Attorney General Eric Holder deserves praise for going after civil rights violations by the sheriff’s department in Maricopa County, Arizona. Tom Perez, who headed the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division before moving on to head the Department of Labor also deserves praise.
For people who followed the events in Ferguson, Missouri, and are now waiting for the results of the federal case Holder announced, the cases that were filed against the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office for civil rights violations, can prepare you so you’ll know what to expect ahead. The kind of hatred and bigotry practiced by police departments in Maricopa, Ferguson, and elsewhere, resists justice. It has resources and allies in the public, in politics, and in the commercial media who cover for each other.
They slow down the judicial process but people who care about civil liberties still persist and carry the torch. Attorney General Holder did get a decision from the District Court of Arizona in favor of the plaintiffs.
In March 2009, the DOJ notified the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office (MCSO), headed by Joe Arpaio, that it was under investigation for discrimination in violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. There were numerous complaints from Latinos that the MCSO had been using racial bias and/or bias based on national origin in its law enforcement practices.
Police departments that practice racial bias and excessive force are breaking the law but they confuse the public and subvert the judicial system by saying that they were the ones enforcing law. The MCSO stopped, questioned, detained, arrested, and held Latinos in custody, some of whom died while in custody, all the while insisting that it was enforcing immigration law, not practicing bias.
Maricopa County is a busy urban and suburban area of four million people, including a population of approximately one million US citizens of Latino descent. They found that it didn’t matter if their families had been in the area for seven generations, it didn’t matter if they were carrying proper ID, and it didn’t even matter if they were Native Americans, they could still be terrorized by the MCSO.
In America, you can look Mexican and speak Spanish in public all day long. It does not constitute probable cause. It’s not against the law to have brown skin or any appearance whatsoever, but still the ignorant refrain that came from bigots defending Sheriff Joe was, “Who else should he arrest? Blond haired Swedes?”
Holder, Perez and everyone who joined the effort needed cast-iron stomachs for what was to come.
For 18 months, Joe Arpaio resisted and publicly refused to turn over any MCSO documents to the DOJ. He challenged the legitimacy of the federal government, calling on President Obama to release his birth certificate in front of cheering tea party rallies at the border.
On September 2, 2010, the DOJ sued for the documents.
"WASHINGTON – The Justice Department filed a lawsuit today against the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office (MCSO), Maricopa County, and Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio for refusing full cooperation with the department’s investigation of alleged national origin discrimination in violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Title VI prohibits discrimination in programs that receive federal funds, and also requires grant recipients to cooperate with investigations of discrimination by providing access to documents, facilities and staff. MCSO signed contractual assurance agreements as a condition of receiving federal funds, and promised that it would cooperate with investigations of alleged discrimination.
The department filed today’s lawsuit after exhausting all cooperative measures to gain access to MCSO’s documents and facilities, as part of the department’s investigation of alleged discrimination in MCSO’s police practices and jail operations. Since March 2009, the department has attempted to secure voluntary compliance with the department’s investigation. MCSO’s refusal to cooperate with the investigation makes it an extreme outlier and the department is unaware of any other police department or sheriff’s office that has refused to cooperate in the last 30 years.
“The actions of the sheriff's office are unprecedented. It is unfortunate that the department was forced to resort to litigation to gain access to public documents and facilities,” said Thomas E. Perez, Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division. [emphasis added]
|
In the months that followed, the tea party swept the 2010 mid-term election. In January 2011, the Chief Judge of the US District Court for Arizona, John Roll, was assassinated when "a lone crazed gunman" opened fire at a public event held by Democratic US Representative Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson. Let’s not completely ignore it was his court trying the case to get Arpaio to turn over the MCSO’s documents or that
he had received death threats before being gunned down.
“U.S. District Judge John M. Roll, who was killed in the Tucson shooting rampage, appeared to have been an innocent bystander Saturday, but was the target of death threats in 2009 when he emerged as a central figure in Arizona's bitter disputes over illegal immigration.
Pima County Sheriff Clarence W. Dupnik said Roll, 63, who was a close friend of U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, had just attended Mass at a nearby church and decided to stop by and say hello. A gunman opened fire, killing six and wounding 12, including Giffords.
"Unfortunately, he was in the wrong place at the wrong time," said Dupnik, who praised Roll as a brilliant jurist and cherished friend.
Roll's death is a rare killing among federal judges, the last occurring more than 21 years ago, said David Sellers, a spokesman for the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts. Roll became the target of conservative anger two years ago when he ruled that a $32-million civil rights lawsuit filed by illegal immigrants could go to court. The suit was filed against rancher Roger Barnett of Douglas, Ariz., and alleged that he violated the migrants' rights when he detained at gunpoint those who crossed his property and then turned them over to U.S. Border Patrol agents.
The U.S. Marshals Service put Roll and his wife, Maureen, under 24-hour surveillance after talk-radio accounts of the judge's role in the case led to hundreds of anonymous threats.”[emphasis added]
|
A few weeks later, the new Chief District Judge, Roslyn Silver,
“declared a judicial emergency that temporarily suspends a time limit set by federal law for brining criminal defendants to trial.
Chief District Judge Roslyn Silver took that rare step to head off any possible dismissal of criminal cases for failure to meet requirements of the Speedy Trial Act. The law requires a federal criminal trial to start within 70 days of the filing of an indictment or criminal complaint.
“The need to suspend the time limit is of great urgency due to a heavy caseload, a lack of adequate resources, and the tragic death of Chief Judge John Roll,” Judge Silver said.
The late Chief Judge Roll, who was among those killed in a January 8 mass shooting in Tucson, months ago had initiated the process used to declare a judicial emergency. The federal court in Arizona is authorized 13 district judgeships but currently has three vacancies, two of them in its Tucson division.”
|
By September 2013, the vacancies increased to six out of thirteen, as the Republicans in the Senate blocked confirmation for all of Obama’s nominations.
When the MCSO documents were finally surrendered to the DOJ, it was obvious why Arpaio stonewalled for so long. Racial animosity was clear. Citations were included in the case the DOJ filed against Arpaio and the county in May 2012. When the DOJ ripped the lid off the MCSO’s operations, the magnitude of the problem started to become clearer. A case filed on behalf of plaintiffs, (Manuel de Jesus Ortega Melendres, and all others similarly situated; et al.) went forward to focus on the issue of profiling.
The Melendres case was successfully prosecuted with a decision in favor of the plaintiffs.
The court issued a permanent injunction against the following MCSO practices:
(1) Detaining, holding or arresting Latino occupants of vehicles based on a reasonable belief, without more, that such persons are in the country without authorization;
(2) Following or enforcing its “LEAR” policy, as currently written, against any Latino occupant of a vehicle in Maricopa County;
(3) Using race or Latino ancestry as a factor in determining whether to stop any vehicle;
(4) Using race or Latino ancestry as a factor in making law enforcement decisions with respect to whether any Latino occupant of a vehicle may be in the country without authorization;
(5) Detaining Latino occupants of vehicles stopped for traffic violations for a period longer than reasonably necessary to resolve the traffic violation in the absence of reasonable suspicion that any of the vehicle’s occupants have committed or are committing a violation of federal or state criminal law;
(6) Detaining, holding, or arresting Latino occupants of a vehicle for violations of the Arizona Human Smuggling Act without a reasonable basis for believing that the necessary elements of the crime are present; and
(7) Detaining, arresting, or holding persons who are occupants of motor vehicles
based on a reasonable suspicion that they are conspiring with their employer to
violate the Arizona Employer Sanctions Act. |
Subsequently, the court ordered the MCSO to implement 159 specific remedies under
the supervision of an independent monitor. The monitor review process has to remain in effect for a minimum of three years. The court retains jurisdiction over the matter. All law enforcement policies and procedures, including training, traffic stop documentation, internal supervision, handling of misconduct and complaints, engagement with the community, and the establishment of a community review board have to be performed according to the specs detailed in the court order.
As a follow-up, last week the court ordered the MCSO to pay $4.4 million to cover the legal costs of the case.
As explained in coverage provided by the Arizona Republic, a decision is still pending in the broader federal case that addresses problems in the jails run by the MSCO, and a complex of 1st, 4th, and 14th Amendment violations that were discovered during the investigation into profiling.
"The image is tough to watch: A lifeless Marty Atencio lying naked In a padded cell in Sheriff Joe Arpaio's 4th Avenue Jail. He had been placed in a chokehold and then hit repeatedly with a stun gun in a violent scrum with a dozen officers. Those officers said Atencio was abusive. The 44-year-old Army veteran would later die while on life support.
Atencio's 2 1/2 hours in the jail in December of 2011 were all captured on video. The question is still unanswered: Why did this mentally-ill man have to die?
Questions are still with us, because of the wrongful-death lawsuit Marty Atencio's family has filed against Sheriff Arpaio and a larger federal suit challenging the quality of medical and mental-health care for inmates like Marty in Arpaio's jails. A decision in that federal case is believed to be imminent."
|
Marty Atencio was a US Army veteran who served in the first Gulf War. He suffered from mental illness in the years since his return to civilian life. He was picked up by Maricopa County deputies like many others and taken to jail. The circumstances that led to his arrest are unknown. What happened to him at the jail would probably be unknown, too, except that overhead surveillance cameras recorded the actions of the MCSO as they stripped, beat, and tazed Marty till he lost consciousness. He was thrown into a cell and left there. Later, he was rushed to the hospital where he died.
At the link, there's video of a recent interview given by his father, as well as links to other documentation about the case. None of it is easy to watch.
---
This is a struggle that began before anyone alive today was even born. It will go on after every one alive today is dead. The only people who lose are the ones who give up.
---