Sheriff Arpaio Spanked

Jiro

If You Know What I Mean
Premium Member
Joined
Apr 27, 2007
Messages
69,284
Reaction score
142
Federal judge says Arizona sheriff was racially profiling - CNN.com
(CNN) -- Arizona lawman Joe Arpaio has required prison inmates to wear pink underwear and saved taxpayers money by removing salt and pepper from prisons. He has, at times, forbidden convicted murderer Jodi Arias from speaking to the press.

The stern Maricopa County Sheriff has said the federal government will not stop him from running his office as he sees fit. But on Friday it did.

A judge ruled Friday that Arpaio's routine handling of people of Latino descent is not tough enforcement of immigration laws but instead amounts to racial and ethnic profiling.

Some of those profiled sued Arpaio, and Judge Murray Snow found their complaints to be legitimate.

The federal court in Phoenix ordered "America's Toughest Sheriff" -- a moniker Arpaio sports on his website -- to stop it immediately and has banned some of his operating procedures.

The sheriff's office has a history of targeting vehicles with occupants with darker skin or Latin heritage, scrutinizing them more strictly and detaining them more often, Snow ruled.

The sheriff's lawyers dispute the judge's conclusion.

"Racial profiling is illegal. Racial profiling is immoral," said defense attorney Tim Casey. "That is the belief and policy of Sheriff Joe Arpaio."

The sheriff's office in Maricopa County, where Phoenix is located, is planning to appeal the ruling.

"This is vindication," said immigration rights activist Lydia Guzman, happy about the verdict. "They've been stopping people based on the color of our skin, just because someone suspected we might not be authorized to be in this country."

Being profiled

Plaintiffs in the civil trial gave accounts alleging discriminatory treatment.

Officers stopped Manuel Nieto and Velia Meraz after they witnessed Maricopa County Sheriff's Office (MCSO) deputies detaining two Latino men. A deputy then ordered them to leave, but they were pulled over again in front of their family business, according to the ACLU, which represented plaintiffs.
Read the ruling

The second stop was at gunpoint, they said. Nieto dialed 911, but deputies grabbed him and threw him against his car, according to the suit. Once they saw that Nieto and Meraz were U.S. citizens, they let them go -- without an apology.

Plaintiff Manuel Ortega Melendres was vising Arizona on a valid visa. He does not speak English.

In September 2007, he was arrested after the car he was riding in was pulled over by deputies.

Melendres said he showed the officers his identification but was nonetheless treated roughly and arrested. He sat in a cell for hours before a federal immigration agent confirmed that his documents were in order.

A professor of criminal justice presented a statistical analysis he said corroborated that profiling in the county was systematic.

Ralph Taylor of Temple University testified that Hispanics are more likely to be checked for immigration status during saturation patrols than non-Hispanics are.

Casey blamed the incidences on bad training by U.S. Immigration and Customs agents. The court's ruling will prevent local law enforcement from playing a potential role in immigration enforcement, he said.

No longer allowed

The court's ruling prevents the sheriff's office from carrying out some of Arpaio's policies that it said amounted to a violation of the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable search and seizure, and the Fourteenth, which guarantees equal protection under the law.

The MCSO will no longer be allowed to use race or Latino heritage to make any law enforcement decisions, including stopping vehicles, making detentions or holding suspects longer than necessary to resolve specific allegations.

The ruling is another slap from the federal justice system against Arizona's immigration policies.

The U.S. Supreme court in June 2012 struck down parts of the state's controversial immigration law, including provisions for law enforcement that were similar to those practiced by Arpaio, and which the court deemed unconstitutional.

Law enforcement veteran

Arpaio's office claims to be the third largest sheriff's office in the United States and boasts more than 3,400 employees.

Before becoming sheriff, Arpaio was a federal narcotics agent, who eventually headed the Arizona office of the Drug Enforcement Agency, according to his biography on the MCSO website.

In April, a postal inspector intercepted an explosive package addressed to him. It was mailed a day after the department received a death threat from a major drug cartel.

In a CNN interview before his trial began, Arpaio said his department would continue to pursue illegal immigrants.

"I know I'm doing the right thing. I'm not going to surrender by those little small groups, people that don't like what I'm doing. You think I'm going to surrender? It'll never happen," the sheriff said at the time.

But on Friday attorney Casey said "America's Toughest Sheriff" will comply with the court's ruling -- for now.

and I have no idea why Arpaio is still wearing a badge. He's clearly a thug who has broken dozens of laws and Constitutional rights for decades. Why is he not in a federal prison is mind boggling to me.
 
This battle but not the war. He's still viable. :)

it was more than enough to end the "Arpaio Terror Campaign". All he can do now is to continue his Pinkie Pantie Prison.

wouldn't be surprised if Arapaio gets arrested by FBI later on for breaking dozens of federal laws.
 
Looks like NYPD is going to lose case over "Stop and frisk" policy. Very similar case like this one. Federal Judge is going to announce decision whether NYPD have violated the US constitution.

I think NYPD should quit that policy and focus on more serious cases.
 
Looks like NYPD is going to lose case over "Stop and frisk" policy. Very similar case like this one. Federal Judge is going to announce decision whether NYPD have violated the US constitution.

I think NYPD should quit that policy and focus on more serious cases.

yep. NYPD is gonna lose.

but that's off-topic. this thread is about Arpaio, not NYPD.
 
Federal judge says Arizona sheriff was racially profiling - CNN.com


and I have no idea why Arpaio is still wearing a badge. He's clearly a thug who has broken dozens of laws and Constitutional rights for decades. Why is he not in a federal prison is mind boggling to me.

Yes, I completely agree with you.

If anyone think Joe Arpaio's racial profiling is acceptable so I hopefully white people will be racially profiled by black and hispanic police officers. :roll:
 
Off subject? I don't think so, both of them NYPD and that sheriff is doing pretty much same thing and that was the concern of this thread, right, Si?

yep. NYPD is gonna lose.

but that's off-topic. this thread is about Arpaio, not NYPD.
 
Off subject? I don't think so, both of them NYPD and that sheriff is doing pretty much same thing and that was the concern of this thread, right, Si?

this thread is about Arpaio so let's stick with that.
 
Yes, I completely agree with you.

If anyone think Joe Arpaio's racial profiling is acceptable so I hopefully white people will be racially profiled by black and hispanic police officers. :roll:

I would have no problem with that.
 
Yes, I completely agree with you.

If anyone think Joe Arpaio's racial profiling is acceptable so I hopefully white people will be racially profiled by black and hispanic police officers. :roll:

I took Administration of Justice course in college. The reason there is racial profiling is because of the high statistics of crimes committed by minorities rather than white people. There's only 13% American population who is black, but the crimes made up some 70% or more.
 
Not surprised - that's completely undoubtable about you.

I don't support racial profiling, period.

Meh, why would I care. If you have done nothing wrong there is no need to worry.

In fact, I have been profiled. Years ago I played in a golf qualifier at a course in a bad part of Dallas. I got pulled over by DPD because I looked like a drug dealer or a pimp rolling through that all black neighborhood in a new Lexus. They asked one question..."what are you doing in this neighborhood?" There was no other reason for pulling me over. I told them why I was there and was on my way. Didn't bother me a bit.
 
I don't support racial profiling used just as a means to harass or persecute people.

I do support using racial/ethnic characteristics as part of a complete logical profile (which includes behavior and proximity) for searching out specific law breakers.
 
Meh, why would I care. If you have done nothing wrong there is no need to worry.

In fact, I have been profiled. Years ago I played in a golf qualifier at a course in a bad part of Dallas. I got pulled over by DPD because I looked like a drug dealer or a pimp rolling through that all black neighborhood in a new Lexus. They asked one question..."what are you doing in this neighborhood?" Tere was no other reason for pulling me over. I told them why I was there and was on my way. Didn't bother me a bit.
Maybe it was the wild golfer-plaid knickers that made you look suspicious. ;)
 
Meh, why would I care. If you have done nothing wrong there is no need to worry.

In fact, I have been profiled. Years ago I played in a golf qualifier at a course in a bad part of Dallas. I got pulled over by DPD because I looked like a drug dealer or a pimp rolling through that all black neighborhood in a new Lexus. They asked one question..."what are you doing in this neighborhood?" Tere was no other reason for pulling me over. I told them why I was there and was on my way. Didn't bother me a bit.

I had been harassed by some police officers, even I didn't break law and I was questioned for no reason. :mad:

I'm seriously care about behavioral and constitutionally of police officers - I don't tolerate on racial profiling, regardless on race or ethnicity.
 
I had been harassed by some police officers, even I didn't break law and I was questioned for no reason. :mad:

I'm seriously care about behavioral and constitutionally of police officers - I don't tolerate on racial profiling, regardless on race or ethnicity.
Was it because of your race or ethnicity?
 
Back
Top