Joe Arpaio's "Corrective Statement" in Melendres Submitted to Federal Judge
Not sure I'll believe this until I see Sheriff Joe Arpaio's geriatric scrawl on it, but reproduced at the bottom of this post is the so-called "corrective statement," filed by the MCSO's attorney Tim Casey in the ACLU's big civil rights lawsuit Melendres v. Arpaio.
You'll recall that on May 24, 2013, federal Judge G. Murray Snow essentially found the MCSO guilty of racially profiling Latinos during traffic stops and ordered that this unconstitutional activity cease.
Snow issued an injunction in October, detailing what the MCSO would have to do to comply with his May judgement.
In January, Snow appointed former Rochester, NY police chief Robert Warshaw as his monitor, to make sure that his order is followed.
But Arpaio is a hard case, and his command staff ain't much better. Since Snow's ruling and final injunction, Arpaio, his Chief Deputy Jerry Sheridan, and most recently Deputy Chief David Trombi have all been caught belittling and mischaracterizing the judge's findings. (Note: Here, "mischaracterizing" is a polite term for "spewing self-serving whoppers.")
So Snow ordered that the defense work with the plaintiffs to come up with a "corrective statement," outlining the MCSO's gaffes and relating what Snow's decision actually says.
Last week, Casey filed "the parties' counsels' agreed upon draft corrective statement," and it is a particularly delicious document, as Arpaio will no longer be able to claim, as he did in a recent fundraising letter, that accusations of racial profiling against his office are "unfounded."
Moreover, the statement makes clear that not only are Arpaio and the MCSO guilty as sin, but even the MCSO's appeal to the Ninth Circuit is limited in scope.
Check this lovely passage:
Based on the evidence presented at trial, the Court found that the MCSO has violated the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights of Latinos because the MCSO used race or ethnicity in conducting traffic stops.
We are appealing the court's order only as far as it covers traffic stops outside of saturation patrols. We are not appealing the Court's findings that MCSO violated the constitutional rights of Latinos during saturation patrols. That conclusion of the Court will not be altered by the appeal even if the MCSO prevails on that appeal.