More Arizona shenanigans: Sheriff Joe sued by Feds

[General Zod]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38973698/ns/us_news/

PHOENIX — The U.S. Justice Department sued Sheriff Joe Arpaio on Thursday, saying the Arizona lawman refused for more than a year to turn over records in an investigation into allegations his department discriminates against Hispanics.

The lawsuit calls Arpaio and his office's defiance "unprecedented," and said the federal government has been trying since March 2009 to get officials to comply with its probe of alleged discrimination, unconstitutional searches and seizures, and jail policies that discriminate against people with limited English skills

Arpaio had been given until Aug. 17 to hand over documents the federal government first asked for 15 months ago.

Arpaio called the Justice Department actions harrassment at a news conference Thursday morning in downtown Phoenix. His office has said it won't hand over additional documents because federal authorities haven't said exactly what they were investigating.

"They have hundreds of thousands of reports, hundreds of thousands," Arpaio said. "They're so broad, we're trying to narrow it down. We're trying to work with them."

The lawsuit is the latest action against Arizona by the federal government, which earlier sued the state to stop its strict new immigration law that requires police officers to question people about their immigration status if there is reason to suspect they are in the country illegally.

"The actions of the sheriff's office are unprecedented," said Thomas Perez, assistant attorney general for the department's civil rights division. "It is unfortunate that the department was forced to resort to litigation to gain access to public documents and facilities."

The lawsuit said the department is investigating police practices and jail policies but did not specify the documents sought in its dozens of requests. It was filed in U.S. District Court in Phoenix and names Arpaio, the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office and the county.

Arizona's new law — most of which a federal judge has put on hold — mirrors many of the policies Arpaio has put into place in the greater Phoenix area. Arpaio believes the inquiry is focused on his immigration sweeps, patrols where deputies flood an area of a city — in some cases heavily Latino areas — to seek out traffic violators and arrest other offenders.

Critics say his deputies pull people over for minor traffic infractions because of the color of their skin so they can ask them for their proof of citizenship.

Arpaio denies allegations of racial profiling, saying people are stopped if deputies have probable cause to believe they've committed crimes and that it's only afterward that deputies find many of them are illegal immigrants.

The sheriff's office has said half of the 1,032 people arrested in the sweeps have been illegal immigrants.

Last year, the federal government stripped Arpaio of his special power to enforce federal immigration law. The sheriff continued his sweeps through the enforcement of state immigration laws.

The department's lawsuit said Arpaio's office signed agreements promising to cooperate with civil-rights investigations and other reviews when it accepted federal law enforcement grants.

Last year, the nearly $113 million that the county government received from the federal government accounted for about 5 percent of the county's $2 billion budget. The lawsuit listed $16.5 million of funding provided Arpaio's office through several programs.

In a separate investigation, a federal grand jury in Phoenix is examining allegations that Arpaio has abused his powers with actions such as intimidating county workers by showing up at their homes at nights and on weekends.

A Hispanic activist said a federal judge might have to threaten jail time to get Arpaio to cooperate in the lawsuit filed Thursday.

Hispanics alleging racial profiling by Arpaio's deputies in a lawsuit already pending in federal court have met with resistance in their own dcoument demands, said Lydia Guzman of the Phoenix-based civil rights group Somos America.

"It's going to take the hard hand of the judge to order some sanctions against the sheriff's office," Guzman said.

How completely unsurprising.

[Temujin]

I really hope there is someway they can remove this medieval minded asshole from power and lock his ass up already. He seriously would be at home running a fucking gulag in Siberia.

[Crossroads Inc.]

As has been stated in several other threads, the man is a tinpot dictator of his own little world who truly believes he is above the law, he IS the law.

The man enjoys well over 65% opproval rating in much of Phoenix and Arizona, despite being responsable for millions upon millions of lawsuites to Phoenix for wrongful deaths, infringing constitutional rights, and a host of other transgressions.

This case has been in and out of local news for years now, and each time it comes up I knew the outcome from the start. The man really believes himself to be above the law and shall no doubt be in court for ages if this hits the fan.


I have to say that this made me laugh:

"They have hundreds of thousands of reports, hundreds of thousands," Arpaio said. "They're so broad, we're trying to narrow it down. We're trying to work with them."

Have to say thats news to me... Anytime he ever shows up on local news, it is usally a heft does of "It is all a big plot out to get me! I'll never give them one paper!"

I don't think thewords "We're trying to work with them" had ever been uttered by Arpaio.

But all in all the man is a textbook megalomanic who deserves to finally stand before a judge for his many, many crimes.

[Solauren]

Go in, detain the entire department, and take and review all records already.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

The little fucking Mussolini knows that if the Feds ever actually got ahold of his records his entire department would be in a federal penitentiary awaiting trial for thousands of violations of federal law. He runs a gulag system which in combination with recent developments in Arizona as a whole makes the state an unlivable nightmare; it would probably be safer for non-WASPs in Mississippi than Arizona at point, and they'd only like to go further still. A fair number of the state legislators and the governor should be arrested for consciously implementing policies in violation of the US constitution, and all of Sheriff Joe's goons thrown in with them, but only the later is likely to happen.

I mean, I have no problem with mass deportation of illegals personally, but this is a nightmare for US citizens who could easily be caught up in the net--purely on the colour of their skin. "Document check, comrade?" is essentially the entire system that Arizona is running, and it's better to have twenty million illegals in the country, since the nature of that crime is fairly trivial, than to toss even a dozen people in immigration detention who happen to be Hispanic US citizens who weren't carrying their passports while driving to the corner grocery. Ultimately the only solution must be to place Arizona under a federal interdict like the southern states were during desegregation, with all kinds of policies they undertake being closely monitored by the federal Attorney General to make sure they comply with constitutional and federal law.

[Crossroads Inc.]

As an Arizona I will agree with a lot of what the Duchess has to say.

The rampant mania, no, "hysteria" that grips Arizona in regards to immagration has turned even sane logical people into supports of stuff like "Papers Please" laws. I even found a few people recently who thought the "Anchor Babies" law had merit and people born here maybe shouldn't automaticlly be citizines.

It gulls me because Arizona tends to be more socially moderate then other "conservative" states, but the hysterial over immagration puts true nutjobs into power more and more. It is the exact reason why joe is so "popular" and why we have the legsilature run by people who would make Stalin smile.

On Joe again... I have no doubt that if IF he is prosecuted there will be serious Sh*t hitting the fan, but the sad truth is Joe is a devious bastard and tends to cover his ass well. In all of the various lawsuites that have gone aginst him, he himself has never been linked ot any "real" wrongdoing, it has always been cronies or his goons who take a fall, or a nebulous group that has no real face that seems to be at fault.

The man himself my very well go scott free after this, even if his entire dictatorship does eventually crumble into ashes.

[HarrionGreyjoy]

despite being responsable for millions upon millions of lawsuites to Phoenix for wrongful deaths, infringing constitutional rights, and a host of other transgressions.

This is a bit nitpicky, but MILLIONS? Tens of thousands, I'd not be surprised in the slightest. Lower six digits, I'd be a bit bemused and saddened, but it IS the Evil Overlord of Maricopa County.

Millions is, however, a lot. I'd like to see a citation.

Note: I do not support Sheriff Arpaio. There was a time when I examined his public policies and less public attitudes towards (not) policing immigrant areas unless he was on a sweep, and concluded that he was pragmatic-ish. Then I read a bit more and felt dubious about his procedures, and then I watched him on television and was, ahem, not won over. (The man comes across as a raging racist, arrogant fuckwad, and general tinpot dictator. And this is when he's ON THE NEWS.)

I would still like to see the sheer numbers of violations and complaints backed up factually, though. I don't doubt he's a monstrous totalitarion asshole, but seven digits is a lot.

[Mr Bean]

I would still like to see the sheer numbers of violations and complaints backed up factually, though. I don't doubt he's a monstrous totalitarion asshole, but seven digits is a lot.

He and his policies have been in place for fifteen years now. He was elected back in 1992 and all of his policies in place by 1995, it was not until 1999 that he started getting attention and went from "tough on crime" to his current psycho level. From 99" to present day he's had over forty officers working for him while enjoying all the benefits of his own little Arizona gulag. Given 4015 days and 41 officers we can get hundreds of thousands of offenses if the cops do nothing more than break the rules once or twice a day every day. Million is even possible, but millions implies they have been really fucking busy violating those human rights unless these in-fractions are per day. IE if you keep an inmate outside without proper hydration in 120*F heat for 12 hours for an entire summer of temperatures at 100*F or above then maybe that's one infraction per day for every single one of the thousand or so inmates. You could wrack up a hundred thousand per year on that alone given you have 100-128 days in Nevada with 100*F heat.

So it might be a counting thing.

[Alyrium Denryle]

despite being responsable for millions upon millions of lawsuites to Phoenix for wrongful deaths, infringing constitutional rights, and a host of other transgressions.

This is a bit nitpicky, but MILLIONS? Tens of thousands, I'd not be surprised in the slightest. Lower six digits, I'd be a bit bemused and saddened, but it IS the Evil Overlord of Maricopa County.

Millions is, however, a lot. I'd like to see a citation.

Note: I do not support Sheriff Arpaio. There was a time when I examined his public policies and less public attitudes towards (not) policing immigrant areas unless he was on a sweep, and concluded that he was pragmatic-ish. Then I read a bit more and felt dubious about his procedures, and then I watched him on television and was, ahem, not won over. (The man comes across as a raging racist, arrogant fuckwad, and general tinpot dictator. And this is when he's ON THE NEWS.)

I would still like to see the sheer numbers of violations and complaints backed up factually, though. I don't doubt he's a monstrous totalitarion asshole, but seven digits is a lot.

I think he meant to say millions and millions in the dollar amount of fighting the lawsuits and then paying damages/settlements.

[Akhlut]

I think Crossroads did his MO of leaving out various words. I think that he meant that Mean Joe has cost Arizona millions upon millions of dollars due to all the lawsuits brought against the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office.

Edit: Damn you, Aly!

[MKSheppard]

but this is a nightmare for US citizens who could easily be caught up in the net--purely on the colour of their skin.

Not really.

Just ask "where were you born" and "first three digits of your SSN" and "Did you ever change your name in the past?" also "If you are a naturalized citizen, which state were you naturalized in?"

Detain anyone who gives obviously wrong answer Link; like for example giving their birth state as Colorado; but giving a number which falls outside the range; without a name change (I believe you can get SSNs reissued on a name change if you want one that bad).

A nice obvious one is a 20-something who has a SSN that begins in 700-728 -- those were given to people who were on the Railroad Retirement Board -- we stopped giving out those SSNs on 1 July 1963; so anyone who has a 700-728 opening SSN and was born after 1 July 1963 is obviously with a fake SSN.

[Crossroads Inc.]

Ah, I am caught again, do apologize for the missing words, meant to say "millions in Lawsuits" instead of "of"

That said the point remains that Joe has been a destructive factor to true "law" in my state and the sooner he goes the sooner we can get back to try and be taken seriously again

[Simon_Jester]

but this is a nightmare for US citizens who could easily be caught up in the net--purely on the colour of their skin.

Not really.

Just ask "where were you born" and "first three digits of your SSN" and "Did you ever change your name in the past?" also "If you are a naturalized citizen, which state were you naturalized in?"

Detain anyone who gives obviously wrong answer Link; like for example giving their birth state as Colorado; but giving a number which falls outside the range; without a name change (I believe you can get SSNs reissued on a name change if you want one that bad).

A nice obvious one is a 20-something who has a SSN that begins in 700-728 -- those were given to people who were on the Railroad Retirement Board -- we stopped giving out those SSNs on 1 July 1963; so anyone who has a 700-728 opening SSN and was born after 1 July 1963 is obviously with a fake SSN.

That won't work on people who give SSNs that aren't obviously wrong (say, because the person who gave them their dodgy papers knows as much about the system as you do).

If you start trying to do the checks, you have to ask for full SSNs, demand to know prior names of people who have had a name change, and otherwise go back to the "Document check, comrade?" that Duchess is upset about.

[MKSheppard]

That won't work on people who give SSNs that aren't obviously wrong (say, because the person who gave them their dodgy papers knows as much about the system as you do).

Of course; like you said; there's always going to full SSNs -- that's the best method -- "Sir; why is your social security number registered to a one year old child who died in Louisana in 1973?"; but I am not sure over the legality of using full SSNs as a question at police stops.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

but this is a nightmare for US citizens who could easily be caught up in the net--purely on the colour of their skin.

Not really.

Just ask "where were you born" and "first three digits of your SSN" and "Did you ever change your name in the past?" also "If you are a naturalized citizen, which state were you naturalized in?"

Detain anyone who gives obviously wrong answer Link; like for example giving their birth state as Colorado; but giving a number which falls outside the range; without a name change (I believe you can get SSNs reissued on a name change if you want one that bad).

A nice obvious one is a 20-something who has a SSN that begins in 700-728 -- those were given to people who were on the Railroad Retirement Board -- we stopped giving out those SSNs on 1 July 1963; so anyone who has a 700-728 opening SSN and was born after 1 July 1963 is obviously with a fake SSN.

It's the principle of the damned issue--and the name change issue is irrelevant. Your SSN stays the same; I know that for a fact. The Social Security administration changes your legal name in the records, but not your SSN, so that wouldn't be an issue. I still have the same Washington issued SSN I had when I was born. But, regardless, it's the principle of the damned issue that American citizens should not need to be subject to document check in the United States, okay? Freedom is too precious to sacrifice it just so we can crack down on some freeloaders.

[MKSheppard]

Freedom is too precious to sacrifice it just so we can crack down on some freeloaders.

So the solution is to start enforcing country-wide crackdowns on businesses who hire illegals -- knowingly hire over x illegals you go away for five years; and aggressively sending out ICE agents in urban regions against the "hire via loitering" method. There are already many anti-loitering laws on the books in jurisdictions all over the US - just use them against the usual "each weekday morning, a crowd of 30-40 men appear outside the 7-11 on such and such avenue." -- arrest them all for violating that law; and run immigration checks while they're detained.

But of course, nobody is willing to take these steps -- and if they did; they and their state would immediately be attacked as being full of racists etc.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Freedom is too precious to sacrifice it just so we can crack down on some freeloaders.

So the solution is to start enforcing country-wide crackdowns on businesses who hire illegals -- knowingly hire over x illegals you go away for five years; and aggressively sending out ICE agents in urban regions against the "hire via loitering" method. There are already many anti-loitering laws on the books in jurisdictions all over the US - just use them against the usual "each weekday morning, a crowd of 30-40 men appear outside the 7-11 on such and such avenue." -- arrest them all for violating that law; and run immigration checks while they're detained.

But of course, nobody is willing to take these steps -- and if they did; they and their state would immediately be attacked as being full of racists etc.

I have no objection to those sorts of tactics.

[Simon_Jester]

I wouldn't object either, as long as the formalities were observed and as long as there was no violation of rights. Such as, say, throwing people into desert gulags, or ignoring the constitutional rights of people who might for all you know be citizen day laborers.

[Master of Ossus]

It's the principle of the damned issue--and the name change issue is irrelevant. Your SSN stays the same; I know that for a fact. The Social Security administration changes your legal name in the records, but not your SSN, so that wouldn't be an issue. I still have the same Washington issued SSN I had when I was born. But, regardless, it's the principle of the damned issue that American citizens should not need to be subject to document check in the United States, okay? Freedom is too precious to sacrifice it just so we can crack down on some freeloaders.

What "principle?" What principle makes it so unreasonable for people to be subject to document checks? And what "freedom" is involved? Freedom from carrying a driver's license? We already make people subject themselves to document checks when they do things like enter an airport. Why is it so unreasonable to extend this to public streets and thoroughfares?

[Alyeska]

It's the principle of the damned issue--and the name change issue is irrelevant. Your SSN stays the same; I know that for a fact. The Social Security administration changes your legal name in the records, but not your SSN, so that wouldn't be an issue. I still have the same Washington issued SSN I had when I was born. But, regardless, it's the principle of the damned issue that American citizens should not need to be subject to document check in the United States, okay? Freedom is too precious to sacrifice it just so we can crack down on some freeloaders.

What "principle?" What principle makes it so unreasonable for people to be subject to document checks? And what "freedom" is involved? Freedom from carrying a driver's license? We already make people subject themselves to document checks when they do things like enter an airport. Why is it so unreasonable to extend this to public streets and thoroughfares?

Because there are no laws requiring you have the documents on them in the first place. I damned well have no intention of providing a cop with any of my documents just because they ask.

[Master of Ossus]

Because there are no laws requiring you have the documents on them in the first place. I damned well have no intention of providing a cop with any of my documents just because they ask.

It's constitutional for a state to have and enforce laws requiring people to identify themselves to police officers. What is the functional difference between identifying yourself, which you must do truthfully, to a police officer and providing them with a document stating your identity?

[Alyeska]

Because there are no laws requiring you have the documents on them in the first place. I damned well have no intention of providing a cop with any of my documents just because they ask.

It's constitutional for a state to have and enforce laws requiring people to identify themselves to police officers. What is the functional difference between identifying yourself, which you must do truthfully, to a police officer and providing them with a document stating your identity?

You going to also pass a law requiring people carry said identification on them at all times? What about people without drivers licenses? Do they have to carry other more vulnerable forms of identification with them at all times?

You advocate mandatory document identification while ignoring the little part that people aren't required to actually have it on them creating a catch 22.

Freedom of movement and travel. Requiring paperwork to even travel on foot infringes on freedom of movement.

[Serafina]

A requirement to carry an ID on you is impeding neither freedom of movement nor of travel. You can do both perfectly fine, and you don't have a situation where the government is tracking you, restricting your movement (any more than it does now) or makes movement any more difficult (carrying an ID card is hardly difficult).

Of course, the reason why you have to do in this case, and what happens to you if you don't are wrong. But that's not because carrying an ID is wrong, that's because the law is racist and you get no fair chance to identify yourself afterwards (which is often trivial).

[Master of Ossus]

You going to also pass a law requiring people carry said identification on them at all times?

Sure. Why not? Why would anyone object to such a law?

What about people without drivers licenses? Do they have to carry other more vulnerable forms of identification with them at all times?

You mean like state-issued identification cards?

You advocate mandatory document identification while ignoring the little part that people aren't required to actually have it on them creating a catch 22.

Ummm... presumably a law requiring people to show ID's on demand by law enforcement would implicitly or explicitly require carrying an ID. If this is honestly the best criticism you have of such a law, then it is a pathetic dodge of the central point: there is nothing objectionable about requiring people to carry a form of identification with them, nor is it objectionable for law enforcement to be able to request such information from people.

Freedom of movement and travel. Requiring paperwork to even travel on foot infringes on freedom of movement.

How? Requiring people to have a form of identification for law enforcement does not substantively infringe on the right to travel. Moreover, "freedom of movement and travel" in the US. This is governed by the Privileges and Immunities Clause, which is in no way violated by a state law that non-discriminatorily imposes the same requirements and restrictions on both residents and non-residents of the state.

[Thanas]

We over here in Germany carry our ID with us all the time. However, we also have a police which does not act like dicks when asking for it. Also, your driver's license is valid ID over here, so I kinda doubt it would be that much of a hassle for the americans.

So the only thing one can really object to this is on principle.