Joe Arpaio's Racial Profiling Trial Begins, and, Yes, He's Guilty as Sin
Given Joe's record in this department, Stanley Young, the lead attorney for the plaintiffs in the class-action lawsuit, was far more credible in his opening statement.
Reminding the court that one of "the fundamental values of this nation" is "equal protection under the law," he described how the plaintiffs would present evidence showing that the MCSO had engaged in a "pattern and practice" of racial discrimination against Hispanics.
MCSO officers and officials were characterized by their "denigration of Hispanics," Young said, no doubt alluding to MCSO e-mails with bigoted jokes and anti-Latino photos, which deputies shared among themselves.
The use of race became "a basis of suspicion" in the MCSO, and the actions of Arpaio, Sands, and others demonstrated the "influence of race at the highest level" on MCSO operations, Young explained.
Young asked the court for injunctive relief and the appointment of a court monitor to enforce orders given by the court.
To that point, Judge Snow, who seemed in a dyspeptic mood, had earlier raised some eyebrows when he advised both sides that he would make his decision, "based on the facts as they now stand, not as they were two years ago."
There was almost a collective "Huh?" in the audience, even among some of the lawyers, as all discovery in the case ceased (for the most part) in 2010.
During a break, ACLU of Arizona legal director Dan Pochoda, one of the lawyers for the plaintiffs, related his interpretation of that remark.
"You have to show that you're still facing a threat of future harm," he said, meaning that the plaintiffs must demonstrate that the "pattern and practice" of discrimination by the MCSO is ongoing.
Maybe the sweeps have stopped, but the MCSO's discriminatory policing continues. Arpaio's own boasting offers evidence, as the sheriff is always telling TV cameras that "nothing's changed" in his office, no matter what the courts or the feds do regarding immigration.
The remainder of the morning was taken up a long, tedious examination of a study done by Temple University Professor Ralph Taylor, who examined extensive data on MCSO traffic stops from 2007 to 2009.
Taylor found (surprise, surprise) that Latinos were more likely to be stopped, and that the stops lasted longer than stops for everyone else -- up to 22 percent more or two minutes longer, whenever a deputy was checking a Hispanic name.
As for the likelihood of getting stopped, Taylor's numbers depended on his control group.
Still, Hispanic names were 53.7 percent more likely to be checked during a saturation patrol when compared to non-saturation-patrol stops for the same day. Hispanics were up to 39.5 percent more likely to be stopped compared with dates one year earlier. And Hispanic names were around 22 percent more likely to be run by MCSO officers during a saturation patrol compared to all other days.
Casey's co-counsel, Tom Liddy of the Maricopa County Attorney's Office, handled the cross examination, and at least succeeded in waking everyone up. In a rumpled suit and wearing orange-tinted reading glasses, Liddy jousted with Taylor over Taylor's findings.
Beyond establishing that the data Taylor used was narrowed to a very specific category, Liddy wasn't very successful in impugning the professor's work, but at least he was amusing.
At one point, the pugnacious attorney, who is the son of Watergate conspirator G. Gordon Liddy, asked the prim and proper Taylor to read a document, going over it line by line.
Indicating the last portion of the page, Liddy asked, "Is there any more information there?"
Taylor paused, then smirked, "It says, `No further information.'"
"It's a trick question," Liddy cracked. "You passed."
The court broke for lunch in the midst of Liddy's cross. The schedule calls for court to adjourn at day's end and reconvene Tuesday, when Arpaio might be called to the stand, doing his Al Capone impersonation all the way, no doubt.
Email to Friend
Write to Editor
Print Article
