The Bird wonders why Sheriff Joe Arpaio put a U.S. citizen behind bars for simply appearing Mexican

May 10th, 2008

The Bird wonders why Sheriff Joe Arpaio put a U.S. citizen behind bars for simply appearing Mexican
From the beak of The Bird to the ear of Stephen Lemons
Published on January 31, 2008
What ICE doesn’t know won’t hurt it.

Stephen Lemons
U.S. citizen Israel Correa, with detail from his MCSO booking report, which indicates an “MCSO ICE Hold.”
Subject(s):
Russell Pearce, Sheriff Joe Arpaio, Israel CorreaThat’s the Sheriff’s Office policy regarding immigration “holds” placed on those the MCSO suspects of being illegal aliens, a category covering everyone in town darker than the average eggshell.

Indeed, as part of Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s recent posse-enhanced dragnet of central PHX, one The Bird dive-bombed during its press-conference kickoff (“Joe Show Blows,” January 24), the MCSO placed an “MCSO ICE Hold” against U.S. citizen Israel Correa while he was in custody on the bogus charge of not producing a valid driver’s license.

Why bogus? According to the incident report, obtained from MCSO flack Paul Chagolla, Correa was stopped about 10 p.m. January 18 because he was driving without his headlights on. The MCSO actually arrested Correa for failure to show ID, even though the report written by deputy C.A. Rangel notes Correa eventually produced a valid Arizona driver’s license, just not quickly enough to satisfy Rangel.

Correa wasn’t ticketed for driving sans headlights. Instead, he was ticketed for not showing ID, which he, in fact, produced. For not having insurance, which he has. And for not having his registration in the vehicle, though MCSO ran the car’s plate, and found the registration was legit.

MCSO confiscated Correa’s valid state driver’s license, and on Rangel’s report is Correa’s valid Social Security number. So, why did deputies place an immigration hold on him?

Uh, maybe because Correa’s skin is brown and he speaks English with an accent? Last time this lapwing checked, neither suffices to arrest someone on a trumped-up charge and hold them as a suspected illegal alien.

When Channel 12 first reported that Correa, a former candidate for Maryvale JP, was squawking that a hold had been placed on him, The Bird was skeptical. So the foul fowl called up Vinnie Picard, spokesman for Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Picard vowed there’d been no hold. Otherwise, he’d have known about it, he assured this avian.

The authority to place such a hold comes from ICE itself. Currently, Arpaio has 160 deputies cross-trained as ICE agents under a 287G program, in which local law enforcement receive ICE training and act under ICE’s purview.

After chirping with Picard, The Bird caught up with Correa, who produced a printout of the MCSO’s Booking Detail Report for him. Under a section called “holds,” the words “MCSO ICE Hold” are plainly listed.

Correa repeatedly told the MCSO he was an American citizen, born in Maricopa County, no less. Correa claimed the MCSO didn’t believe him because of his accent. He related the story of a female MCSO officer who was processing him into Fourth Avenue Jail.

“The lady was screaming at me,” alleged Correa. “I told her, ‘Ma’am, you don’t need to be in my face, plus your breath stinks!’ She said, ‘You’re not from here. This is a fake driver’s license.’ I said, ‘It’s not fake. I want to speak to an attorney, I know my rights.’ I told her, ‘I am a paralegal. I know the law too.’”

Correa was manhandled into one cell, then another. In the morning, he was informed he would not be released.

“They told me I had an ICE hold,” said Correa. “I said, ‘But I told you I was a U.S. citizen!’ They said, “Yeah, yeah, come on.’ Then they put me with all the immigrants. I was in there for like six more hours. I continued calling my family, and they kept calling the jail.”

Yet Picard insists Correa was never under suspicion by the feds of being being illegal. MCSO informed Picard this so-called hold was really just an internal “flag” indicating Correa needed to be interviewed by a 287G deputy.

Why was he flagged, when MCSO had Correa’s valid SS number and driver’s license? MCSO told Picard it was because Correa wouldn’t answer questions upon his booking.

After yakking with Correa at length, this cynical snipe doubts Correa’s capable of being quiet for more than a few minutes, even though, as an American citizen, he had the right to remain silent.

Picard conceded that someone might be bewildered by an “MCSO ICE Hold” that’s not really an ICE hold.

“No wonder he thought he was being held and examined by ICE,” Picard observed. “Every indication that he had, from the paperwork, and what he was or was not told, indicated that. That’s why I was confused, because we had no record of that.”

The MCSO retained Correa’s property after he was released, including a handgun that the arresting deputy said “had no criminal record.” Correa insists he had a wallet with $2,000 in cash. Rangel’s report states no wallet or money was found.

Correa told The Bird that since being let go, MCSO vehicles have dogged his residence, driving and parking nearby. He’s also spotted a plainclothes cop taking snaps of his home.

Correa’s attorney, Stephen Montoya, fears retribution from the MCSO against his client. Knowing Arpaio and the hunger for revenge that drives him and his lackeys, this falcon figures that fear’s legitimate (see “Enemies List,” Sarah Fenske, November 29, the opener of our “Target Practice” series on the unsavory antics of Joe and his Mini-Me, County Attorney Candy Thomas).

Did ICE train Arpaio’s goons so they could hold American citizens, without informing ICE that they’re doing so? Don’t think so. Even those opposed to illegal immigration should be incensed by this latest, flagrant, and likely criminal abuse of power by the MCSO.

ICE should immediately move to suspend the 287G status of Arpaio’s deputies. Under Nickel Bag Joe’s regime, the MCSO cannot be trusted to perform its local duties professionally, much less execute federal laws without malice or bias.

$43.4 MIL & COUNTING

Whatever Israel Correa’s inevitable civil rights claim costs the county, we’ll have to add it to the $43.4 million and counting in Maricopa County lawsuit payouts because of Sheriff Joe’s medieval jail system.

That figure’s up $2 million from the $41.4 million cited in our cover story last month, “Inhumanity Has a Price” (John Dickerson, December 20, another segment of “Target Practice”). The $2 mil was the county’s settlement on a complaint brought by tort titan Mike Manning on behalf of the family of Brian Crenshaw, a 40-year-old, legally blind, mentally disabled man who died as a result of a severe beating sustained in MCSO custody.

Crenshaw was in jail for shoplifting. The MCSO knew he was mentally handicapped, his eyesight impaired. A doc at Correctional Health Services wrote an order stating Crenshaw was not to be housed in Tent City. He was housed there anyway.

Standing in a chow line one day, Crenshaw was approached by MCSO Officer Jimmy Martinez, who ordered Crenshaw to show his inmate ID card. Crenshaw didn’t respond. A scuffle ensued. Crenshaw was placed in handcuffs, and led to a holding cell. Martinez later admitted in a deposition that Crenshaw was shoved into a metal table and wire mesh. Other officers joined in the assault, according to the complaint.

Crenshaw was held in solitary confinement for six days. He complained of being beaten by detention officers, of having severe wounds. When he was eventually moved to Maricopa County Medical Center, emergency room doctors discovered his neck and toes were broken. Crenshaw slipped into a coma from which he never awoke and died April 15, 2003. An independent autopsy determined the cause of death to be peritonitis and blood poisoning due to a perforated duodenum.

How did Crenshaw incur these injuries? Arpaio’s hatchet man-esquire Jack MacIntyre says Crenshaw fell off his bunk.

“Even if you could come up with the notion that he broke his neck falling off a bunk, how do you fracture your toes, and scrape them?” asked Manning in response to MacIntyre’s claim. “You don’t scrape your toes by falling off a bunk. That’s absurd.”

Following the settlement, MacIntyre, one of Arpaio’s several spokesmen, mouthed off to the Arizona Republic: “Government entities are always going to be targets, especially for these bogus civil-rights-type claims.”

Pretty cocky crap from a lawyer-relegated-to-flack whose department had just lost to the tune of $2 freakin’ mil. But neither Joe nor MacIntyre has to front the dough. We bill-bearers do, along with paying their salaries. The $2 mil falls under the county’s $5 mil deductible for its liability insurance. Why so high? Because the sheriff’s shoddily run gulags draw lawsuits like rats to rotten oranges.

Can someone tell MacIntyre to shut his pettifogging pie-hole? “Bogus” complaint?! MacIntyre’s either a moron or he knows that he’d better keep his lips securely around Arpaio’s withered pecker. Or else!

NUREMBERG REDUX?

The Taloned One loves how State Representative Russell Pearce is all excuses when he forwards neo-Nazi National Alliance e-mails to supporters, or is spotted arm-in-arm with swastika-worshippers like J.T. Ready. It’s either, “I didn’t read the e-mail,” or, “I didn’t know he was a white supremacist.” But the proof, as they say, is in the puddinhead.

In person, Pearce strikes you as having the IQ of a horse’s hoof. But he’s extremely effective at instituting his one-note-Johnny anti-brown plan for Sand Land. Last year, it was employer sanctions. This year, AZ’s doofus Dr. Evil is bolder, more twisted.

Pearce has already made known his intent to put a referendum on the November ballot that would prohibit hospitals from issuing birth certificates to children born of illegal parents. Never mind that the 14th Amendment to the Constitution clearly states: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

Constitution, shmonstitution! Pearce the prejudiced pinhead has spoken!

Other Pearce-sponsored legislation in this session reveals a methodical goose-step toward the eradication of an entire class of individuals from AZ’s population. The most dastardly is House Bill 2631, which amends marriage law to require that prospective brides and grooms provide both Social Security numbers and proof of citizenship before a marriage license is issued.

So, only Americans can wed Americans, in Russell-ville. (Inbreeding is optional.) What if your girlfriend’s here on a student visa? Tough luck. How ’bout if your boyfriend has a green card? Better look for a citizen, sweetie. Preferably a white one.

The Bird would have to be tone deaf to history not to note a faint echo of Nazi Germany’s Nuremberg laws. These instituted a blood test for citizenship, something ol’ Russ would probably be down with. Like Pearce’s proposals, the Nuremberg laws also dealt with nuptials, forbidding marriages “between Jews and citizens of German blood.”

Agreed, we’re dealing with different historical contexts. Compared to the Nuremburg laws or Jim Crow in the American South or apartheid in South Africa or ethnic cleansing in the former Yugoslavia, Pearce’s cruelty pales.

But the Mesa moonhowler keeps trying to up his cruelty quotient. Take, for instance, HB 2625, which sanctions landlords renting to illegals. A landlord who doesn’t check a renter’s immigration status could receive a civil penalty of up to $250 for each day of violation. Effectively, if you rent to someone who is undocumented, the state could bankrupt you.

There’s also House Concurrent Resolution 2039, a ballot measure forcing cops to check arrestees for immigration status. If some city doesn’t want their police acting like the local Gestapo and asking for papers like in some Hogan’s Heroes rerun, all state money to that municipality’s police force will be axed.

HCR 2039 also makes illegals illegal. There’s already a federal law, Title 8, section 1325, which makes it unlawful for an alien to enter the country illegally. Basically, it’s a minor offense, with a civil penalty of “at least $50 and not more than $250 for each such entry.”

Under Pearce’s proposal, a local law enforcement agency can either turn over the illegal to the feds, or refer him or her for prosecution. First offense would be a class-1 misdemeanor. Second offense, a class-4 felony. There are prison terms, fines and assessments of court costs against those convicted. How they’re going to squeeze the last two out of some poor Mexican who crossed the desert to work for birdseed is beyond this bald eagle.

Additionally, there’s HB 2045, which requires “handymen” to be registered and in the country legally, even if the total cost of the work they’re doing fails to exceed $1,000. That’s an obvious swipe at day laborers, whose only crime is wanting to bust their asses for lazy ofays willing to pay. (Pearce is only a co-sponsor on this one, but it fits with the master plan.)

Let’s face it, in Arizona, the word “illegal” as applied to an individual is quickly becoming the de facto equivalent of “subhuman.” But for this tweeter, the only “subhumans” involved here are those helping fellow troglodyte Pearce get his trash-legislation passed.

Flushing Them Out

May 10th, 2008

Flushing Them Out
Joe Arpaio and Andrew Thomas are teaching the rest of the nation how to terrorize illegal immigrants
By Megan Irwin
Published on December 27, 2007
Daniela’s world is very small. Though she was born in Mexico and traveled thousands of miles to Phoenix, she might never leave her neighborhood again. As an undocumented immigrant in Maricopa County, it’s just too risky.

Morgan Bellinger
Phoenix lawyer Daniel Ortega
Morgan Bellinger
Activist Alfredo Gutierrez works the crowd outside M.D. Pruitt’s furniture store, the site of a weekly immigration protest.
Morgan Bellinger
Outside Pruitt’s in Phoenix
Morgan Bellinger
Immigrants protest Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio.
Morgan Bellinger
An anti-immigrant protester
Subject(s):
illegal immigrants, Sheriff Joe ArpaioHer eldest child longs for the family to take a trip to California and see the ocean, but Daniela, the mother of four American citizens and one undocumented child, ages 5 to 13, doesn’t travel farther than three blocks from her home. She’s terrified.

Her husband, a welder, leaves for work before dawn. She never knows if he’ll come home.

Daniela has very few friends — there’s no one she can trust not to report her, especially now that the county sheriff has an illegal immigration hotline.

She can’t leave her house to buy groceries; she’s heard that the sheriff stations deputies at Food City.

Daniela lives down the street from a drug dealer, not a safe environment for a young family. She knows the guy’s name, his address and she’s seen him do business. But she can’t call the police — they might take her away.

She’s learned how to walk quietly, to stay in the shadows. The only place Daniela allows herself to go is her children’s elementary school. She volunteers there six hours a day. She says it’s her responsibility to be active in her children’s education. But when she walks to school (she won’t drive, ever) she makes sure to go with one of her few friend or her kids.

“You can’t walk alone because if you are walking alone and you get taken, who is going to tell your family you are gone?” she says. “When you walk, you walk fast and you walk quiet. You don’t talk to nobody. If someone is speaking to you, you don’t say anything.”

Daniela’s children can’t sleep through the night. They have nightmares about their parents getting caught and deported.

“We are the only support for my children. If we get arrested, we don’t have another person to take care of my children,” say says, starting to cry. “When they ask, ‘What’s going to happen to us, Mom, if you get arrested?’ I lie to them. I say, ‘We have a plan my love, my sweetie. Someone will take care of you and your brothers. Nothing is going to happen to you.’ But it’s a lie.”

Daniela also wakes up at night, crying. In her dreams, she relives her border crossing. She came to America to meet up with her husband when she was 17, their 8-month-old baby in tow. In the border town of Agua Prieta, she was assaulted by a “coyote,” slang for a person who smuggles immigrants across the border. The coyote stole her money, her identification, and tried to steal her baby.

“They tell me they will take my baby,” she says in her slow, practiced English, from inside a classroom at her children’s elementary school. That was 13 years ago, but from the look on her face, it could have been yesterday. “They say, ‘You will never see your baby again.’”

To save her young son, Carlos, she made a decision that haunts her to this day: She paid a strange woman $600 to drive him safely to Phoenix. It was a painful gamble, but one that paid off. Carlos survived.

If Daniela were caught trying to save his life this way in Maricopa County, she’d be charged with human smuggling, the same as the coyote who haunts her nightmares. Today, victims of smuggling are treated the same as the perpetrators, thanks to an interpretation of the law that assigns the same level of responsibility to the criminals who smuggle and the people they sneak across the border.

There’s good reason to be afraid. The situation for undocumented immigrants in Maricopa County is arguably the worst in the country, thanks to two men: County Attorney Andrew Thomas and Sheriff Joe Arpaio.

Roberto Reveles, the former president of immigrant rights group Somos America (We Are America), says there is no place in the country worse than Maricopa County.

“It’s worse because here there is a statewide effort. The state Legislature is involved, the executive branch — the governor — is complicit, and at the local level, the worst in the country has to be the Maricopa County sheriff and county attorney, who are abusing their power to harass, intimidate, and create fear in the hearts of dark-skinned people,” he says.

In October, when the owners of this newspaper were arrested for releasing information about a grand jury subpoena, no group in Maricopa County watched more closely than the undocumented immigrant community, says Antonio Bustamante, a Phoenix defense lawyer litigating a class-action suit against Arpaio and Thomas.

“It was a despicable, cowardly, gutless lack of character thing to do to any human being,” he says. “And if they would do that to prominent members of the community — if you’re a ‘wetback’ — you’ve got no chance.”

Undocumented immigrants know better than anyone what it’s like to be arrested in the middle of the night, to walk around as moving targets, to sit in jail.

In the past year, the fight against immigrants has gotten particularly nasty as violence against immigrants has escalated.

But this is a fight that began back in November 2004, when a conservative lawyer named Andrew Thomas ran for office on a get-tough immigration platform. The pundits scoffed, noting that the county attorney technically has very little to do with illegal immigration, a federal issue. But Thomas has delivered on his campaign promises. In doing so, he’s become a national spokesman for the anti-immigration movement.

From his attack on the judiciary, to his promise to aggressively enforce a new employer-sanctions law aimed at businesses who hire undocumented workers, to his intense lobbying for a ballot measure that denies bail to illegal immigrants accused of committing felonies, to his campaign against identity theft, almost every political move Thomas makes has anti-immigrant rhetoric at its root.

And these days, Arpaio is right by his side.

Together, they’ve succeeded in terrorizing the undocumented residents of Maricopa County. Consider:

• Thomas’ controversial interpretation of Arizona’s anti-smuggling statute. The county attorney accuses all people who are smuggled into the state of conspiring to smuggle themselves, a class 4 felony.

• Maricopa County is the only place in the country where victims of human smuggling are treated as criminals.

• The law has drawn the attention of national human rights groups like the Center for Human Rights and Constitutional Law on the grounds that the statute is preempted by the federal government’s constitutional right to regulate immigration.

• A crackdown by Arpaio’s deputies on law-abiding immigrants — including food vendors, college students, and day laborers — has left the community so frightened that many immigrants will not even leave their homes to visit the grocery store or go to church. Even American citizens of Hispanic descent say they are nervous. One citizen New Times spoke with carries his United States passport around to prove he’s a citizen.

• A push toward making local law enforcement into immigration officers has had a chilling effect on the undocumented population. In February, 160 county deputies were granted immigration authority. Recently, Phoenix and Mesa have considered allowing police officers to question immigration status (previously, they had to call ICE to verify status). Though Arpaio has arrested only about 1,300 illegal immigrants — a drop in the bucket compared to the estimated 300,000 living in Maricopa County — the effort has been felt throughout the undocumented population.

• An increase in immigrant-on-immigrant violence has come, experts say, as a result of the population’s inability to call the police in time of need. The fear within the immigrant community of all police has given violent criminals the upper hand — they know their victims can’t, or won’t, call for help.

Because of the sheriff’s reputation for retaliation, all undocumented immigrants New Times interviewed for this story chose to use only their real first names in order to avoid capture and possible deportation. Some even refused to meet with a reporter in person out of fear of being turned over to the police.

Both Arpaio and Thomas’ offices declined interview requests for this story. Phoenix lawyer Daniel Ortega, legal counsel to Somos America, says county policies have dangerous ramifications.

“It is our position that Joe Arpaio and Andrew Thomas are doing exactly what the Constitution of the United States prohibits, and that is the enforcement of immigration laws at a local level,” Ortega says. “Why? Because they want to get re-elected. They don’t even have to tell the truth. It doesn’t matter as long as it gets a headline.”

——————————————————————————–

The issue is not unique to Maricopa County. Nationally, the topic has become such a political onus that in October Mexican President Philipe Calderón issued a statement begging American politicians to stop using migrants as the “thematic hostages of their speeches and strategies.”

This past summer, a national attempt at comprehensive immigration reform, which included a guest-worker program and amnesty provisions for illegal immigrants already here, along with provisions for beefed up border security and sanctions for employers who hire illegal immigrants, failed to pass Congress.

Without a national solution, states have been left to cope with the problem themselves. At least 18 states have punitive laws that deal with illegal immigration. Following Thomas’ lead in Arizona, states including Colorado, Nebraska, and Idaho are considering legislation that would deny bail to undocumented immigrants, and Oklahoma already has such a law in place. In January, Virginia’s House of Delegates passed a law that denies state funding to charitable organizations if the money is used to help illegal immigrants.

Under Thomas’ direction, Arizona is leading the way. Tamar Jacoby, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute and internationally recognized expert on immigration, says Arizona is a leader on the issue. But that doesn’t mean she agrees with what the state is doing.

“I would say, for better or worse, Arizona has led the way on state immigration measures,” she says. “I would call them Draconian state measures.”

By the way, Jacoby is no fuzzy liberal. She’s long been known as a rational conservative voice on the issue, working behind the scenes with policymakers in Washington, D.C. She did not want to comment directly on Thomas’ policies, but she did say the trend toward state-sponsored immigration legislation is dangerous. Jacoby says the problem needs to be handled by the one entity constitutionally equipped to handle the problem: the federal government. She blames federal immigration quotas that don’t correspond to actual national labor needs.

It’s not that people would rather be illegal. They don’t have a legal way to come. States can’t do anything about that,” she says. “All they can do is pass these laws, which are so far from what we need. It’s like a zero-calorie diet.”

Linda Chavez, executive director of the Center for Equal Opportunity, a conservative think tank based in Virginia, agrees that the political hysteria surrounding immigration is out of control.

“I think Arizona was sort of ground zero in the fight against illegal immigration. The reason you’re seeing these state initiatives is because the federal government hasn’t dealt with it,” she says. “We have a real hysteria sweeping the nation. The hysteria has stopped Congress from acting and provoked states to act and, frankly, it’s a mess. For states to come in and usurp the job of the federal government is misplaced and dangerous.”

Chavez worries that many state jurisdictions, like Maricopa County, ignore the facts surrounding immigration and act under political pressure. She points out that nationally, the number of immigrants coming to America has declined since 2000. This holds true in Maricopa County. Between 1990 and 2000, the foreign born population here increased about 144 percent. But between 2000 and 2005, it increased only 29 percent.

“A lot of these jurisdictions are acting on their gut reactions rather than empirical evidence,” says Chavez. “They’re not considering the constitutional ramifications.”

That’s true. Like it or not, immigrants — both legal and illegal — are protected by the Constitution. In a landmark 1981 case, the U.S. Supreme Court verified that all people within the borders of the United States are protected by its laws.

In Plyler v. Doe, the court ruled that illegal immigrants still have the right to public education, the undocumented are legally established as recognizable “persons” and are guaranteed equal protection under the law by the 14th Amendment.

Other decisions have declared that immigrants are entitled to due process and can not be arrested or subject to unreasonable search and seizure without probable cause.

Even Deputy Troy Henley, special agent in charge of investigations at Arizona’s office of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, agrees the undocumented have constitutional rights that need to be protected.

“Generally speaking, if you are in the United States, you have constitutional rights,” he says. “Certain rights attach, certain rights don’t. Law enforcement rights attach.”

The political hysteria surrounding undocumented immigrants paved the way for a right-leaning attorney with a Latina wife and a hard anti-illegal immigration stance to win the position of Maricopa County’s highest-ranked elected law enforcement official.

In 2004, when Andrew Thomas ran his campaign on an illegal immigration platform, it was hard to take him seriously. His “stop illegal immigration” signs that covered the county seemed almost like a joke. It seemed preposterous that a county attorney could tackle a federal issue that even national law enforcement and Congress can’t get under control. But his plan worked. Thomas won the election. And immigration was more than just a campaign talking point — almost immediately, Thomas made good on his promises.

At that point, the new county attorney and the old sheriff had not yet forged a bond.

In April 2005, only a few months after Thomas took office, Patrick Haab, an ex-Army reservist, made national headlines by holding seven Mexican migrants hostage at gunpoint at a rest stop on Interstate 8, on county land southwest of Phoenix, because he thought they were illegal. Maricopa sheriff’s deputies who arrived at the scene charged Haab with seven felony counts of aggravated assault.

“I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: You don’t pull guns on people because of the color of their skin,” Arpaio told the Arizona Republic. “I will continue to defend my deputies. They made the right decision.”

But Thomas had other ideas. Twelve days after Haab was arrested, Thomas announced he wouldn’t prosecute the case because of a state law that permits a citizen arrest when a felony is committed.

(Never mind the fact that crossing the border without inspection is not a felony in and of itself. The first time an undocumented immigrant crosses the border, it’s a misdemeanor. Illegal entry doesn’t become a felony until the person is caught, deported, and tries to come back.)

Paul Charlton, then the U.S. attorney for Arizona, thought Thomas’ decision was dangerous.

“Any time anyone takes the law into their own hands, they risk a number of things,” he says of what Haab did. “Their own lives, the lives of the people they are detaining, and the lives of law enforcement who come upon the scene. It’s a risky proposition, at best, and it should only occur when there’s not another alternative. In my mind, there were a number of other alternatives, short of holding these individuals hostage.”

But what Thomas did resonated with voters, and the incident generated headlines for months. Haab even appeared on Fox News’ Hannity & Colmes to discuss the incident. Thomas drew applause from such anti-immigration groups as the fledgling Minuteman Civil Defense Corps.

Arpaio, famous for generating headlines, saw an opportunity.

Local activist, lobbyist, radio host, and former state legislator Alfredo Gutierrez says it was a dangerous union.

“Arpaio is a clown. A clown that’s good for the times, but a clown. Thomas is smart. He’s fiercely intelligent and civilized, but he’s also vile and hateful,” he says. “Arpaio has an obsessive need for public approval and media attention, and that’s been true since the beginning. The green bologna, Tent City — it’s all designed to keep him in the spotlight. Right around the Haab incident, it became clear to him that this was the next logical escalation. His primary motivation is seeing his face on television. Thomas is a different case. Thomas truly understands his actions and his manipulation of the sheriff is very purposeful.”

Around the same time, the Arizona Legislature passed a law aimed at stopping human smuggling. Jonathan Paton, a Republican from Tucson, says he sponsored the bill with the thought that it would be aimed at the organized crime rings that traffic humans on the border, not at their cargo.

The bill makes it illegal for a person to intentionally smuggle human beings for profit or commercial purposes and defines smuggling as the transportation of people who are known, or could reasonably be suspected, to be unlawfully in the state.

Paton remembers the committee sessions leading up to the bill’s vote as intense.

“There was a lot of debate. They were grilling me to see if this could be used to go after someone driving a gardener around and all these different things. I have a district that goes up to the border. I’m not soft on border issues,” he says. “But this [going after those being smuggled] was not part of my plan.”

Thomas didn’t care. In September 2005, he issued an official opinion on the law. Under Thomas’ interpretation, anyone who pays a “coyote” to guide them to America is guilty of conspiracy to commit smuggling, a felony offense that puts the smuggled on the same level as the violent criminals who bring them here.

Of the 18 or so anti-trafficking state laws nationwide, none has this scope.

Florida, a state with a large trafficking problem, even ensures that victims are provided with state-funded services.

Still, Thomas’ political moves have resonated in other states. Earlier this year, Oklahoma passed a comprehensive immigration package filled with laws modeled after those in Arizona. State Representative Randy Terrill, who authored the bill and brags that his is one of only three states truly cracking down on illegal immigration — the other two, according to Terrill are Georgia and Arizona — says he’s looking at Arizona’s law for guidance.

Two months after Thomas issued his opinion on smuggling, he hosted a conference on illegal immigration. The Southwest Conference on Illegal Immigration, Border Security and Crime was created under the guise of exploring the issue of illegal immigration, but its true purpose was to grab national attention.

The list of panelists included John Leo, a former New York Times columnist, and Kris Kobach, former counsel to John Ashcroft. Tamar Jacoby of the Manhattan Institute was also one of Thomas’ invited panelists.

In a speech at the conference, Thomas made his feelings toward immigrants clear.

“We do, as a society, risk being turned into a different society that is less appealing by tolerating what is occurring,” he said. Later in the speech, he went on, “I think we’re dealing with something that fundamentally changes our democracy, not only in terms of our sense of human rights, [but in] the fact we are tolerating a sub-class of people.”

Next, Thomas lobbied hard to pass Proposition 100, the statewide measure that denies bail to illegal immigrants accused, not convicted, of felonies. Since the measure passed, other states have followed suit. In Colorado, a bill to deny bail to illegal immigrants is part of a package of legislation for 2008 and in May of this year, Oklahoma’s governor signed the Oklahoma Taxpayer and Citizen Protection Act, which denies bail to illegal immigrants and also fines employers who knowingly hire them. Similar measures are under consideration in Nebraska and Idaho.

Oklahoma representative Terrill says Arizona’s Prop 100 was a model for the bail provision of his state’s act.

“I snatched the no bail provision from you guys,” he says.

Thomas fought the judiciary tooth and nail to see it enforced as harshly as possible, going so far as to have attorney Dennis Wilenchik attempt to publicly humiliate judges who refused to fall in line.

Tamar Jacoby says these kinds of state actions are only making the problem worse.

“Arizona is the place where emotions are running highest in the whole country,” she says. “Arizona is like an infected tooth. It’s inflamed and everything makes it worse.”

——————————————————————————–

By the spring of 2006, Thomas had successfully added an important weapon to his arsenal — a guy with his own arsenal, Sheriff Joe Arpaio. Local police departments weren’t willing to enforce immigration or state smuggling laws, but Arpaio was.

But despite his posturing on the topic, Arpaio has yet to truly dismantle any organized smuggling rings.

In fact, he stumbled upon his biggest bust to date by accident, when his deputies picked up several barefoot, shirtless immigrants running through the streets of El Mirage.

It turned out the men had escaped from a nearby drop house, where they led the deputies. The discovery was the result of pure luck, not investigative excellence.

Nonetheless, what the sheriff’s deputies discovered shined a shocking light on the inside of a drop house, and the serious ramifications Arizona’s anti-smuggling law could have for victims of smuggling.

In mid-October, sheriff’s deputies responded to reports that a number of “illegals” were running shirtless and barefoot through the streets of El Mirage. When rounded up, deputies learned the immigrants had escaped from a drop house where they’d been held hostage.

The inside of the house was disgusting. The bedroom doors were locked from the outside, and in each room, deputies discovered jugs of human waste. Torn, bloody underwear was discovered in one room. The kitchen was filthy with grease and old food, and there was no furniture, only makeshift beds.

One of the victims, the owner of the bloody clothes, was a pregnant teenager.

Her husband, identified only as “Angel” in the report, re-created the scene for police officers:

As soon as they arrived at the drop house, he and his wife were stripped of their possessions and locked in a room. The smugglers made phone calls to his family in Chiapas, Mexico, demanding $3,200 — on top of a set smuggling fee. Angel was “advised that if he didn’t pay, he was going to die.”

He witnessed many beatings inside the house, but the worst was the beating of his wife. When her family could not immediately pay her ransom, she was dragged by her wrist from the room.

For the next half hour, he could hear his wife screaming and crying from the next room. When she returned, badly beaten, she said she’d been punched in the stomach. She miscarried inside the house.

Another man told sheriff’s deputies what happened to him when he arrived at the house on October 2. As soon as he entered the house, the coyotes took his identification, his wallet, and all of his personal belongings and locked him in a room with about 14 other people. He called the coyotes “kidnappers” because they would not release him until his fees were paid.

This transport fee for this particular victim was bumped $200, from $2,500 to $2,700, upon his arrival in Phoenix. He told police that the coyotes would call his wife demanding more money and beat him because she didn’t have it. This happened to a number of people trapped in the home who were told that if their relatives did not pay up, they would be killed and dumped in the desert.

When he was caught trying to escape, the man was taken to a bathroom, where he was tortured and almost suffocated with a plastic bag.

Another man in the same room was beaten and threatened by guards for making too much noise.

According to the police report, one of the coyote guards, “placed the nose of the gun on [his] neck and told [him] that he has killed lots of people, and that his hands were itching to kill another.”

The man’s offense? He was praying.

These are the apparent effects of the smuggling law. According to activists and members of the legal community, the worst thing about the law is that it views victims as criminals. All the people discovered in the El Mirage drop house are subject to felony charges under Arizona law. In an uncharacteristic move, of the 54 people discovered, only five were booked on conspiracy to commit human-smuggling charges. The rest were released to ICE custody for voluntary return to their home country. Because the sheriff will not talk to New Times about the case, it’s unclear why his deputies made this decision.

Even if victims are deported without charges, the threat of arrest and time in the county jail still looms.

“They are defenseless,” says Phoenix lawyer Daniel Ortega. “These are the people the sheriff and the county attorney are going after. The people who are the most vulnerable.”

It’s telling that none of the men picked up in El Mirage phoned the police for help. Thomas and Arpaio spread fear of the police by feverishly trumpeting the number of arrests and convictions under the law. Other states, like Oklahoma, are considering passing similar laws because of it. But the numbers aren’t exactly what they seem.

Since March 2006, Arpaio’s deputies have charged at least 800 people with conspiracy to commit smuggling, and Thomas’ office recently boasted of its 500th conviction.

Most of the pollitos, the slang word for people who pay for transport to the U.S., are offered the chance to plead guilty to the reduced charge of solicitation (rather than conspiracy) to commit human smuggling. After they take the plea, they are sentenced to unsupervised probation and turned over to ICE for voluntary removal from the country.

Antonio Colón, a lawyer in the Maricopa County public defender’s office who has defended many of these cases, says most people don’t want to stay and fight the charge.

“They have the option to get probation and get released to ICE. Clients just say, ‘I want to get out.’ They don’t know why they are incarcerated. They don’t understand what’s going on. And telling them, ‘You conspired to smuggle yourself into the country,’ doesn’t make any sense,” he says. “As soon as they get a hearing, they’re told, ‘We’ll give you the ticket home [if you plead guilty]‘ and they all want the ticket home because they’ve been incarcerated for no reason. It’s kind of sad.”

Once an immigrant is deported, it becomes a felony to enter the United States without inspection. Capture can lead to time in federal prison. If an immigrant is deported with a felony charge — as the people in the smuggling cases are — there is no way he or she can ever apply for and get lawful entry to the United States ever again.

The law quickly drew national attention from civil rights groups including the Center for Human Rights and Constitutional Law in Los Angeles. Peter Schey, executive director of the center, has been involved in fighting the law since the first arrests were made.

“We became involved because of the extreme nature of the policy adopted by Andrew Thomas and Sheriff Joe Arpaio,” he says. “They’re the only federal or state officials in the country who have adopted the position that migrants may be charged under criminal anti-smuggling laws with the conspiracy to smuggle themselves. We believe that Thomas and Arpaio’s position is entirely without legal justification.”

In November 2006, Schey helped a group of local activists, professors, and immigrants charged under the law file a class-action suit to fight it.

Schey has a multi-pronged argument. First, he says, the county attorney is violating the intent of the law — a claim that representative Paton, the man who authored it, has repeatedly backed up.

“If you look at my statements in the hearing committee itself, they were pretty clear,” he says. “Under questioning, I stated the purpose was to go after smugglers.”

Schey argues the law is unconstitutional.

“We believe they are intruding into an area in which the federal government maintains exclusive jurisdiction,” he says. “The federal government has enacted comprehensive laws dealing with immigrant smuggling and has clearly preempted local officials from implementing the type of policy being pursued by Arpaio and Thomas.”

He also worries that sheriff’s deputies aren’t equipped to effectively enforce immigration law. He knows of at least one case in which a minor was indicted on smuggling charges along with the rest of the group she was arrested with. She sat in the county jail for three months.

The girl, Rosa Diaz-Godines, could not be contacted for this story, but her lawyer, Geoff Fish, confirms that she was obviously underage.

“She looked really young. She insisted she was 18, but I didn’t believe her, and she finally admitted she was not,” he says.

On her way across the desert, someone had told her that if she said she was 18, she would be allowed to stay in America. So, she refused to admit her real age. Once Fish was able to obtain her birth certificate from Mexico and prove she was underage, she was released. About a month after her release, she became eligible for a green card.

“They’re not sufficiently familiar with immigration law to determine who can be here and who can not,” says Schey. “They assume everyone who is transported by a smuggler is here illegally without considering whether that person might be eligible for a visa as a trafficking victim, as a crime victim, as an unaccompanied minor, or as a person who can seek asylum. They don’t have the capacity to determine those questions and they don’t seem to care about them.”

The civil class-action suit Schey helped file is now before Judge Robert C. Broomfield in federal district court.

On a local level, very few individual cases have made it to trial. The County Attorney’s Office would not confirm how many cases have gone before a jury, but a press release from the office names only one jury conviction. Juan Barragan-Cierra was arrested in June 2006 along with three other men and indicted on charges of human smuggling, for smuggling himself into the state. A jury found him guilty, and in December 2006, he was sentenced to two years unsupervised probation and ordered not to remain in the United States illegally. His lawyer, public defender Carissa Jakobe, is appealing the case.

At least one judge has ruled the convictions don’t hold up.

In the case of Adolfo Guzman-Garcia, who was convicted by a jury, Judge Timothy O’Toole dismissed the charges after the trial.

Guzman-Garcia was arrested in May 2006 along with 10 others and charged with attempting to smuggle himself into the state. Those with whom he was arrested pleaded guilty and were deported, but Guzman-Garcia posted bond (this was before Proposition 100 was passed) and stayed to fight the case. Though a jury found him guilty of the charges, O’Toole chose to acquit him.

“Evidence showed that the defendant was nothing more than a paying passenger . . . the conspiracy statute does not impose criminal liability on a person who is merely being transported by an alien smuggler for profit or commercial purpose . . . there must be substantial evidence that the person being smuggled also agreed . . . to engage in the offense of human smuggling,” he wrote in his ruling.

Antonio Bustamante, a Phoenix lawyer who is working with Schey on the class action lawsuit, says the county attorney knows the best way to ensure a high conviction rate is to push the plea bargains.

“They can’t win their cases, so they’re taking convictions on the cheap by keeping people incarcerated. You’re going to sit there until you cry uncle,” he says. “Thomas has no integrity and, to me, is not even a man because of what he’s doing. Anyone would rather get out of jail than wait months. That’s cowardly, that’s not justice and that’s not the American way.”

——————————————————————————–

Immigrants in drop houses are not the only people in danger. Once they enter the community, they deal with the constant fear of discovery. Getting undocumented immigrants to talk about life in Maricopa County is difficult. They are instinctively distrustful of strangers. When you can be arrested at any moment, you have to be careful whom you invite into your life.

That doesn’t mean the undocumented don’t have anything to say for themselves. After Alfredo Gutierrez mentioned on his radio program that this story was being written, he received calls during the rest of the day from people who wanted to talk about life without a green card. Most people did not want to say their names or meet in person. Even when a respected Hispanic leader tells immigrants whom they can trust, they don’t want to take the chance.

Daniela, the mother of five whose oldest child was almost stolen by a coyote, is one of the few immigrants contacted by New Times brave enough to speak candidly about her fears.

She lives down the street from a known drug dealer, which puts her children in a potentially dangerous situation every day.

“I know where they are selling and I know their name, but I am not going to say nothing. First, when the police come they could have the right to ask me about my situation. I don’t know what’s going to happen after,” she says. “Second, I am afraid about the drug dealers. He [Arpaio] is supposed to fight with those persons, not with me.”

But undocumented immigrants like Daniela are exactly whom he wants to fight. One hundred sixty of his deputies and jail officers have been cross-trained as immigration officers, a program known as 287-g after the section of the national Illegal Immigration Reform and Responsibility Act of 1996 that makes this legal.

The program is intended for local law enforcement to go after known violent, criminals — human smugglers for example — and, if they are undocumented, initiate removal proceedings without waiting on ICE.

In theory, the 287-g training that the Sheriff’s Office signed up for is designed to catch people like the drug dealer down the street from Daniela and the coyotes who brutalized the people in the drop house in El Mirage — people who are known criminals. Arizona is not the only state with this funding and training available, nor was it the first to get it. Twelve states have officers cross-trained under the program. But Maricopa County has the more 287-g officers than any other county or state.

Linda Chavez, of the conservative think tank Center for Equal Opportunity, says it’s a good program when used sensibly.

“You need to have police departments checking people who have been arrested for other offenses to see if the person is in the country illegally. You don’t want to let someone go who is a flight risk,” she says. “But you don’t want them pulling people over and harassing them over a broken turn signal. Do you really want them doing an immigration check? You’re hassling someone for something extremely minor when someone else could be doing something serious.”

But Arpaio announced from the beginning that he had no problem arresting illegal immigrants for crimes like jaywalking or spitting on the sidewalk.

“Ours is an operation where we want to go after illegals, not the crime, first,” Arpaio told the Republic in March. “It’s a pure program. You go after them and you lock them up.”

He didn’t waste any time. His office is now notorious for traffic stops that turn into deportations as well as arrests of food vendors and day laborers around the Valley.

Father Glen Jenks of Good Shepherd of the Hills Episcopalian Church in Cave Creek found his parish at the center of the fight after Arpaio made it a point to station deputies outside a day-labor center the church operates in its parking lot. Jenks says the church started the center as a way to keep day laborers from wandering the streets, a major complaint in the northeast Valley community.

“That created a chilling effect. They’ve created terror in the Hispanic community. The consequence of that is whatever the percentage of the population that’s Hispanic can’t report a crime,” he says. “They can’t even let themselves witness a crime.”

Activist Alfredo Gutierrez says that’s the point.

“The intent is to Satanize a group of people. He’s made them morally equivalent to real criminals,” he says. “The guy walking down 34th street looking for a job has got to be as dangerous a criminal as a child molester.”

Jenks says that in his parish (which he points out is about 80 percent Anglo conservative Republicans) the sheriff is losing respect.

“These are not people who have a stake in the issues we’re talking about,” he says. “They just have a sense that the sheriff and his deputies are gunslingers and do not really respect them or trust them at all. They’ve told me this point blank.

The Department of Public Safety, which has 10 cross-trained officers, has adopted a different approach. It is using the training to go after people who involved in known criminal activity.

Sergeant Fred Zumbo, a DPS officer who has had the 287-g training, says DPS is more focused on bringing down organized crime rings.

“Our goal is to get into the organizations and cripple them,” he says. “But the corn vendor on the street is not a law enforcement problem. We are small and focused on the human smuggling aspect of the law because those are the ones causing the most problems in the community.”

Until recently, local police chiefs, most notably in Phoenix and Mesa, have shared this sentiment and resisted the pressure to become immigration enforcers. But earlier this month, Phoenix Mayor Phil Gordon announced he’d appointed a four-man committee to consider repealing a public order that prohibits the Phoenix police from questioning immigration status.

So far, Mesa police Chief George Gascon has stayed strong in his stance against the sheriff’s policies, though not without consequences — Arpaio has recently made it a point to step on the chief’s toes.

Gascon declined an interview for this story. His public information officer, Chris Arvaio, says he’s decided to stick to addressing the issue at press conferences rather than grant individual interviews anymore. Every time he does, the sheriff retaliates.

“After the first couple interviews we found out real quick that we don’t want to play political games,” says Arvaio. “I think he [Gascon] is tired of every time he makes a comment it turns into a game.”

And, in spite of Gascon’s stance on the matter, the Mesa City Council decided in early December to send a letter to Michael Chertoff, secretary of Homeland Security, asking for immigration training for Mesa police officers in their jails. So far, there is no push to train officers on patrol.

The situation with the police has become so bad that even legal immigrants and citizens are afraid. Miguel Gomez-Acosta, pastor at the Lutheran Mission of San Pedro and member of the Valley Interfaith Project, moved to Phoenix from Seattle last year and still isn’t accustomed to living in Maricopa County.

“I carry my passport and I carry my daughter’s birth certificate,” he says. “I grew up in this country. I served in the military and became a citizen, and despite that, I still have to carry my passport and my daughter’s birth certificate because she looks brown. Like me.”

There has been at least one case in which his deputies detained a man, Manuel de Jesus Ortega Melendres, who had legal paperwork. He was pulled over outside Good Shepherd of the Hills in Cave Creek and detained for nine hours, even though he had a legal visa. The man’s lawyers have filed a lawsuit against Arpaio in federal court.

Antonio Bustamante, the Phoenix lawyer fighting the smuggling law, says probable cause and due process rights are being violated but says that’s hard to prove in court. All the witnesses get deported.

“Arpaio is doing racial profiling, though he says he’s not. Who’s going to prove otherwise — especially people who get thrown out of the country. You got rid of the witnesses. You can do whatever you want,” he says. “‘The public loves me,’ he always touts. ‘I’m doing what they people want.’ Well, so did [Jim Clark] in Selma.”

Arpaio insists that his deputies do not engage in racial profiling. Barnarrdino, a 27-year-old immigrant from Guatemala, disagrees. Barnarrdino came to Arizona six years ago with a coyote, by way of Mexico, after life in Guatemala became too violent for him. When his apartment was robbed by two men carrying a grenade and semiautomatic rifles, he decided it was time to get out of the country, regardless of the consequences in the United States. He says he doesn’t regret coming to Arizona to live, but his run-ins with the police have not been pleasant.

About three months ago, he says he was leaving a movie theater with his wife when he caught the eye of two sheriff’s deputies.

“I said to my wife, ‘Watch, they’re going to follow us,” he says through a translator on the steps of his central Phoenix church.

They did and one of the deputies pulled him over.

“He came to the car and asked me, ‘How many drinks did you have tonight, wetback?’ I told him I don’t drink,” he says. “He asked me, ‘Are you a wetback?’ I didn’t answer, so he made me get out of the car.”

The officer forced him to take a Breathalyzer test and conducted field sobriety tests on Barnarrdino. He passed each one. He hadn’t been drinking; he’d been at the movies. He says the officer also asked his wife, who is Mexican but has a pale complexion, “What are you doing with a wetback?” The officer also harassed him because his identification was from the Guatemalan consulate.

“I gave him my ID and he asked how much I paid for it. I told him $80 at the consulate office. He asked where I got it and I gave him the address of the consulate,” he says. “After a while he let me go, but he told me if he ever sees me again, I will sit in jail for a very long time.”

Barnarrdino was very lucky. But the experience stayed with him.

“I’m honestly very afraid. Every morning, I make the sign of the cross and say, ‘God, it’s up to you,’” he says. When asked if he would report a crime to the police if he witnessed or was the victim of one, he says no: “For what? To be asked for my papers? I don’t think so.”

The Guatemalan consulate confirms that Barnarrdino is registered with the office and has valid identification.

Undocumented immigrants may not understand their due process rights, but they do understand that Arpaio is a man to be feared. Many have even stopped going to church for fear of getting stopped on the way.

Reverend Sau’l Montiel of Epworth United Methodist Church and his colleagues at the Valley Interfaith Project say they’ve seen a decline in attendance. Connie Andersen of Most Holy Trinity Catholic Church says her congregation feels it in the collection plate. Montiel sees it in the pews as well.

“I would say about one-third have stopped coming,” he says.

Those that do show up have fearful prayers.

“The prayer requests on Sunday all say, ‘Let us pray not to be arrested this week,’” says Montiel. “That hurts me so much as a pastor.”

Andersen knows of people who won’t even send their children, who are legal citizens, to youth group anymore, and she worried that her church’s annual Virgin de Guadalupe celebration would not happen this year because people are too afraid to leave the house.

“This is a faith tradition,” she says. “This is affecting our ability to practice our faith and do it openly.”

Andersen was right. Attendance at the Virgin de Guadalupe celebration on December 12 was noticeably down.

“We weren’t as packed as usual,” she says. “Normally people are hanging from the choir loft to get a place.”

——————————————————————————–

Immigrant-related violence is on the rise, according to DPS, Phoenix Police and ICE officials, and it isn’t all related to smuggling. Kidnappers know the undocumented family members of their prey would rather figure out a way to pay the ransom than involve the police.

Vincente is the owner of a seafood restaurant in central Phoenix. About a month ago, he was the victim of an attempted kidnapping.

As he was leaving work one night, a group of men in ski masks followed him to his car. When he tried to drive home, they opened fire, shooting at him 18 times, hitting him once in the shoulder. He managed to escape — he says “only God knows why,” though his nine years in the Mexican army might have something to do with it — to the safety of his home, where he decided to call the police only because he knew he would die if he did not.

According to the police report, bullet fragments were found all over the road at the scene. No one has been arrested. “There is not enough suspect information to help determine any identity,” the report states.

After the attack, Vincente’s brother bought a gun because he also owned a restaurant and was afraid of the kidnappers. He was recently caught with the gun and deported for owning it. Ironically, Vincente says, his brother always hated weapons. Undeterred, Vincente says he is armed all the time now. He’s afraid the men could come back.

“If they try to kidnap me again, they will kill me. So I will kill them instead,” he says. “I’m not going to let them get me. I have a family.”

This is not an isolated incident. He knows three other undocumented business owners who have been attacked in the same way. None of the others involved the police; instead, their families paid the ransom.

“They know we can’t go to the police, and the police think it’s only the coyotes, and it’s not,” he says. “I know a guy whose brother was kidnapped and he pay the money. He pay $100,000 dollars and they give him back. He don’t call the police. He just stay quiet and pay and he is alive.”

Though the police haven’t found a suspect, Sgt. Joe Tranter, a Phoenix Police Department spokesman, says an attempted kidnapping is likely.

“At face value, if he says he was kidnapped he probably was,” he says. “We’ve got a situation that is out of control.”

Troy Henley of ICE says his office has noticed an increase in these kinds of violent crimes by and against immigrants.

“We don’t have numbers, but it seems to me the violence associated with human smuggling seems to be up,” he says. “We get a lot of referrals from police departments in other places where the relatives will get a call and the person will say, ‘I’m in Phoenix. I’m being held in a house and they told me if you don’t pay $100,000 they will cut my ears off or cut my fingers off.”

Kidnappers know their victims have nowhere to turn. And, according to Fred Zumbo from DPS, the kidnappers are organized criminals who don’t care much about possible deportation. They know the way back.

“It’s illegal immigrants causing violence against their own people. It’s a group of young males between 15 and 30, and it’s a very violent breed,” he says. “They have had military training. They are brutal. They have no fear of being arrested and they have no fear of assaulting police officers. They’ll just as soon shoot you as look at you. And they know they will get away with it.”

——————————————————————————–

The sheriff’s scare tactics are working, but, perhaps, with unintended consequences. A 37-year-old man who has lived in Phoenix since 1990 calls New Times late one evening in early December. His voice comes cracking through the phone. He’s heard about a reporter who wants to talk to immigrants and he’s calling to tell his story. His English is shaky and so is his voice.

“I . . . I know who killed somebody, but I am afraid to call the police. The guy who got killed was my coworker,” he says. “Everybody knows who killed him, but nobody wants to talk to the police. Nobody wants to be a witness because they will deport you.”

He begins to sob. Even though he’s pressed for details, he doesn’t want to give them. He knows the man’s name and the names of the perpetrators but he will not say who they are. Though the victim was his coworker, he cannot reveal where he works.

“I’m sorry, I can’t tell you that much.”

He’s worried that if he talks, the police will come after him and his family.

“If they put in jail the owners of the New Times, what would assure me?” he asks a translator.

According to the little information he’s willing to share, the victim was walking home one night when he was shot near his south Phoenix neighborhood.

The knowledge is destroying him, but what is he supposed to do, he wonders. He has two young daughters, and if he gets deported, they will starve. As he talks about the murder, there is the sense that he is weeping not just for his dead coworker, but also for himself, his wife, and his daughters.

His voice cracks.

“I can’t talk anymore,” he says. “It’s too hard, I can’t talk right now.”

A few days later, he is still uncomfortable talking about what he knows.

“I don’t want to talk about that bad thing,” he says when contacted a second time. “I don’t want to talk about it. I’m afraid.”

Even when assured that his identity and phone number will be kept private, he is too terrified to say anything.

“I don’t trust nobody,” he says. “That’s the point.”

He will not meet anyone in person whom he doesn’t already know.

After another 10 minutes on the phone, he is too frightened to go on.

“I think it’s time to stop,” he says. “I can’t tell you any more.”

The line goes dead.

Our Community Under Siege

May 10th, 2008

Our Community Under Siege
Where do we turn when law enforcement threatens citizens like a grim force of nature?
By Michael Lacey
Published on December 27, 2007
County Attorney Andrew Thomas has not issued a single grand jury subpoena in the wake of the fallout from my arrest and that of my business partner, New Times CEO Jim Larkin.

Subject(s):
Maricopa County corruption, First Amendment, Dennis Wilenchik, Sheriff Joe Arpaio, Andrew ThomasAccording to a document leaked to the paper from inside the prosecutor’s office, Thomas is mulling his next step.

“Please inform your attorneys and staff that MCAO [Maricopa County Attorney's Office] should not issue any new GJ subpoenas until they receive the new template and instructions. Those documents will be provided as soon as possible,” wrote Chief Deputy County Attorney Sally Wells in a November 26 e-mail to the staff.

As we approach the New Year, those guidelines are still up in the air, raising the question: Why can’t Thomas simply follow the state statute his office routinely violated?

In this week’s conclusion to our series “Target Practice,” in which we have taken a hard look at the practices of Thomas and Sheriff Joe Arpaio, Amy Silverman examines the fudged résumé of former Special Prosecutor Dennis Wilenchik; Sarah Fenske explains that despite having the largest budget in the county, the Sheriff has never had a full audit of his office’s finances; and Megan Irwin takes you into the world of kidnappings, ransoms and migrant terror.

After the arrests of Larkin and myself on October 18, I published a column, “He Just Doesn’t Get It” (November 1), alleging that then-Special Prosecutor Wilenchik broke the law by not following state statutes governing the conduct of a grand jury.

Two weeks later, on November 14, Judge Anna Baca scheduled an end-of-the-month hearing to review the contents of the secret grand jury file in our case and to examine the legality of the subpoenas that were issued.

All grand jury subpoenas are serious, but, more than most, these involved the public welfare. The County Attorney had sought journalists’ notes and files going back nearly four years covering all articles written about Sheriff Arpaio. More alarmingly, the secret subpoenas demanded the identity and online viewing habits of any person who had read New Times on the Internet in the same time frame.

These secret grand jury subpoenas reflected an abuse of the U.S. Constitution that was unprecedented in American legal proceedings.

“That subpoena is grossly, shockingly, breathtakingly overbroad,” James Weinstein, a constitutional law professor at the ASU College of Law, told the New York Times. “This is a case of harassment of the press.”

——————————————————————————–

Not content with undermining the Constitution, Wilenchik also short-circuited the limited safeguards that ensure the integrity of the grand jury process.

At the November 26 hearing with Judge Baca, Thomas’ office was represented by Chief Deputy Wells, who informed the court that the prosecutor had conducted grand juries in this fashion for 25 years.

Judge Baca ruled that the County Attorney and his special prosecutor had indeed violated the grand jury statute; they had informed neither the foreman of the grand jury nor the judge of the subpoenas. Indeed, there was no grand jury. Dennis Wilenchik had, in effect, been a one-man grand jury.

County Attorney Thomas’ stalemated effort to devise new grand jury guidelines is merely the latest development in a cascading series of events since our October 18 cover story, “Breathtaking Abuse of the Constitution.”

When the story, coupled with word of our arrests, hit the Internet and the streets, reader outrage filled the airwaves, overwhelmed e-mail accounts and dominated headlines locally. There were more than 80 television broadcasts on the subject in Phoenix.

County Attorney Thomas called a press conference on the very day I was released from jail.

Claiming mistakes were made, Thomas fired special prosecutor Dennis Wilenchik, dropped all charges against Larkin and myself, and quashed the subpoenas.

Thomas clearly hoped to mollify citizens outraged that their First Amendment right to read a newspaper without provoking a government investigation had been trampled.

The uproar, however, did not abate and attracted national attention from newspapers ranging from USA Today to the New York Times. Countless Web sites — local, national, and international — also weighed in alongside talk radio broadcasts hammering the issue of First Amendment rights.

The State Bar of Arizona revealed that it was expanding an investigation into both Thomas and Wilenchik to include allegations that the special prosecutor proposed an improper meeting with the judge, Anna Baca, presiding over the secret grand jury attack upon New Times and its readers.

There is no way to guess what would have happened had Larkin and I opted to resist the grand jury proceedings with the typical legal defense.

Everything changed with our act of civil disobedience. That small spark touched off public revolt.

To some, it might appear that New Times survived this attack, scarred but unrepentant.

But this clash with County Attorney Thomas, Special Prosecutor Dennis Wilenchik and Sheriff Joe Arpaio raised fundamental questions that trumped any newspaper’s meager scorecard of wins and losses.

Why did law enforcement ever believe that it could use secret grand jury subpoenas to target the online readers of New Times?

You don’t serve grand jury subpoenas upon people who pick up a newspaper from a newsstand. You don’t investigate those who log onto their laptops to look through a publication.

Newspaper readers are not mobsters.

How in the hell did freedom of the press and the First Amendment become such fragile doctrines?

The staff of this newspaper determined it must examine the sad logic of the outrageous subpoenas.

——————————————————————————–

The month before my arrest, I happened to visit Dachau, a very short drive for the residents of Munich, Germany. The second floor of a nearby housing development looks out upon the assembly field of the infamous camp. A McDonald’s, with its happy meals, is but a few hundred yards from Dachau’s gate.

Dachau evolved into a concentration camp, but in the beginning it was merely a resettlement station for communists and other political malcontents; in fact, this effort to maintain order in fractious Germany was considered so banal that the New York Times covered the opening of Dachau. The Red Cross gave it passing marks.

It was in Dachau that I found the memory of poet and pastor Martin Niemoller. He survived the concentration camp, and his words written after the war survived him.

If you don’t recall his name, you will recognize his work.

When the Nazis came for the communists, I remained silent;

I was not a communist.

Then they came for the sick, the so-called incurables, and I didn’t speak up,

Because I wasn’t mentally ill.

Then they came for the Jews, and I didn’t speak up.

Because I wasn’t a Jew.

When they came for me, there was no one left to speak out.

Niemoller’s elegant critique was on my mind again after I walked out of jail and met with the writers and editors of New Times.

I suggested that what appeared to be a stunningly arrogant subpoena aimed at our readers was not simply a high-risk tactic that suddenly turned the Constitution on its ear; this challenge of the First Amendment evolved gradually after years of abusing the rights of others.

Our series of articles undertook the prosaic: Let’s look at those others.

And so we examined the County Attorney and the Sheriff’s assault upon the rights of prisoners, political opponents, journalists, migrants and judges. The hostilities took shape over 14 years. They did not begin with judges, but by the time Thomas, Arpaio and Wilenchik arrived at the courthouse with their dark accusations in October, who but the jurists was shocked? When law enforcement subsequently stumbled upon readers as a target of secret writs, the authorities had little reason to reflect.

And please, despite acknowledging Niemoller, do not for a second think that I am making some puerile, dorm-room allusion to the horrors of fascism. I am not. But the pastor’s insight into our bond with society’s others is apt.

Others. Such a simple thought for writers; it is not so simple for the community.

Who are the others; must we deal with all of the others?

The isolation of others in Phoenix began with prisoners in Arpaio’s jails. He built unprecedented political popularity promising to treat them harshly.

Clearly the community has spoken, repeatedly: What do these inmates have to do with us?

Even Niemoller’s work, with all that informed it, generated unsettling questions about who was, or was not, part of the community. In some versions of his poem, the mentally ill are left out as a class in favor of social democrats. There are charming reports that, during the McCarthy era, the communists were dropped from the poem when Niemoller was invoked.

Those of you scanning these words will decide who are members of the community. But it is plain: what began with the sheriff’s inmates ended with this newspaper’s readers.

——————————————————————————–

For two years, I spent not enough Sundays on a pew inside Sacred Heart church in Galveston, Texas. In 1900, this Gulf Coast community was all but wiped off the map by a hurricane that killed about 8,000 men, women and children. The 16-foot storm surge and 140 mile-per-hour winds flattened everything in their path; it stands today as the deadliest natural disaster in the history of America.

At the end of every mass at Sacred Heart, the congregation prayed, without embarrassment, to the Virgin Mary to spare them from such torment ever again.

In a secular world, such an invocation is almost quaint.

Today, we rely not upon divine intercession but rather upon government for protection. (And the practical citizens of Galveston, not trusting entirely in Catholic supplication, demanded that City Hall rebuild with the protection of a stout sea wall).

But where do we turn when government — in this case, law enforcement — threatens its citizens like a grim force of nature?

Of course, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights offer refuge, but the reality is that they are Olympian ideals that grow suddenly distant when most needed. Arizona’s prisoners’ rights lawsuit, Hart vs. Hill, is 30 years in the courts with no resolution is sight. This paper’s brief act of defiance cost us a quarter of a million dollars in legal fees, hardly a viable option for most. The federal government failed to pass laws that address the very real problems associated with illegal aliens. A vacuum ensued. Race-baiters, Thomas and Arpaio, filled the void and cater now to an angry mob, despite the fact that migrants enjoy the same Constitutional rights as the rest of us.

Constitutional scholar and dean emeritus of the ASU law school, Paul Bender, pointed to a rather shocking solution, given his background.

People must resist.

Lawyers are necessary. Courts are a refuge. The laws of government are a foundation.

But people must resist.

In a discussion about Thomas, Arpaio and Wilenchik, and their treatment of the “others,” Bender did not mince words: “If law enforcement got the idea they could attack enemies who criticize, that’s extremely dangerous . . . if they succeed in terrorizing people it becomes a crisis . . . I cannot imagine what was on Wilenchik’s mind . . . very, very, far out assertions . . . virtually bizarre . . . gross violation of the First Amendment . . . the Sheriff’s roundup of immigrants, very questionable . . .”

Bender’s solution is not procedural.

“The judges stood up to him [Thomas],” Bender told me. “You stood up to him. The people stood up.”

That’s rather grand; after all, there are many incapable of standing. They are on the run or in cells. How do we get “the people” to see their bond with “the others,” the Mexicans, the prisoners?

How do we convince our readers that their community is linked directly to migrants?

In Sacred Heart church, they have stained glass windows depicting the Corporal Acts of Mercy.

These are the Biblical admonitions calling, if not for a sense of community, at least for a sense of responsibility.

Instead of the customary — visit those in prison — Sacred Heart’s stained glass urges, “Ransom the captives.”

In Phoenix, Sheriff Joe Arpaio has created a 14-year run of terror directed at inmates. Andrew Thomas has painted a bull’s-eye on Mexican migrants. And when Arpaio finds illegal aliens kidnapped and held for ransom in drop houses, they are charged and deported.

This series hoped to make clear the larger community. We sought to link prisoners, political enemies, journalists, migrants, judges and readers.

New Times files a prelude to a lawsuit against Sheriff Joe Arpaio

February 20th, 2008

New Times files a prelude to a lawsuit against Sheriff Joe Arpaio, County Attorney Andy Thomas and a discredited ex-special prosecutor on behalf of its readers and the Constitution
By Stephen Lemons
Published: February 21, 2008

New Times submitted a formal Notice of Claim on Wednesday, February 20, against the public officials responsible for a fiasco in October that saw the attempted trampling of the First Amendment rights of this newspaper and its readers, and culminated in the jailing of its founders, Michael Lacey and Jim Larkin.

Defendant Joe Arpaio

Defendant Andrew Thomas
courtesy of the Arizona Republic
Defendant Dennis Wilenchik

New Times’ Notice of Claim against Arpaio, Thomas, and Wilenchik.
Subject(s): Andrew Thomas, Dennis Wilenchik, Sheriff Joe Arpaio The notice, required under Arizona law before government officials can be sued, paints a political landscape gone awry, with public servants turning taxpayer-supported institutions on end in defiance of the U.S. Constitution, due process, and the right of a free press to operate without intimidation.

“This is not a decision undertaken lightly,” said Michael Lacey, executive editor of Village Voice Media, which owns New Times, and who, along with CEO Larkin, founded the paper. “We are not an organization, and Larkin and I are not individuals, that sue people. It’s just not what we do. But I feel like if we don’t do something, it’s an invitation for this kind of behavior to continue.”

The “behavior” to which Lacey referred was particularly chilling: a special prosecutor running amok, issuing overbroad and unconstitutional subpoenas aimed at the reading and browsing habits of citizens; a vendetta by Sheriff Joe Arpaio against New Times and its staff, the arrests of the paper’s executives on petty charges in the middle of the night by members of the sheriff’s clandestine Selective Enforcement Unit.

“What emerges is one of the most nakedly oppressive, conscience-shocking assaults on a free press by police and prosecutors in U.S. history,” observes New Times lawyer Michael Manning in the Notice of Claim.

By law, the notice had to be filed within 180 days of the culmination of the events described here and had to contain a damages amount. New Times is asking for $15 million in damages if the matter is settled before April 15, the end of a 60-day period in which the defendants — Arpaio, Thomas and Wilenchik — must reply. “If New Times is required to pursue litigation, the settlement demand will increase,” the notice warns.

Earlier in the day on which Lacey and Larkin were arrested at their homes and bundled off to jail, County Attorney Andrew Thomas’ handpicked special prosecutor Dennis Wilenchik essentially demanded that New Times be bankrupted.

Wilenchik had asked Superior Court Judge Anna Baca to impose crushing fines against the paper for daring to publish an October 18 story (“Breathtaking Abuse of the Constitution”) about his grand jury subpoenas seeking vast, detailed information about New Times’ readers. For this misdemeanor, Wilenchik not only wanted the story’s authors, Lacey and Larkin, and their lawyers arrested, he wanted Baca to assess fines of $10,000 for every hour that New Times refused to take the grand jury story off newspaper racks and the Internet. In the course of a year, the fines would have totaled about $90 million.

To get a better handle on the enormity of Wilenchik’s demand, consider that New Times bills about $14 million annually, out of which printing, rent, supplies, salaries, benefits, and taxes must be paid.

Wilenchik’s gambit was not an aberration. After his appointment as special prosecutor, he continually upped the ante in his extra-constitutional game of brinkmanship. No grand jury was ever impaneled during the affair. Rather, as Lacey observed in a subsequent column (“He Just Doesn’t Get It,” November 1, 2007), Wilenchik “anointed” himself the grand jury in power-mad defiance of state law. The law holds that a prosecutor must notify the grand jury foreman and the presiding judge within 10 days of issuing any subpoenas.

“Wilenchik did neither,” New Times’ Notice of Claim states. “The grand jury was nothing more than an empty prop to Wilenchik.” Accordingly, it was not the legal system that put the brakes on this rogue prosecutor; it was a public incensed over the news of the Lacey-Larkin arrests. County Attorney Thomas, Wilenchik’s former employee at the law firm of Wilenchik & Bartness, grudgingly called a press conference at his office on October 19, the day after the arrests, and fired Wilenchik as special prosecutor.

“We are not going to proceed with this investigation,” stated Thomas, before a packed room of reporters. “There is a right way and a wrong way to bring a prosecution and to hold people accountable for their offenses. And what happened here was the wrong way. I do not condone it. I do not defend it. And so it ends today.”

Thomas nervously hedged his mea culpa. He would not apologize to New Times, instead insisting that the newspaper apologize to Arpaio for publishing his home address online, even though Arpaio’s address remains readily available on government Web sites, such as those of the Maricopa County Recorder’s Office and the Arizona Corporation Commission.

Though Thomas fired Wilenchik from handling future criminal matters for the County Attorney’s Office, he retained him as counsel in civil matters. As a result, Wilenchik & Bartness continues to rack up county money.

As the notice against Wilenchik and the others explains, Wilenchik’s lucrative stint representing the county appears to be quid pro quo. Wilenchik employed Thomas at his law firm during the time Thomas was first running for county attorney in 2004. Yet there’s no proof available that Thomas ever billed legal work for the firm. Since Thomas took office, Wilenchik’s firm has banked $2.4 million — and counting — for legal work for the county.

Speaking to the New York Times, ASU legal scholar James Weinstein labeled Wilenchik’s subpoenas seeking information on New Times’ readers “grossly, shockingly, breathtakingly overbroad” and “a case of harassment of the press.” The path to the issuance of these subpoenas was a lengthy and circuitous one.

In mid-2004, Arpaio was in the midst of a pitched and ugly primary against challenger Dan Saban, whom MCSO officers smeared with the ugly and untrue allegation that he had raped his adoptive mother, Ruby Norman. Meanwhile, New Times writer John Dougherty was making serious inquiries into various aspects of Arpaio’s rule in Maricopa County. He sought public records on the Saban investigation, information on inmate deaths, personnel files on certain sheriff’s deputies, and information on the sheriff’s personal real estate investments.

In a July 1, 2004 column, “Sheriff Joe’s Real Estate Game,” Dougherty revealed that Arpaio had invested $690,000 in cash in two real estate holdings in Scottsdale and Fountain Hills. Dougherty wondered if Arpaio was hiding ill-gotten gains, because information about this commercial property was redacted under a state law aimed at protecting law enforcement officials from harm. The law was meant to allow police officers to keep their home addresses out of the public eye for obvious reasons, but Arpaio misused the statute so that it hid most information about his commercial real estate. At the same time, Arpaio’s Fountain Hills home address was available on myriad public and private Internet sites.

Dougherty noted that $690,000 in cash was a lot for a public official to invest, considering that Arpaio made about $78,000 a year, along with federal Drug Enforcement Agency civil service retirement pay of about $65,000. A week later, Dougherty wrote in another column about the real estate ventures again (“Stick It to ‘Em!”). At the column’s conclusion, he listed Arpaio’s home address to illustrate the irony of its being so readily available while his commercial property information was hidden.

Months later, New Times learned that the sheriff was seeking to have New Times prosecuted under another state law that made it unlawful to publish a law enforcement official’s home address on the World Wide Web.

The law was a throwback to a time when the Internet was considered newfangled technology. While making it a Class 5 felony to reproduce such a home address on the Web, the law made no sanctions against such publication in newspapers and magazines or on TV and radio. Indeed, even putting a law officer’s address on a billboard near his neighborhood would be perfectly legal.

A required element of the Internet law was that the publication of an officer’s address must cause “an imminent and serious threat” that was “reasonably apparent” to the publisher.

When Arpaio first sought New Times’ prosecution under the arcane statute, then-County Attorney Rick Romley declined to prosecute. There seemed to be no real threat to the sheriff — though his top deputies have been fixated on the notion that “America’s toughest sheriff” could easily be the target of assassination.

It’s been as though his staff believes that, without anybody trying to kill the sheriff, Arpaio’s hard-on-crime policies lose credibility. So the MCSO hasn’t been above manufacturing a plot to make the boss look like a tough guy.

In 1999, Arpaio and his chief deputy, David Hendershott, attempted to frame 18-year-old James Saville in a phony bomb plot supposedly aimed at Arpaio (“The Plot to Assassinate Arpaio,” August 5, 1999). TV reporters were called ahead of time to chronicle the teenager’s arrest outside an Italian restaurant where Arpaio was dining. Saville’s lawyer noted the obvious entrapment, and Saville was unanimously acquitted by a jury after the MCSO’s unscrupulous antics were aired in court.

Last year, the Sheriff’s Office revealed that it had spent an estimated $500,000 investigating a bogus death threat that involved such highly improbable co-conspirators as the Minutemen, immigrants rights activist Elias Bermudez, and hit men working for the Mexican mafia. On the word of a confidential informant who failed a key question on a lie-detector test about whether or not he was telling the truth about the alleged conspiracy, the sheriff’s Selective Enforcement Unit (the same group that nabbed Lacey and Larkin) staked out a dairy in Tolleson and flew to Connecticut to interrogate a teenage girl whose e-mail was linked to the pseudo-scheme.

Most recently, the MCSO trumpeted the conviction of Matthew Carl Sanderson, a native of Canada, for making an Internet threat against Arpaio. The sheriff flew to Toronto for the three-day trial. In the end, Sanderson received just three months of incarceration.

“There has never been any credible evidence of death threats against our Sheriff,” attorney Manning states in New Times’ notice. “Indeed, the only ‘death threats’ to Sheriff Arpaio have been made-for-TV productions procured or created by the Sheriff’s sizable PR staff.”

Arpaio’s obsession with such dubious threats would be comic if not for their dire, costly, and time-consuming consequences.

Though Romley would not touch the sheriff’s desired prosecution of New Times, Arpaio refused to let the matter drop. When County Attorney Thomas took office, he had a political ally, and again he asked for the legal action. Thomas, however, had already borne the brunt of critical articles in New Times by the time the complaint reached his desk so he handed it off to Pinal County, citing a conflict of interest.

After two years, Pinal County returned the matter to Thomas last spring. As Manning put it in New Times’ notice, “the Pinal County Attorney’s Office did not share the Defendants’ passion for political revenge.”

This time, despite Thomas’ already-declared conflict, he appointed his friend Dennis Wilenchik as special prosecutor in the New Times matter.

A lawyer who had made his name in toxic-mold litigation, Wilenchik was known for his bull-in-a-china shop approach to civil law. He used the same tactics against the new objects of his prosecutorial zeal.

As Lacey and Larkin revealed in the grand jury subpoena article, Wilenchik demanded “every note, tape, and record from every story written about Sheriff Arpaio by every [New Times] reporter over a period of years.”

Acting on his own (remember, no grand jury ever existed in the matter), Wilenchik hit New Times, as well as reporters John Dougherty and Paul Rubin individually, with subpoenas.

Rubin’s personal subpoena was especially egregious, as it sought everything Rubin had used to write his cover story “Below the Belt” (September 20, 2007), which documented Buckeye Police Chief Dan Saban’s failed lawsuit against Arpaio for the 2004 smear involving his adoptive mother. Wilenchik defended Arpaio in the case, and his unsavory out-of-court activities were criticized in the article. The Rubin subpoena, sent the day after New Times published the article, sought records that had nothing to do with the home-address matter.

“Rubin’s only ‘misstep’ was in criticizing Arpaio and Wilenchik,” reads New Times’ notice. “His story was not even remotely relevant to the matter Wilenchik had been hired to pursue (a 2004 story Rubin did not author).

“In the column disclosing the profound corruption of the investigation that led to their arrest, Lacey and Larkin succinctly summarized what was all too clear: ‘It is impossible to view Rubin’s subpoena as anything other than what it was: an act of vengeance.’”

Wilenchik also demanded in overarching subpoenas sent to New Times and to Dougherty all information on New Times’ online readers from 2004 to 2007, including IP addresses, browsing habits, cookies, and domain names. Wilenchik had cast a wide, unprecedented dragnet. The targets were not just journalists and publishers, but readers and anyone who had pointed their Web browser toward New Times’ Web site.

But it took something else to push Lacey and Larkin to write “Breathtaking Abuse of the Constitution.” It took Wilenchik’s attempt to establish ex parte communications with Judge Anna Baca, who presides over county grand juries. Wilenchik telephoned political fixer Carol Turoff, a recent two-term member of the Commission on Appellate Court Appointments, and asked her to set up a meeting with the judge, a close friend. Turoff’s spouse, Larry Turoff, is a senior member of County Attorney Thomas’ management team.

Carol Turoff’s late-night call to Baca did not sit well with the judge. She called the stab at a behind-the scenes conversation “absolutely inappropriate.”

But the mold-litigation specialist was unbowed by even a presiding judge’s admonition. After all, he had just emerged from a battle with another powerful Superior Court judge.

He had publicly attacked Judge Timothy Ryan, an associate presiding criminal judge, as part of Andy Thomas’ assault on the local judiciary. Thomas was annoyed over certain judges’ failure to deny bail to illegal aliens in Proposition 100 cases. He was particularly miffed at Judge Ryan, whom Wilenchik termed a “danger to public safety.” Incredibly, Wilenchik asked Ryan to recuse himself from all cases brought by Thomas’ office. Also, he sought the recusal of all 93 Superior Court judges on the question of whether Ryan should step aside.

The move failed, but Wilenchik was emboldened. So much so that he asked for the secret meeting with Baca while the New Times case was pending.

Lacey and Larkin felt that the pugnacious lawyer’s flagrant disregard of the rules left them no choice but to engage in their act of civil disobedience.

“Publishing the terms of a grand jury subpoena is a minor misdemeanor,” observes Manning in the notice, referring to Lacey and Larkin’s article on the subpoenas. “The statute was designed primarily to [protect] witnesses, targets of investigation and others from negative publicity.’ It was not designed to insulate from public disclosure by a newspaper [the] unethical and unlawful behavior of a prosecutor who is misusing the grand jury to attack the newspaper, its reporters, and its readers’ right to privacy.”

The retort of Wilenchik and the MCSO was swift. The same day that Lacey and Larkin dropped their bombshell, Wilenchik filed an Application for Order to Show Cause, demanding that the two New Times executives and their lawyers be placed in custody, and that New Times be slapped with the staggering fines mentioned above.

The MCSO and Wilenchik’s office collaborated on the evening arrests of the paper’s founders for writing “Breathtaking Abuse of the Constitution.” Larkin got the worst of it. With his children in the house, he was hauled away in handcuffs in an unmarked car bearing Sonoran plates. The Selective Enforcement Unit even threatened to arrest Larkin’s wife when she demanded that they show proper identification. Lacey was collared in front of his girlfriend and taken to the Fourth Avenue Jail. He was released at 4 the next morning.

Before a gaggle of television, radio, and print reporters, Lacey said after his release, “We’re being arrested for raising hell. It’s sort of a tradition journalism has.”

A tsunami of public outrage followed. Outlets as varied as slate.com, the New York Times, Reason magazine, the Washington Post, and gawker.com reported on the arrests. The Arizona Republic’s Laurie Roberts weighed in on the side of the arrestees, as did the Goldwater Institute’s Clint Bolick, who wrote, “Regardless of one’s ordinary proclivities regarding the players involved, there is only one place for friends of freedom to stand at the moment: shoulder-to-shoulder with the New Times.”

In County Attorney Thomas’ capitulation 10 hours after Lacey’s release, he claimed to have had no prior knowledge of the arrests. After firing Wilenchik as special prosecutor for criminal matters, he quashed the subpoenas and ended the investigation of New Times.

So who did order the arrests? When asked that question, Wilenchik wrote in an e-mail to New Times, “Don’t know. If I find out, will be back.”

But MCSO public information officer Paul Chagolla told the Associated Press that “the arrests came at the requests of the prosecutor.” Confronted with Wilenchik’s slippery e-mail, Chagolla got more specific, informing New Times that MCSO detectives worked with attorneys William French and Rob Somers of Wilenchik’s firm. French, a former prosecutor and judge, later resigned after the fallout from the arrests (“Dennis the Menace,” December 27, 2007). In subsequent interviews, French pinned the responsibility for the arrests on Wilenchik.

“Somers told me that Wilenchik said, ‘No more Mr. Nice Guy. We’re going to arrest them.’ That’s what happened,” French intoned to the Arizona Republic.

In New Times’ notice, Manning puts the arrests into their legal context:

“Misdemeanor violations that do not threaten lives are usually handled by the issuance of citations, not by [Selective Enforcement Unit] raids, arrests, handcuffs, and jail cells in the dead of night. Responsible prosecutors know these circumstances would never justify such conduct.”

Sheriff Arpaio’s office has never expressed any misgivings about its dealings with New Times, much less over the arrests of Michael Lacey and Jim Larkin.

The outright obstinacy of the MCSO in providing public information has forced New Times to do battle with Arpaio and his officers for the past 15 years.

Time-consuming legal remedies, such as New Times’ current notice, seem the only possible remedy when dealing with a Sheriff’s Office bent on keeping information that might reflect badly on Arpaio secret from the public.

This newspaper’s recent appellate court win regarding numerous public-records requests submitted by writer John Dougherty to the MCSO in 2004 illustrates the MCSO’s hostility in dealing with not just New Times but any news media outlet that criticizes Arpaio or the actions of his office.

This publication was forced to sue in 2004 because the Sheriff’s Office refused to comply with Arizona’s public-records law and release the information that Dougherty had requested. The MCSO forked over the documents only after the suit was filed. New Times then sought legal fees from Arpaio’s office. Though a Superior Court judge denied the request in 2005, New Times appealed.

On February 5, the three-judge Arizona Court of Appeals assessed nine of Dougherty’s requests individually, finding in all but one that New Times was wrongfully denied access to public records. In eight instances, the appeals court found the excuses of MCSO public information officers Lisa Allen MacPherson and Paul Chagolla to be unconvincing.

Take for instance a request by Dougherty for the personnel file for MCSO Sergeant Leo Driving Hawk. The MCSO acknowledged that it had the documents when Dougherty made the request, but MacPherson said she didn’t read the request very carefully, and offered that as an excuse for not providing the documents promptly, as well as the fact that she was angry with Dougherty.

The appeals court’s response to MacPherson’s evasions was stinging.

“If mere inattention by the employee of a public body could meet that body’s burden of establishing that it promptly provided documents, and thus that a request was not wrongfully delayed or denied, it would turn on its head the core purpose of the public-records law,” wrote the court, adding, “If public entities could be excused from providing public records merely by being inattentive to requests, then access to the records would be easily frustrated.”

Ultimately, the appeals court vacated the lower court’s judgment and remanded the case back to it for a decision on whether New Times is entitled to recover the attorneys’ fees.

This ruling is significant because the MCSO obstructed New Times every step of the way. It refused to comply with the state public-records law, treated reporter Dougherty and other New Times journalists with contempt, and forced New Times to go to court to get the records to which it is entitled. In addition, the MCSO continues to bar New Times from attending press conferences and continues to prohibit its reporters from going to the Sheriff’s Office to pick up public records.

Dougherty made several public-records requests to the MCSO in 2004. They included requests for documents on the smear Arpaio’s officers perpetrated against Dan Saban, Arpaio’s rival for the 2004 Republican nomination; for records on a proposed fish pond to be constructed near Tent City; for MCSO financial records from the jail canteen and vending machines; for personnel files on certain MCSO employees and for records on deceased inmates.

But in defiance of the public-records law — which plainly states that the custodians of public records must “promptly furnish such copies, printouts or photographs” to all citizens who ask for them — the sheriff’s media machine stonewalled Dougherty. That resulted in the reporter’s confronting Arpaio during a public post-election event, asking when the sheriff would turn over the lawfully requested information.

Arpaio had Dougherty dragged away by Selective Enforcement Unit deputies, suggesting to one of his men that the writer’s mere question could be considered a threat.

Days before this incident, Dougherty ran into MCSO spokeswoman MacPherson outside a downtown rally for Arpaio opponent Saban. He queried her as to when New Times might get the records. “Never,” MacPherson told Dougherty. When Dougherty asked why, she informed him that the MCSO did not regard New Times as a legitimate newspaper. Dougherty replied that under the state public-records law, any citizen can request such records from the MCSO. “So sue us!” MacPherson challenged.

New Times had no choice but to go to court.

Three years later, the appeals court’s February 5 ruling revealed the MCSO’s pattern of obstructing news organizations critical of Arpaio from obtaining public information. It was mentioned in the appellate court’s decision that MacPherson admitted it took her 108 days to produce 11 pages of documents, and that when Dougherty requested information on an inmate death in the jails, she misinformed him there had been no death on the date and that she never bothered to clear up the confusion when she learned otherwise.

In a recent item on New Times’ appellate court win in the Arizona Republic, Jack MacIntyre, another of Arpaio’s flacks, was quoted as saying that MacPherson had acted the way she did because of a personality conflict with Dougherty. He said certain “steps” were taken to avoid such future conflicts.

In light of this statement, New Times put in a public-records request with MCSO flack Chagolla, asking for documentation of the “steps” mentioned by MacIntyre.

Chagolla advised that no such public records existed. He then warned ominously that the MCSO might be contemplating charging John Dougherty with a crime.

“I will forward a document detailing two assaults committed upon me by former New Times reporter John Dougherty,” stated Chagolla in an e-mail. (Dougherty left the paper in August 2006.) “I am aware that the New Times knows of these assaults, as they were brought up in deposition. I will also seek out the Channel 3 televised coverage of Dougherty poking me with his recorder during the second incident. Please note the statute of limitations has not expired on the assault.”

Chagolla is referring to the night that Arpaio had Dougherty thrown out of his political event because the reporter asked him a question. Chagolla is alleging that a reporter holding up a tape recorder to a public servant constitutes an “assault.”

In the past, Chagolla has said there would be “legal consequences” if New Times reporters dared to pick up public documents at MCSO offices in the Wells Fargo building downtown. When reporter Ray Stern disagreed with MCSO lawyer Michelle Iafrate in her law offices over whether he could photograph public records, Iafrate complained to the MCSO. This sparked a “disorderly conduct” citation getting delivered to Stern by the Selective Enforcement Unit in the same nighttime spree that netted Lacey and Larkin.

Other reporters also have been bullied by MCSO deputies, as have Arpaio’s political rivals and citizens daring to oppose him or his officers. The history of this ongoing abuse of power is detailed in Sarah Fenske’s “Enemies List” (November 29, 2007) segment of New Times’ “Target Practice” series.

In that article, Fenske described how anyone who crosses the sheriff, or even happens to work for someone who opposes Arpaio, could find themselves the subject of an unwarranted investigation, have their assets and computers seized, and even be arrested on trumped-up charges that never go to trial. Anyone from a politician aiming to replace Arpaio as sheriff (like Dan Saban) to a graphic designer working for local Democrats to a tow-truck operator loyal to the GOP could find themselves in the MCSO’s crosshairs.

Raids can be timed to slander an enemy and his business, as happened with erstwhile Arpaio-supporter Lee Watkins. Watkins backed local radio personality W. Steven Martin over Arpaio in the 2004 general election. Then, his business, Cactus Towing, was raided in 2005, with computers, cell phones, and records seized as evidence. The raid came at the end of the month, when Watkins’ business normally billed expenses. Watkins was ruined. No charges were ever filed.

In 2000, Jim Cozzolino managed the campaign of an Arpaio opponent. Arpaio’s deputies sorted through his trash and tapped his phone, but nothing came of it. Still Arpaio held his grudge, and in 2003, when Cozzolino stepped in to protect a woman who was being assaulted at the bowling alley Cozzolino operated, deputies popped him for attempted murder and seized his car. Cozzolino plea-bargained, pleaded guilty to illegal discharge of a firearm, and got four months in jail. Deputies set up Cozzolino on a drug charge while he was incarcerated. He beat that rap and ended up suing Arpaio, who later settled for an undisclosed amount.

Or take the case of Nick Tarr, falsely arrested in 2002 while portraying “Joe Arizona” in a lighthearted spoof of the sheriff sponsored by backers of a ballot initiative opposed by Arpaio. Tarr had the bad luck to walk into a restaurant where Chief Deputy David Hendershott was eating. Hendershott wanted to charge him with impersonating a DPS officer. The DPS wanted no part of it, but Hendershott had his men hold Tarr and cite him. The MCSO dropped the complaint against Tarr, whose lawsuit against the Sheriff’s Office is scheduled to go to trial this year.

The list goes on.

“These and many other incidents show that the Defendants’ actions against the New Times in this case were more than the aberrational consequence of simple neglect,” Manning observes in the notice. “They were the product of a long-standing pattern and practice of the abuse of power against dissenting voices — of intentional, punitive and retaliatory conduct against the New Times, its reporters, and its readers.”

This is the same sheriff’s administration that has cost the county $43.4 million in lawsuit payouts and insurance premiums because of wrongful deaths and injuries in Arpaio’s jails.

Yet the sheriff and his underlings appear indifferent to atrocities in MCSO jails, to the financial burden they impose on county taxpayers, and to the international embarrassment they cause Maricopa County. Amnesty International, which usually chastises Third World dictatorships, cited deplorable conditions in Arpaio’s lockups after a 1997 investigation.

As New Times writer John Dickerson reported in “Inhumanity Has a Price” (December 20, 2007), “With a fraction of the inmate population, Arpaio has had 50 times as many lawsuits as the New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, and Houston jail systems combined.” Since Dickerson wrote the article — which warns of MRSA staph infections in Arpaio’s jails and describes the horror of a pregnant mother bleeding incessantly and losing her child while one of Arpaio’s prisoners — the payout figure has climbed another $2 million.

In the face of such persistent, institutionalized cruelty and spitefulness toward anyone who disagrees with the MCSO, Michael Lacey believes New Times’ notice is also about preservation of the Fourth Estate. He argues that not just New Times, but all Maricopa County media, are threatened by Arpaio’s administration — particularly because the County Attorney’s Office provides no check on the sheriff’s power.

“These people just don’t understand boundaries,” Lacey said of Arpaio and his officers. “They don’t understand the Constitution. It’s a fine comment on where we’ve come in the community when this sort of action on our part is necessary. But we actually believe it is necessary.”

Lacey added: “I hope it keeps [the MCSO] off our throats. And I hope it keeps it off the backs of the media, in general.”

Michael Manning offers an eloquent appraisal of New Times’ case against Wilenchik, Arpaio, and Thomas in the claim notice:

“The facts known, thus far, demonstrate a disturbing picture of muscle-bound police and prosecutorial abuse. The corrupt perversion of the law to attack a newspaper, its reporters, and the privacy rights of thousands of its readers. When fair criticism of these public officials became too piercing for them to tolerate, they flexed their political muscle in the form of a conspiracy.

“They abused their governmental authority by attacking the press, punishing free speech, demeaning the role and function of an impartial prosecutor and an independent judiciary, perverting the grand jury function, and serving notice to citizens who read news online that neither their identities nor their reading habits are safe from the reach of a vindictive government.”

Aguila crime wave: remote area suffers

November 17th, 2007

Wickenburg Sun
By Patti Jares, Staff Writer

Crime is escalating at an unprecedented rate in the tiny desert town of Aguila, located 25 miles west of Wickenburg along Highway 60. Fears and frustrations are expressed openly among residents in homes and businesses alike.

“We’ve lived here 50 years in December, and it’s never been like this,” said Sue Martinez, area manager for Woody’s gas station and convenience store. She and her sister Johnnie Edwards came to work on Monday, Oct. 15 and found the business had been burglarized. Eight days later, it was burglarized again.

This is not an isolated incident. Out of seven businesses questioned about recent burglaries, only one had not been broken into at least twice in the last several months – and even the business that was not burglarized had an apparent attempt made to break in, with suspicious footprints under a window.

A local garage owner was burglarized twice despite iron bars on doors and windows.

“I felt pretty safe because of all the wrought iron and the alarm,” said the storeowner. “It seems to be getting worse and worse. I was raised here in Aguila, and this used to be a peaceful town.”

Down the street a restaurant owner shakes her head in discouragement when questioned about burglaries. Her small business has been burglarized three times in the last three months.

“I came here from Phoenix because I was robbed too much,” she admitted. “I thought this little town was peaceful. It is not. And alarms don’t work because they know they have plenty of time to do whatever they want – at least 30 minutes – before the police get here.”

Maricopa deputies were questioned about Aguila’s crime problem in September by The Sun’s Assistant Editor Janet DelTufo, and was told there was nothing unusual occurring. However, according to the residents, the main problem confronting Aguila is a lack of law enforcement.

With an estimated population of 1,064, Aguila is one of the smallest communities in Maricopa County, and certainly the most isolated. It is the last Maricopa County town along Highway 60, located five miles east of the La Paz County border.

With a land area of 9,226 miles, Maricopa County is the fifth largest county in Arizona. With Aguila vying for attention from a county sheriff’s department that services such a large area – including four cities ranked in the top ten of fastest growing in the nation for 2007 (Buckeye-2, Surprise-3, Goodyear-4, and Avonale-9), Aguila’s desolate location makes protection difficult.

Two neighboring towns to the west of Aguila do not have the crime problem that plagues Aguila — Wenden, 20 miles west of Aguila, and Salome six miles further west. Both these towns belong to La Paz County, and although they are small and secluded Wenden has a highway patrol station, and Salome houses a La Paz County Sheriff’s satellite office. Aguila has no satellite offices. According to residents, the it takes at least 30 minutes for county sheriffs to arrive on a call, and business owners have waited four hours and longer.

“For the first break-in I called at 4:45 a.m., and they showed up at 10:40 a.m.,” said Edwards, speaking of the break-in at Woody’s. “We go days and never see a deputy. There are people afraid to leave home – afraid they’ll come back and there’ll be nothing left.”

The most violent business incidents in recent days took place in Aguila’s newest convenient store. The store has been held up three times in the two months it has been in business. In the most recent incident the burglar viciously slashed the proprietor’s wife on her face and hand with a knife. She was taken by ambulance to Wickenburg Community Hospital, where stitches were required.

“I saved his life,” said the owner quietly, pointing to a 45-caliber magnum worn on his hip. “I could have shot him.”

Instead, the soft-spoken Vietnamese transplant from Surprise grabbed the robber and pulled off his ski mask, revealing his identity, which was recorded on the store camera.

“We looked each other in the eyes, and I didn’t want to kill him,” admitted the man. “I have fought in a war and I did not want to kill.”

The couple had planned to buy a small piece of land in Aguila, and after retirement build a house. But they are not as sure now. A steel fence topped with razor-wire surrounds the formerly friendly exterior of their store.

“To tell you the truth, I’m rethinking my plan,” he said sadly. “My wife – she is nervous.”

Public outrage was so fierce over the violence that some local residents began standing guard – some armed – in the store until the couple closed for the night.

“They’re such nice people – we’d hate to see them leave,” said one resident.

The other market in town has shortened business hours, opening at 10 a.m. and closing at 6 p.m., instead of their former time of 8 a.m. to 10 p.m.

“It’s just not worth it to get hurt or cut up,” said the store clerk. According to her, they were burglarized “just two times in the last few months.”

Big Mama’s Restaurant has been burglarized twice in the last several months, and does not keep money around any longer.

“We don’t leave anybody here alone, since they started getting violent,” said a waitress. “If they don’t do something pretty quick it’s going to turn into vigilante justice.”

Aguila Elementary School has been burglarized three times in the last 60 days, the burglars stealing several thousand dollars worth of tools and a yard truck. The school has been forced to buy expensive security window covers.

“We have to be preventative – it’s about all we can do,” said Superintendent Don German, who spoke of the overall edginess of local parents and children.

“We’ve been spending a lot of time with kids – they pick up on when something’s going on – a lot of them don’t feel real safe. It doesn’t make for a good situation.”

“We don’t have [police] presence,” added Aguila teacher Gareth Williams.

In addition to businesses, several individuals have been burglarized – many times coming home to discover a burglar in their house.

One local resident, an 81-year old World War II veteran, surprised a burglar on Nov. 7. When he tried to defend himself he was punched, had his wallet grabbed from his pocket and was pushed to the ground. It was his second burglary in a month. A sentimental gold watch and his beloved dog tags from the war were stolen in the first break-in.

“I’m feeling it today,” he acknowledged, as he rubbed his lower back. “I’m kinda scared to come home anymore.”

His neighbor has been burglarized twice in the last three months.

“I used to leave my keys in my car,” mused the neighbor, who has been in Aguila on and off since the 1950s. “I didn’t even have to lock my house. I’ve never seen it like this.”

John and Pat Jobski surprised a burglar on Oct. 10.

“We came in the front and he ran out the back,” said Pat. Their home was completely ransacked, with thousands of dollars of electronics stolen, among many other items.

Since the burglary they have made sure someone is at the home 24 hours a day, which is difficult because of their 24-hour towing and truck repair business located on Interstate 10.

“We’re afraid to leave,” said Pat. “Everybody’s afraid to leave.”

Aguila Fire Chief Robert Edwards is planning a community meeting for residents to discuss these issues. A date has yet to be determined.

Saban loses to ‘evil web of conspiracy’

September 13th, 2007

Saban loses to ‘evil web of conspiracy’
Jurors found plenty of moral and ethical problems with MCSO

By Linda Bentley, Sonoran News 9/13/07
PHOENIX – After two weeks of testimony, seven out of nine jurors found in favor of Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio in the defamation case filed against him by Buckeye Police Chief Dan Saban.
The case stems from Chief Deputy Dave Hendershott leaking an allegation to the media made by Ruby Norman in 2004 that Saban, her adopted son, raped her 30 years ago, while Saban was running against Arpaio in the primary.
Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Robert Houser instructed the jury that a statement about a person committing a crime of moral turpitude was defamation by law.
Saban’s Attorney Joel Robbins, during his closing arguments, told the jury there were only two choices, either molestation or rape.
He pointed out Norman’s other two sons, who testified during the trial, called their mother “delusional” and a “pathological liar.” Robbins told the jury circumstantial evidence is often just as meaningful as direct evidence and used a mouse placed in box with a piece of cheese as an example.
Robbins said, “The next morning when you open the box, the cheese is gone … circumstantial evidence says the mouse ate the cheese, even though no one saw the mouse eat the cheese.” Citing Hendershott had a number of motives in going to Channel 15 TV Reporter Rob Koebel, Robbins said the circumstantial evidence cumulatively showed that when the defendants spread the allegations made by Norman they deliberately failed to obtain the truth.
When MCSO Media Director Lisa Allen was on the stand, Robbins asked her if she agreed with the department’s policy that stated, “Employees shall not make any statements to the media about the character of a witness.” Allen responded it would be OK “under certain circumstances.” Robbins then asked her, as media director, under what circumstances it would be proper.
If someone were making defamatory statements and undermining the credibility of the sheriff’s office, Allen said, “My job is to defend the office.
It’s my job as media director to defend the office or its employees.” On cross examination by Dennis Wilenchik, attorney for the defense, Allen said MCSO had just over 4,000 employees and proclaimed, “Dave Hendershott, he’s the man.” She told the court, “Mr. Hendershott doesn’t like to interfere at all because he hates reporters.” They then discussed Arpaio, whom Allen said “is his own man. He does what he wants to do. He doesn’t like negative campaigning.” Robbins asked Allen, on redress, if she knew how many times Hendershott called Koebel.
Allen said she was not aware of any phone calls.
Robbins asked her, “Is it surprising that he [Hendershott] would talk to Koebel … for over an hour’s worth of time, given that he hates the media?” At the afternoon break, Wilenchik moved for a mistrial, citing Robbins had prejudiced the jury during his closing arguments and repeatedly stated, “You can’t un-ring that bell.” Houser denied the motion.
During Wilenchik’s closing arguments, he repeatedly stated Robbins would have the jury believe his clients were an “evil web of conspiracy,” as he looked back at Hendershott.
Arpaio was his usual self on the stand. He knew nothing, never became involved and couldn’t recall.
When Robbins asked if he knew of any ethical rules that applied to his deputies, Arpaio, responded, “We have plenty of policies.” Robbins asked Arpaio when it would be proper to break policies to go after political opponents and to send the threat squad out to question a woman making an allegation that Saban raped her in 1973 or 1974, and asked if it was important that MCSO respond to the case.
Arpaio said, “It’s important we investigate every case. We respond to any kind of information that comes to our attention.” Robbins wanted to know how much information Arpaio needed in order to determine there is a conflict, or to determine there’s a conflict when it’s a political opponent, and asked, “Any crime alleged, even if older than Watergate, you’re going to go out and investigate?” “Yes,” answered Arpaio.
Robbins stated, “When you first learned it was Dan Saban, you had the option to give it to another agency,” Arpaio stated, “That’s not our practice. We respond to allegations.” Arpaio said it was fair that his employees investigated his opponent, but when asked if knew the statute of limitations on an allegation about something over 20 years ago, he answered, “I didn’t know anything about the case.” When Robbins asked why he didn’t call anyone about the statute of limitations, Arpaio, responded, “It doesn’t matter, we still send someone out. I’m not familiar with that statute.” “Can you tell the jury what a conflict is?” asked Robbins.
“Every case is different,” answered Arpaio, “After we receive the preliminary report we talk to a lawyer. I talked to a lawyer because I didn’t want to be the focal point of this.” Adding, “It had nothing to do with conflict.” He stated, “All my officers are professional and fair.” Robbins asked, “Would you think it’s OK to investigate Ava?” “You mean my wife of 50 years?” asked Arpaio, who then said, “It depends on the circumstances. No, I wouldn’t mind.” Robbins asked, “Would it surprise you to know Chief Deputy Hendershott destroyed that tape [Norman’s accusations that were played for Koebel]?” “No,” answered Arpaio.
“Did you ever ask?” queried Robbins.
Arpaio answered, “No, why should I?” When asked if MCSO had rules dealing with talking to the press, Arpaio responded, “We don’t have rules that are black and white.” Arpaio, when asked if he had any concerns over Saban receiving the endorsement of every law enforcement organization and Republican District 22, said endorsements didn’t matter to him, adding, “When your 70 percent in the polls …” When it came time for cross examination, Wilenchik responded, just as Arpaio’s attorneys always respond when Arpaio takes the stand, “I have no questions, your honor.” After the trial, a juror told the media even though they could not find enough of a legal basis for a defamation charge, they certainly found moral and ethical problems with the sheriff’s office.
Saban believes the jury got it wrong and said he plans to appeal.

Burton’s Viewfront page Sheriff Joe Arpaio

September 8th, 2007

Burton’s Viewfront page Sheriff Joe Arpaio
September 7th, 2007 ·
Maricopa county Sheriff and political boss Joe Arpaio obtained a victory in his civil defamation suite, The Boss was being sued by Buckeye chief of police Dan Saben who accused the sheriff of leaking false rape information against him when he ran against the sheriff in 2004.

The Judge an Arpaio loyalist pretty much directed the jury to find in the sheriffs favor during charging instructions. Several members of the jury voiced regret afterward and went so far as to say they would vote for chief Saben if he ran against the boss next time.

Meanwhile the Chandler police union lashed out at the Boss for his behavior in the continuing Lovejoy saga.

The sheriff made a very public spectacle of arresting and booking much decorated veteran Chandler police K-9 officer Sgt. Tom Lovejoy after his police dog bandit died in officer lovejoys patrol car.

The Sgt had just returned home from an overtime assignment when his son was in a car accident. Per policy he used his personal car to attend to his sons accident and Bandit was forgotten in the patrol unit and died from exposure to Arizona’s brutal summer heat.

Initial public reaction to Lovejoy and the dogs death was very negative till the facts of the case came out, By that time the sheriff had already interjected his opinion into the case and was committed to his statement of swift justice or backing off which the Sheriff does not do.

The Sheriff’s nightly media and soundbite moments of late reveal a rather bellicose old fellow. He seems to be getting even nastier, However the 75 year old political boss is as popular as ever with the local lap dog media, mouth breathers and rank and file neo-Fascist’s who call Phoenix home and shows no sign of slowing down with reported plans for a Fox reality show in the works.

While I doubt officer lovejoy will fall victim to one of the sheriffs infamous “in custody death” incidents, and few lawyers feel the dogs death will get much beyond an initial hearing, The Chandler police union like Chief Saben is risking a great deal by voicing criticism of the Boss on his own turf.

In other matters the Sheriff is dealing with he apparently directed his handpicked legal begal, County Attorney Andrew Thomas to begin ramping up the smear tactics against Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard.

The Sheriff and Attorney Thomas announced some time back the Attorney General had become a target of one of their super double secret special investigation to which the Attorney General simply laughed and announced his office would no longer be taking any crap or messages from the sheriff, which really got the Boss upset.

County Attorney Thomas, Referred to as Boss Arpaio’s boy wonder by local pundits and radio personalities is being groomed to assume the leadership of Arpaio political machine which suffered serious setbacks when his people in the Arizona congressional delegation lost last November and more recently with the announcement by Rick Renzi he would not seek another term in congress.

Rep. Renzi who was regularly ranked in the top five most corrupt members of congress by the non-partisan watch dog citizens for ethics and responsibility lost his immunity when the GOP lost the congress. He is currently facing several investigations into campaign finance and old fashioned swindling.

While it may be the sheriffs want of National power and influence is fading the Sheriffs hold on Mariciopa county politics is as diabolical and loathsome as ever.

The Republic offers more coverage on the sheriffs ongoing dispute with the A.G

P.S Burton

You can E-mail Burton editor@phoenixsentinel.com

Joe Arpaio flack Cpt. Paul Chagolla threatens to arrest yours truly for, uh, being a journalist.

September 8th, 2007

New Times

Joe Arpaio flack Cpt. Paul Chagolla threatens to arrest yours truly for, uh, being a journalist.
Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 11:13:41 AM

Paul Chagolla (right) barely containing his rage, with me on the left, and Lisa Allen MacPherson in the middle; from back in November, when Chagolla threw me out of a press conference for no reason. Uh, note my super-aggressive body language…
What do Communist China, present-day Iran, and Maricopa County have in common? In all three places you can get arrested for doing your job as a reporter. That’s the message from MCSO spokesperson Captain Paul Chagolla, one of Joe Arpaio’s top lackeys, who gets a kick out of bullying journos who don’t kiss Arpaio’s wrinkled tuchus. Chagolla has strongly suggested that I will be arrested if I show up to MCSO offices to pick up certain public records once the MCSO has copies of them ready. The e-mail exchange below outlines Chagolla’s threat. I figured since Chagolla cc’d everyone on his media e-mail list during the exchange, I might as well get a blog post out of it, and show everyone not in the local media that Chagolla, as he reveals here in his own words, is a massive, unrepentant tool.

This recent spate of verbal jousting began when I e-mailed Chagolla two questions, listed below. Chagolla rationalizes his reaction by stating that there’s litigation ongoing between New Times and the MCSO over public records, and because the MCSO has instigated a bogus criminal investigation of New Times , since a couple of years back former New Times-er John Dougherty revealed Arpaio’s home address in one of his columns. It’s a long story, which you can read more about in my 12/21 piece, “Joe Strikes Back.” Maricopa County Attorney Andy Thomas kicked the complaint over to Pinal County because of a conflict of interest. Last I heard, it’s going nowhere. Arpaio’s address is all over the Internet, which makes the complaint one of the most asinine ever in the history of Arpaio’s office. And that’s, um, really asinine.

Chagolla has used this lame excuse of a “criminal investigation” of New Times and the lawsuit over docs to ignore New Times, keep us out of their press conferences, etc. But because the MCSO has recently and very publicly requested travel docs from the City Phoenix as part of some trumped up corruption probe, they had to at least pay lip service when I announced in a previous column that I was asking for the same sort of docs from the MCSO. I was told the docs I’d asked for could be reviewed at the offices of the MCSO’s private lawyer, and that I could request copies, which a “runner” could then retrieve from MCSO HQ. Chagolla warned that dire legal consequences would ensue if I came by to pick up the docs myself: presumably, that I’d be arrested. I’m going in soon to take a look at these docs, and will certainly request copies. We’ll see how it plays out from there.

The folks who hate my guts for one reason or another will cheer the opportunity to see me in cuffs, even if there are no grounds for the arrest. Yet I suspect even those reporters (and there aren’t many) who are Arpaio fans will feel a chill run up their spines at the news, which may be what Arpaio and Chagolla ultimately want. Outrage is hard to come by in this Valley, but Chagolla is widely despised by journalists for the way he treats them, for his colossal arrogance, his petty bullying, and his brick-wall tactics. Hopefully, there will be some indignation when he and the MCSO pull a move more akin to the KGB in Soviet Russia, than of the land of the free and the home of the brave. The e-mail exchange follows.

—– Original Message —–
From: Stephen Lemons
To: Paul Chagolla – SHERIFFX
Sent: Mon Jul 23 14:59:07 2007
Subject: Questions for MCSO

Cpt. Chagolla,

2 inquiries for you:

1) Regarding MCSO’s new illegal immigrant hotline, how does Sheriff Arpaio respond to the charge that this new “hotline” is racist, since it will inevitably have folks calling in to report people based upon the color of their skin?

2) If Sheriff Arpaio is not a racist, why is he scheduled to speak August 2 at United for a Sovereign America’s regular Thursday night meeting at Childress Auto Mall? These meetings are notorious for accepting white supremacists such as J.T. Ready, members of the White Knights of America, and others into their ranks.

Thanks in advance for any response.

Stephen Lemons, Phoenix New Times
602-229-8426

>>> “Paul Chagolla – SHERIFFX” 7/23/2007 8:27 PM >>>
mr. stephen lemons
writer
new times adult entertainment magazine

mr. lemons:

Given the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office pending litigation with the new times adult magazine, and the open criminal investigation involving the improbital new times publication, a response, and/or an interview is certainly not appropriate.

Cordially,

Captain Paul Chagolla
Media Relations Commander
Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office

—–Original Message—–
From: Stephen Lemons [mailto:Stephen.Lemons@newtimes.com]
Sent: Monday, July 23, 2007 8:49 PM
To: Paul Chagolla – SHERIFFX
Subject: Re: Questions for MCSO

“Improbital,” Captain? Is that a word or a favorite laxative?

Before now, I might have counted Arpaio and his cronies as self-serving and power-mad, but I would not necessarily have labeled you folks as racist. Now that the Sheriff sees fit to arrest people with ethnicity and skin color used for probable cause, and to hang out with the assorted white pride types at the Thursday night Childress prejudice parties, I sadly see that the label may indeed be more appropriate than I originally thought.

Besides, what’s worse in your lexicon, an adult magazine or the Klan? And don’t tell me you’ve never looked at a Playboy.

SL

PS: Absolute power…etc., etc.

>>> “Paul Chagolla – SHERIFFX” 7/24/2007 12:36 PM >>>
mr. stephen lemons
writer
new times adult entertainment magazine

mr. lemons:

It should be plainly obvious at this time that given the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office pending litigation with the new times, and the open criminal investigation of the new times, interviews are inappropriate.

I have provided a method for your entertainment publication to communicate inquiries to this Office in a professional business manner. Instead you choose to communicate in a profligate, boorish and abusive manner. Therefore, I am apprising you that this type of unprofessional
conduct will not be tolerated from you mr. lemons, and will result in future messages being blocked and/or deleted upon receipt, without action.

Mr. Barr and Mr. Suskin, please take note of your employee’s misconduct, as mr. lemons’ actions may have consequences for your organization’s ability to communicate with this Office via electronic mail.

Cordially,

Captain Paul Chagolla
Media Relations Commander
Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office

(NB: In the e-mail below, I’m referring to previous e-mails from Chagolla stating there would be serious legal consequences if I showd up at MCSO offices to get public docs.)

From: Stephen Lemons Tuesday – July 24, 2007 1:24 PM
To: SHERIFFX, Paul Chagolla

Captain,

You omitted my initial questions, and your own boorish response, which I’ve provided below.

Are you still threatening to arrest me if I come by to pick up the MCSO travel documents I will be reviewing at your lawyer’s office later this week? If so, please let me know, so I may alert my colleagues in the media that you are threatening journalists with arrest for the simple matter of picking up requested public documents in person.

Of course, when you stated there would be serious legal consequences if I showed up at your offices to pick up docs, maybe that’s just your way of saying you like me.

Thanks in advance,

Stephen Lemons
602-229-8426

>>> “Paul Chagolla – SHERIFFX” 7/24/2007 3:04 PM >>>
mr. lemons:

I chose a very public way of communicating to you that you have forgotten your manners mr. lemons. You would do well in conducting yourself as a mature and courteous individual.

I will stay above the fray, conduct myself politely & assertively, and still deliver my message that I mean every word I have written to you.

The rest is up to you mr. lemons.

Cordially,

Captain Paul Chagolla
Media Relations Commander
Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office

From: Stephen Lemons Tuesday – July 24, 2007 9:00 PM
To: SHERIFFX, Paul Chagolla

Mr. Chagolla,

Thanks for your very public way of communicating with me. Now all of the Valley’s journalists will know that you are threatening to arrest a reporter because you don’t like the questions he asks. Also, there is the matter of picking up public documents in person, and the threat of arrest for doing this, when as far as I or anyone with common sense can see, picking up public documents is not against the law.

“Manners”? Mr. Chagolla, I am a Southerner by birth. Manners are not something we forget. However, manners do not negate the First Amendment. Nor do they equal servility. Save, perhaps, at MCSO HQ.

I would point out that the snarky tone began on your end, with your, um, “improbital” (sic) response to my initial questions. There’s also your snide reference to the “new times adult magazine.” Guess this is a real gasser over at MCSO HQ. In rebuttal, I’d cite an incident a few years ago involving MCSO employees and various Valley massage parlors. Ah, the rigors of police work.

Your childishness and unprofessionalism are unwarranted and unfortunate, but then the MCSO has a history of denigrating the Fourth Estate and treating its minions with utter contempt. You routinely violate the First Amendment rights of this paper and others, as casually as you violate the civil rights of prisoners in your custody.

To quote a great American, sir, at long, long last, have you no shame? Gauging from your actions and the actions of your boss, I think we all know the answer.

Stephen Lemons
602-229-8426

Sheriff Joe Arpaio: Police State Poster Boy

September 8th, 2007

http://www.prisonplanet.com/archives/arpaio/index.htm

Sheriff Joe Arpaio: Police State Poster Boy

Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County Arizona is the best example of everything that’s wrong with the police force today. He is the epitomy of the way in which police are being trained to see the general public as their enemy.

Below are a small selection of articles which underline this. More will undoubtably be added. Lord Arpaio has officially been put on notice – we are watching you.

Green Pool Owners Could Face Fines, Jail

The sheriff’s air posse members will be flying over neighborhoods across the valley. They will use their aircraft for a mission that’s strictly related to spotting green pools. They’ll fly in fixed wing, helicopters and experimental aircraft, the air posse pilots will fly with spotters and carry cameras.

Drug dogs could be checking schools (Arpaio pushes random drug tests)

“What I would like to see, and what I’m going to push, is parents and principals getting together and doing some random drug testing, on the idea that kids will not be expelled or disciplined if they test positive.”

Sheriff orders fingerprinting when traffic citations issued

Arpaio said the new procedure is designed to ensure the person who committed the offense is the same person being charged with a crime in the courtroom.

Public Servants” Going After “Constitutional Terrorists”?

This flyer was created — by the feds — to disseminate information about who the bad guys might be. However, its wording made it look like a disinformation campaign to paint at least a few groups of Real Americans as domestic terrorists.

Phoenix school first to install face scanners

A north-central Phoenix school is the first in the nation to install cameras designed to detect the faces of sex offenders or missing children and instantly alert police.

Sheriff faults car for his accident

Sheriff Joe Arpaio insists this is not interesting. That the citizens of Arizona won’t care to read about how he totaled his county-issued car at a Fountain Hills drugstore.

Visit the recall Arpaio website

Joe Arpaio: From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

September 8th, 2007

Joe Arpaio
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
• Learn more about using Wikipedia for research •Jump to: navigation, search
Joseph M. (Joe) Arpaio (born June 14, 1932 in Springfield, Massachusetts, United States), colloquially known as “Nickle Bag Joe”, is a law enforcement officer who is notable as the current sheriff of Maricopa County, Arizona, United States.

Arpaio has been called “America’s Toughest Sheriff” for his controversial approach to operating the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office, mainly in regards to his treatment of inmates. He has a large number of vocal supporters for his toughness on crime and criminals. Many civil libertarians denounce him for what they believe to be a willingness to ignore constitutional rights in favor of blind enforcement. Arpaio has stated that his goal is to have the most populated jail in the country.

Contents [hide]
1 Biography
2 “America’s Toughest Sheriff”
2.1 Changes to Jail Operations
2.2 Chain Gangs
2.3 Think Pink
2.4 Tent City
3 Controversy and criticism
3.1 The Scott Norberg case
3.2 The Brian Crenshaw case
3.3 The Fountain Hills prank calls case
3.4 James Saville
3.5 Illegal immigrants
3.6 Prostitution sting
3.7 Paris Hilton
4 Books
5 References
6 External links

[edit] Biography
Joe Arpaio was the child of immigrants from Naples, Italy. His mother died during childbirth and his father had little interest in raising young Joe. As a result, Arpaio spent his childhood being shuffled back and forth between different families, depending on who was able to care for him.

Arpaio enlisted in the United States Army and served from 1950-1953. According to an April, 2001 article in Harper’s magazine, Arpaio has stated that he is a veteran who served at the time of the Korean War. The article reports that he never actually served in Korea, but considers himself a veteran because he was in the Army while the war was going on. The article, by Barry Graham, called him “a loving husband, proud father, idealist, megalomaniac, liar, and bully. His nose is purple, his neck is red, and he has the charm of Archie Bunker. A cheerful, garrulous man who enjoys watching executions and often doesn’t know where he is or why he is there.”

Following his discharge from the Army, he moved to Washington, D.C. and then to Las Vegas, Nevada, serving on the police force of both cities over a five-year period.

He married Ava Arpaio in 1956. The couple currently have two children and four grandchildren.

After his stints with the local police forces of Washington and Las Vegas, Arpaio obtained a job as a Special Agent with the Drug Enforcement Administration, working with DEA for 32 years. During that time, he was stationed in both Turkey and Mexico, and advanced to the position of head of the DEA’s Arizona branch, where he served for four years before retiring.

Arpaio successfully campaigned for the office of Maricopa County Sheriff in 1992. Since then, he has successfully won re-election in 1996, 2000, and 2004 with considerable support of the county voters.

[edit] “America’s Toughest Sheriff”
During his tenure as Maricopa County Sheriff, Arpaio has instituted or strengthened several community programs to lower crime and protect the safety of citizens, such as:

bicycle registration,
block watches,
child identification and fingerprinting,
Operation Identification (for marking valuables),
Operation Notification (which identifies business owners during times of emergency),
Project Lifeline (which provides free cellular phones to domestic violence victims),
S.T.A.R.S. (Sheriffs Teaching Abuse Resistance to Students), an anti-drug campaign, and
an annual summer camp for kids near Payson.
One of the most successful programs maintained by Arpaio is the all-volunteer Posse program. Though Maricopa County operated the Posse for 50 years prior to Arpaio’s election, Arpaio greatly expanded the program through heavy recruiting. The volunteers perform many duties for the sheriff’s office such as search and rescue, emergency communications, prisoner transport, traffic control, backup for sworn deputies, office administrative duties, the Holiday Mall Patrol (which provides motorist assistance and security for shoppers during the holiday shopping season) and deadbeat parent details target men and women with outstanding arrest warrants for failure to pay child support.

Arpaio has also included on the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office website an online “deck of cards” featuring pictures of deadbeat parents, amounts owed and last known whereabouts. Later, he published mugshots of all inmates booked into the county jail, which are available for viewing on the county website.

He attends some of the Phoenix police’s community activities personally, going as far as making free autograph show appearances several times a year. In 2001, he oversaw security at the former Bank One Ballpark (now Chase Field) for the World Series that pitted the Arizona Diamondbacks (the eventual champions) against the New York Yankees.

In the fall of 2006, Arpaio could be seen in political advertisements for Proposition 204, which in effect limits animal cruelty in farming.

[edit] Changes to Jail Operations
Arpaio believes that inmates should be treated as harshly as legally possible to emphasize the punishment aspect of their incarceration. Thus, upon his initial election Arpaio began instituting the controversial changes for which he would later become noted.

Arpaio began to serve inmates surplus food (mainly outdated and oxidized green bologna)[1] and limited meals to twice daily. Meal costs would be reduced to 90 cents per day; as of 2007 Arpaio states that he has managed to reduce costs to 30 cents per day. Certain food items were banned from the county jail, mainly coffee (which also reduced ‘coffee attacks’ on guards), but later salt and pepper were removed from the jail (at a purported taxpayer savings of $20,000/year).

Arpaio banned smoking in the county jail. He also removed pornographic magazines (the ban was later upheld in court) and weightlifting equipment. Entertainment was limited to G-rated movies; the cable TV system (mandated by court order) was severely blocked by Arpaio to limit viewing to those stations Arpaio deems to be “educational”, mainly Animal Planet, Disney Channel, The Weather Channel, A&E, CNN, and the local government access channel.

Arpaio also instituted a program for inmates to study while in jail and to try to recover from drug abuse. Hard Knocks High states to be the only approved high school program in any American jail. Another jail program, called ALPHA, is aimed solely at getting inmates away from drug abuse.

In October 2005, Arpaio started mandatory 2-week English classes for non-English-speaking inmates at his jails. Classes last 2 hours a day. The curriculum comprises the three branches of government, how a bill becomes law, state government, law enforcement and court services, and jailhouse “situational” terminology. At the end of the 2-week course, inmates are required to take a test to see how well they have learned about American government, the words to God Bless America, and the communication of health and safety needs. In response to critics, Arpaio responsed, “These inmates happen to be incarcerated in the United States of America and in Maricopa County where I run the jails, we speak English here, not foreign languages.”

In February 2007, Arpaio instituted an in-house radio station, KJOE, which broadcasts classical music, opera, Frank Sinatra hits, obscenity-free patriotic music, and educational programming, from the basement of the county jail. The station airs four hours each day, five days a week. Future plans are to institute “Inmate Idol”, a takeoff on the popular TV show.

[edit] Chain Gangs
Shortly after taking office, Arpaio reinstituted chain gangs, the controversial form of inmate labor which had been virtually eliminated in the United States.

Arpaio believes that chain gangs are not a form of punishment, but instead of rehabilitation. Inmates who are low-risk but with a history of jail incidents can apply to serve as free labor. Inmates work eight-hours a day, six days a week (Sundays off), mainly outside. The inmates wear traditional black-and-white striped uniforms (see below for more details) with a cap to protect against the desert heat. Inmates perform such tasks as creating fire breaks, removing trash, and burying deceased indigent persons in the county cemetery.

Arpaio would expand the chain gang concept by instituting the world’s first female chain gang. Female inmates work seven hours a day (7 AM to 2 PM), six days a week.

Arpaio has expanded the concept even further, instituting the world’s first all-juvenile chain gang.

[edit] Think Pink
One of Arpaio’s most noted changes was the introduction of pink underwear. Arpaio noted that the traditional white underwear, labeled with Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office, was being smuggled out of the jails and sold on the streets. Arpaio thus had the underwear dyed pink, believing that pink is not considered a “macho” color, and would not be stolen. Once the public learned of the change, requests came in for orders, and Arpaio began selling customized pink boxers (with the Maricopa County Sheriff’s logo and “Go Joe”) as a fund-raiser for sheriff’s operations.

Arpaio subsequently introduced pink handcuffs among sheriff’s deputies, who were taking the traditional silver-colored ones [1]. Later, when Arpaio learned that the color pink has a known psychological calming effect, he began dyeing sheets, socks, towels, and all other fabric items in pink.

The outer uniform is not pink, but traditional black-and-white. This was part of another Arpaio-instituted change. One day, Arpaio thought he saw an inmate escapee in the then-existing sea-green inmate uniform outside the jail (it turned out to be a hospital worker in scrubs). Later, he noted that the orange uniforms of the chain gangs were similar to uniforms used by county workers (the orange being needed for safety). Believing that inmates should be easily identifiable should they escape, Arpaio re-instituted the traditional black-and-white inmate uniforms, which even with the advent of everything else being pink has not changed.

[edit] Tent City
The most noted, and controversial, of Arpaio’s ideas was the set-up of “Tent City” as an extension of the Maricopa County Jail (coordinates: 33°25′40.09″N, 112°07′26.61″W).

When Arpaio took office, inmates were routinely being released early due to overcrowding. Arpaio believed that “courts, not head count” should determine when an inmate is released, and that no officer should be deterred from making an arrest for fear that the inmate would be released due to jail overcrowding.

However, a new jail would have cost Maricopa County taxpayers around US$70 million. So instead, Arpaio obtained used tents from the military, and established Tent City in a parking lot adjacent to one of the jail facilities, for a reported cost (mainly cement pads, fencing, and cooling fans) of around US$100,000. As an announcement to future inmates that they should not expect early release upon overcrowding, but more tents instead, Arpaio added a (pink neon) “Vacancy” sign to the outside of Tent City. The original sign was destroyed in an inmate riot, but was quickly replaced at an estimated cost of US$500. A second Tent City was opened in 1996 adjacent to another jail facility, and houses female inmates.

During the summer of 2003, when outside temperatures exceeded 110 degrees Fahrenheit (higher than average, even for scorching hot Phoenix) Arpaio said to complaining inmates, “It’s 120 degrees in Iraq and the soldiers are living in tents and they didn’t commit any crimes, so shut your mouths” [2]. Inmates were given permission to wear only their pink underwear.

Tent City has been criticized by groups contending these are violations of human and constitutional rights, and simultaneously praised by those favoring Arpaio’s “get tough on crime” approach.

In response to requests, the Sheriff’s office offers group tours of its unique and controversial Tent City. In addition, Arpaio has instituted “S.M.A.R.T.” Tents (Shocking Mainstream Adolescents into Resisting Temptation), a voluntary program for middle-school students who are bussed to an area adjacent to Tent City and, for the next 24 hours, are shown the reality of jail life.

[edit] Controversy and criticism
Some feel that Sheriff Arpaio’s actions are based less on a desire to serve the public and to lower crime, but on demagoguery and grandstanding that hurt the public welfare. Amnesty International issued a report critical of the treatment of inmates in Maricopa County facilities [3].

Criticism has also resulted due to lawsuits filed against the sheriff’s office by family members of inmates killed in jail custody and in highspeed pursuits involving deputies. The lawsuits have cost Maricopa County more than $13.7 million in settlement claims.

[edit] The Scott Norberg case
One major controversy includes the 1996 death of inmate Scott Norberg while he was in custody. Norberg was arrested for chasing two young girls in Mesa, Arizona. Arpaio’s office repeatedly claimed Norberg was also high on methamphetamines, but a blood toxicology performed post-mortem conclusively proved this was not true. During his internment, detention officers shocked Norberg more than 20 times with a stun-gun, including on his testicles. According to an investigation by Amnesty International, Norberg was already handcuffed and face down when officers dragged him from his cell and placed him in a restraint chair with a towel covering his face. After Norberg’s corpse was discovered, detention officers accused Norberg of attacking them as they were trying to restrain him. The cause of his death, according to the Maricopa County medical examiner, was due to “positional asphyxia”. Sheriff Arpaio investigated and subsequently cleared County detention officers of any criminal wrongdoing. [4]

Norberg’s parents filed a lawsuit against Joe Arpaio and his office. The lawsuit was settled for $8.25 million (USD) following a highly contentious legal battle. Despite vowing to never settle, the case quickly closed after it was disclosed the Sheriff’s office had destroyed key evidence in the case.

[edit] The Brian Crenshaw case
Brian Crenshaw was a blind inmate allegedly beaten into a coma by guards working under Arpaio. Crenshaw suffered injuries that included a perforated intestine and a broken neck. He later died at a local hospital. When asked about the incident, Arpaio insisted, “The man fell off a bunk.” [5]

[edit] The Fountain Hills prank calls case
During April, 2004, Arpaio became involved in more controversy when he accused the West Bridgewater, Massachusetts, Police Department of being unprofessional over their handling of surveillance tapes from an AT&T store that showed a suspect making prank calls to several restaurants. The calls instructed restaurant managers to strip-search female customers — minors included. Several managers were arrested as a result. Arpaio believed that the suspect in the tapes from West Bridgewater might be connected to a similar case in Fountain Hills, Arizona. In response to Arpaio’s comments, West Bridgewater Police Lt. Raymund S. Rogers was quoted as saying “I think he’s mad that our detectives just happen to be better than his detectives”. [6]

[edit] James Saville
James Saville was arrested in 1999 for attempting to murder Joe Arpaio. A jury decided that officers from the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Department had entrapped Saville and found him not guilty [7].

[edit] Illegal immigrants
In 2005, Arizona passed a law making it a felony, punishable by up to 2 years in jail, to smuggle someone across the border. Maricopa County Attorney Andrew P. Thomas has issued a legal opinion that those being smuggled can be considered co-conspirators to the smuggling and thusly can be charged under the same law. Under this opinion, Arpaio has instructed his deputies and members of his civilian posse to round up and arrest suspected illegal aliens. Arpaio said to Fox News, “My message is clear: If you come here and I catch you, you’re going straight to jail. [...] I’m not going to turn these people over to federal authorities so they can have a free ride back to Mexico. I’ll give them a free ride to my jail.” [8] To date, Arpaio has arrested at least 263 people under this program. [9]

One of Arpaio’s unorthodox practices includes the requirement that these inmates sing “God Bless America” and the “Star Spangled Banner.”

The county attorney’s legal opinion is being challenged in court. Many critics, including two of the co-authors of the Arizona anti-smuggling law, claim that Thomas and Arpaio are misusing the statute, which was meant only for human smugglers and not for illegals who are being smuggled. [10] Judge Thomas O’Toole ruled in June, 2006 that the sheriff’s interpretation is correct, and the illegal aliens can be tried as co-conspirators. O’Toole later ordered that several illegal aliens be released from custody due to lack of evidence against them. Several other illegal aliens have pleaded guilty and received probation and deportation to Mexico. So far, none of the conspiracy cases have been tried by a jury. [11]

[edit] Prostitution sting
Sheriff Arpaio has been criticized for allowing his deputies and posse members to engage in sex acts during an undercover prostitution “sting”. In November, 2003, Sheriff’s deputies arrested over 70 people for prostitution and solicitation. The officers arrested alleged prostitutes and their customers in more than 30 homes and 10 massage parlors in the Phoenix area. Records indicated that several of the officers disrobed, fondled the breasts and genitals of the alleged prostitutes, and allowed their penises to be touched during the operation. The Maricopa County Attorney’s Office stated that the Sheriff’s office had gone too far in allowing this behavior, and 60 of the cases were thrown out. Several of the male customers in the case were prosecuted, however. [12]

[edit] Paris Hilton
In May 2007, Arpaio was featured in the entertainment press for publicly asking the Los Angeles authorities to transfer Paris Hilton to Maricopa County to serve her jail sentence. His requests were “respectfully declined.”[2]

[edit] Books
Joe Arpaio and Len Sherman, America’s Toughest Sheriff: How We Can Win the War Against Crime, (1996). Summit Publishing Group, ISBN 1-56530-202-8

[edit] References
^ Cart, Julie. “Sheriff draws ire for new ‘jail cam,’ special inmate diet”, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 2000-09-10. Retrieved on 2007-07-31.
^ Paris Hilton Not on Chain Gang: Saved From Sweltering Arizona Heat.

[edit] External links
Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office
Official Bio
Arpaio’s re-election website
The Truth About Sheriff Joe
Retrieved from “http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Arpaio”