto 27th Avenue, then guns the Bronco in hot pursuit.

As a rule, posse members aren’t supposed to take enforcement action unless a sworn officer is present. Deputies say they’ve tried to make the volunteers understand they have no authority to make traffic stops, but some of them can’t seem to help themselves. Chief Hendershott says that Keller is an exception because he’s a retired police officer who’s retained his law enforcement certification.

Keller turns on the red and blue flashing lights, but the motorcyclist, even after looking back, doesn’t seem to understand that Keller wants him to pull over. He pulls the bike into the parking lot of a Circle K and doubles back around some fuel pumps.

It’s a brilliant move, and all he has to do is punch it and he’s scot-free. There’s no way the Bronco can turn around quickly in the postage-stamp-size parking lot.

Instead, the motorcyclist gets off his bike and pulls off the lid of the gas tank. He still doesn’t seem to realize that he’s wanted by Sheriff Joe’s posse, and he’s surprised when Keller and Grossman rush over to him, their badges prominently displayed.

The motorcyclist is apologetic, and explains that he bought the bike that morning. He produces a bill of sale and Keller calls it in on his radio while Grossman stands watch. Nearby, a Phoenix police officer drives off after stopping briefly to watch the bust. And only a few feet away, a pickup truck full of little Latino boys in soccer uniforms is pointing at the posse men and can’t stop laughing.

Facts keep getting in the way of the myth of Sheriff Joe. Crime statistics, for example, don’t support the notion that Arpaio’s policies are having any real effect. The nation’s crime rate has fallen gradually for five straight years, as has the rate for Western states in general. But Maricopa County’s crime rate, after falling in 1992, turned sharply upward in 1993 and 1994. (Department of Justice figures for 1995 won’t be available for several more months.)

Although the upward trend coincides with Arpaio’s tenure, it would be unfair to blame the sheriff, because crime rates often follow demographic shifts–such as Maricopa County’s recent growth spurt–over which a sheriff has no control. At the same time, it’s unfair for Arpaio to imply that his policies deter crime, something he has not hesitated to do.

More facts explode another central myth: that Arpaio’s highest priority is fighting the proliferation of drugs in Maricopa County.

When budget shortfalls forced difficult decisions for Enforcement Support–the division that runs the posse, search-and-rescue operations and the DARE program–it was the DARE program, which sends deputies to schools to educate kids about the dangers of drugs, that got the ax. It was suspended for a semester in the spring of 1995 just as posse training experienced the single-largest quarterly increase.

Arpaio feigns shock when it’s suggested that his posse buildup was politically expedient. He says the posse is apolitical, and that he couldn’t use Posse Foundation money for political ends even if he wanted to.

To friendlier audiences, however, Arpaio lets his guard down. In February, he told KFYI’s Barry Young, “I just need to sell more pink underwear and I’ll get reelected.”

There’s little doubt that he will. With his polls showing an approval rating exceeding 70 percent, he expects to face little challenge in November.

And he can expect little scrutiny from the media. More often than not, his stories are printed with a minimum of checking. Stories like the one he’s repeated dozens of times, of how he and a reporter spent the night in his tent jail without any added security.

It’s one of the most celebrated chapters of the Sheriff Joe myth.
And it’s untrue.
The Sheriff’s Office admits that several members of the Tactical Operations Unit–Maricopa County’s version of SWAT–were stationed in a building nearby all night, ready in case Arpaio needed to be bailed out.

Arpaio says, “They may have been on call, but I’m going to tell you one thing. I told my staff I didn’t want any protection. I say that all the time, even when I have threats. Because I don’t want to tie up the deputies, okay? Now whether someone had TOU on call, you’ll have to ask the staff on that. But there was no TOU in the tents or around the tents that I know of. . . . It’s my staff. I went in there as things were.

“I presume any other sheriff would have had an army surrounding the tents.”
The problem with that being, Joe Arpaio is the only sheriff who has an army.

Arpaio Tries to Plug Leaks

Saturday, September 8th, 2007

Arpaio Tries to Plug Leaks
Sheriff’s Office suspends, transfers officers suspected of talking to New Times
By Tony Ortega Phoenix New Times
Published: May 23, 1996

A recent New Times cover story relied on deputies’ accounts and public records to document how a massive shift of resources to the posse program had taken its toll on morale, as well as law enforcement, in the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office.

After the story ran, Sheriff Joe Arpaio denied that he had an interest in investigating to find out who had talked to New Times. But two independent sources in the Sheriff’s Office claim something different.

They say the day after the story appeared, Arpaio and Deputy Chief David Hendershott, who runs the posse program, were seen in the office of Chief Deputy Jadel Roe, arguing furiously for a massive internal investigation. Roe oversees internal affairs investigations.

Roe tells New Times that the discussion occurred, but says there was no arguing. She adds that she could do nothing to stop a sheriff from initiating an internal affairs probe.

Last week, an investigation was launched. Lieutenant Robert Wetherell, who reports to Hendershott in Enforcement Support, has been temporarily assigned to Roe’s department. Wetherell is leading an investigation of Sergeant Mark Battilana, a patrol officer in the Avondale district who has been put on administrative leave.

According to deputies, Battilana has been accused of supplying information for the New Times story (“Mutiny at the County,” April 25).

Sergeant Tim Campbell, a public information officer, says Battilana is being investigated for a number of code-of-conduct violations, and he can’t confirm if that includes talking to a reporter. Campbell says he can’t give more specific information about the charges until the investigation is completed.

Battilana is a 16-year veteran of the Sheriff’s Office. In 1994, he was featured in a Village Voice article which followed deputies and posse members during a sweep of prostitutes on Van Buren Street.

New Times has a policy against confirming or denying the identity of any confidential source.

Battilana, who didn’t return calls from New Times, reportedly will be represented during the investigation by Deputies Association attorney Bob Yen–the same attorney who represented Arpaio in his failed 1994 lawsuit which attempted to keep the county Board of Supervisors from trimming the department’s budget.

Deputies say Arpaio’s use of an Enforcement Support officer to conduct the internal investigation confirms to them that the shift of resources, and power, in the Sheriff’s Office has favored Chief Hendershott and his posse program. Arpaio refused to comment on the charge, saying through Campbell that he doesn’t speak about ongoing internal investigations.

“Apparently, the rules don’t work with Arpaio down there anymore,” says a former Arpaio employee. “For anyone who’s been in law enforcement, this is just unheard of. Under the cover of this thing, they’re trying to create an environment of fear and screw anyone who’s not a disciple of Joe’s.”

Another former employee, ex-deputy chief Bill Miller, says such a response fits Arpaio’s obsession with dime-droppers. “When the truth is printed, he automatically suspects people inside the office. But he can’t do this. It’s a Freedom of Speech issue.”

Meanwhile, widespread retribution for the New Times article has come down, deputies say, in the form of transfers. Sources in the Sheriff’s Office say that anyone suspected of supplying New Times with information has been switched out of desirable positions.

Sergeant Campbell acknowledges that a larger number of transfers than usual took effect last Sunday, but he says it’s because of a high number of promotions. “When you get a new sergeant, you put them out on the street,” he says.

20/20

Death and Laxness

Saturday, September 8th, 2007

Death and Laxness
If the jailers had paid attention, they might have noticed that Jose Rodriquez was dying
By Amy Silverman Phoenix New Times
Published: June 6, 1996

Jose Rodriquez died just before noon, curled up on a mattress on a concrete floor, his head resting in his own vomit.

For days before his death on March 26, Rodriquez, 39, could barely stand or sip from a cup of water. He was emaciated, feverish, dehydrated, twitching–classic signs of heroin withdrawal.

Even with proper medical treatment, heroin detoxification is a brutal experience. Although few people die as a result, it’s possible–if the patient is alone or ignored.

Rodriquez was not alone; he was surrounded by hundreds of people, including trained medical personnel. But he was ignored and–despite convincing symptoms–accused of faking his ailment.

Jose Rodriquez died at Madison Street Jail, in the custody of Sheriff Joe Arpaio.

It’s been nine months since New Times first reported that the U.S. Department of Justice was investigating conditions at Maricopa County’s jails–Durango Jail, Towers Jail, Estrella Jail, Tent City and Madison Street Jail.

In a letter to county officials dated August 8, 1995, Deval Patrick, assistant U.S. attorney for civil rights, announced that the investigation would be conducted under the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act (CRIPA), a federal civil statute which allows for investigations of patterns of abuse and other inappropriate treatment in jails, prisons, mental health facilities and other government institutions. According to the letter, the investigation would focus on:

* Physical abuse of inmates by staff.
* Inadequate supervision of staff.
* Staff and administrative failure to address allegations of physical abuse.
* Failure to discipline staff found to have abused detainees and inmates.
* False reporting regarding use of force and allegations of abuse.
* Denial of access to counsel.
* Inadequate medical care.

Lee Douglass, a public information officer for the civil rights division of the Department of Justice, says the investigation is continuing. She says, “We are working together with officials from the jails to try to find solutions to the problems there.”

Although the Department of Justice could ultimately decide to bring legal action against Maricopa County, Douglass says CRIPA “is not a law that’s designed to end in litigation. The spirit of the law is negotiation.”

Sources tell New Times that medical and correctional security experts have been hired by the Arizona U.S. Attorney’s Office to review conditions at the jails as part of the investigation. County and federal officials refuse to confirm this, or to release any reports produced by such experts.

Arpaio welcomed the federal investigation last August, telling New Times, “If I can let all the press from around the world come into the jail and talk to the inmates and everything, I’m sure not one to hide anything.”

But now Arpaio won’t discuss the investigation at all. And he refuses to comment on Rodriquez’s death.

Arpaio did mention the investigation in his book, America’s Toughest Sheriff, published earlier this year. Arpaio relates his appearance on Phil Donahue’s talk show, during which, he says, Donahue mischaracterized the federal investigation:

“Phil started by mentioning the Department of Justice investigation into the Maricopa County jails, though he didn’t mention that Justice routinely investigated scores of jails every year, that some prisoners made jailhouse careers out of accusing their jailers in nuisance cases. . . .”

Actually, out of thousands of institutions nationwide subject to CRIPA, only about 30 are presently under investigation, Douglass says.

Since Arpaio took office in January 1993, 15 county inmates have died in custody, according to Sergeant John Kleinheinz, one of the sheriff’s spokesmen. Of those 15, 11 died in Ward 41, the detention ward at Maricopa Medical Center–of “natural causes” ranging from cancer to AIDS to pneumonia. The remaining four died in jail.

Just last Saturday, Scott Norberg, 35, died while in custody at Madison Street Jail after he was restrained by detention officers. The cause of death is under investigation, Kleinheinz says.

Kleinheinz refused New Times’ request to see the county’s record of calls for medical assistance from sick and/or injured inmates. There have been almost 300 such reports just since January 1, 1996, Kleinheinz says–too many for his department to produce for review. Besides, he adds, some of those requests are bogus.

“There’s some [inmates] that really need to be taken care of,” Kleinheinz says, “and then there’s some that are just trying to get out of their cell, go to the infirmary, you know, do those kinds of things.”

The trick, of course, is figuring out which is which. In Jose Rodriquez’s case, someone figured wrong.

At the time of his death, Jose Rodriquez had been convicted of nothing. He was still innocent, under the law.

On March 20, Glendale Police Officer Jan Whitson stopped Rodriquez for driving with expired tags. Whitson says he saw Rodriquez hide something under the seat of the vehicle he was driving as the officer approached. When Whitson investigated, he found a syringe. He also discovered that Rodriquez was wanted for sale of stolen property.

Rodriquez was arrested on three counts of stolen property and one count of possession of drug paraphernalia. He was accused of selling copper plates stolen from a mine in Yavapai County to a Glendale recycling company. The plates are valued at $3,000. Rodriquez admitted that he sold two sheets of copper at the behest of two acquaintances, who gave him $20 worth of heroin in exchange.

He also admitted to police that he had previously served prison time for burglary and possession of narcotics.

He was booked at Madison Street Jail at 12:45 a.m. on March 21. According to the incident report prepared in connection with his death, Rodriquez asked for medical attention that day. The report states that Rodriquez had no visible medical problems when he was booked, and it was not until the morning of March 25 that the infirmary received a call regarding his condition.

From the report, prepared by Detective Raymond Ondrejech:
“The medical records indicate that the infirmary received a call on 3-25-96 at approximately 0630 hours advising that RODRIQUEZ had been vomiting during the previous night and he was placed on sick call. He was seen at 1109 hours indicating he was withdrawing from drugs, had been vomiting, couldn’t hold water, was dizzy and weak and had passed out. This entry was made by BETTY DARE, RN.

“He was observed at approximately 2100 hours on 3-25-96 during ‘pill call’ to be falling forward and then to the floor. His medication was taken to him and the nurse observed him to sit up to take his medication and he was alert.”

Rodriquez was transferred to another pod. That’s where he met Richard Vela, a fellow inmate who is accused of first-degree murder. Ironically, it was not the nurses in the infirmary, but Vela who took pity on Rodriquez.

“He not only was my own race, he deserved a chance just like everybody else,” Vela says. “That’s the way I look at it–everybody deserves a chance.”

Tattoos snake around Vela’s arms; strands of gray pop up in his straight, jet-black hair. He’s only 28, but Vela has already served five years in prison for aggravated assault and burglary.

Raised in South Phoenix, Vela was living with his girlfriend in Glendale, working as a house framer, until this latest charge. Vela is accused in the March 7 death of Michael Gonzales, who was shot once in the neck.

He says, “People, they can think what they want. Just because I’m in here for [murder] don’t mean I did it. Anybody who does know me, in here or out on the street, knows I have a big heart and I help people when I can.”

“[The guards] brought him into the pod,” Vela says. “They just dragged him in here–one officer had one arm, the other officer had the other arm, and his feet were dragging on the ground. They just dragged him into the pod and put him in his room.”

To Vela, Rodriquez looked like a skeleton with skin. He could hear him moaning, even though Vela was upstairs and Rodriquez was downstairs.

Vela’s account of Rodriquez’s last days is basically the same as Detective Ondrejech’s.

The authorities’ one apparent concession to Rodriquez’s condition is that he was on some sort of medication for withdrawal. (The incident report does not specify what kind of drug.)

Vela says, “I heard [the guards] call medication, you know, and you have to get up with your cup of water and go to the slider door to get your medicine, right? Well, they kept calling for Room Six. ‘Come get your medicine, come get your medicine.’ And the man, you know, all you could hear was him moaning and groaning.”

Vela continues, “I jumped off my bed and I went down there and I started yelling at them. ‘Officer,’ I said, ‘Hey, the dude’s sick, man, why don’t you take him his medicine?’

No reply.
“So I went downstairs and I went into [Rodriquez's] room and he was lying on the floor. So I got him and I picked him up and I said, ‘Come on,’ and he’s like, ‘No, no,’ and I said, ‘Come on, you’ve gotta help yourself,’ so I got him like that, put his arm around me and walked him out there.”

Vela stayed by Rodriquez’s side, cajoling him into sipping water and replacing the soiled towel Rodriquez was using as a pillow with a folded blanket.

At 9:45 on the morning of March 26, during “pill call,” Rodriquez vomited in Officer Shane Shurtz’s face. According to his own account in the incident report, Shurtz did not rush Rodriquez to the infirmary, but instead rushed there himself to be cleaned up.

He wrote, “In the Madison St. Jail Medical Clinic I told Nurse Stephanie Gallardo RN of my exposure and how it had happened. As Nurse Gallardo was getting me cleaning supplies she had told me that Inmate Rodriquez was seen by medical ‘yesterday’ and he’s been faking. Nurse Gallardo said that Rodriquez was able to get up and walk, that he was playing a game.”

Gallardo told Shurtz he should be checked for infections he might contract from Rodriquez’s vomit.

“She then said that since Rodriquez was still vomiting that maybe medical could see him sometime today.”

As it turned out, “sometime” was too late. Vela spent that morning with Rodriquez, again offering him water and urging him to sleep.

At lunchtime, Vela saw Officer Michael Jacobson, Shurtz’s partner. Rodriquez had missed breakfast, Vela says, so “I told the officer, I said, ‘What about Room Six, Mr. Rodriquez? Is he gonna get his lunch?’ He goes, ‘Yeah, he’s gonna get it, I’ll take it to him.’ And I said, ‘Well, are you gonna sit there and make sure he eats it?’ And he said, ‘Aah, he’s faking most of that.’”

Jacobson would later write in his account that it was Rodriquez’s fellow inmates, not Jacobson, who believed Rodriquez was faking.

Rodriquez wasn’t faking, as Jacobson would soon learn.
Jacobson wrote, “I took a cup of juice and a sack lunch to his cell to feed him and account for him. When I walked into his cell he was in the same spot as he was when I saw him at the 1100 hours security walk. I said ‘Rodriquez here is your lunch. Make sure you eat it.’ I put the lunch on the table. Rodriquez didn’t move nor did he speak. I bent over and touched his left shoulder and said ‘Rodriquez are you O.K.?’ I rolled him over and his eyes were open but I could tell something was wrong.”

Jacobson tried to revive Rodriquez, but it was too late.
Vela recalls, “I went in there when [Jacobson] was turning him over, and he was pretty stiff already. It happened pretty quick.”

The pod was locked down and the body was bagged. Vela says the officers and nurses chatted and laughed as they removed the body and examined the scene.

Laila Coe, a detoxification nurse for six years at Terros, a local drug-treatment facility, says, “Heroin withdrawal can be really, really intense. I mean, these people actually feel like they’re dying, and they look like they’ve been rolled over by a Mack truck.”

But heroin withdrawal doesn’t typically kill, if the patient receives proper attention, Coe says.

Coe says she can only guess what killed Rodriquez. Perhaps, she says, he choked on his vomit. If he couldn’t keep down water, and was dehydrated, he should have been receiving fluids intravenously, she adds; if he had a fever, he should have been monitored.

“That’s kind of standard operating procedure,” Coe says.
Vela sees a different standard operating procedure in jail.
He says, “You see it all the time. People are hurting, people need medical attention in here. They just–they treat ‘em like, ‘We’ll get to you when we get to you. If you die between now and the time we get to you, it’s not our fault.’”

An autopsy was performed on Rodriquez. Official cause of death: acute and chronic bronchitis. Vela thinks that’s bull. He never heard Rodriquez cough, not once.

He says, “I was right there, and I ain’t afraid to tell ‘em. That guy has family out there somewheres that want to know what happened, why, and they don’t know.”

Detective Ondrejech called Rodriquez’s sister, Lala, to tell her of Jose’s demise. Lala, who lives in Idaho and does not speak English, had difficulty understanding, so he spoke to Lala’s daughter, Erika.

Through an interpreter, Lala tells New Times that she hadn’t seen her brother in 20 years. She spoke to him on the phone occasionally, and knew he had a drug problem. She never knew him to have any breathing difficulties, which is why she was perplexed to hear that he died of chronic bronchitis.

Lala passes on the name and phone number of Jose Rodriquez’s daughter, Maryanne, 17, who lives with her mother, Liz Avalos, near El Paso, Texas.

Maryanne is not home, but Avalos is. She, too, had not seen Rodriquez–whom she calls Little Joe–in many years, until he showed up at her parents’ house in El Paso last fall.

Avalos and Rodriquez met 18 years ago in California; both worked at a Foster Farms plant, cutting chicken parts. They were happy together. Rodriquez loved antique cars–he had an old Chevy truck, completely restored–and he played the organ.

The relationship soured when Avalos got pregnant.
She says, “I had the impression he felt like he was pressured. Things didn’t work out after that. During the pregnancy, he started drinking heavily and we would fight a lot, argue a lot.”

When Maryanne was 3 days old, Avalos moved to Texas to be with her parents. Before she left, she says, Rodriquez held the baby and cried. Later, he came to Texas and lived with her for a few months. Again, he began drinking.

“He would come home with hickies and pictures of other girls. . . . Stuff like that. I wasn’t gonna put up with that.”

So Rodriquez moved to Arizona. He called a few times–always on Maryanne’s birthday–and then fell out of touch until last October, when he showed up at Avalos’ childhood home in Texas.

“My father opens the door and says, ‘Joe? Is that you?’” she says. Rodriquez explained that he had been in prison. He had ridden around the neighborhood in a taxi for 45 minutes, trying to locate Avalos’ home–a two-story house, on a corner.

Rodriquez spent the weekend with Avalos, her husband and Maryanne. Father and daughter “bonded like they knew each other for many years.”

Avalos says, “It was wonderful. I loved seeing him again.” But she recalls that Rodriquez looked terrible.

“I even told him, ‘Are you on drugs?’ He bowed down his head, he said yes, but he wanted to seek help for it, that he had met his daughter, that he wanted to improve, he wanted a change.”

He promised to return, and called a few times, but then Avalos didn’t hear anything about Little Joe again until word came that he had died.

The autopsy report lists Jose Rodriquez as a transient. His possessions–blue comb, black belt, cigarette lighter, yellow crucifix–fit into a small paper bag.

Rodriquez was no saint. And yet, Richard Vela is haunted by his death.
“This guy right here, he didn’t need to die the way he did. If they would have took him to the infirmary and kept an eye on him . . . and watched him instead of just throwing him in the cell like that,” he says.

“The conditions in here are way worse than the ones in prison. People in here are begging to go to prison, they want to go to prison–that’s how bad it is here.

Tent City Beating is Nearly Fatal

Saturday, September 8th, 2007

Tent City Beating is Nearly Fatal
By Tony Ortega Phoenix New Times
Published: June 6, 1996

On May 22, as he fielded questions on KFYI radio, Sheriff Joe Arpaio scoffed at accusations that his Tent City jail is inviting catastrophe.

“I haven’t had any riots, I haven’t had any problems with the tents or the jails. Where are my riots?” Arpaio said.

Judy Flanders couldn’t believe what she was hearing. The Gilbert resident and optician called KFYI to confront Arpaio about her son, Jeremy, a Tent City inmate who last month spent two days on life support after being savagely beaten. She never got through.

Lieutenant Tim Campbell, one of the sheriff’s public information officers, confirms that Arpaio was aware of the beating when he made his comments.

Jeremy Flanders, 20, is serving a yearlong sentence for four counts of burglary. On the afternoon of May 10, he had gone to bed early after a day of work as a chain-gang trusty. Only three guards were in place to watch more than 1,000 inmates, and they were staying comfortable in an office, away from the tents themselves. None of the guards heard a thing, apparently, when Flanders was pulled from his bed. He was beaten so badly that he was comatose when he was taken to St. Joseph’s Hospital and put on a ventilator.

The incident is under investigation by the Sheriff’s Office, and according to a witness who talked to New Times, what those investigators will find is that Jeremy Flanders was the victim of an unprovoked attack. And the weapons? The fists and feet of seven inmates, and one heavy, hard object: a tent stake.

When Jeremy Flanders was arrested for attempting to burglarize a home in May 1995, he did what would make any defense attorney cringe: He admitted to other crimes. His parents say he was determined to “come clean” after turning to theft to feed a drug habit. So he admitted to three unsolved burglaries and was sentenced to a year in Sheriff Arpaio’s jail.

“Jeremy did something wrong, and he should be punished for it,” Judy Flanders says. “He’s made a lot of bad decisions in his life. But I want people to know we’re not the kind of parents who let our kids run wild.” She points out that their other child, Jeremy’s older brother, Jason, is an optician and has been working to become a police officer.

Since Jeremy began his incarceration, the Flanderses say they’ve been in constant touch with him, visiting two to three times a week. They say he seemed determined to make the most of it: He entered drug rehabilitation, earned his GED, became a trusty, and worked at several jobs in the jail.

But along the way, he made an enemy. According to the anonymous letter sent to Jeremy while he was at St. Joseph’s Hospital, as well as a recently released inmate who witnessed the beating, that person was someone named “Joe.”

The recently released inmate–we’ll call him Williams–tells New Times he was not certain why Jeremy Flanders was targeted but he thinks it may have been a disagreement over cigarettes, which are supposed to be verboten in Arpaio’s jails but which he says sell for $10 a pack in the tents.

Williams says Joe “put a hit” on Flanders, and seven inmates carried it out. He says the three detention officers assigned to the tents area were inside an office. Williams says that the guards make trips through the tents every one or two hours, and that sometimes no inspections are made for up to four hours.

Sheriff Arpaio constantly crows that his Tent City is safe, and on May 22, he repeated his favorite–albeit erroneous–proof of it: “I slept in the tents with only two officers guarding a thousand people. I didn’t have extra guards and so on. But I survived,” he said.

But the Sheriff’s Office admits that each of the two nights Arpaio spent in his tents, officers from the Tactical Operations Unit–Maricopa’s version of SWAT–were stationed in a nearby building all night in case Arpaio needed rescuing, and one sharpshooter was stationed on the roof of Estrella Jail overlooking the tents.

No TOU sharpshooters were on the roof the afternoon of May 10, however, when seven inmates went looking for Jeremy Flanders.

At about 5:30 p.m., the inmates pulled a sleeping Flanders from his top bunk and began beating him. “They were jumping on his head,” Williams says. Although a fence separated their tents, Williams says the flaps on Flanders’ tent didn’t come all the way to the ground, and he could see Flanders being kicked.

Finally, an inmate named Chris Champion came to Flanders’ rescue. Williams says that after Champion entered the tent, the attackers scattered. Champion then picked up Flanders and carried him to the guards’ office, tripping and dropping Flanders once along the way.

Williams says Flanders was covered in his own blood and seemed to be choking on it. There was a five-inch gash on the back of his head and abrasions and bruises on his face. His head was beginning to swell.

Williams says the reaction of the guards was surprising: Flanders had been a favorite of the guards, Williams says, a good kid who was trying his best to turn his life around. One of the guards, a female detention officer, seemed so upset that she didn’t bother to put gloves on before treating the injured inmate–something guards are never supposed to do, Williams says.

As Flanders was taken away, guards went to his tent to secure it as a crime scene. Williams says that as the guards were searching the tent, he heard a very distinct sound that he’d heard several times before: a heavy, metallic ringing.

“I heard a tent stake,” he says. “There’s only one other metal object that could have been in that tent and it was a bunk. But you couldn’t pick up a bunk and drop it and make that ‘cling cling’ sound.” The stakes are relatively easy to pull out of the ground, Williams says, and he’s seen inmates carrying them several times in the past.

Campbell says the officer investigating the beating was unavailable to comment on Williams’ assertion, but added that the Sheriff’s Office would be unlikely to reveal details of its findings while the investigation is under way.

Williams says the inmates were also kept in the dark, not only about the nature and cause of the attack but also of Flanders’ condition. The inmates assumed Jeremy Flanders would die.

Although his son’s head had swelled so much one of his ears seemed to have been swallowed by it, Tom Flanders says the thing that made him most angry was to find out his son had been in St. Joseph’s Hospital nearly a full day before the family was notified.

On Saturday morning, May 11, Judy and Tom Flanders were told that their son was in the intensive care unit at St. Joseph’s, and that he required a ventilator to keep him breathing. They rushed to the hospital to find their son unconscious, his head distended immensely. Doctors explained that a CT scan had shown brain swelling.

The guard told them something else: The Flanderses couldn’t take photographs of their son. They had made that request, but the guard told them he couldn’t authorize it until he’d checked with his supervisor. He finally gave them permission to do so on Monday. By then, the Flanderses say, much of Jeremy’s swelling had subsided and he’d been taken off the ventilator.

He was still having trouble eating, however, and his father says he needed help to walk to the bathroom. That’s why they were surprised when they were told Jeremy would be moved the next day.

Dr. Salvatore Casano, who closed the gash on the back of Jeremy’s head, says it’s standard practice to move an inmate to the Maricopa Medical Center as soon as possible, and in this case, since Jeremy wasn’t hooked up to an IV and his heart and breathing weren’t being monitored, he was ready to be moved.

So Tuesday afternoon, May 14, Jeremy Flanders left St. Joseph’s Hospital for the Maricopa Medical Center, only two days after being taken off life support. The next day, his mother called to talk to him, only to find that Jeremy had spent only a very short time at the medical center.

By that Wednesday afternoon, with staples still in his head, Jeremy Flanders was in a holding tank at the Madison Street Jail.

When Jeremy Flanders comes into a visitation room at the jail, it’s hard to believe that seven inmates jumping on his head didn’t kill him. He’s very small, maybe five feet five, and the hand he extends has little strength in it.

His head is shaved, and it still shows the scars of being knocked around. One eye is still red with blood. Scabs and a lump form a ridge above his right temple. The scar on the back of his scalp seems to be healing nicely.

Flanders says he feels pretty good, considering. He’s not very talkative, and he waits for questions before answering in a respectful way. It’s not hard to see why guards took a liking to him. Flanders says he was given the job of cleaning the guards’ “dayroom” and got to know them well. Then, recently, he asked to be transferred to the chain-gang detail.

As a trusty, he was allowed to go out with the chain gang without being chained himself. He’d help with the tools the chain gang used, and with supplying the men with food. Flanders says he appreciated the chance to spend hours away from the jail.

The tents, he says, were the worst place for a former drug user to stay clean.

Seven months in Durango Jail awaiting trial had kicked his crack habit, Flanders says, because the stuff simply wasn’t available. After sentencing, however, Flanders was sent to Tent City.

“I wasn’t there an hour when I saw people smoking dope, shooting up.” He says he’s managed to stay clean, but it’s tougher when so many drugs are available. “Durango is more like a jail. The tents is more like the street,” he says.

“It’s not that hard to get beat up [in the tents]. There’s almost no guards. Only on certain days when Joe Arpaio is there, then there are a lot of security people.”

Despite the lack of guards and the presence of drugs, Flanders says he was doing well in Tent City. Except that he’d managed to make one enemy. Flanders acknowledges that “Joe” had become a problem.

“I know who he is. He doesn’t like me. That was the only enemy I had.” Flanders says that the original disagreement between them had something to do with cigarettes, but he doesn’t elaborate. “I offered to fight him one on one and he refused. That was the night before I got beat up.”

Flanders remembers going to bed on Thursday night. The next thing he remembers is waking up in a hospital room Sunday and seeing his brother. He not only doesn’t remember the attack, he doesn’t even remember working Friday.

“I guess I almost died. I was told someone had to do CPR on me. I woke up with tubes down my throat,” he says matter-of-factly.

The entire episode seems hardly to have affected him, and he says he’s not really worried about being sent back to the tents. It’s hard to tell if he’s telling the truth, or if after a year in jail, he’s learned to talk a flat, emotionless talk. Flanders can only relate what he’s been told about the beating itself, as if it happened to someone else.

“Somebody in the Horseshoe [the Madison Street Jail holding area] said a tent stake caused the cut on the back of my head.”

Judy Flanders tries to communicate the frustration she felt that week, but she knows it’s something that’s difficult to explain. “Until you’ve walked in our shoes, you have no idea how we’ve felt from the beginning of this,” she says. After their son had been moved from St. Joseph’s Hospital, the Flanderses say they found it nearly impossible to get information about the Sheriff’s Office’s plans for Jeremy. Their greatest fear: that Jeremy would be moved back into the tents.

They say they got no cooperation from the Sheriff’s Office until they made one key phone call: to U.S. Attorney Janet Napolitano, who is overseeing a Department of Justice investigation into allegations that inmates in Arpaio’s jails are being abused, that the abuse is covered up and that inmates are denied access to lawyers and medical care.

Once the U.S. Attorney’s Office called the Sheriff’s Office, Judy Flanders says, sheriff’s employees suddenly became helpful. She says Deputy Chief Larry Wendt, who oversees jail operations, sent a message through a subordinate that he’d personally see to it that Jeremy wasn’t moved back into the tents.

Despite the nearly fatal beating of Jeremy Flanders, the Sheriff’s Office denies that there’s a problem with security at Tent City. Lieutenant Campbell acknowledges that Jeremy Flanders was attacked by fellow inmates and suffered brain swelling, but he says that most of the damage occurred when Flanders was dropped by the inmate carrying him away from the beating. (Dr. Casano says that when Flanders first arrived at St. Joseph’s, the Sheriff’s Office told doctors that Flanders had fallen out of his bunk bed.)

As to the reason guards were unaware such an attack was occurring, Sergeant John Kleinheinz, another public information officer, says that the attack occurred near the time of a shift change at six o’clock, which could explain why guards were inattentive. And as for the delay in notifying Flanders’ parents, Kleinheinz says that notification of parents is not something they immediately do when the inmate is an adult.

In what may be a first, Sheriff Joe Arpaio turned down repeated requests for an interview.

Judy and Tom Flanders, meanwhile, have retained attorney Kevin Van Norman, who is considering filing a negligence lawsuit on Jeremy’s behalf. Van Norman says the extent of injuries make him believe that some kind of weapon was used. Van Norman says he’s heard Williams’ story of the tent stake, and that he believes the county is responsible for keeping such implements out of the hands of inmates. He also believes that Tent City lacks adequate guards to assure the safety of inmates.

As to Campbell’s assertion–that the majority of Flanders’ injuries were caused when his friend dropped him–Van Norman says: “If you saw what he looked like, you’d realize that a drop on the head couldn’t have done that. His head was swelled up three times its normal size, there was a gash that took 14 or 15 stitches to close up, and he was in a coma.”

The Flanderses have been told that their son’s recovery is going well. But on Monday, May 20, when Judy Flanders saw her son in Madison Street Jail, she was shocked by how he looked ten days after the attack: “Jeremy’s head looked different. It looks terrible; it looks like it has a dent. He has blurred, double vision. . . . I’m really concerned with his head. They’ve beaten him not only nearly to death, they’ve beaten the spark out of him.”

Judy Flanders says she understands that the public wants someone like her son to pay for committing crimes.

“What we’re against,” she says, “is security being so bad in the tents. These boys shouldn’t pay with their lives.

The Shadiest Guns in the West

Saturday, September 8th, 2007

The Shadiest Guns in the West
When it comes to ethics, some of Sheriff Joe’s top aides take after their boss
By Tony Ortega
Published: June 27, 1996

Joe’s Kickback Style
It’s August 1989, and travel agent Joe Arpaio is sweating bullets. His contract to coordinate travel for the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office is up for rebid, and Arpaio must convince a four-person panel that his company’s proposal is better than the other two finalists’. If he fails, he’ll lose about $200,000 in business–a contract he had won the year before under a previous sheriff who happened to be a personal friend.

But now there’s a new sheriff in town and Arpaio has stiff competition from other bidders. He’s got only 30 minutes to convince the committee–composed of three deputies and one county civilian employee–that he’ll deliver the best deal.

So he offers the department a kickback.
Dennis Hogan, the county Materials Management employee present that day, says Arpaio verbally offered to send a percentage of airline-ticket sales back to the sheriff’s warrants division, which oversaw travel. The offer didn’t match the written proposal Arpaio had submitted and was, in Hogan’s view, so unethical that he reported it to his supervisor that day.

Arpaio tells New Times his verbal offer was no different from what he pitched on paper. And, besides, he adds, kickbacks are standard in the travel industry.

Not on county contracts they’re not, Hogan counters.
Seven years later, Hogan works for a California medical firm, but Arpaio’s offer–and his sheer audacity in making it–is still etched in Hogan’s mind. Of the other three people present that day, Tricia Patterson and Kelley Waldrip remain with the Sheriff’s Office and turned down interview requests. The third, Larry Tyree, has since left the department but refused to comment.

Due in part to his desperate offer, Arpaio lost the contract and the $200,000 in sales. (His wife, Ava, insists she was present–Hogan doesn’t remember her–and that Joe never offered anything that wasn’t in writing. “When we went to the table, those kickbacks were shown to them. We might give back 1 percent of our 10 percent [profit]. That was in the written contract,” she says. Later, she insists that she and her husband offered a “rebate” not a “kickback.”)

Three years later, Arpaio would become Maricopa County’s sheriff himself.
He looks astonished when he’s asked if he holds himself and his employees to a high ethical standard. Of course, he replies.

But recent revelations tend to indicate otherwise: In February, New Times reported that Arpaio spent $39,350 in public funds earmarked for jail enhancement on an attorney who filed a 1994 lawsuit against the county Board of Supervisors. Arpaio had promised not to spend public money in his lawsuit. He spent another $11,000 of the jail-enhancement money for video copies of his television appearances, directing a video service to send him copies anytime Arpaio spoke on camera. The jail-fund expenditures have prompted an investigation by the state auditor general.

Arpaio’s office is also under investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice, which is probing claims of abuse of jail inmates. The Sheriff’s Office has spread misinformation about the deaths and beatings of inmates, and it resists attempts by reporters to obtain public records.

Many view Arpaio as the most popular elected official in Arizona but, as a sizable faction of his deputies is eager to point out, his decision making is hardly beyond reproach.

And some of those decisions involve the appointment of people who have themselves been accused of improprieties.

The sheriff’s political agenda is managed by a man who was bounced out of a job with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development after the agency received complaints that he was using his position and political influence for personal gain.

And Arpaio has given authority over his jails–marketed as the country’s toughest on lawbreakers–to an officer who has been accused by his ex-wife and others of misusing county property and lying about his whereabouts during business hours. The officer denies the charges and says that a sheriff’s internal investigation exonerated him.

Bill Miller, a former deputy chief under Arpaio, says the sheriff’s inner circle consists of sycophantic appointees with far-reaching powers. Miller, who retired in 1994, explains that despite Arpaio’s 25 years as a federal Drug Enforcement Administration agent, he has little experience in other forms of law enforcement management.

“I don’t think Arpaio knows how to spell ‘homicide,’” says Miller. “He’s walked all over evidence when he showed up at my crime scenes. We had to have his footprints taken so we could separate his prints from the other evidence.”

Miller says Arpaio has been forced to rely on subordinates to an embarrassing degree. And with the mainstream media finally asking tougher questions in the wake of the death of jail inmate Scott Norberg, Arpaio’s policy messes are increasingly being dumped into the laps of his inner circle.

Here’s HUD in Your Eye
On Sundays, Sheriff Arpaio’s executive assistant Tom Bearup preaches at a church in north Phoenix. He’s a deeply religious man committed to the power of prayer. And it was during a prayer that he discovered his life’s true calling. In 1980, God told Tom Bearup to run for mayor of Soldotna, a small Alaskan town where he had been a police officer for three years.

So he ran. And won. The experience exhilarated him and whetted his appetite for more. So, after moving back to his native Arizona, he volunteered to work for the Republican party. Bearup has since used his political contacts to land several jobs.

Today, as Arpaio’s executive assistant, Bearup is paid $76,000 to “coordinate public affairs activity,” a plum position he got after running Arpaio’s 1992 campaign. Most observers familiar with the Arpaio administration place Bearup as either the first- or second-most influential figure under the sheriff himself.

Unlike Arpaio, who brags about his “open-door policy” but sent word through a subordinate that he’s no longer accessible to New Times reporters, Bearup is cooperative and eager to discuss his past, especially after learning that New Times had obtained a report detailing a series of questionable actions by Bearup while he was a HUD employee.

Bearup is an effusive, glad-handing person who resembles Danny DeVito. He sits behind a large desk, surrounded by pictures of his family and of Nancy and Ronald Reagan.

Bearup says the early days of the Reagan administration were heady. He claims he’d made enough of an impression on the GOP from his remote mayoral seat in Alaska that he was considered for the ambassadorship to South Korea, where he had business contacts. He didn’t get the post, but he says he liked having a White House connection. So when he moved to Phoenix after his term, he started working as an advance man for President Reagan.

He was also a reserve officer in the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office, sold real estate, and was a vice president of a company that wanted to develop business leads in Korea.

Then disaster struck. In January 1987, he was laid off when the foreign development project dried up. Sluggish real estate sales couldn’t make up the difference.

Bearup found himself in serious straits, and he had many mouths to feed: seven children and a grandchild on the way. In February 1987, he stopped making payments on the mortgage of his Phoenix home.

Bearup says his lender told him he might qualify for a HUD program that would pay off his lender, take over his mortgage, and allow him to pay little or nothing while he got back on his feet.

He remembered that another Republican operative, Dwight Peterson, was with the Phoenix HUD office, so he called and inquired about the mortgage-assignment program. Bearup says Peterson referred him to another HUD employee who started the application process.

HUD investigators say the employee who handled Bearup’s application reported that Peterson had warned him that Bearup’s application “had better be handled properly, and he implied that if the mortgage was not accepted there could be problems because Bearup was well-connected politically.” The investigators say the employee wasn’t told outright to approve Bearup’s application, “however, from the tone of conversation, he assumed that the assignment of Bearup’s loan was supposed to be approved.”

HUD accepted Bearup for the assignment program in July 1987, suspending his mortgage payments through January 1988, and then extending that period through March 1988.

But Bearup would make no payments on his house for 25 months, from February 1987 to March 1989, when he sold it.

Under HUD rules, after the initial period of suspended payments, Bearup should have started making payments based on a formula that factored his income and debts. But Bearup complained that he couldn’t make the payments calculated by HUD. “At that time,” a loan specialist told investigators, “he told me of other liens which he had against the . . . property . . . I was of the opinion that he had not fully disclosed all of his liability information to HUD.”

The specialist made repeated attempts to get more financial information from Bearup, but she said he never responded. Bearup’s assignment was extended for an additional period to September 1988, when the loan specialist once again attempted to put Bearup on a payment plan.

By then, however, Bearup had applied for a job with HUD. He’d learned from his friend Peterson of an opening for a manager in the Tucson office. The loan specialist was told Bearup’s file would be sent for servicing either to the regional office in San Francisco or to the head office in Washington, D.C. She never sent another payment-plan proposal to Bearup.

Besides making no payments on his mortgage–even after taking a $40,000-a-year job as manager of the Tucson HUD office–Bearup also asked HUD for permission to sell his property and allow the buyer to simply take over payments; he didn’t want to bring payments up to date. He also asked that his original mortgage be extended by ten years. Both requests were outside the authority of the Phoenix HUD office to grant.

So Dwight Peterson directed HUD employees to draft a memo to the Washington, D.C., office requesting an exception in Bearup’s case. A HUD manager told investigators it was the only such exception the Phoenix officer ever had sought. He also noted that before the request was sent, Peterson deleted from the application a notation that Bearup worked for HUD.

Bearup claims that all of this was done without his knowledge, that if HUD employees such as his friend Dwight Peterson favored him because of his political status, it wasn’t because Bearup had asked them to.

Getting the managership at the Tucson HUD office should have made Bearup ineligible for HUD assistance on his Phoenix home.

Red flags should have gone up at HUD: Bearup was no longer living in the house for which he was receiving HUD assistance; he now had a $40,000 salary with HUD, and he hadn’t responded to HUD’s repeated requests for financial data. Yet Bearup continued to make no payments on his Phoenix mortgage, and HUD did nothing about it.

The loan specialist told investigators that Bearup continually promised that he was about to sell the house and needed just a little more time.

“My impression of Bearup was that he was attempting to buy time by telling me that he had potential buyers . . . ,” the loan specialist said.

“When he got a job with HUD, or if he moved out of the . . . property to Tucson, HUD should have taken those changed circumstances into consideration and adjusted his monthly mortgage payments accordingly or possibly even called his note due. But that did not happen.”

Finally, in March 1989, Bearup found a buyer for his house and paid off HUD. Long after someone without HUD assistance would have lost the house to foreclosure, Bearup had managed to pay off his loan, and he even turned a $3,100 profit.

Bearup told investigators that he hadn’t done anything wrong. As manager of a HUD office, however, he did admit that he should have been more concerned with appearances. He acknowledged that it didn’t look good for a HUD official to fail to make payments on his mortgage and to refuse to supply financial information to HUD while the agency had bailed him out.

HUD investigators also examined Bearup’s purchase, and subsequent abandonment, of a market and motel in the town of Strawberry. After he bought the property in July 1988, Bearup’s wife and several of his children moved into the motel. Investigators charge that Bearup gave the sellers the impression he and his wife would purchase the market in their names, but a week after entering escrow, the Bearups formed a corporation to buy the property, borrowing money from Bearup’s ex-wife to form the corporation and make the down payment on the market.

The market’s owners told HUD investigators they felt deceived, especially after Bearup failed to inform them in writing that he held a real estate broker’s license (such notification is required by law). Bearup’s wife and children operated the market for six months, subsisting on the stock of the store.

The former owners said that consuming the store’s inventory and living in two of the motel’s six units were among the bad business decisions that doomed the Bearups to fail. In January 1989, the day before an $80,000 balloon payment was due on the store, Bearup’s wife and children left Strawberry and joined him in Tucson. Ownership of the store went back to the previous owners, but the actions of the Bearups forced them into bankruptcy, they claimed.

Tom Bearup claims that he was the one who had been deceived in the deal. The previous owner’s sales projections were erroneous, he says. He says his actions did nothing to hasten their bankruptcy.

But HUD investigators noted that Bearup hadn’t reported that he had borrowed $25,000 for the market (Bearup claimed that it was a corporate debt, and not his responsibility), nor did he report any proceeds or profits from the market–all while he was still withholding payments on his Phoenix home with a HUD-assigned mortgage.

HUD investigators were interested in other matters as well. After taking his job with HUD and moving to Tucson, Bearup told one of his clients–the Estes Corporation, a development firm that competed for HUD contracts–that he needed a larger house. The Estes employee mentioned that the company might be able to find him something.

Then, in January 1989, Bearup wrote a letter to the Pima County Planning Commission, criticizing the panel for requiring Estes to provide low-income housing in one of its proposed developments. Before he sent it, Bearup asked a subordinate to read the letter to an Estes representative to get his input. The Estes official suggested some slight changes, and the letter was sent to the commission.

The next month, Bearup rented a home from Estes for $850 per month–$400 per month less than the previous tenant had paid. HUD investigators noted that Bearup’s check for move-in costs bounced.

Bearup explains that the previous tenant had paid more to have access to ten acres of land around the house, and that he felt Estes Homes treated him no differently from any other tenant. One of his co-workers, however, told investigators that he had warned Bearup that renting from Estes could backfire on him. HUD investigators reported that Bearup “acknowledged that his rental relationship . . . could be seen by outsiders as a conflict of interest and that as the manager of a HUD office he should be concerned with appearances.”

Finally, HUD investigators were interested in a building project that Bearup helped promote before he started working at HUD. Bearup was one of many investors who were hoping to build a special government-aided development project in Casa Grande. Although he had put up none of his own money, Bearup was promised a healthy percentage of the profits on the deal because of his work in putting together the original team of investors. He also stood to make $50,000 as a brokering fee if HUD accepted the project.

When Bearup took a job at HUD, he relinquished his interest in the project’s profits. But even though he no longer was a partner, he still stood to collect the $50,000 if HUD accepted the deal. One HUD employee told investigators he advised Bearup that if the agency hired him, he “would have to divorce himself from the Casa Grande Farms project; that they could not discuss it anymore; and that Bearup still raised the issue two or three times after he became Manager of the Tucson office.” HUD turned down the project.

And after completing its investigation, on June 30, 1989, HUD fired Tom Bearup.

Bearup says he was investigated only because he had called for HUD to investigate why appliances were disappearing from HUD homes, and he was the victim of a witch hunt. The firing left him with few options, he says, because he was blackballed in the business community.

He says if he’d really wanted to use his influence for personal gain, he could have just picked up a phone to the White House. That he didn’t do that, he says, is proof that he never misused his position but was simply the target of an office that wanted to dump somebody in the face of public animosity (under Reagan, HUD had been rocked by a series of scandals). Bearup says he made it convenient for the Tucson office to claim that it had cleaned house.

The years following his firing were grim, Bearup says. He managed a Taco Bell in Prescott until his pride made him quit.

Bearup says that through it all, Joe Arpaio was the only friend who stood by him. Years later, he would run Arpaio’s campaign for sheriff, then become his executive assistant. Bearup gets misty-eyed remembering his friend’s loyalty.

But when New Times cornered Arpaio at a speaking engagement, the sheriff gave a different version. Asked about Bearup’s troubles with HUD, the sheriff says: “I didn’t know about it when I hired him.” Arpaio says he found out about the HUD investigation in a background check done after Bearup had been hired, not before, as is customary with other Sheriff’s Office employees.

“As far as I’m concerned,” Arpaio says of Bearup’s actions at HUD, “he did nothing unethical in that.”

The Cook, the Chief, His Ex-Wife and Her Mother
On the morning of April 12, 1996, Diane Wendt called the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office asking for her ex-husband, deputy chief Larry Wendt. She knew that her attorney intended to serve him with court papers regarding their custody battle, and she wanted to know where her lawyer could find him.

Diane was told that her ex-husband was at the Legislature, lobbying on behalf of the sheriff.

She didn’t know that her attorney had found Larry Wendt an hour earlier, but not at the Legislature. Larry Wendt had been served papers at a barbecue in Cave Creek.

Wendt oversees some of Arpaio’s most notorious creations–his tent jail, chain gang and other well-known penal deprivations–and serves as Arpaio’s legislative liaison. Wendt agrees with observers who say he’s probably third or fourth in the office pecking order.

He also operates Cowpunchers, a barbecue business which grossed $150,000 in 1995.

His ex-wife claims that Wendt operates the business on county time, using a county vehicle, and that he’s lied to sheriff’s investigators about his misuse of and even theft of county property. Complaining that her ex-husband was harassing her and trying to control her life, Diane Wendt, a former sheriff’s employee herself, says she went in desperation to chief deputy Jadel Roe in 1994. Roe initiated an internal investigation.

Wendt argues that his ex-wife is motivated by their bitter custody battle, and that the investigation exonerated him. The business is owned by his present wife, Wendt says, and she’s its primary operator.

But people not involved in the custody battle confirm many of Diane Wendt’s charges, and some of them say they were ignored when the Sheriff’s Office investigated the allegations against Wendt in 1994.

County health worker Tom Dominick, for example, has no interest in the Wendts’ custody battle. So far in 1996, he’s inspected Cowpunchers five times. Coincidentally, all five inspections occurred on weekdays. And, says Dominick, Larry Wendt was present each time.

“I don’t think I was present at all five,” Wendt tells New Times, offering vacation chits and a copy of his schedule to show that he took vacation days to work at barbecues.

But there’s no vacation chit dated April 12, 1996. Wendt had not only been served by Diane Wendt’s attorney that morning, Tom Dominick also says Larry Wendt was present when he made an inspection of Cowpunchers, and that Wendt remained there throughout the day.

Wendt explains that he had gone to the Legislature to attend a Senate Judiciary Committee meeting that morning, just as his calendar indicates, but that when he arrived, he found that the lawmakers weren’t considering bills. So he left early, having already notified Roe that he’d be taking half a day off.

There’s also no vacation chit for February 7, 1996, another weekday that Dominick inspected Cowpunchers. The health inspector says he remembers that day vividly, recalling details about the location of the inspection and that another health worker was with him. And he distinctly remembers that Larry Wendt was present, working the barbecue.

Wendt founded the business in 1990 with a fellow deputy, Bill Williams, and their wives. Williams says that at first, the business grew slowly, taking up perhaps one or two weekends every month. But then, as word of mouth got around, business picked up rapidly. The barbecuers were so busy, Williams says, that he was using his vacation days for weekday events and had little time with his family on the weekends. So he got out. Wendt still owes him $2,000, Williams says, but he doesn’t expect to get it. “You shouldn’t go into business with friends,” Williams says.

He doesn’t know how Larry Wendt was able to grow the business and still maintain his busy work schedule.

Diane Wendt says her ex-husband did it by lying about his whereabouts to the Sheriff’s Office and making illegal use of his county vehicles. She says his pattern of abuse of county property started years ago. On weekdays, she says, Wendt would go to barbecues in his personal truck, so Diane, who didn’t own another car, had to take the Wendt’s county car to work–something that wasn’t supposed to happen.

Sheriff’s spokesman Lieutenant Tim Campbell tells News Times that deputies, including chiefs, aren’t supposed to use their county vehicles during off-duty hours, nor should spouses or others drive their cars.

But Larry Wendt admitted to as much when he was investigated by the Sheriff’s Office in 1994. Although the Sheriff’s Office refused to turn over a report on the internal investigation of Wendt, he acknowledges telling investigators that his present wife had driven his county car.

But Diane Wendt says investigators didn’t bother to contact another woman who had worked for Cowpunchers and who could corroborate Diane’s claim that Larry Wendt made extensive private use of his county vehicle.

Dixie Lauko, a former county employee who used to see Diane and Larry Wendt socially, confirms that she was never contacted by sheriff’s investigators.

Lauko says she saw Wendt use his county-supplied unmarked Ford Bronco for personal use “many, many times.” On Friday and Saturday nights in 1994, Larry Wendt would show up at youth bicycle races, always, Lauko says, in the county vehicle. “We even had a tailgate party on it once,” she says. “I don’t think I ever saw him drive his personal car to the bike races. In fact, I know I didn’t.”

Lauko also helped occasionally as a Cowpunchers worker. And she says that on at least one occasion she saw Wendt’s Cowpunchers trailer hooked to his county-owned Bronco.

Wendt denies using the Bronco to tow the trailer, and he says anyone who says so was simply confused because the Bronco–which he admits taking to the barbecues–and the trailer were simply in the same location.

But Lauko is adamant. She says she clearly saw the two hooked together.
Diane Wendt, meanwhile, agrees that her ex-husband often used the Bronco to pull his trailer, but that again, sheriff’s investigators failed to take her accusations seriously or interview Lauko, who would have backed up her claims.

A woman who coached Wendt’s children says Wendt frequently drove his county vehicle while off-duty.

“Larry Wendt’s kids were on my soccer team [in 1994] and every Saturday he would come in his sheriff’s car,” says Kathy, who refused to give her last name because members of her family work at the Sheriff’s Office.

“He also came after school to pick his kids up in the sheriff’s car,” Kathy says, echoing a charge made by Diane Wendt, who says that her ex-husband would travel great distances in his county vehicle to transport his children on afternoons and weekends.

Kathy says that other sheriff’s employees are told they can’t make such use of their cars.

“My uncle is higher than Larry Wendt, and he can’t do it. So I know you’re not supposed to do that,” Kathy says. “I mean, it’s for work only, and I know on Saturday mornings [Wendt] would come pick his kids up and he lived 55 minutes away, and he’s not even working.”

Eileen Hicks, Diane Wendt’s mother, says her evidence that Larry Wendt misused his position at the Sheriff’s Office was also ignored by investigators.

She remembers being uncomfortable when her son-in-law gave her a bicycle for Christmas in 1982. Wendt was in charge of a sheriff’s program to benefit disadvantaged children at the time, and one of the program’s activities was to repair discarded bicycles and give them to children. Eileen Hicks says Wendt gave two of those bicycles to her and her husband. Hicks says when she expressed reservations about accepting the bike, Wendt told her, “They’ll never miss it.”

Hicks says she received a call from a captain investigating Wendt, but after hearing their accounts and taking down the serial numbers of the bicycles, the captain never contacted her again. “We offered to bring the bicycles down there, but they refused,” she says.

Wendt denies that he stole the bicycles. He says that the sheriff’s program collected bicycles, refurbished them, and gave them to disadvantaged children. But an abundance of larger bicycles were left over, and Wendt says the department encouraged employees to purchase them to raise funds. Which is what he did, Wendt says, when he gave two of them to his in-laws.

Hicks says they were told by investigators that the Sheriff’s Office didn’t believe their version of events. She and her husband asked to take polygraphs, but were told that Arpaio and chief deputy Roe had decided not to polygraph anyone in the investigation.

(Meanwhile, Arpaio employees tell New Times that several deputies have been polygraphed in a search for people who leaked information that triggered a series of New Times articles about the Sheriff’s Office.)

Diane Wendt says Roe told her that the report on the internal investigation had gone to Arpaio, who had the final decision. “You know how things work around here, Diane,” she says Roe told her.

Roe tells New Times that the evidence she’d seen supported Larry Wendt’s side of the story, and she didn’t think a polygraph test was necessary. She notes that Larry Wendt was eager to take a polygraph himself.

Sheriff Arpaio fended off questions about Wendt and his barbecue, saying that Roe knew more about it.

Wendt says he was the subject of a thorough and rigorous investigation. “Seriously,” he says, “this organization pursues rumors and leaks and allegations made by the public harder than most you will see.”

The public must take Wendt’s word for it. Because of the sheriff’s increasing secrecy, the public seldom sees the results of such investigations.