Will Arizona sheriff be held in contempt for rogue immigration patrols?

Sheriff Joe Arpaio will testify in court Wednesday during his second round of contempt hearings following a 2013 ruling that he stop unjust immigration arrests.

Ross D. Franklin/AP/File
Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio speaks with the media in Phoenix, Jan. 9, 2013. Arpaio, known for his political defiance will undergo a second round of contempt-of-court hearings Thursday, for his acknowledged disobedience of a judge's orders in a racial profiling case that centered on his signature immigration patrols. Arpaio could face fines as a result of the hearings and could later be called into criminal court on the same grounds.

Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio is expected to testify in an Arizona courtroom Wednesday about his acknowledged disobedience of court orders. US District Court Judge Murray Snow had already found in 2013 that Arpaio’s office racially profiled Latino drivers and wrongfully detained them on the assumption that they were in the United States illegally. 

Sheriff Arpaio, whose territory covers metropolitan Phoenix, faces a contempt-of-court hearing after he allowed his deputies to continue immigration patrols 18 months after Judge Snow had ordered them to stop.

The hearing will also address other allegations against Arpaio. The sheriff is accused of privately investigating Snow to get him disqualified from the case and deliberately withholding traffic-stop recordings from the original profiling trial in 2013. The hearing will also examine accusations that Arpaio’s deputies pocketed personal items seized during traffic stops.

Although Arpaio insisted in April during the first round of contempt hearings that he had not investigated Snow, documents have since been released that show emails were exchanged between Arpaio’s office and his investigator the evening before the hearings.

Arpaio, who calls himself “America’s Toughest Sheriff,” has already admitted to committing civil contempt by violating court orders, but he insists it was not deliberate. “I want to apologize to the judge that I should have known more of his court orders,” Arpiao testified in April. “It slipped through the cracks.” 

Snow convened the first round of the civil contempt hearing in April, after he grew frustrated with the conduct of Arpaio’s top officials.

Arpaio’s chief deputy, Gerard Sheridan, and three other aides appeared in court again last week before Snow in the second round of contempt hearings. Deputy Sheridan insists that he had been unaware of Snow’s ruling to stop any form of immigration control.

“It is difficult for me to be specific on what I recall,” Sheridan testified when questioned by the plantiffs’ attorney Cecillia Wang.

Snow is using Sheridan’s testimony to help him decide the outcome of the case. Non-compliance with a judge’s orders could call for fines or greater oversight over Arpaio’s office. But if Snow decides that Arpaio’s misconduct should be transferred to prosecutors, the six-term sheriff could face criminal charges.  

This report contains material from the Associated Press and Reuters.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

QR Code to Will Arizona sheriff be held in contempt for rogue immigration patrols?
Read this article in
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today