Joe Arpaio Heads to Trial July 19 in Racial Profiling Lawsuit

mexifornia.jpg
One of hundreds of exhibits showing a culture of bias in the MCSO

More than four years after it was first filed, and more than three years since the American Civil Liberties Union lodged its amended complaint in the case, the big racial profiling lawsuit against Sheriff Joe Arpaio --  Melendres v. Arpaio -- will finally go to trial this summer.

That is, if the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office and the U.S. Department of Justice don't come to some agreement on the same issues first. 

In a hearing today, both sides in the lawsuit met to hammer out various pre-trial matters before U.S. District Court Judge G. Murray Snow. After some dickering over dates, Snow scheduled a seven day trial to begin July 19.

Initially, Snow wanted to start the trial earlier, but Arpaio attorney Tim Casey begged off that one, telling the judge that MCSO Deputy Chief Brian Sands, a key witness, already had booked a trip to Europe beginning July 6. 

Snow moved back the date, and it looks like Sands will get to see the Eiffel Tower while stuffing his concrete mug full of baguette at long last. 

The judge set other ground rules, generally giving each side 20 hours to present its case. He dispensed with opening arguments, noting that there would be no jury and he was painfully familiar with all the pertinent facts. 

Later, the judge asked the defense about ongoing talks between the MCSO and the DOJ, noting that an agreement between those parties could "moot all or part of this case." 

Currently, the DOJ is in negotiations with the MCSO in an attempt to have the sheriff's office address the Justice Department's December finding that Arpaio's agency engages in widespread racial profiling, as well as a pattern and practice of discrimination against Latinos in its jails.

Casey confirmed that there would be "more detailed discussions" between the MCSO and the DOJ within the next ten days. 

His colleague Tom Liddy, representing the Maricopa County Attorney's Office, commented that "the issues in [Melendres] are a very broad subset of those" being addressed by the MCSO-DOJ talks. He told the judge he did not think the parties would seal a deal without informing the court.

The DOJ is well acquainted with what's going on in Melendres. California lawyer Stanley Young, the lead attorney for the plaintiffs, revealed that the plaintiffs and the DOJ have a "common interest agreement," allowing them to share information.

Snow also ruled on various motions before him, the most significant being the admission of scores of bigoted letters from Maricopa County residents to Arpaio complaining about Spanish speakers, day laborers, and the presence of Mexicans in general. 

The exhibits in question include internal MCSO e-mails, which I first wrote about last year. The e-mails contain various vile, racist jokes and pictures targeting Mexicans.

Arpaio's lawyers had asked that the exhibits not be admitted. Without any discussion, Snow denied their motion.

For the most part, the hearing was a snoozer, with fireworks only occurring after Snow adjourned and reporters gathered outside the Sandra Day O'Connor U.S. Courthouse to lob questions at attorneys for both sides.

Young seemed pleased with the judge's decisions, though Snow delayed ruling on one issue concerning a witness for the defense until he had reviewed it further. The attorney indicated that the plaintiffs had submitted a "proposal" to the sheriff's office regarding a possible settlement, but he declined to give details.

See, the plaintiffs are not suing for damages. Rather, they are looking for an injunction that will force the MCSO to end its racial-profiling ways. 

As Young and his team moved on, Casey and Liddy came out, and the journos dogged them for quotes. Asked specifically about the bigoted letters from citizens to Arpaio that would now be used as evidence against the MCSO, Casey conceded that "many were inappropriate" but that Arpaio "never took action" on them.

That is incorrect, as Village Voice Media Editor Michael Lacey observed in his January 12 commentary, "Coddling Joe." 

Indeed, one need only look at Judge Snow's December 23 order wherein he sanctioned the defendants for withholding hundreds of documents requested by the plaintiffs.

My Voice Nation Help
47 comments
Yourproductsucks
Yourproductsucks

Nothing about you is "lil.". You and micheal Mooore could be twins.

...and physically assaulting consists of " touching another with the intent to provoke, incite or injure." Should Liddy make issue of it, you placing your hands on him could certainly meet the necessary requisites for assault.

sven
sven

you should look up the word "intent" you moron!!!

Yourproductsucks
Yourproductsucks

When Stephen touched Liddy, he intendedto provoke a response. It wasn't incidental or accidental. Thank you for your input.

Tommy Collins
Tommy Collins

 That's mush, and you know it. The three elements of a criminal act are (1) ability, (2) opportunity, and (3) motive. If all three aren't present there is no criminal act. Brushing next to someone while walking is hardly a crime, unless proven to be intentional and intended to injure.

Yourproductsucks
Yourproductsucks

intent to injure OR provoke OR incite. Read the statute- http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDoc...

Yourproductsucks
Yourproductsucks

You habitually paint an entire group of people with broad brushes based on ignorance and hate. Your bigoted accusations are meaningless.

shadeaux14
shadeaux14

 I have a question for you Dingle. Racial profiling is a crime, right? You work for an organization which commits this crime on a regular basis. It therefore follows that this organization engages in regular criminal activity. You choose to remain in this organization and defend it's actions.

What does that make you?

Bnbk
Bnbk

What the hell does Mr. Lemmon's physical appearance have to do with the topic of this story ?

Yourproductsucks
Yourproductsucks

He described himself as"lil ole me" opening himself up to criticism.

mikefrombisbee
mikefrombisbee

If that is the way it went, Lemons' actions most certainly did not meet the standard for intent in the statute. No intent to cause physical injury. No intent to provoke, nor incite. Nor did it provoke or incite. What you have suggested involves stretching the definition of assault to absurd lengths - what is referred to by prosecutors and defense attorneys as "throwing shit at the wall to see what would stick." Kinda like going to the homes of New Times publishers and editors and arresting them for publishing America's self-proclaimed toughest sheriff's address. Or conducting a witch hunt of superior court judges and county officials. How DID that work out? Not that Joe or his flying monkeys would worry about that, right? Tell me, do you get a pat on the head from Joe each time you post here?

Yourproductsucks
Yourproductsucks

I did not see Casey's nor Liddy's version of what happened. There are three sides to every story- his, hers, and somewhere in the middle is the truth.

I think we can all agree that Lemons was the aggressor in this event. He admits he was pursuing the other two and "peppering" or badgering them. I've watched Stephen in action and he is insolent and aggressive in an attempt to incite the target to respond negatively so he can capture the response on video and edit it in a way to cast the most negative light on that subject.

He INCITES a response from others. He also knows better than to TOUCH another person like he did Liddy. He wasn't 'gal pals' and would have flipped a lid if he was touched in the same manner by either one of them. All of it would have been caught on tape by his portly pal.

Lemons should post the video of the event, unedited. Let's see what really happened Stephen. Show your fans your dirty side.

Yourproductsucks
Yourproductsucks

Defend your statements with facts or recant. Otherwise you are a liar and your most recent lie is stating you don't lie.

mikefrombisbee
mikefrombisbee

 I don't lie. You tap dance on this issue for no good reason. 

Guest
Guest

You still didn't address your bullshit about Lemons and Lester at the state capitol. Didn't happen. You lie like a rug. And L-man never "cried" bor complained about beingassaulted.

Eleanor Holguin
Eleanor Holguin

Thank you for saying this. I am tired of people using his death without knowing the facts. I would like to know the truth.

Yourproductsucks
Yourproductsucks

Who is Marty Attecio? Do you mean Marty Atencio?

There was not even one deputy involved in the arrest, transportation, or detention of Mr Atencio. There were, however, several officers from Phoenix PD. not that you care about Marty as evidenced in your lack of respect to even spell his name correctly. It's disgusting, those like you who twist and contort the tragedy of this nature in order to pander to a political agenda. Shame on you!

shadeaux14
shadeaux14

Contrary to Deputy Dingleberry's analysis, in Maricopa County, there's the truth, and then there's the MCSO version.

By the way Dingle, How's the investigation into the murder of Marty Attecio going? Made any arrests yet? You remember Marty don't you? He's the UNARMED prisoner it took eight baton wielding, mace spraying, taser zapping MCSO detention officers and deputies to kill. I'm reminding you in case, like your boss, you "can't recall."

Yourproductsucks
Yourproductsucks

The answers to your questions- nope

Now answer the question I asked- Why are you compelled to make up lies in order to bolster your argument?

Where did I state the things you accused me of stating?

Let's see you show some accountability.

mikefrombisbee
mikefrombisbee

 Is it necessary for you to dance and spin to try to defend a lame argument? The real story here is that your corrupt, incompetent narcissistic old boss is headed to federal court and has lots of explaining to do. The real story is that there is strong evidence of a law enforcement agency being misused by its command staff to play up to nativist fear and hatred. And that kind of policy from the top sickens and poisons a department. It can't be a good experience to work in such an organization.

Do you honestly think all the silly shit your boss does to get attention for himself contributes to the safety of the people of Maricopa County?  

Guest
Guest

Huh? Lemons and Lester Pearce at the state Capitol? Now you're just making shit up. Plus Lemons has never cried about being assaulted. I remember the cone incident. He didn't claim assault in that. Get your facts straight. Plus why are you so obsessed with Lemons. Dyo live in your mom's basement or what?

Guest
Guest

You're also assuming PPD wld take such a piddly claim. I doubt they'd look twice at this childish bullshit.

Yourproductsucks
Yourproductsucks

Where, exactly did I assert that anyone was attempting to 'start a fight' or 'inflict bodily harm?'

Is it necessary to make up lies in order to bolster your argument?

This story and Lemon's actions make him a hypocrite. Look up 'the cone incident' on YouTube and listen to Lemons whine and cry about being 'assaulted' or more recently the scenario with lemons and Lester Pearce at the State Capital.

Lemon's knows the law and knows his actions breached 13-1203a3.

mikefrombisbee
mikefrombisbee

 Aggressor? Trying to start a fight? Incite? Inflict bodily harm? You've been working for Joe far too long. You know that's bullshit and would never go anywhere in court. If Liddy and Casey (two lawyers) thought it was an assault they would have ended it by calling 911 and pressing charges. You work in a sick organization that is sick because of the pathology of the upper command structure. At the very top is a corrupt, narcissistic old man who can't let go. He can't let go. Don't try to defend it. Step up to stop the sickness.

Yourproductsucks
Yourproductsucks

Phoenix PD would have jurisdiction. Nothing selective about protecting your right to not be accosted by a media personality.

Guest
Guest

I hope YPS is right and they charge Lemons. Not only would Lemons win hands down, Liddy and Casey would look like huge wussies. And Lemons would reap the benefit of all the media attention. Not to mention the selective prosecution, abuse of power, and so on that would go with it. And the lawsuit that would be inevitable which the county would have to defend against and likely end up settling. (New Times owners are still suing over their arrests, BTW.)

Be careful what you wish for, YPS. Lemons may just cash in on this one!

Yourproductsucks
Yourproductsucks

Lemons asked Liddy if his actions equalled assault. I provided the definition of assault and based on Lemons rendition of events made a simple statement that Lemons actions certainly could fit the definition of assault.

That is hardly making a mountain out of a mole hill. Arpaio's actions (past or present) nor a past exposure to pepper spray have anything to do with this story or the interaction between Liddy, Casey, Lemons and his cellphone carrying sidekick. Nice attempt at diversion though.

ManofWar
ManofWar

Nah. I've seen Arpaio touch Lemons in the same avuncular manner. He didnt freak. Don't you remember when Lemons got blasted by pepper spray by the cops? He didnt whine about it. Just kept doing his job, like he was doing here. He was asking Casey a tough question. One he didn't want to answer. You're making a mountain out of a molehill, YPS. Let go of the hate.

Eleanor Holguin
Eleanor Holguin

There you go again..... That's what I like about you, you don't mind rocking the boat.

Jewel in the desert
Jewel in the desert

If you think this product sucks so much....why do you spend so much of your time reading and responding to it?  You and "guest" are just annoying pebbles that are momentarily stuck in our shoes and quickly tossed aside.

Bnbk
Bnbk

Puleeeze YPS.

BossMonk
BossMonk

"
Should Liddy make issue of it, you placing your hands on him could certainly meet the necessary requisites for assault."

God, please! That would make Liddy a bigger laughingstock than his dad...

Wasillawitch
Wasillawitch

Anyone think Montgomery has the balls to go after this one?

PossumPie
PossumPie

brushing up against someone is "intent to provoke, incite or injure"? if so i assault people every time i get on the elevator.

guest
guest

you do if you intentionally provoke, incite or injure. or were you posting about your  personal hygiene?

Yourproductsucks
Yourproductsucks

Ahh, Hats of to the fallacious emotional appeal. Let's stick to the argument at hand rather than moving the goal posts mid game.

sven
sven

If Mr. Lemmon's so called intended assault seems to put such a wrinkle in your panties......how about advocating for the families of the 400 plus sex crimes victims at the hands of the incompetent MCSO? Imagine someone not accidentally brushing their arm against another's as they're walking BUT someone  being raped and the crime goes uninvestigated by the law enforcement agency in charge? this is could of been your relative!!!!!!

Yourproductsucks
Yourproductsucks

MCSO would have nothing to do with The possible investigation, arrest or prosecution of the above described altercation. I don't know why you find it necessary to continue dragging MCSO into it. If Casey or Liddy decide to file charges against Lemons it will be the Phoenix Police Department that investigate it.

Again, you are taking lemons version of the story at face value. In doing so, I agree that his bumping of Casey was most likely accidental, although initiated by Lemons breach of personal space and his lack of any athleticism in order to control his gluttonous mass. However, I continue to maintain that his subsequent contact with Liddy was unacceptable and, should Liddy take offense to it, criminal. Lemons has no business touching Liddy in that circumstance. The two aren't chums. It's obviously an adversarial encounter, one initiated and continued by lemons. Lemons TOUCHED Liddy with the intent to INCITE a response. That is assault. It is easily prosecutable. Lemon will have had the entire incident taped. So there is evidence showing the whole thing. I wonder what Lemons will do with the evidence...destroy it perhaps?

Bnbk
Bnbk

So I guess any time some one bumps into you on a crowded walk way or gives you a pat on the back that would be considered a crime ? What I am saying is that while technically they would fall under a prosecutable "crime", they would more than likely not stand a chance in hell of getting a conviction under the circumstances. You & I both know that law enforcement officers can use their own descretion in interpeting such laws & regularly do. Tell me YPS,do you not take into consideration any underlying circumstances when confronted with these types of situations ?......... What I allude to in my MCSO comment(which I should have clarified) is the fact that Arpaio's (MCSO's) policies have been to target his political enemies all the while turning a blind eye to any & all lawbreaking allies.......... I find it hillarious that this Arpaio counselor would respond to Mr. Lemmons question with this juvenile hand & mouth gesture for a blow job,while the other conselor makes a threat of filing assault charges over what would seem to be inadvertent contact between Mr. Lemmons & Mr. Casey.

Yourproductsucks
Yourproductsucks

I am not sure what you are alluding to, but enforcement of any law requires- a victim willing to prosecute and probable cause that the elements of the crime were met.

It's not difficult and it's not as subjective as you attempt to make it.

RiceKKKrispy
RiceKKKrispy

Sure is. Under the stand and deliver bullets law. the communist Lemons would be face down in the gutter, pickin lead out wif his teeth. U can't accidentally brush up on someone on de street. That's beggin for a shootin

Bnbk
Bnbk

Yes,and how many times do you enforce it,maybe selective enforcement ? Not quite equal protection under the law. Is that the MCSO way?

PossumPie
PossumPie

Ur being ridiculous, dude. 

guest
guest

yourproductsucks is right, you're a fat sloppy fucker, not little at all.

Dogbiter
Dogbiter

You two are morons! Obviously...

Now Trending

From the Vault

 

General

Home

Loading...