Archive for September, 2007

First Pink Underwear, Now Pink Slip

Saturday, September 8th, 2007

First Pink Underwear, Now Pink Slip
Sheriff Arpaio intends to fire a patrol sergeant who allegedly talked to the press
By Tony Ortega Phoenix New Times
Published: August 15, 1996

Sergeant Mark Battilana found out last week that Sheriff Joe Arpaio intends to fire him.

Battilana had been suspended in May and was the subject of an internal investigation for unspecified code-of-conduct violations. Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office spokesman Lieutenant Tim Campbell confirms that Battilana faces a pretermination hearing on August 15. Four days later, Campbell says, the Sheriff’s Office will make a final determination whether to fire Battilana, and if he is fired, will then reveal the accusations against the 18-year veteran.

Deputies say that Battilana is being fired because he is suspected of talking to New Times.

An April 25 New Times cover story (“Mutiny at the County”) relied on deputies’ accounts and public records to document how the sheriff’s posse program was eating up the department’s resources, which has in turn eroded respect for Arpaio among his own employees.

Deputies say that Arpaio responded to the article with a massive campaign to find out who had fed New Times information. As a result, Battilana was suspended, several employees were given polygraph examinations, and other longtime deputies suspected by Arpaio were transferred to undesirable jobs.

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

Arpaio, through his spokesman, refuses to discuss why Battilana was singled out for suspension. In May, Campbell would only say that Battilana was being investigated for “a number of code-of-conduct violations.” Campbell wouldn’t confirm that Battilana was accused of talking to a reporter.

But when a sheriff’s investigator contacted a former reporter for the West Valley View in July, most of the questions related to New Times’ story. Bill Lane, who used to report on the Sheriff’s Office for the West Valley View, says he was called by Lieutenant Gary Gregory, an internal affairs officer. Lane says Gregory asked several questions, but seemed most interested in whether Battilana had ever mentioned talking to New Times reporters. Lane says he was unresponsive.

The Sheriff’s Office confirms that Gregory assisted Lieutenant Robert Wetherell, an enforcement-support officer who was temporarily assigned to internal affairs to oversee the Battilana investigation. Wetherell has since been given permanent command of the internal affairs division, replacing Captain Garland Moore, who took a job in the jails division.

Deputies and former employees cite the appointment of Wetherell–who had worked for posse boss Chief David Hendershott–as proof that power is increasingly shifting to Hendershott and his posse operations.

“Arpaio’s always been paranoid of anyone talking to the press,” says Bill Miller, a former deputy chief in the department. “It’s just a petty-ass witch hunt. That’s probably why Moore was transferred out, because he wouldn’t put up with it. But Wetherell was willing and got moved up.”

In May, Arpaio’s chief deputy, Jadel Roe, told New Times that she had appointed Wetherell to the investigation because Wetherell had worked with Battilana and, if anything, would treat Battilana favorably.

But deputies tell New Times that there was no love lost between Wetherell and Battilana. And former deputy chief Miller says Roe is just covering for a decision she didn’t make.

“Jadel Roe is doing exactly what she was told to do. I’ve been told she assigned Wetherell to the job because she was told to by Arpaio and Hendershott,” Miller says.

Sheriff’s spokesman Campbell says nobody from the department will comment on the case until the final determination on August 19.

If he is fired, Battilana will be able to file an appeal with a county merit commission. That could eventually lead to a hearing, and Arpaio could be called to testify.

Neither Battilana nor his lawyer, Bob Yen, was available for comment.

Joe’s Slush Fund

Saturday, September 8th, 2007

Joe’s Slush Fund
State auditor general confirms that Sheriff Arpaio misspent $122,419
By Tony Ortega Phoenix New Times
Published: September 19, 1996

In February, New Times reported that Sheriff Joe Arpaio had made questionable payments from state jail enhancement funds–a source of public money that normally gets little attention from the public or press.

After the article appeared, County Attorney Richard Romley asked the state auditor general to look into the expenditures as part of a regularly scheduled audit.

Seven months later, the Auditor General’s Office finished an investigation of Arpaio and several other sheriffs, and last week sent out its conclusions: Arpaio had indeed misused the jail enhancement fund.

JEF is funded with fines and penalties levied in the state’s courts and is distributed to various agencies under guidelines set by a criminal justice commission.

Each year, more than $700,000 of that money is set aside for the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office to upgrade the county’s jails.

Confirming what New Times had reported in February, the auditor general concluded that Arpaio misspent jail enhancement funds on attorney fees and videotapes of his television appearances, among other things.

In total, the auditor general found that Arpaio had misused $122,419.
The audit criticizes other sheriffs as well, but mostly for spending JEF money for items that should have been paid by the county general fund.

Arpaio, however, is singled out for spending large amounts of money that couldn’t be considered jail-related at all, including:

“News videotaping services of the sheriff’s appearances–$11,969.
“Attorney fees for the County Sheriff’s Office lawsuit regarding its operating budget–$39,350.

“Conference and travel costs for the sheriff to attend National Sheriff’s Conferences over a three-year period–$9,075.

“Training, travel and conferences for employees who had no jail-related operations or whose curriculum did not pertain to jails–$7,015.

“Computer equipment and supplies for divisions not related to jail facilities–$45,135.

“Membership fees and dues of various organizations not related to corrections, detention, or any other jail-related profession–$2,600.

“Exercise equipment for County Sheriff’s Office personnel–$2,642.
“Banquets for volunteers and other non-jail-related miscellaneous items–$4,633.”

Pima County was also found to have spent money from its jail enhancement fund that couldn’t be justified as jail-related. The total: $370.

When New Times confronted Arpaio with records of the expenditures last February, the sheriff dismissed them by saying that JEF money wasn’t public money.

“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,” Arpaio said.

Now he’s arguing something different. Since the auditor general has confirmed that the funds are indeed public money and that Arpaio has misused them, Arpaio has told reporters that the auditor general has misinterpreted the word “enhancement.”

Because a county sheriff is primarily a jailer, Arpaio claims that just about anything he does could be construed as a benefit to his jails. For instance, he justifies the payments to Newscount, Inc., for videotapes of his television appearances as some kind of training exercise for his deputies and detention officers.

Recently, however, the Sheriff’s Office let New Times see a catalogue of the tapes in Arpaio’s collection. Many of the segments were the sheriff’s appearances at parades or at public relations stunts.

And all of them were stored at the Sheriff’s Office, not at substations or jails where they might be used for “training purposes.”

Arpaio says he buys the tapes so his deputies will know what the department is doing. But it’s not the department that Newscount is instructed to record. Arpaio has admitted to New Times that there’s only one criterion that Newscount uses to decide what to tape for the department: “When I talk,” the sheriff says.

So while a burgeoning library of his on-camera utterances grows steadily and is catalogued by his staff, Arpaio continues to insist that the public pays for videos used in fighting crime.

Another matter could prove to be a real problem for him: whether he used JEF money to bypass state procurement codes.

In 1994, Arpaio sued the Board of Supervisors over its ability to set his budget. The lawsuit was widely regarded as little more than a constitutionalist stunt, but Arpaio vowed that he was serious and also promised not to use public funds to pay his attorney’s fees.

However, New Times obtained a letter from Arpaio to a state Department of Corrections official which showed that two months before he made that promise, the sheriff had discreetly asked whether DOC would complain if he dipped into JEF. (DOC has no legal control over the money but was the only agency overseeing Arpaio’s use of it–something that the auditor general concluded has to change.)

Despite his promise not to use public money, the sheriff did just that, paying his attorney in four checks drawn on the JEF fund.

Arpaio may have broken several laws governing public contracts in the process.

Arizona laws spell out clearly the process that public officials must follow in using public money to hire private attorneys. When Arpaio paid his attorney, however, he failed to follow these laws. The sheriff insists that he got County Attorney Romley’s permission to hire a private attorney, but he never went through the approval process to hire a private attorney with public funds.

That could make him liable for the $39,350 he paid attorney Robert Yen, plus a 20 percent penalty and legal fees.

Arpaio doled out the money to Yen in four payments, each between $9,500 and $9,950. If a prosecutor could prove that Arpaio intentionally made payments of less than $10,000 to purposely bypass procurement laws, the sheriff could face prison time.

When New Times first reported the payments to Yen, special assistant county attorney Barnett Lotstein claimed that his boss, Richard Romley, was looking into the allegations but wanted to wait until the auditor general completed its investigation first.

Now that the auditor general has verified the misuses, prosecutors still appear unexcited about the prospect of going after Arpaio.

Romley’s spokesman Bill FitzGerald says that the county attorney probably wouldn’t handle a criminal prosecution of the sheriff because of a conflict of interest. On the other hand, he says it’s likely that a civil action–a suit to force Arpaio to pay back the money he misspent–would, if called for, be handled by Romley’s office. Any criminal procedure would be handled by the state attorney general, FitzGerald suggests.

But Attorney General Grant Woods hasn’t seen a copy of the auditor general’s report yet, says his spokeswoman Karie Dozer. And she’s unsure that Woods would be interested in taking on “America’s Toughest Sheriff.”

“Wouldn’t Rick Romley handle that?” she asks.
New Times wondered if jurisdictional confusion was really that complicated–or more likely a sign of trepidation. So calls were placed to other county attorneys for clarification.

Prosecutors in other counties say that civil suits to recover state money would be handled by the attorney general, but that either Romley or Woods could prosecute a criminal case.

Coconino County Attorney Terry Hance says he’s not surprised Romley and Woods aren’t rushing to file civil or criminal charges against the sheriff. “I’m sure they don’t want to fly in the face of Sheriff Joe hastily,” he says.

Sanitized for Joe’s Protection

Saturday, September 8th, 2007

Sanitized for Joe’s Protection
Sheriff’s summary of probe into inmate’s death omits alarming details
By Tony Ortega
Published: October 24, 1996

The Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office has distilled its four-month investigation of jail inmate Scott Norberg’s death into a convenient, 137-page shrink-wrapped summary, available for the asking.

The concluding paragraphs of the investigation–the summing up of the summary, as it were, written by Detective Todd Bates and reviewed by Sergeant James Lusson–argue that on June 1 in the Madison Street Jail, Norberg fought as his jailers attempted to strap him into a restraining chair, and then suddenly went limp. The final page contains one sentence: “The Medical Examiner has ruled that Norberg’s death was accidental.”

What can’t be found in the breezy, 137-page summary are witness statements that suggest another conclusion entirely: that out-of-control detention officers, bent on revenge for having to restrain the combative inmate, ignored warnings that they were asphyxiating Norberg.

At least one detention officer–one who was paying close attention to Norberg’s condition–contradicts the scenario that Norberg “suddenly went limp.” In fact, she claims she tried to tell the guards that they were suffocating Norberg, who had literally turned purple.

She says an officer snapped back at her, “Who gives a fuck.”
That comment doesn’t show up in the summary put out by the Sheriff’s Office. Nor in the brief, tidied-up review of the investigation that appeared in the October 17 Arizona Republic, along with news that County Attorney Rick Romley plans to follow up on leads unpursued by Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s investigators.

For this and other details that raise serious questions about the actions of Arpaio’s jailers–as well as the felicitous summarizing skills of his investigators–one has to plow through the 2,100-page, six-volume version of the investigation.

It’s shrink-wrapped, too, and carries a price tag of $1,050.

The first couple reams of paper in the investigative tome are devoted to Norberg’s chaotic wanderings in Mesa on May 31. From the beginning of the Norberg controversy, the Sheriff’s Office has stressed Norberg’s criminal history, his problems with drugs and alcohol and his bizarre behavior on his final day as if it all suggested that Norberg deserved to die while awaiting trial in Arpaio’s jail. (And at first, most news organizations went along with it. The Republic’s initial front-page story on Norberg’s death was titled: “Dead Inmate Had Long Record.”)

But ironically, the investigator’s thorough documentation of Norberg’s acts in Mesa provides a telling picture of how authorities outside the Sheriff’s Office deal with a problem inmate. Although Norberg had wrestled with a Mesa police officer and knocked off his glasses–warranting an aggravated-assault charge–employees at Mesa jail were able to get the inmate to cooperate and respond to basic requests.

On the morning of June 1, about 12 hours after being arrested, Norberg was moved to Madison Street Jail. That afternoon, the report states, his combativeness resulted in a brawl with Sheriff Arpaio’s guards.

Despite his ability to throw off a multiplicity of guards grasping for his limbs, Norberg was eventually pinned to the floor of a holding tank and handcuffed, investigators were told. He was then tossed into a hallway by two detention officers–an occurrence which can be seen fairly clearly on the blurry videotape released by the Sheriff’s Office.

Norberg was laid on his stomach, and detention officers sat on his legs to control him.

At this point, a crucial decision was made.
When Norberg had become combative in Mesa, police officers there reacted by cuffing Norberg and leaving him in a cell by himself. At Madison Street Jail, however, someone decided that it was a better idea to force him into a medieval-looking restraining chair and wrap a towel around his mouth.

It turned out to be a lethal choice. But after a four-month, 2,100-page investigation, MCSO detectives apparently could get no closer to understanding how and why that choice was made.

Sheriff’s investigators don’t seem interested in who had requested the chair. In fact, none of the dozens of witnesses interviewed is asked to explain who had called for the chair, or to detail what circumstances justified its use.

Instead, investigators seem predisposed to assume that the restraint chair’s use was unremarkable. Summarizing one interview, an investigator makes it sound as if use of the chair was standard practice:

“Nurse [Kay] Campbell told me that from her past experience, she knew additional officers would be coming and that Norberg would probably be placed into the restraint chair.”

If Campbell made such a statement, it is not included in the complete transcript of her interview.

Other jailers admit that the chair was rarely used.
One detention officer tells investigators that in his four months at Madison Street intake, he’d never seen an inmate “chaired.” Another estimates that it happened about three times a year.

And even less frequent than the use of the restraint chair, apparently, was instruction on how to use it properly.

“Are you, ah, trained in how to put these people in the chair and how to restrain ‘em and how not to restrain ‘em?” an investigator asks Detention Officer Kimberly Walsh.

“Trained?” Walsh responds. “The way I learned was from the first time doing it. They tell you what to do.”

“Okay. Kind of OJT?” Gregory asks.
“Yeah.”
Presumably, in their on-the-job training, jailers were instructed how to put a combative inmate into the chair without killing him. But in Norberg’s case, evidence suggests that the use of the chair was not only unusual, but cruel as well. And not all of that evidence comes from the accounts of inmates.

John Courey, a Phoenix police officer, happened to be at the jail that afternoon. He tells an investigator he could see Norberg being stuffed into the chair. And he heard the detention officer uttering angrily at Norberg: “How [do] you like [it], you think you’re a fucking tough guy.” Courey says he heard it repeatedly, “Something to that effect, several times.”

Detention Officer Walsh, the woman who held the towel around Norberg–to keep him from spitting, she says–also portrays her fellow jailers as angry, uncontrollable, and bent on some sort of revenge.

“I, I told the officers around that he was purple,” she tells investigators, adding that she noticed Norberg had gone limp as he was being held in the chair.

“Um, nobody stopped and I told the officers again that I didn’t think he was breathing. They continued . . . you know, when I told him that he was purple, he just said, you know, ‘Who gives a fuck.’”

She identifies Officer Martin Spidell–who was pushing Norberg’s handcuffed arms up over his head and behind the chair while three other officers pushed down on Norberg’s head–as the source of the remark.

“I told [Detention Officer David] Gurney to the right, I don’t think he was breathing. It was like, they wouldn’t stop,” she tells her interviewer.

Walsh estimates that Norberg’s head had been pushed down into his chest for five to ten minutes. She says she “didn’t think it was appropriate” for the officers to push his head down so far. “I couldn’t even get my head down that far,” she says. “All the way down for that long, that length of time. . . . Down to my chest. It was all the way down. . . . And his arms were back and he was being held down like that.”

Walsh admits that she complained to Nurse Campbell about the way Norberg was treated because, “I was angry . . . how things were done.”

None of Walsh’s assertions about what detention officers had said, nor her comment that “they wouldn’t stop,” are included in the sanitized summary compiled by the Sheriff’s Office.

Neither are Court Clerk Patty Duran’s statements that what she saw was an example of excessive force. Duran had accompanied Judge Robert Bushor into the hallway outside Norberg’s cell because Norberg had refused to report for an Initial Appearance.

“[Duran] said she felt that what happened should never have happened,” investigator T.C. Shorts writes. “She said she thought it was excessive.” He adds that Duran was uncomfortable about discussing the incident: “She further stated that she has to work with many of them and didn’t want to be involved.”

In the 137-page narrative summary of the investigation, however, there’s no mention of Duran’s characterization of the events as “excessive.”

Predictably, inmates are less shy about their assessment of Norberg’s treatment: They say they saw excessive, brutal force, and complained loudly about it to investigators.

The inmates condemn detention officers, which is to be expected. But remarkably, their versions of the incident comport well with the hard evidence.

It’s only an inmate, for example, who correctly says how many detention officers, nine, entered the holding tank to suppress Norberg. The videotape clearly bears this out; there were not five to eight, as guessed by various detention officers.

And inmate accounts of the number of times Norberg was zapped by stun guns are closer to what an independent autopsy found later. Jail-guard estimates ranged from two stuns to six; inmates put the number at anywhere from eight to 20. An examination of Norberg’s corpse commissioned by the Norberg family puts the number at 21.

Inmates also corroborate allegations by Detention Officer Kimberly Walsh and Phoenix police Officer John Courey that detention officers were angry and used obscenities. The prisoners say that besides the viciousness of Norberg’s handlers, what appalled them most was the smiling, joking attitude displayed by detention officers standing on the sidelines.

The officers themselves made almost no comments to investigators about their own states of mind, concentrating solely on Norberg’s behavior. But again, hard evidence tends to support the inmates.

In the videotape, it’s possible, when faces are close to the camera, to see more expressions of mirth than of alarm. And one of the most intriguing, and chilling, episodes in the Norberg drama is the nonchalance of the 911 call for help after jailers realized Norberg wasn’t breathing.

Not surprisingly, the inmates’ version of events has been dismissed by Sheriff Arpaio. However, recognizing the skepticism the public would hold toward an investigation conducted by his own employees, the sheriff has developed a typically Arpaioesque strategy: He dares other authorities to look into the matter, as if to do so would be political suicide. Meanwhile, he continues to suggest that inmate accounts are tainted by self-interest while those of detention officers facing possible homicide charges are not.

A Mesa Tribune columnist has made the case that Judge Bushor’s version of events should be considered the most objective and compelling, since Bushor was neither a jail employee nor an inmate. But the judge acknowledges to investigators that when Norberg was pulled out of the holding tank, he moved to the end of the hall. Of all of the witnesses interviewed by investigators, Bushor is among the least descriptive.

Bushor also admits that the inmates, looking out of the holding tank’s window, had a better vantage point.

Two inmates, interviewed separately, give investigators particularly intriguing and consistent accounts of what ignited Norberg’s brawl with jailers. They say Norberg was in a half-conscious state, sitting on the cell’s floor with his back to the door when Detention Officer David Gurney opened it and tried to get Norberg’s attention. Norberg ignored Gurney’s command to stand up for an initial appearance with Judge Bushor. So Gurney moved toward Norberg and prodded him. That’s when, the inmates say, Norberg suddenly stood up, spooking Gurney. Norberg’s move wasn’t aggressive, the inmates say, but Gurney nonetheless reacted by knocking Norberg over and sparking the free-for-all.

Gurney’s version of the incident doesn’t differ much from that of the two inmates. Gurney tells investigators that he was surprised by Norberg’s sudden move, but he argues that he made a conscious decision to grasp Norberg because the inmate’s fists were clenched. That sign of aggression–even though Norberg was facing away–justified flattening the inmate, Gurney claims.

After that, detention officers tell investigators, they simply reacted to Norberg’s surprising strength.

Even after he was handcuffed and pinned, detention officers say, the former college football player continued to struggle and throw officers like a bucking bronc. The jailers became determined to lock Norberg down so he couldn’t fight anymore.

They succeeded.
Explains one officer to his interrogator: “Norberg never said he couldn’t breathe.

There’s No Accounting for Joe’s Posses

Saturday, September 8th, 2007

There’s No Accounting for Joe’s Posses
Sheriff thumbs nose at Public Records Law, refuses to disclose how posses collect and spend hundreds of thousands of dollars
By Tony Ortega
Published: November 14, 1996

The Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office and its posses appear to be violating the Arizona Public Records Law by refusing to disclose information about how they handle hundreds of thousands of dollars.

For more than a year, Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s 49 separate volunteer posses have raised funds by selling souvenir pink boxer shorts emblazoned with a likeness of a badge and the words “Go Joe.” Proceeds from those sales, as well as the costs of producing new batches of the underwear, have been handled by the Posse Foundation, a nonprofit organization incorporated in 1995.

Although the money is being raised under the supervision of the Sheriff’s Office–pink underwear and its proceeds are processed through the Enforcement Support Division–the sheriff and his posses refuse to turn over records of how much money has been raised and how it has been spent.

Arpaio claims that since his posses are independent, nonprofit organizations, their records are not subject to the Arizona Public Records Law.

But in a computer search at the Arizona Corporation Commission, less than half of the sheriff’s posses turned up as active, nonprofit corporations. The rest could not be found at all. And according to public records experts, as well as the office of the attorney general, if a source of money has been handled by public employees at any time, then the Public Records Law does apply to records of those funds. If the Sheriff’s Office has any control over pink-underwear money, says Grant Woods’ spokeswoman, Karie Dozer, then the posses must turn their records over to New Times.

And the Sheriff’s Office does appear to have control over those funds.
Pink-underwear money is only raised under the supervision of sheriff’s employees. Posse members have no authorization to perform any duties on their own, a rule that contradicts their claims that they are independent entities. In fact, one posse leader was fired recently when he repeatedly defied Arpaio directives and claimed that the posses were independent, nonprofit volunteer organizations.

Earlier articles by New Times have also shown that, far from being the no-cost volunteer organizations that Arpaio claims, the posses are actually a serious drain on the Sheriff’s Office in ammunition costs and resources for training (“Mutiny at the County,” April 25). Training of posse men and women is overseen by sworn personnel, posse field programs are supervised by paid deputies, and posse members raise money while under orders of Sheriff’s Office employees.

What’s done with that money is also under control of the Sheriff’s Office. Several posse commanders tell New Times that when they need money for their projects, they have been instructed to call Sergeant Brian Sands of the Sheriff’s Office Enforcement Support Division. Sands, a public employee, reportedly doles out the money to individual posses.

Encountered at a recent concert where posse members were providing security, Sands was asked if it were true he had control over the money that the Sheriff’s Office claims is privately raised by posses. Sands replied that yes, the posses could request “grants” from him.

When he was asked if it was the Posse Foundation which was, in fact, supposed to be handling the money brought in by pink-underwear sales, Sergeant Frank Munnell, another posse overseer, jumped in to respond. The posses aren’t sent cash when they need it, Munnell said. Instead, he explained, when posses need funds, the Enforcement Support Division ships them over a pile of pink boxers which they can then sell for the proceeds.

Neither Sands nor Munnell denied that the Sheriff’s Office controls the flow of posse merchandise or cash.

The Posse Foundation last provided New Times with a detailed ledger of its activities in February. It refuses to do so now, saying that as a nonprofit organization the foundation is required only to submit an annual report to the state Corporation Commission–which may not be available until well into 1997.

According to the records available in February, the posses had raked in $417,269 in pink-underwear sales. And that’s after selling its first pair only four months earlier, in October 1995. Despite that phenomenal volume, however, Allen Wilson of the foundation says that today, nine months after hitting the $400,000 mark, sales have only reached about $500,000. “Sales over the summer were slow,” he tells New Times.

At a recent Roadrunners hockey game, however, posse members were doing a brisk business of both pink boxers and their most recent marketing brainstorm: pink tee shirts. Sheriff Arpaio himself showed up with the players of a posse-sponsored youth baseball team. The baseball players fanned out over the rink and threw pairs of the pink boxers into the stands as Arpaio slipped and fell on the ice. The crowd roared its appreciation.

Sheriff Arpaio has said that funds raised by his posses will be used to offset the costs incurred in its various missions. He suggests in his book America’s Toughest Sheriff that if the posse could raise “a couple of million dollars,” it could pay what taxpayers do today: the labor costs of deputies who supervise posse activities.

But of the $417,269 raised before the Posse Foundation stopped releasing records, only $3,692.78 was spent to reimburse the county for the costs of posse operations. Nearly twice as much was spent for a newspaper advertisement which admonished out-of-town visitors during Super Bowl week not to commit crimes. The ad was widely viewed as more of a political stunt than a crime deterrent.

Arpaio denies that the posse is politically expedient, and tells New Times that he couldn’t use pink-underwear money politically even if he wanted to. Still, his office refuses to turn over records of the funds.

Several weeks ago, after being advised that the Sheriff’s Office had no control over the posses, New Times sent out formal, boilerplate requests to the commanders of each of the 49 active posses, asking for access to their general ledgers and citing the Arizona Public Records Law. Only ten of the posses have responded, and they refused to turn over their records on the grounds that the Public Records Law doesn’t apply to them.

Posse commanders such as Sun City West’s Robert Sysum tell New Times that their organizations operate on donations, not from money sent by the Sheriff’s Office. “Our Board,” Sysum writes, “felt that money donated by our Citizens should be carefully supervised . . . in fact, we assess our self annual dues to pay for the coffee and donuts at our General Meetings.”

Ed Lacki, commander of New River’s search-and-rescue posse, says he wouldn’t turn over records to New Times even if he had them. Which he doesn’t, he admits. “All of our expenditures were done on a cash basis by our members,” he writes.

Other posses were apparently even more perturbed that New Times asked to see their records. “If supplying you with any information had ever been an option, the threatening tone of your letter would have voided cooperation. Take your witch hunt and sit on it,” writes Jack Anderson, former commander of the Gilbert Southside Mounted Posse.

Sun Lakes Posse commander Bob Raich, meanwhile, threatened to sue New Times if it ever again attempted to see posse records.

Bill FitzGerald, a spokesman for County Attorney Richard Romley, says his office has not been asked for an opinion on the matter, and has no plans to look into it.

The posses, however, may find that their involvement with the Sheriff’s Office will require that they be more open.

First Amendment lawyer Dan Barr finds it hard to believe the posses can make a case that they receive no assistance from the Sheriff’s Office.

“Even if [the Sheriff's Office] doesn’t have control of the money, if a private entity gets any public money at all, then that private entity becomes public under the definition of the Public Records Law,” Barr says.

And Barr agrees that if posse funds are collected under the authorization and supervision of public employees, and are distributed by public employees, they qualify as public funds.

The Sheriff’s Office disagrees, saying the posses can maintain a private status while dressing up as, and appearing to do the work of, public officials.

“They can’t have it both ways,” Barr says. “What happens when a posse man flashes his badge and says ‘Stop’? Can we walk away? I would have to believe the sheriff would say no.

Jail Suits Could Cost County Taxpayers Tens of Millions

Saturday, September 8th, 2007

Jail Suits Could Cost County Taxpayers Tens of Millions
By Tony Ortega Phoenix New Times
Published: January 23, 1997

A financial time bomb sits ticking in a Maricopa County file drawer. Among thousands of mundane tax cases and routine lawsuits by county vendors, dozens of claims made by present and former inmates of Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s jails threaten to explode.

New Times repeatedly has asked the county to provide a total of the claims and lawsuits pending against Arpaio, only to be told that county officials are “working on it.” In the meantime, New Times’ examination of all claims filed against the county reveals that claims by former inmates and their survivors and others who had the misfortune of coming into contact with Arpaio’s minions total in the tens of millions of dollars. They include:

* Scott Norberg, asphyxiated in Madison Street Jail June 1, 1996: $4.5 million.

* Jane Olson, allegedly strapped into a restraint chair at Madison Street Jail and beaten June 1, 1996: $5 million.

* Michael Sanderson, who hanged himself at Durango Jail after guards, who knew that he was suicidal, allegedly put him in a cell alone and unwatched June 3, 1996: $750,000.

* Jeremy Flanders, beaten into a coma by fellow inmates at Tent City. At the time of the beating, three guards were assigned to watch over 600 inmates: $500,000.

* Damon Scoggin, 14, allegedly beaten by a deputy for throwing rocks at a house on March 14, 1995: $200,000.

* James Johnson, allegedly shot and killed by a deputy on May 4, 1996: $1 million.

* Leon Nahat, allegedly attacked by a fellow inmate early in 1996 and denied proper medical care, resulting in permanent damage to his jaw: $260,000.

The law firm of Robbins & Shumway has filed several other claims for a total of $4.72 million, including cases brought by former employees of the jail as well as inmates. Patti Shelton, one of the firm’s attorneys, says its clients include the two women who accuse “David Pecard,” the Arpaio aide who turned out to be an impostor, of sexual assault. They, too, will be filing expensive claims against the county.

Then there’s the case of Karen McCuin, which has had no dollar figure attached to it yet. She died in December after detention officers at Estrella Jail ignored for several days her complaints of intense pain. The woman, three months pregnant, fell into a coma and was rushed to Phoenix Memorial Hospital, where she died.

Her husband, Charles, tells New Times that he is still waiting for reports from the Sheriff’s Office as well as the hospital to explain what caused his wife’s death.

There’s also the case of Bart Davis, an inmate presently serving a sentence for drug possession at Perryville state prison, who claims that on May 12, 1995, detention officers attacked him, strapped him into a restraint chair and then stunned him several times, once in the face, and five or six times in the testicles.

The event took place in Madison Street Jail, where Davis awaited trial. Davis claims that a detention officer saw him passing a lit cigarette to another inmate and commanded Davis to come over to him. Instead, Davis flipped the cigarette behind him. That’s when the officer attacked him.

Davis’ attorney, Patti Shelton, estimates the claim she intends to file in the case will be for $250,000. She says Davis may have suffered permanent eye damage.

–Tony Ortega

Jailers Show a Paraplegic Who’s Boss

Saturday, September 8th, 2007

Jailers Show a Paraplegic Who’s Boss
Richard Post was taken to jail in his wheelchair for mouthing off in a bar. Joe Arpaio’s detention officers saw him as such a threat, they strapped him into a medieval restraint chair–and broke his neck.
By Tony Ortega Phoenix New Times
Published: January 23, 1997

Richard Post spent only a few hours in Madison Street Jail, but in Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s penal colony, no stay is too short to avoid abuse.

Especially for inmates like Post, who make demands on their captors. For those kinds of troublemakers, Arpaio’s jailers reserve a special form of treatment.

Call it the Madison Street Special: Jailers stuff unruly inmates into a medieval-looking restraint chair and–federal investigators have found–heap abuse on their immobilized wards.

Injuries and even a death have resulted from the use of the restraint chair, but Arpaio continues to defend its use for locking down trouble inmates.

Inmates such as Richard Post.
After all, Post, a wheelchair-bound paraplegic, had pounded on his cell door demanding that a jail nurse give him a catheter so he could urinate.

For Arpaio’s jailers, it was an easy call: Post needed “chairing.”
So they crammed him into the device and left him in it for six hours.
They ignored his pleas that such treatment of a paraplegic would cause serious injuries. In fact, the lower, paralyzed portions of his body were severely damaged, and Post would spend four months in bed, convalescing.

But Post’s protestations fell on deaf ears. Jailers intended to teach Post a lesson he would never forget. So they strapped him down roughly into the metal contraption, and tightened its leather straps with all their might.

And broke Post’s neck.
And now, almost a year after his stay in Joe Arpaio’s jail, Post has lost much of the use of his arms, and faces surgery to remove a vertebra from his neck.

It’s a tough penalty meted out by a tough sheriff, but then that’s the avowed mission of a lawman who brags that his jails are meant to be so miserable no inmate will ever break the law again.

And that includes evildoers such as Richard Post, who has spent a total of one night in jail in his life.

His crime: possessing a gram of marijuana and calling someone an Englishman.

Nearly a year ago, the federal government told Joe Arpaio that his jails were houses of torture. Since then, several inmates have perished and others have been injured in precisely the manner U.S. Department of Justice investigators decried.

Some of the deaths and beatings have received the attention of the Valley’s press. Others have not.

Buried in a Maricopa County file thousands of pages thick, claims submitted by attorneys on behalf of inmates abused and killed reveal dozens of allegations of torture and neglect which could cost the county tens of millions of dollars.

Last June–three months after federal investigators had warned Arpaio that jailers were using the restraint chair to abuse inmates–inmate Scott Norberg died while jailers attempted to stuff him into the device.

Norberg’s family has filed a $4.5 million notice of claim as a result of the death.

Less well-known, however, is the beating Jane Olson says she received that very day–and only feet away from the spot where Norberg died. She, too, was strapped into a restraint chair and received injuries. She has filed a $5 million claim.

Only two days later, jailers moved inmate Michael Sanderson to a cell by himself, weeks after making the diagnosis that he was acutely suicidal. Sanderson hanged himself almost immediately. That death has prompted the inmate’s family to file a $750,000 notice of claim. (Federal investigators had also warned the county about inadequate and inept handling of mentally disturbed inmates.)

Many other cases have been filed against Arpaio and his jail (see accompanying story), including one by Richard Post. Most involve the kind of violence and neglect federal investigators had specifically warned county officials occurred in Arpaio’s jails.

The sheriff’s reaction to the Justice Department’s investigative report–which he received last March but didn’t make public until July–was simply to deny the premise. He dismissed it as a fabrication of vengeful inmates, and complained that the feds had not provided him with names and dates to go along with the charges.

But Arpaio is well-aware of the names and dates of incidents which have resulted in claims against his office.

His tough talk works well with a public that may not draw a distinction between prison–where convicted criminals serve out their sentences–and Arpaio’s jail, where more than 60 percent of inmates await trial under an assumption of innocence.

In Madison Street Jail, where seven of the 19 jail deaths on Arpaio’s watch have occurred, almost all inmates await trial. (Most of the others occurred at the Maricopa County Medical Center, where sick and injured inmates are held.)

Some, whose only crime is not having the cash for bail, are subjected to Arpaio’s notions of punishment for what may be months before their day in court.

Others are murderers and rapists and thieves who will later be convicted and transferred to state prison.

And many–perhaps the majority–have run afoul of the law in a myriad of ways endemic to the life of a growing city. Awaiting them are Wild West solutions to serious crime applied liberally to the greatest and least offenders alike.

Richard Post’s incarceration is but one brutal example.

Richard Post directs his wheelchair into the dining room of his Glendale home and pulls up next to a table. On it lie the piles of paperwork that document his overnight stay last March at Madison Street Jail.

He’s thin, and his shoulders are set at an angle, with his spine in a twist. Post is 36, but he wears his dark brown hair as if he were much younger: spiky short on top, long and straight down the back.

It’s been 11 years since an automobile accident left him a paraplegic, and his useless legs have atrophied, leaving them very thin.

Until his arrest, however, Post had the powerful arms of a wheelchair athlete, and a special skill for billiards.

He grew up in San Jose and worked as a house painter until the accident in 1985. Since then he’s held a number of jobs, including nightclub disc jockey and doorman.

Post has no designs on sainthood, but in his 36 years he’s managed to purchase a home, raise a child and pursue a college degree. He was attending Glendale Community College and preparing to transfer to Arizona State University to study for a liberal arts degree when he was arrested in March.

He had, until then, no criminal record.
“I’m a pretty decent guy, I think,” he says.
Abdominal pain resulting from the automobile accident continues to bother him, but otherwise Post has enjoyed good upper-body strength. In photographs taken before his arrest, he appears to have good posture and beefy chest and arms. He used his strength to power his way through wheelchair races, to challenge other men to arm-wrestling contests, and to enter national billiards tournaments.

At The Drummer, a bar in Glendale, a bartender named Linda–who asked that her last name not be published–still remembers Post and his pool shooting.

He hasn’t been to the bar in a long time, she says, but he made enough of an impression–enough of a good impression–that she still remembers him by name. She confirms that Post was a very good pool shooter, and says he was very cordial.

“He was always a nice guy. He never caused us a problem and he never caused a problem with another client,” she says, adding that she had wondered why he hadn’t been around in a long time.

Events that led to Post’s arrest began last St. Patrick’s Day, when he sat at home watching Mike Tyson beat up Frank Bruno, the English boxing champion.

After the fight, about 11 p.m., Post decided to try out the St. Patrick’s Day festivities at O’Connor’s Pub, an Irish bar in Phoenix that a friend had told him about.

Post says he found the people there friendly, and over the next hour he consumed two drinks. When an Irish folk-rock musician finished a song, Post wheeled over to tell him the result of that evening’s fight. Post figured the crowd might want to hear that the English champion had taken it on the chin.

When the musician announced that Tyson had defeated Bruno, some people in the bar cheered, and others booed. Post then started up a conversation with two couples, and a few minutes later, about 12:30, decided to leave.

That’s when an older man approached him and said abruptly: “Why don’t you get the hell out of here?”

“Why, did you bet on the Englishman?” Post asked him.
“I’m calling the police,” the man replied, and walked off.
Post thought it was a joke, so he didn’t go anywhere. Meanwhile, the man, James O’Connor, who owned the pub, did call police and asked them to remove Post.

Post was told the police were on their way, so he waited for them. (He explains that if the police wanted to talk to him, he wanted it to be in the bar rather than on the road, since he had been drinking.)

According to the report filed by Phoenix police officers Jeffrey Howell and James Ray, when they arrived and asked O’Connor what had happened, the bar owner complained that when he had asked Post to leave, the paraplegic had answered, “I think you are a Protestant and an Englishman.” O’Connor told police he asked Post to leave two more times before he called police.

Howell and Ray write that they asked Post why he didn’t leave when he was asked. “For what?” Post responded.

(Post points out that O’Connor had never identified himself as the owner of the bar.)

Howell and Ray found Post argumentative and “extremely intoxicated.”
At least one person contradicts that view, however. And that’s James O’Connor himself. O’Connor says he distinctly remembers that Post was not drunk. He called the cops, he says, because he thought Post was being rude to others in the bar.

“He just seemed like the kind of person who has four or five drinks and then becomes belligerent,” O’Connor tells New Times.

O’Connor doesn’t remember telling police that Post had called him an “Englishman,” but he does remember Post telling him, “This isn’t an Irish bar.”

“That didn’t bother me. I called the police because he was harassing my customers.”

Post says O’Connor admitted in court that he had also been drinking that night, something Post’s public defender, Anne Phillips, confirms. It was St. Patrick’s Day, after all.

Officers Howell and Ray gave Post the option of calling a taxi or going to jail. Post refused to get a cab ride home, however, explaining that he never took cab rides, feeling that taking himself out of his wheelchair in the back of a taxi left him too vulnerable. He told Howell and Ray he’d gladly roll himself home, a proposition the police refused, perhaps not realizing, Post says, that the several miles to his house was no big deal for a paraplegic with the kind of upper-body strength he had.

The officers wrote that they offered to let Post leave several times, but that he turned them down, saying that they would have to arrest him first.

So they did. And when they searched him, they found in his backpack a container with 1.1 grams of marijuana and a pipe.

Post disputes the account of the police, saying that he wouldn’t demand to be arrested when he was carrying pot.

Howell and Ray read Post his rights and prepared to cart him off. It’s the sort of arrest resulting from alcohol-related conflicts that occurs dozens of times nightly in large and small cities. And in any other place, it would be followed by a short but sobering stay in a dreary jail.

But Post was in Maricopa County, and he was in store for much, much more.

At Madison Street Jail, Post was searched again and booked. He hadn’t planned on being out all night, so he didn’t have an internal catheter with him, which would allow him to urinate.

On a videotape of Post’s booking provided to Post by the Sheriff’s Office, Post not only appears alert and cooperative during his search–rather than intoxicated and belligerent, which jailers claim he was–but he also clearly points out to detention officers that the urine bag attached to his ankle is full. Without emptying that bag and obtaining an internal catheter, Post told them, he couldn’t urinate. And he needed to go.

“This is a jail, not a hospital,” Post says he was told. He says when he finally got to talk to a nurse, he told her, “I have special needs.”

She responded by asking, “Do you have a medic-alert bracelet?”
“I’m in a wheelchair,” Post responded.
Even weeks later, as the Sheriff’s Office conducted an internal investigation to determine how Post had been injured, the jailers didn’t seem to understand what Post had been asking for that night:

“I asked Sgt. [Steve] Kenner about the medical equipment that inmate Post was allegedly refused,” the sheriff’s investigator writes. “He said that Sgt. [Rocky] Medina had advised him that inmate Post was allowed to keep his catheter and the other necessary equipment. This was authorized by R.N. Hunter and R.N. Atkinson.” (Emphasis added.)

Post did have an external catheter and bottle with him, which paraplegics use to prevent spills when they urinate. But without the internal catheter, a narrow tube about a foot long, Post could not release his urine from his bladder.

And he was worried that if he spent considerable time in the jail with his bladder so full–he was already in pain–it could bring about serious consequences. Medical literature supplied to paraplegics warns them that the single greatest killer of paraplegics is kidney disease brought on by unsanitary and infrequent urinations.

As he was wheeled to a cell, Post says a detention officer told him, “There’s a big difference between what you need and what you get in here. Don’t be a baby.”

“They called me a pussy a couple of times,” Post says.
He repeatedly tried to get the attention of jailers, to explain what pain he was in, and to get them to deliver him an internal catheter. “Shut up,” he says he was told. So, in desperation, he started banging on the cell door.

Officers say he was hitting the door’s window, and told them he didn’t care if he broke it. But Post says he only hit the door itself in an attempt to get a nurse’s attention–and that if he wanted to break the window, he easily could have with the removable metal armrest on his wheelchair.

The videotape appears to confirm Post’s version of events: The tape shows Post moving close to the door, hitting it once about handle-level, and then backing away to wait for a response. He does this repeatedly, and then gives up and goes back to where the toilet is.

He wanted to empty his full urine bag into the commode before trying to make himself urinate without the internal catheter–a difficult proposition, he says, which involves manipulating his abdomen with his hands–but he couldn’t reach the toilet. While he was trying, though, a roll of toilet paper fell into it, and Post got an idea.

If they wouldn’t respond to his requests for assistance, he’d get their attention another way.

Post was able to reach the lever, and he began flushing the toilet, over and over.

“If you keep flushing the toilet, I’m going to turn off the water,” a guard warned him when he saw what Post was doing. “I don’t care, I need a catheter,” he says he responded.

Water began spilling across the room, and into the hall.
Arpaio’s jailers didn’t like that. Sergeant Steve Kenner decided Post needed to be strapped into a restraint chair.

“We’ll see how you like it in this chair,” Post says Kenner told him.
By the officers’ own accounts, Post did not struggle as he was put into the chair about 4 a.m. He did tell them, however, that he had to be put on his gel pad.

Like other paraplegics, Post has to sit on the pad to prevent pressure sores from forming. If he sits on something hard for as little as 15 minutes, sores that may require surgery will form.

The pad is a pliable item, like clay sealed in a sheet of wax paper and tucked into a cloth slipcover.

Detention officers Kenner and Rocky Medina strapped Post down into the hard chair without the pad.

“Put the cushion under me!” Post says he yelled at them. “You don’t know what will happen to me.”

“Too bad,” was Kenner’s response, Post says.
“Post claimed he needed a ‘pad’ to sit on while in the chair,” Kenner wrote in a report a week after the incident. “I informed him that would be up to medical staff to provide for him. At 0410 hours, R.N. Betsy and Nursing Supervisor Kay Atkinson checked Post’s restraints and stated that he would need the pad placed under him. I informed them that I needed to get the water cleaned up in that area first as the standing water was a safety hazard.”

(Kenner doesn’t mention that Post could have been wheeled away from the water while still in the restraint chair.)

Post pleaded with the detention officers to put the pad under him. He also complained to a nurse, telling her that the straps were constricting his shoulders so severely his hands had gone numb.

“Wiggle your fingers,” she responded. So he did.
“He’s fine,” she told the guards. Post says the detention officers laughed at his concerns, and their smirks are visible on the videotape.

The sheriff’s own investigators estimate that Post was strapped down in the restraint chair without a pad for 70 minutes. Post says it was more than two hours.

Finally, Kenner decided he had better put the pad under Post. He and another detention officer pulled Post into the hall. Post says Kenner sparked a stun gun near his ear before handing it to his partner.

“Stick him in his neck if he fucking moves,” Post says Kenner uttered as he reached down to unlock one of the straps holding Post down. Post says Kenner didn’t loosen up the straps enough so that Post could lift himself up far enough to get the pad properly underneath him. Instead, Kenner shoved the pad about halfway under Post’s buttocks. And then, before reclasping the straps, he tightened them down even further.

To accomplish this, Post says, Kenner placed his foot on the seat between Post’s legs for leverage, then pulled sharply on the straps, making them bite down hard on his shoulders.

Post–a man paralyzed below his waist–apparently was seen as enough of a threat to warrant six hours in the restraint chair. Only when Kenner went off duty and was replaced by another sergeant did detention officers release Post from the chair. Kenner did not return calls from New Times.

Post left jail later that morning and, after a short trial, was found guilty of possession of marijuana and marijuana paraphernalia, and criminal trespass. His penalty: six months probation and a $750 fine.

Post paid a heavy price for the time he spent in the restraint chair. Two hours on a hard surface gave him an ulcerated anus, which left Post bedridden for the next four months. He narrowly avoided surgery that would have required a temporary colostomy.

His time in bed forced him to drop out of college.
That wound eventually healed, but Post continued to have problems with his shoulders, neck and arms. The pain of being cinched down so tight in the chair never quite left, and gradually Post began experiencing trouble using his arms.

Months later, he sits twisted in his wheelchair, his right arm only a thin reminder of the strength he once had. He can’t raise the arm higher than his shoulder, can no longer write or play billiards, and his left hand repeatedly goes numb. X-rays of Post’s neck show serious problems.

On January 9, neurosurgeon Dr. Mazen H. Khayata told Post he had a broken neck.

Khayata told Post that he planned to operate, and would address the problem through the front of his neck. Khayata said he would crack open Post’s sternum, remove one of Post’s vertebrae, put in steel posts, and then fuse the remaining vertebrae together.

Post asked the doctor how the damage could have occurred, and Khayata told him there must have been a massive compression downward on his shoulders. Khayata asked him how that might have happened.

So Post told him. And then Khayata suddenly became agitated.
Khayata told Post that he had changed his mind and could not operate on him. It’s obvious that litigation will be involved, Khayata told Post and Post’s mother, and he wanted no part of it. He said he would refer the matter to another surgeon.

“All I want is for you to fix me,” Post says he pleaded with Khayata, telling him that he wasn’t looking for a witness to testify on his behalf. But Post and his mother say that Khayata apologized and said he wanted nothing to do with a lawsuit. The doctor did not return calls from New Times.

Khayata referred Post’s case to Barrow Neurological Institute, and Post awaits word on who will perform the surgery he needs. In the meantime, his condition worsens, and he battles depression. His surgery will permanently restrict his ability to pivot his head. He also may never regain the ability to write. Or shoot pool.

“I already don’t have the use of my legs. Now I’m losing the use of my arms,” he says.

Post had no trouble convincing attorneys at the Arizona Center for Disability Law that he had a case against the sheriff and his jailers. But after forcing Arpaio to turn over numerous records and the videotape, Post’s attorneys at the law center realized that they couldn’t handle the case. The office attempts to sue for equal treatment of the disabled, not for damages resulting from mistreatment.

So Post is without an attorney, and has had trouble finding someone who wants to take on the sheriff. He initially filed a notice of claim for only $15,000 to cover the costs of losing a semester of school and some of his medical bills.

But now, as the full extent of his injuries and the effect they will have on the quality of his life have become clear, he’s being encouraged to raise that figure much higher.

Post says he does want to sue, and part of his motivation is preventing similar fates for other paraplegics who may have to spend a night or more in Arpaio’s jail.

In the meantime, the sheriff’s detention officers continue to use the restraint chair.

In Los Angeles County, home of the largest jail in the country, jailers were asked whether they make use of restraint chairs for uncooperative inmates.

“I’ve never heard of such a thing,” a Los Angeles detention officer answered.

Joe Assumes Deposition

Saturday, September 8th, 2007

Joe Assumes Deposition
Arpaio tries to distance himself from pronouncements about punishing inmates
By Tony Ortega Phoenix New Times
Published: May 29, 1997

Faced with a series of trials, an Arizona official turns up the public relations machine to full tilt, launching a string of populist initiatives meant to soften his image.

Governor J. Fife Symington III? No, Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio.
In recent weeks, Arpaio has announced such innovations as a mini-tents program for children, counseling classes for inmates, and the latest, a school for juveniles serving adult time which will be run by Arpaio’s chief political operative, Tom Bearup.

Arpaio was rewarded for this spate of good works with a recent Arizona Republic editorial that lauded the sheriff and reassured readers that Arpaio was not turning soft. “Arpaio knows after sleeping in the tents and talking to the inmates just what improvements are necessary,” the Republic opined.

In bestowing such wisdom and magnanimity upon Arpaio, however, the Republic failed to note another incentive encouraging the sheriff to temper his severe reputation: upcoming lawsuits.

New Times earlier reported that as a result of conditions in the jails–where a federal government investigation found that inmates are physically abused and denied medical care–Maricopa County now faces tens of millions of dollars in lawsuits filed by present and former inmates.

Some of those suits, such as the $20 million case filed by the family of Scott Norberg, may not come to trial for considerable time.

Another lawsuit is more imminent. On April 21, Sheriff Arpaio was deposed for five hours in the case of Eric Johnson v. Maricopa County. A transcript of that deposition reveals that one of the central issues in the case will be the tone of Arpaio’s public pronouncements about the conditions in his jails, and whether those pronouncements encouraged jailers to throw inmate Eric Johnson against a wall, then break his arm on November 2, 1994.

Johnson’s attorneys argue that Arpaio’s proclamations that his jail is meant as a place for punishment, and that its inhabitants are all criminals–even though most simply await trial–have produced an environment where his jailers feel free to abuse inmates. (Since the lawsuits against his office have mounted, Arpaio has become more careful in describing his jails. Now, when he says the jails are tough, he adds the words but humane.)

Eric Johnson, like 70 percent of Arpaio’s prisoners, was a pretrial detainee. He had been picked up by Phoenix police on a warrant for a suspended driver’s license. While being transported within Madison Street Jail, however, Johnson had missed a meal and was hungry and irritated. He banged on his cell door repeatedly. When a detention officer passed his cell, Johnson asked: “Can I get a sandwich?” and added, “Yeah, I’m talking to you, asshole.”

Three detention officers–Benny Cluff, Rod Douglas and Sergeant Paul Rogers–responded by pulling Johnson from the cell, slamming him headfirst into a wall, stun-gunning him and turning his arm up behind his back. All of it was captured on videotape.

Johnson’s attorneys say they will produce a medical expert who will testify that Johnson’s arm was broken from the twisting action when Cluff turned it up behind Johnson. The Sheriff’s Office maintains that it broke when Johnson hit the wall.

But besides establishing what happened to Johnson, his attorneys–Joel Robbins, Patti Shelton, Kevin Van Norman and Nick Hentoff–will try to show that his treatment was part of a pattern of abuse, condoned by Arpaio, which could make the county, as well as the officers, liable for Johnson’s injuries.

To that end, the attorneys have assembled dozens of quotations by Arpaio taken from newspaper and magazine articles to show that his employees would have had ample opportunity to get the message, quotes such as one which appeared in Time in 1995: “I want to make this place so unpleasant that they won’t even think about doing something that could bring them back. I want them to suffer.”

Another quote that the attorneys say will be key to the case: Arpaio’s response to a CBS reporter who had asked about Johnson’s treatment. “Are you familiar with that case at all?” the CBS reporter is heard to ask. “No, I’m not,” Arpaio responds, adding: “But so what? I’m sure that my officers had a reason to slam him against the cell block.”

Given that attitude, Robbins points out, it’s not surprising that the sheriff’s internal affairs department cleared the three detention officers of wrongdoing.

During the April 21 sworn deposition, Robbins questioned Arpaio on many different subjects, from Arpaio’s history to his evolving goals as sheriff, his relationship with the press, and his personal understanding of inmate mistreatment. The transcript offers an intriguing preview of the kind of trial testimony which may follow in dozens of other cases. (No trial date has been set for the Johnson case. In the meantime, his attorneys plan to depose other Arpaio employees.)

During the long interrogation–the transcript runs to 162 pages–Arpaio complains that in media coverage of him, he’s taken out of context. Arpaio further makes a good point that he can’t control what reporters put into their articles, and that his more extreme comments are more likely to get into print.

But Robbins counters that if Arpaio were so concerned that he was being taken out of context, he could use his in-house newsletter to present a more accurate version of his philosophies. Robbins then points out that in Roundup, the Sheriff’s Office newsletter, Arpaio’s statements about jail being a tough place and meant for punishment–comments written by Arpaio himself–are almost identical to what showed up in news reports.

Arpaio testified that he has no way of knowing if any of his employees ever see his numerous television and print appearances, and he denies that they have been required to watch or read such material.

But a Sheriff’s Office document obtained by Johnson’s lawyers proves just the opposite: A routing slip written by Tom Bearup instructs all jail employees to watch the CBS report which included Arpaio’s statement that his men probably had a reason for slamming Johnson against a wall.

During much of the deposition, Robbins tried, mostly in vain, to get Arpaio to answer basic questions about what he considered excessive force and other violations of department policy regarding inmate treatment, as well as Arpaio’s knowledge of the Johnson case.

In contrast to the fiery sheriff who is quick to tell reporters that he’s in complete control, Arpaio repeatedly claimed that he relies almost entirely on others to make determinations about what constituted violations in his jails.

Robbins acknowledges that going after the larger issue of Arpaio’s culpability in the case is a tough proposition. But he says that makes the case worth trying.

“We want to be able to change the way the county treats these people,” Robbins says. “And we want Arpaio to start thinking in ways other than sound bites for the media.

A Hoss-Style Witness

Saturday, September 8th, 2007

A Hoss-Style Witness
Phoenix New Times
Published: May 29, 1997

What follows are excerpts from Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s April 21 deposition.
Joel Robbins: In terms of your knowledge of the jails and the violence that goes on there, you don’t have any knowledge of it independently of your staff, correct?

Arpaio: Well, I’m probably the first sheriff in history around the nation that has ever slept with the inmates, and probably the only one that has ever gotten jails in tents like I do, so I do spend or give special attention to the jail system.

Robbins: Did you utilize any special means of protecting yourself when you were in the Tent City?

Arpaio: That was a rumor that the New Times had and also a certain reporter printed. Which time are you talking about? I spent two times in there. Which time are you talking about?

Robbins: With the sheriff from Arkansas.
Arpaio: No. You’re talking about the first time. No. What do you mean, like a SWAT team like I have been accused of?

Robbins: Yes.
Arpaio: No . . .
Robbins: Was there a SWAT team or wasn’t there a SWAT team?
Arpaio: I don’t know.

[In fact, each night Arpaio spent in the tents, a SWAT team was posted in a building nearby and a sharpshooter was stationed on a roof overlooking the tent complex. Not only does New Times possess the time cards for those SWAT team members for each night, but the Sheriff's Office, in an April 22, 1996, letter, confirmed the presence of the team and admitted that Sheriff Arpaio was aware that they were stationed nearby.]

Robbins: And in terms of your being a patrol officer, you mentioned in the book [Arpaio's autobiography, America's Toughest Sheriff] that you were the most assaulted officer on the Washington police force?

Arpaio: I don’t remember if I said the most. I haven’t read my own book. I’m glad you read it. I don’t know if I was the most assaulted. I’m sure there were a lot of assaults on me . . .

Robbins: That brings up a good question. You say that you’ve never read your book, correct?

Arpaio: Never read it from cover to cover yet. But I wrote it with my co-author. That doesn’t mean I have to read it after it’s published.

Robbins: Winston Churchill once said that he was the mouth that made the lion roar, he was the voice of the British Empire during the course of World War II. And at least one of the positions that we’re taking in this lawsuit is that you are the mouth that makes the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Department roar, and your words, in some instances, are the most clear guidance that your officers have of what you intend for the jail system.

Dan Struck (Arpaio’s county-paid attorney): There’s no question.
Robbins: Do you agree with that statement?
Struck: Object to form.

Arpaio: I’m really confused. You mean over television, the roar? Where is my roar?

Robbins: On television, radio.
Struck: Just answer the question. Do you agree or disagree?
Arpaio: I disagree.

Robbins: What contact do you have with deputies on an average week?
Arpaio: Deputies? Are you talking about sworn or detention?
Robbins: Sworn officers.

Arpaio: I don’t know how to answer that because I don’t know what you’re talking about. I see deputies in the men’s room sometimes. What do you mean by “contact”?

Robbins: Do you believe it is ever appropriate to break someone’s arm for the purpose of inflicting punishment after being called a bad name?

Arpaio: As I say, every case, every situation is different. It’s difficult for me to comment.

Robbins: How would you expect your officers to react if they’re verbally assaulted?

Arpaio: Verbally assaulted?
Robbins: Someone yells a bad name at them.
Arpaio: Once again, it’s difficult to take your general statement, because I don’t know all the circumstances. Once again, every situation is different, especially in jail, so I can’t second-guess right now and answer that question.

Robbins: What kind of facts do you need to determine whether an officer under you has used excessive force?

Arpaio: I have investigators, internal security and otherwise that look into these matters. And after their investigation is completed, then the determination is whether they used excessive force. I just cannot get into any general terms of saying what excessive force is.

Robbins: So, ultimately, in terms of your definition of “excessive force,” your definition is that someone else determines it for you? You’re nodding your head. Was that a yes?

Arpaio: No. An investigation has to be done before a determination can be made.

Public Pays in Jail Death

Saturday, September 8th, 2007

Public Pays in Jail Death
County pays $50,000 in case of inmate who committed suicide while jailers watched a video of Sheriff Joe Arpaio
By Tony Ortega Phoenix New Times
Published: July 17, 1997

At least 19 jail inmates have died on Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s watch. Others have been maimed. A man who is paralyzed below the waist was strapped into a medieval restraint chair so roughly that jailers broke his neck.

New Times has detailed many cases of abuse and neglect in Maricopa County jails by relying on documents produced by the sheriff’s own investigators.

Yet Arpaio continues to insist that inmates are not abused or neglected; his most recent denial came last week after an Icelandic judge ruled that Arpaio’s jails are inhumane.

While he gives denials to reporters, however, he’s given something else to the mother of one victim of his jails:

Taxpayer cash.
After reviewing records obtained from the county’s financial officers, New Times has learned that Maricopa County paid $50,000 to Betty Joan Holschlag in December.

Holschlag had sued Arpaio because her son Kevin hanged himself in Madison Street Jail in July 1994. Kevin Holschlag had been diagnosed as acutely suicidal and was put on a continuous watch.

However, the lawsuit alleged, the three detention officers assigned to monitor Kevin Holschlag admitted to Arpaio’s investigators that they had left the inmate alone for some time because they became busy setting up and watching a videotape.

A videotape featuring Arpaio.
While his detention officers were watching the sheriff’s latest television appearances (Arpaio continues to spend public money to collect the videos), Kevin Holschlag wrapped his bedsheet around his neck and hanged himself.

Other inmates’ calls for help weren’t heard.
Court documents show that in preparation for trial, Betty Holschlag’s attorneys at Robbins, Shumway and Foreman compiled a list of more than 50 witnesses, including experts who would testify that Kevin Holschlag had not been supervised properly, and that care in Maricopa County’s jails was “below acceptable medical standards.”

Before that testimony could be heard, however, Betty Joan Holschlag and the county struck a deal.

As part of it, Holschlag and her attorneys agreed not to divulge the settlement’s terms. They cited that agreement in turning down requests for interviews by New Times. However, a review of county financial records indicates that the county has paid Holschlag $50,000.

Meanwhile, Arpaio continues to tell the public that all complaints about his jails–even findings of fact by a federal investigation–are simply the fantasies of vengeful inmates.

Asked about Kevin Holschlag’s suicide in 1995, Arpaio told the Phoenix Gazette that he had never produced promotional videotapes of himself for his staff to watch.

But in another lawsuit filed on behalf of an inmate whose arm was broken by jailers, attorney Joel Robbins recently produced a Sheriff’s Office routing slip which shows that in 1994 jail employees were required to watch a tape of an Arpaio appearance on network television.

Kevin Holschlag was 34 when he died. When he was 18, his testimony helped put two burglars in prison. In the ensuing years, he developed a belief that the two burglars were plotting to kill him. Holschlag himself committed burglary before he was diagnosed in 1988 as suffering from paranoid schizophrenia.

Six years later, federal authorities charged that Holschlag, as a felon, had illegally obtained a firearm and had submitted false information to do so. According to court documents, Holschlag’s attorneys claimed that he purchased the gun to protect himself from the two men he believed were still after him.

While awaiting trial on those charges, Holschlag was incarcerated in Maricopa County Jail. Holschlag’s sister, Teri Morgan, told the Gazette that she and Holschlag’s public defender had asked that Holschlag be jailed before his trial because of his disease. Ironically, she said that the family believed putting him in jail would be the best way to prevent Holschlag from killing himself. Instead, Holschlag made numerous attempts on his life in jail before succeeding on July 19, 1994.

In one attempt, he threw himself down a stairwell; in another, he slashed his arms.

Morgan told the Gazette that the family only learned of those incidents after Holschlag’s death.

“We had bought a short-sleeved polo shirt to wear for his burial,” she told the paper. “And when we went to the wake, the cuts at both of his elbows were so big, so deep, we couldn’t believe he didn’t bleed to death.”

In her lawsuit, Betty Joan Holschlag charged that the jail’s medical and psychiatric staff ignored warnings from her son’s public defender, Grant Bashore, that Kevin Holschlag was acutely suicidal. When he learned that his client had cut his arms, Bashore wrote a letter to Correctional Health Services, the county agency that provides medical services in the jails.

Court documents allege that a doctor responded to the letter with a cryptic phone message: “Received your letter–has no clinical response. Will forward to appropriate people.”

Five days later, Kevin Holschlag made his third and final suicide attempt.

Human Plights

Saturday, September 8th, 2007

Human Plights
International group urges immediate stop to Arpaio jail practices
By Tony Ortega Phoenix New Times
Published: September 18, 1997

For more than 20 years, people around the world have participated in Amnesty International’s letter-writing campaigns to protest mistreatment of prisoners by repressive foreign governments.

Following investigations into allegations of prisoner abuse, the organization calls upon its volunteers to send mountains of mail to petty dictators and sadistic jailers.

Sheriff Joe Arpaio, for example.
Since late July, the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors has had in its possession a report from Amnesty International which harshly condemns many of Sheriff Arpaio’s most well-known practices, New Times has learned.

The highly respected organization found that Maricopa County’s methods of incarceration violate basic worldwide standards of human rights.

Amnesty International spokesman Roger Rathman says that Arpaio and the county jails will soon become a target of the organization’s vast number of letter writers. But, according to the group’s custom, those letters will come from outside the target country. Rathman guesses that volunteers in Western Europe will be assigned the task of protesting to Arpaio.

Previously, Rathman says, Amnesty had investigated other American penal institutions, but all were the harshest of state and federal prisons. Maricopa County’s jails appear to be the first county jail the organization has heard enough complaints about to investigate.

The group mailed the findings of that investigation July 27 to Don Stapley, chairman of the Board of Supervisors. When Stapley was asked to comment about the report, his spokesman Marcus Dell’Artino replied: “Our attorneys have advised us not to go on the record about it.”

Not true, according to the County Attorney’s Office, which represents Stapley. A spokesman for the office says supervisors make up their own minds about whether to comment on such matters.

In the nine-page report, Amnesty’s Javier Zuniga, program director of the Americas Regional Program, details several jail atrocities familiar to New Times readers, including the death of Scott Norberg, the maiming of paraplegic Richard Post and the near-fatal beating of Jeremy Flanders, all in 1996.

Amnesty’s report calls for an immediate stop to several of Arpaio’s practices, including some of his most publicized:

* Calling Tent City “chronically understaffed,” Amnesty found that the facility was not an “adequate or humane alternative to housing inmates in suitable . . . jail facilities,” and recommended that the county cease its operation.

* Labeling chain gangs “cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment,” the report said that they “serve no legitimate penological purpose,” and recommended that the county stop using them.

* Citing the examples of countries and states that have banned the use of stun guns in jails, the report “urges . . . Maricopa County authorities . . . [to] cease issuing them to all detention officers.”

* Reviewing Richard Post’s case as an example, Amnesty “urges the Maricopa County authorities to conduct an urgent review of the use of restraint chairs in the county jails with a view to restricting their use.”

* Disturbed by conditions in First Avenue Jail, where some juveniles are held in “lockdown” and kept in their cells for all but an hour per day, the report says that according to international standards, “it is not appropriate or humane to house children in solitary confinement.”

* The report specifically censures the treatment of female juveniles awaiting trial, who are being held under “deprived conditions” at First Avenue Jail, including no privacy from male guards.

* Amnesty also recommends that because of serious concerns about the use of excessive force in the county’s jails, the Sheriff’s Office should review its policies about the use of force “to ensure that they conform to international standards.”

Early in June, Amnesty’s Angela Wright and David Marshall arrived in Phoenix to research conditions in the jails. They met with Arpaio and some of his staff, toured the jails and reviewed county records. They also met with a New Times writer to discuss Arpaio’s long-standing unwillingness to turn over records or grant New Times an interview.

Arpaio turned down an interview request for this story as well.
Sheriff’s Office intergovernmental liaison John J. MacIntyre dismissed the report, saying that “there are quite a few errors and inaccuracies in it.” He says he will be writing a response to Amnesty International which he will send soon. He also pointed out that the Department of Justice declined action after investigating the Richard Post matter, and claimed that in none of the practices condemned by Amnesty International were state or constitutional laws violated.

According to Amnesty’s report, Sheriff’s Office staffers told the investigators that excessive force had never been “prevalent” at the jail and “stated that there were adequate measures to identify and sanction any officers found responsible for misconduct.

“However, during its visit Amnesty International received information on more than a dozen cases of alleged ill-treatment or use of excessive force, covering an 18 month period up to the time of Scott Norberg’s death, which raise serious concerns about practices in the jail system,” the report says.

The report goes on to describe the case of Richard Post, a paraplegic who spent a single night in jail for arguing with a bar owner and for possessing a gram of marijuana; his story was told in New Times in January (“Jailers Show a Paraplegic Who’s Boss,” January 23).

Denied a catheter so he could urinate, Post banged on his cell door and caused his commode to overflow to get the attention of jail guards. They responded by taking Post out of his wheelchair and strapping him down in a restraint chair. After an hour, guards acceded to his pleas to put a gel cushion under him. Because he was on the hard surface so long, he would be bedridden for several months with an ulcerated anus.

After putting the cushion under Post, detention officer Steve Kenner then jerked down on the chair’s straps over Post’s shoulders so hard that Post’s neck was broken.

Post, a man paralyzed below the waist yet deemed so dangerous by Arpaio’s jailers that they left him in the restraint chair for six hours, has now permanently lost much of the strength in his arms and lives with constant neck pain.

“Amnesty International finds it highly questionable that no alternative measures were available to deal with the situation, especially as Mr. Post was already incapacitated in a wheelchair. The use of restraints in this case and the manner in which they were applied . . . appears to have been unnecessarily punitive and to have amounted to cruel and inhuman treatment,” the report says.

The organization also questioned the use of a restraint chair in the death of Scott Norberg. “There appears to have been no attempt to have used alternative measures to extreme physical force, nor any examination of his mental condition despite his disturbed behaviour. The decision to place him in the restraint chair . . . appears particularly questionable.”

Last year, New Times examined the 2,000-page Sheriff’s Office investigation of Norberg’s death and found that none of the sheriff’s investigators had questioned the use of the restraint chair. The report also contained evidence that detention officers had knowingly ignored signs that they were killing Norberg, evidence that didn’t make a streamlined version of the investigation put out by Arpaio (“Sanitized for Joe’s Protection,” October 24, 1996).

Other cases of abuse cited by Amnesty International included that of Eric Johnson, whose arm was broken by detention officers in 1994; David Hoyle, “who allegedly sustained broken teeth and spine and knee injuries after being kicked and beaten and stunned repeatedly with a stun device by officers in December 1994″; and Bart Davis, who claims to be the inmate stunned in the testicles after being strapped in a restraint chair and who was mentioned in a federal investigation of the jails.

The report also acknowledges that the Sheriff’s Office has taken measures to “address the issue of force,” but added that “Amnesty International was not able to obtain a breakdown of the number of officers disciplined for excessive force.”

“Arpaio’s practices are remarkable in their lack of insight. But they’re popular because it looks like he’s getting tough,” says Dr. Daniel Georges-Abeyie, Arizona coordinator for Amnesty International. “Sheriff Joe is doing exactly the type of thing that leads to insurrection in a correctional setting.”

Last November 17, that’s just what the sheriff got. Yet, despite the Tent City riots, a federal Department of Justice investigation that found inmates were being physically abused and continued examples of inmate mistreatment and medical neglect, Arpaio has refused to make significant changes in his policies.