No end in sight for racial-profiling lawsuit against MCSO
More than 1,700 days have passed since Manuel de Jesus Ortega Melendres filed a racial-profiling lawsuit against the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office, and from the perspective of those involved in the case, little has changed since then.
The case would go on to become a class-action civil-rights suit covering every Latino driver sheriff's deputies have stopped in the past five years. Depending how U.S. District Judge Murray Snow eventually rules in the case, it could change how deputies do their business on Valley streets.
At this point, there is only one thing both sides agree on: The litigation probably isn't nearing an end yet.
Attorneys for each class of citizens and for the Sheriff's Office filed a final set of written closing arguments late last week, making claims that have become familiar to those following the case's evolution or the seven-day bench trial that wrapped up earlier this month.
Plaintiffs attorneys portrayed it as a case in which an agency head, Sheriff Joe Arpaio, developed an illegal-immigration enforcement policy that resulted in deputies discriminating against Latinos. The sheriff's attorneys countered by describing Arpaio as the elected leader of a large, complex organization whose immigration pronouncements had no impact on how deputies performed their duties.
Snow will decide who is correct, and in doing so, whether the agency developed a policy that resulted in the violation of constitutional rights of Latino residents in Maricopa County.
Snow has offered no indication on when he might rule. Whatever decision he reaches, both parties say it will almost surely be appealed.
"Whoever is not satisfied with the result will appeal it, and it will be appealed in the Ninth Circuit, and my guess is, the issues are so important it may eventually make its way to the Supreme Court one day," said Tim Casey, an attorney representing the Sheriff's Office.
That sentiment was clear in closing arguments each side filed with Snow last week.
Attorneys for the plaintiffs reiterated their long-held belief that Arpaio chose to target illegal immigration in the mid-2000s and, as a result, conducted crime-suppression operations that were nothing more than an excuse for deputies to stop Latino drivers and question their immigration status.
They pointed out that crime-suppression operations did not target criminal activity aside from loitering by day laborers; that deputies were not given direction on what crime to target in the areas where they were conducting the operations; and that the only post-operation assessment the agency conducted to determine the success of the patrols was a count of undocumented immigrants arrested.
"That's a required and typical exercise, if you will, to demonstrate that what was reported and stated does not comply with the evidence," said Dan Pochoda, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona. "We also think there were significant -- obviously starting with the sheriff -- that there were very dramatic and clear differences in what he said there (in trial) and what was said in other places."
To win the case, plaintiffs have the burden to prove the Sheriff's Office intentionally sought to deny equal protection to Latino residents, or that the agency unreasonably detained and searched Hispanic residents. Their attorneys used part of their final statement to Snow to point out contradictions in the testimony of sheriff's deputies and administrators, including Arpaio. Those contradictions called into question the credibility of many sheriff's employees who testified, Pochoda said.
Arpaio's attorneys also relied on deputies' testimony to make their case in the final written arguments. The reason was simple, Casey said: Those deputies put the sheriff's policies into practice, not Arpaio.
During the trial, one of Arpaio's deputy chiefs, Brian Sands, told Snow that there was some disconnect between Arpaio's view of the world and the work that deputies actually perform during patrols in Maricopa County. Critics seized on the statement as a sign that Arpaio is out of touch with his agency. Arpaio's supporters said his attempts to delegate decisions are part of the reality of running a large, complex organization.
Proving that Arpaio's views do not influence operations essentially undermines one of the plaintiffs' main claims, Casey said: Faults within the Sheriff's Office start at the top and flow throughout the organization.
"The plaintiffs case rests on Arpaio being rotten ... (but) he's not doing the operations himself, he is not even planning the operations. If you want to make Arpaio the demon, he better be exercising that, and he's not," Casey said. "They said it was rotten from the head down. They better prove that it's rotten and every level is rotten, including the guys actually doing the work."
The attitudes of the parties involved might not have changed much since the lawsuit was filed in December 2007, but there is one significant difference in the sheriff's operations that Arpaio's attorneys noted in the closing argument.
Before the trial began, Snow told all involved that he is interested in what the Sheriff's Office is doing right now, not what deputies were doing in 2009 when Snow took over the case.
Throughout the trial, deputies and sheriff's administrators took the stand and testified that nothing has changed in the agency's approach to immigration enforcement, even after federal officials in 2009 stripped patrol deputies of their authority to enforce federal immigration law.
But in the closing argument, Casey pointed out that operations had changed fundamentally after the so-called 287(g) authority was removed, particularly because deputies could no longer detain suspected undocumented immigrants in order for the federally trained deputies to determine their status.
Since then, deputies have had to call federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials when they encounter a suspected illegal immigrant, Casey said. Then, federal authorities determine whether a suspect should be detained based on the federal government's own enforcement priorities.
Casey also cited the U.S. Supreme Court ruling on Arizona's immigration-enforcement law, Senate Bill 1070.
"There is no evidence that the MCSO is 'holding aliens in custody for possible unlawful presence without federal direction and supervision,' " Casey wrote.
Pochoda said the Supreme Court's decision on SB 1070 might have helped the plaintiff's case.
"The Supreme Court in the U.S. vs. Arizona decision said ... if you do detain people past the point that would be required to investigate the underlying reason for the stop, that could well be a Fourth Amendment unreasonable seizure," he said.
The case would go on to become a class-action civil-rights suit covering every Latino driver sheriff's deputies have stopped in the past five years. Depending how U.S. District Judge Murray Snow eventually rules in the case, it could change how deputies do their business on Valley streets.
At this point, there is only one thing both sides agree on: The litigation probably isn't nearing an end yet.
Attorneys for each class of citizens and for the Sheriff's Office filed a final set of written closing arguments late last week, making claims that have become familiar to those following the case's evolution or the seven-day bench trial that wrapped up earlier this month.
Plaintiffs attorneys portrayed it as a case in which an agency head, Sheriff Joe Arpaio, developed an illegal-immigration enforcement policy that resulted in deputies discriminating against Latinos. The sheriff's attorneys countered by describing Arpaio as the elected leader of a large, complex organization whose immigration pronouncements had no impact on how deputies performed their duties.
Snow will decide who is correct, and in doing so, whether the agency developed a policy that resulted in the violation of constitutional rights of Latino residents in Maricopa County.
Snow has offered no indication on when he might rule. Whatever decision he reaches, both parties say it will almost surely be appealed.
"Whoever is not satisfied with the result will appeal it, and it will be appealed in the Ninth Circuit, and my guess is, the issues are so important it may eventually make its way to the Supreme Court one day," said Tim Casey, an attorney representing the Sheriff's Office.
That sentiment was clear in closing arguments each side filed with Snow last week.
Attorneys for the plaintiffs reiterated their long-held belief that Arpaio chose to target illegal immigration in the mid-2000s and, as a result, conducted crime-suppression operations that were nothing more than an excuse for deputies to stop Latino drivers and question their immigration status.
They pointed out that crime-suppression operations did not target criminal activity aside from loitering by day laborers; that deputies were not given direction on what crime to target in the areas where they were conducting the operations; and that the only post-operation assessment the agency conducted to determine the success of the patrols was a count of undocumented immigrants arrested.
"That's a required and typical exercise, if you will, to demonstrate that what was reported and stated does not comply with the evidence," said Dan Pochoda, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona. "We also think there were significant -- obviously starting with the sheriff -- that there were very dramatic and clear differences in what he said there (in trial) and what was said in other places."
To win the case, plaintiffs have the burden to prove the Sheriff's Office intentionally sought to deny equal protection to Latino residents, or that the agency unreasonably detained and searched Hispanic residents. Their attorneys used part of their final statement to Snow to point out contradictions in the testimony of sheriff's deputies and administrators, including Arpaio. Those contradictions called into question the credibility of many sheriff's employees who testified, Pochoda said.
Arpaio's attorneys also relied on deputies' testimony to make their case in the final written arguments. The reason was simple, Casey said: Those deputies put the sheriff's policies into practice, not Arpaio.
During the trial, one of Arpaio's deputy chiefs, Brian Sands, told Snow that there was some disconnect between Arpaio's view of the world and the work that deputies actually perform during patrols in Maricopa County. Critics seized on the statement as a sign that Arpaio is out of touch with his agency. Arpaio's supporters said his attempts to delegate decisions are part of the reality of running a large, complex organization.
Proving that Arpaio's views do not influence operations essentially undermines one of the plaintiffs' main claims, Casey said: Faults within the Sheriff's Office start at the top and flow throughout the organization.
"The plaintiffs case rests on Arpaio being rotten ... (but) he's not doing the operations himself, he is not even planning the operations. If you want to make Arpaio the demon, he better be exercising that, and he's not," Casey said. "They said it was rotten from the head down. They better prove that it's rotten and every level is rotten, including the guys actually doing the work."
The attitudes of the parties involved might not have changed much since the lawsuit was filed in December 2007, but there is one significant difference in the sheriff's operations that Arpaio's attorneys noted in the closing argument.
Before the trial began, Snow told all involved that he is interested in what the Sheriff's Office is doing right now, not what deputies were doing in 2009 when Snow took over the case.
Throughout the trial, deputies and sheriff's administrators took the stand and testified that nothing has changed in the agency's approach to immigration enforcement, even after federal officials in 2009 stripped patrol deputies of their authority to enforce federal immigration law.
But in the closing argument, Casey pointed out that operations had changed fundamentally after the so-called 287(g) authority was removed, particularly because deputies could no longer detain suspected undocumented immigrants in order for the federally trained deputies to determine their status.
Since then, deputies have had to call federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials when they encounter a suspected illegal immigrant, Casey said. Then, federal authorities determine whether a suspect should be detained based on the federal government's own enforcement priorities.
Casey also cited the U.S. Supreme Court ruling on Arizona's immigration-enforcement law, Senate Bill 1070.
"There is no evidence that the MCSO is 'holding aliens in custody for possible unlawful presence without federal direction and supervision,' " Casey wrote.
Pochoda said the Supreme Court's decision on SB 1070 might have helped the plaintiff's case.
"The Supreme Court in the U.S. vs. Arizona decision said ... if you do detain people past the point that would be required to investigate the underlying reason for the stop, that could well be a Fourth Amendment unreasonable seizure," he said.
No comments:
Post a Comment