Sheriff Joe Arpaio: Lawbreaker Or Hero?

Former Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio was convicted of criminal contempt of court in 2017 for violating a judge's orders to stop his office's racial profiling practices. Arpaio, who styled himself as America's Toughest Sheriff, was known for his hardline stance on immigration and was accused of misconduct, misuse of funds, failure to investigate sex crimes, and criminal negligence, among other charges. He was pardoned by President Donald Trump in 2017, but the fallout from his conviction and subsequent pardon damaged his political career, and he has since lost multiple elections.

Racial profiling

Joe Arpaio, the former sheriff of Maricopa County, Arizona, was convicted of criminal contempt of court in 2017 for violating the constitutional rights of inmates in his jails. Arpaio's racial profiling of Latinos in the county was at the heart of the case against him.

In 2007, Manuel De Jesus Ortega Melendres, a Mexican tourist, filed a lawsuit against Arpaio, claiming he had been unlawfully detained for nine hours due to racial profiling. This lawsuit, Melendres v. Arpaio, became a class-action suit, with several individuals joining and sharing similar complaints. The plaintiffs were represented by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the Mexican-American Legal Defense and Education Fund (MALDEF), and the law firm Covington & Burling.

The lawsuit charged that Arpaio and the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office (MCSO) unlawfully instituted a pattern and practice of targeting Latino drivers and passengers in Maricopa County during traffic stops, in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Fourth Amendment.

In 2013, a federal district court ruled that Arpaio and his deputies had engaged in racial profiling and illegal detentions of Latinos in Maricopa County. The court found that the policies and practices of Arpaio and his office were discriminatory and violated the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, as well as Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

The ruling stated that Arpaio's office had a "pervasive culture of discriminatory bias against Latinos" that "reaches the highest levels of the agency." The court also concluded that Arpaio oversaw the worst pattern of racial profiling in U.S. history.

As a result of the ruling, Arpaio was ordered to stop his immigration enforcement practices and was placed under the supervision of a court-appointed monitor to ensure compliance. The Maricopa County Sheriff's Office was also required to implement a list of reforms and requirements to address the racial profiling issues.

The financial cost of Arpaio's racial profiling case to taxpayers in Maricopa County is significant. By 2024, the bill was projected to reach $273 million, with costs expected to continue until the sheriff's office fully complies with the required overhauls. The case also led to the loss of federal authority for the MCSO to identify and detain illegal immigrants.

In addition to the financial costs, Arpaio's racial profiling had a significant human impact, creating a culture of fear among Latinos and other minority communities in Maricopa County. Arpaio's tactics contributed to a climate of vitriol and hate against Mexican immigrants in the county.

Arpaio's conviction and the subsequent racial profiling case had a significant impact on his political career. He lost his reelection bid for sheriff in 2016 and failed in his attempts to win other political offices, including a US Senate seat and the mayor of Fountain Hills, Arizona.

Misuse of funds

Former Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio has been accused of and investigated for misuse of funds. An analysis by the Maricopa County Office of Management and Budget found that Arpaio had misspent almost $100 million over five years.

The analysis showed that money from a restricted detention fund, which could only be used to pay for jail items, such as food, detention officers' salaries, and equipment, was used to pay employees to patrol Maricopa County. It also showed that many sheriff's office employees, whose salaries were paid from the restricted detention fund, were working job assignments different from those recorded in their personnel records. Arpaio's office kept a separate set of personnel books detailing actual work assignments, different from the information kept in the county's official human resources records.

Arpaio used the detention fund to pay for investigations of political rivals, as well as activities involving his human-smuggling unit. The analysis also showed a number of inappropriate spending items, including a trip to Alaska where deputies stayed at a fishing resort, and trips to Disneyland.

Separate investigations by The Arizona Republic uncovered widespread abuse of public funds and county policies by Arpaio's office, including high-ranking employees routinely charging expensive meals and stays at luxury hotels on their county credit cards. The Republic also found that a restricted jail-enhancement fund was improperly used to pay for out-of-state training, a staff party at a local amusement park, and a $456,000 bus which Arpaio purchased in violation of county procurement rules.

Failure to investigate sex crimes

Joe Arpaio, the former sheriff of Maricopa County, Arizona, was accused of failing to investigate more than 400 sex crimes, including dozens of child molestation reports, from 2004 to 2007. Arpaio's office failed to follow through on at least 32 reported child molestations, even though the suspects were known in all but six cases. Many of the victims were children of illegal immigrants.

In one case, Arpaio's office was accused of ignoring Sabrina Morrison, a 13-year-old girl suffering from a mental disability who was raped by her uncle, Patrick Morrison, in 2007. A rape kit was taken, but the detective assigned to the case told Sabrina and her family that there were no obvious signs of sexual assault, no semen, or signs of trauma. As a result, Sabrina was branded a liar by her family, and her uncle continued to rape her repeatedly, threatening to kill her if she told anyone. She became pregnant and had an abortion.

The family did not know that the rape kit had been tested at a state lab and showed the presence of semen. The lab requested that the detective obtain a blood sample from Patrick Morrison, but instead, the detective filed the crime lab note and closed the case for four years. In 2011, the sheriff's office obtained a blood sample from Patrick Morrison, which matched the semen from the rape kit. He was arrested, charged, pleaded guilty, and sentenced to 24 years in prison.

In 2012, Sabrina Morrison filed a notice of claim against Arpaio and Maricopa County for gross negligence. The case was settled in 2015 for $3.5 million. An internal memo written by one of the detectives assigned to the Morrison case blamed a high caseload and mismanagement for the failure to properly investigate the sex crimes.

Criminal negligence

One notable example is the case of Sabrina Morrison, a teenage girl with a mental disability. In March 2007, Sabrina was raped by her uncle, Patrick Morrison. Despite reporting the incident to the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office (MCSO), the detective assigned to the case claimed there were no obvious signs of sexual assault and closed the investigation. As a result, Sabrina was branded a liar by her family, and her uncle continued to rape her, threatening to kill her if she told anyone. She became pregnant and had an abortion.

It was later discovered that the rape kit had indeed shown the presence of semen, and the lab had requested a blood sample from Patrick Morrison. However, instead of obtaining the sample or making an arrest, the detective filed the crime lab note and closed the case for four years. In 2011, a blood sample was finally obtained, and Patrick Morrison was arrested, charged, and sentenced to 24 years in prison.

The Morrison family filed a notice of claim against Arpaio and Maricopa County for gross negligence in 2012, and the case was settled for $3.5 million in 2015. This case exemplifies the criminal negligence committed by Joe Arpaio and his office, as they failed to properly investigate a serious crime, leading to ongoing trauma and harm for the victim.

In addition to the Morrison case, Arpaio's office was accused of failing to properly investigate other sexual assault and rape allegations. During a three-year period ending in 2007, more than 400 sex crimes reported to Arpaio's office were inadequately investigated or not investigated at all. Many of the victims were children of illegal immigrants, and the office's failure to properly address these crimes had a significant impact on the community.

Furthermore, Arpaio's office was also criticized for improper clearance of cases, with allegations that they reported crimes as "solved" without conducting thorough investigations or identifying suspects. This further highlights the criminal negligence within the MCSO during Arpaio's tenure, as their failure to properly investigate and clear cases had serious consequences for the victims and their families.

Abuse of suspects in custody

Joe Arpaio, the former sheriff of Maricopa County, Arizona, has been accused of various types of police misconduct, including abuse of power, misuse of funds, failure to investigate sex crimes, criminal negligence, and abuse of suspects in custody.

Arpaio's jail detention practices have been widely criticised for their inhumane treatment of inmates. Inmates were served mouldy food, denied medical care, and kept in overcrowded cells without access to basic necessities. Arpaio also banned inmates from possessing "sexually explicit material", which was challenged on First Amendment grounds but ultimately upheld.

Arpaio's "Tent City" jail, a "concentration camp" set up as a temporary extension of the Maricopa County Jail, was criticised by groups for violating human and constitutional rights. During the summer, when outside temperatures exceeded 110 °F (43 °C), inmates complained about the heat, to which Arpaio responded, "It's 120 degrees [49 °C] in Iraq and the soldiers are living in tents and they didn't commit any crimes, so shut your mouths!"

In addition to these inhumane conditions, Arpaio's office has been accused of failing to properly investigate serious crimes, including the rape of minors. In one case, a 13-year-old girl with a mental disability was raped by her uncle, and Arpaio's office told her family there were no obvious signs of sexual assault. The girl was branded a liar by her family, and her uncle continued to rape her, threatening to kill her if she told anyone. It was later discovered that Arpaio's office had failed to disclose the presence of semen on a rape kit. The girl became pregnant by her uncle and had an abortion. Arpaio's office was sued for gross negligence, and the case was settled for $3.5 million.

Arpaio was also accused of targeting reporters and political opponents with investigations and arrests. In 2007, the founders and leaders of the Phoenix New Times were arrested after publishing a news article on a grand jury investigation involving Arpaio's office. All charges were later dropped following a public uproar.

In summary, Joe Arpaio's tenure as sheriff of Maricopa County was marked by widespread accusations of abuse of suspects in custody, including inhumane jail conditions, failure to investigate sex crimes, and targeting of reporters and political opponents. These actions led to numerous civil lawsuits and federal investigations into Arpaio's conduct.

Frequently asked questions