Bonneville Phoenix Network
 KTAR News
 Arizona Sports
92.3 FM KTAR
Updated May 24, 2013 - 6:19 pm

Judge finds Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s agency racially profiles Latinos

PHOENIX — A federal judge ruled Friday that the office of America’s
self-proclaimed toughest sheriff systematically singled out Latinos in its
trademark immigration patrols, marking the first finding by a court that the
agency racially profiles people.

The 142-page decision by U.S. District Judge Murray Snow in Phoenix backs up
allegations that Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s critics have made for
years that his officers rely on race in their immigration enforcement.

Snow, whose ruling came more than eight months after a seven-day non-jury trial
on the subject, also ruled Arpaio’s deputies unreasonably prolonged the
detentions of people who were pulled over.

“For too long the sheriff has been victimizing the people he’s meant to serve
with his discriminatory policy,” said Cecillia D. Wang, director of the ACLU
Immigrants’ Right Project. “Today we’re seeing justice for everyone in the

Stanley Young, the lead lawyer who argued the case against Arpaio, said Snow
set a hearing for June 14 where he will hear from the two sides on how to make
sure the orders in the ruling are carried out.

A small group of Latinos alleged in their lawsuit that Arpaio’s deputies pulled
over some vehicles only to make immigration status checks. The group asked Snow
to issue injunctions barring the sheriff’s office from discriminatory policing
and the judge ruled that more remedies could be ordered in the future.

The sheriff, who has repeatedly denied the allegations, won’t face jail time or
fines as a result of the ruling.

The group also accused the sheriff of ordering some immigration patrols not
based on reports of crime but rather on letters and emails from Arizonans who
complained about people with dark skin congregating in an area or speaking
Spanish. The group’s attorneys pointed out that Arpaio sent thank-you notes to
some people who wrote the complaints.

The sheriff said his deputies only stop people when they think a crime has been
committed and that he wasn’t the person who picked the location of the patrols.
His lawyers also said there was nothing wrong with the thank-you notes.

Those who pushed the lawsuit weren’t seeking money damages but rather a
declaration that Arpaio’s office racially profiles and an order that requires it
to make policy changes.

Young, the group’s lawyer, said he was still reading the decision Friday
afternoon but was happy that the court ruled the sheriff violated the
constitutional rights of Latinos.

He said the decision contained “very detailed findings of discriminatory
intent and effect.”

A spokesman for Arpaio deferred requests for all comment to the lead attorney
in the case, Tim Casey, who declined comment until reading the judge’s full

Arapio, who turns 81 next month, was elected in November to his sixth
consecutive term as sheriff in Arizona’s most populous county.

Known for jailing inmates in tents and making prisoners wear pink underwear,
Arpaio started doing immigration enforcement in 2006 Arizona voters grew
frustrated with the state’s role as the nation’s busiest illegal entryway.

Snow wrote that “in the absence of further facts that would give rise to
reasonable suspicion or probable cause that a violation of either federal
criminal law or applicable state law is occurring,” Arpaio’s office now is
enjoined from enforcing its policy “on checking the immigration status of
people detained without state charges, using Hispanic ancestry or race as any
factor in making law enforcement decisions pertaining to whether a person is
authorized to be in the country, and unconstitutionally lengthening stops.”

Snow added that “the evidence introduced at trial establishes that, in the
past, the MCSO has aggressively protected its right to engage in immigration and
immigration-related enforcement operations even when it had no accurate legal
basis for doing so.”

The trial that ended Aug. 2 focused on Latinos who were stopped during both
routine traffic patrols and special immigration patrols known as “sweeps.”

During the sweeps, deputies flood an area of a city _ in some cases, heavily
Latino areas _ over several days to seek out traffic violators and arrest other
offenders. Illegal immigrants accounted for 57 percent of the 1,500 people
arrested in the 20 sweeps conducted by his office since January 2008, according
to figures provided by Arpaio’s office.

At trial, plaintiffs’ lawyers drew testimony from witnesses who broke down in
tears as they described encounters with authorities, saying they were pulled
over because they were Hispanic and officers wanted to check their immigration
status, not because they had committed an infraction. The sheriff’s attorneys
disputed such characterizations, typically working to show that officers had
probable cause to stop the drivers based on a traffic violation.

Plaintiffs’ lawyers also presented statistics to show that Latinos are more
likely to be stopped on days of immigration patrols and showed emails containing
offensive jokes about people of Mexican heritage that were circulated among
sheriff’s department employees, including a supervisor in Arpaio’s immigrant
smuggling squad.

Defense lawyers disputed the statistical findings and said that officers who
circulated offensive jokes were disciplined. They also denied that the complaint
letters prompted patrols with a discriminatory motive.

The ruling used Arpaio’s own words in interviews, news conferences and press
releases against him as he trumpeted his efforts in cracking down on immigrants.
When it came to making traffic stops, Arpaio said in 2007 that deputies are not
bound by state laws in finding a reason to stop immigrants.

“Ours is an operation, whether it’s the state law or the federal, to go after
illegals, not the crime first, that they happen to be illegals,” the ruling
quoted Arpaio as saying. “My program, my philosophy is a pure program. You go
after illegals. I’m not afraid to say that. And you go after them and you lock
them up.”

The ruling went on to say that some immigrant traffic stops were made “purely
on the observation of the undercover officers that the vehicles had picked up
Hispanic day laborers from sites where Latino day laborers were known to

The judge also said the sheriff office declared on many occasions that racial
profiling is strictly prohibited and not tolerated, but at the same time
witnesses said it was in fact appropriate to consider race as a factor in
rounding up immigrants.


comments powered by Disqus