A Mesa in Arizona: Judge Finds Basis for Contempt Sanction Against Arpaio

Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio is fighting with another judge and this one seems ready to hold him in contempt in Mesa, Arizona. While Arpaio routinely disregards and even investigates local judges who oppose his controversial policies or actions, here, he picked the wrong fight with a federal judge this time. U.S. district judge Murray Snow has formally found grounds for sanctioning Arpaio for the acknowledged destruction of records in a lawsuit involving racial profiling.

The case centers on Arpaio’s use of volunteers and deputies to sweep through Latino areas in search of immigration violators and other offenders. His officers admit to deleting their e-mails about the patrols and throwing away and shredding officers’ records of traffic stops made during the sweeps.

Snow will decide on sanctions later but ordered a new deposition of Arpaio.

For the full story, click here and here.

12 thoughts on “A Mesa in Arizona: Judge Finds Basis for Contempt Sanction Against Arpaio”

  1. The following article relates primarily to ICE, but I’m seeing police abuse across the board from where I’m sitting — I’m seeing it personally, as well as professionally. Something has got to change…

    Apr 5th, 2010
    Posted by Joanne Lin, Washington Legislative Office at 1:22pm

    End It: 287(g) is Beyond Repair and Harms Local Communities Every Day


  2. TomDArch,

    I think you are correct. But if the citizens do not and term limits are in place then the Corporations get the control. The insurance lobby owns the state Legislature of Michigan.

    I think about 1996 was the first year term limits “took” effect in Maine and California.

    Here are the states with term limits MAINE, CALIFORNIA,
    MONTANA, ARIZONA, MISSOURI, OKLAHOMA, NEBRASKA, LOUISIANA and NEVADA. They were passed by the voters in 4 states Massachusetts, Oregon, Washington and Wyoming, but thrown out by the state supreme courts and in 2 they were repealed by the legislatures, Idaho and Utah.

  3. “The High Sheriff” will be wearing either AZ state duds, or US Federal prison outfits, not his own county jail jumpsuits.

    As for term limits – they’re a poor substitute for a responsible, involved citizenry.

  4. I wonder what size pink jumpsuit the High Sheriff wears. Were I him, I’d get my tailor on the phone. My fashion tip for those jail bound: forget the drop bottom pants flap!

  5. Instead of term limits, incumbents can serve a standard 2 terms but if they want to serve a 3rd term or more they have to win 60% of the popular vote. They’ll have had enough time to demonstrate their effectiveness and if they’ve done any good, or any work at all, their represented voters will appreciate it… or would that just encourage a whole mess o’ pork barrel politicking?

  6. I don’t think Term Limits are a good ideal. Just one more step to corporate ownership of the entity that created them.

    Anyone want to tell me what the “baby bells” own today?

    Term limited candidates are financed by the special interests that they beholden to.

  7. WOW,

    “We thought the ruling was extremely fair and we are pleased to cooperate,” said Dave Hendershott, chief deputy of the sheriff’s office. “It clearly shows that the judge understood that it was an unintentional oversight. We are very pleased with the ruling.”

    Who is the Doctor of spin? I bet they are pleased, no one went to jail. YET.

Comments are closed.