Search: Web        
powered by
Le Templar: What I Know ~

Archive for the 'Maricopa County sheriff' Category

Stapley arrest suggests Arpaio losing savvy

September 21st, 2009, 4:13 pm by Le Templar

Is there anyone who takes at face value a claim from Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio that his office’s arrest of county Supervisor Don Stapley this morning has absolutely no connection to Friday’s dismissal of the remaining criminal counts against Stapley from a previous case? Of course, some people believe the original investigation and arrest of Stapley was spurred after Stapley publicly questioned Arpaio’s management of the sheriff’s office in the wake of the Tribune’s Pulitzer Prize-winning series, “Reasonable Doubt.” It’s part of the reason that Maricopa County government has become a feuding snake pit, with Stapley’s colleagues essentially siding with him and against Arpaio in various power struggles and lawsuits.

But a lot of people outside of county government were willing to give Arpaio a lot of leeway politically. Stapley has been a county supervisor for a long time, but he’s also a real estate developer who has close ties to a convicted felon. Perhaps the sheriff’s investigators really had found some wrongdoing on Stapley’s part, many people reasoned.

But to claim today’s arrest was a complete coincidence? I don’t think hardly anyone is going to believe Arpaio this time. This investigation has been underway since January, and supposedly was finished 12 days ago. But Arpaio’s office didn’t refer the case to County Attorney Andrew Thomas or another prosecutor to seek an indictment, which is the typical step for a complex and lengthy investigation targeting an elected official. No, Arpaio or one of his supervisors just randomly decided today was the day to rush out and arrest Stapley. Oh, sure.

The bad timing can only damage the state’s efforts to actually convict Stapley if the sheriff does have credible evidence of felony crimes. Certainly, any judge or jury is going at least wonder if the filing of another 100 criminal charges at this point is politically motivated.

Today’s arrest was the wrong legal move and it didn’t help Arpaio’s public image either. That seems rather odd for a sheriff who usually finesses the latter so well.

RELATED:

Sheriff’s Office: Stapley arrested in tax, campaign, business fraud

County treasurer demands more funding

August 25th, 2009, 11:14 am by Le Templar
Charles "Hos" Hoskins

Charles "Hos" Hoskins

An escalating clash of wills and politics now grips Maricopa County government, as a new lawsuit challenging the Board of Supervisors seems to be filed every day, a number of elected officials are now gunning to get County Manager David Smith fired, and the sheriff seems to be investigating just about everyone else.

One of two new lawsuits revealed yesterday involves county Treasurer Charles Hoskins, who claims Smith and the Board of Supervisors have cut his budget and are interfering with his management decisions to the point that he can’t carry out his constitutional duties. He wants the courts to raise his funding from $2.6 million to $3.4 million and allow him to fill several vacant staff positions.

Arizona’s rich history probably doesn’t include fighting of this intensity between county elected officials. So the courts might need to look to Texas for guidance how to mediate these disputes. When I worked there in the late 1990s, conflicts between the Texan equivalent of a Board of Supervisors and other elected officials was a common, and sometimes comical, feature. In Wichita County, the county treasurer sued the county board twice in five years for failing to fund her office adequately and for meddling with her ability to do her job. The treasurer won both times.

Arizona courts have been somewhat less willing to intercede in what they consider to be political disputes. So Hoskins might not get the relief he seeks. But he could have a case if he can show exactcly how the Board of Supervisors’ actions have disrupted his office.

Apraio looks to spoil Gascon’s final hurrah

July 23rd, 2009, 11:27 am by Le Templar
Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio

Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio

Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s deputies (and along with Pinal County deputies) have started another “crime suppression sweep” across a wide swath of the East Valley. Today just happens to be Mesa’s formal goodbye party for the city’s police chief, George Gascon, who is leaving for San Francisco.

Given the story about Gascon that the Tribune printed online Tuesday night, I have no idea how Arpaio says the following this morning and expects anyone with a modicum of intelligence to believe him:

“I don’t care about this guy,” Arpaio told Tribune writer Gary Grado. “I don’t know his birthday, I don’t know his last day.”

This contrasts with what was sent on Twitter Wednesday to followers of @RealSheriffJoe:

I wish the Mesa police Chief a safe move to San Fran,and if I’m ever in san Fran? maybe he’ll invite me to an italian dinner.”

Arpaio has gone out of his way to tell people that this is his real Twitter account. So he can’t pretend now that he didn’t say it. Whether or not Arpaio was being sincere on Twitter, clearly he cares about Gascon’s departure.

And today’s crime suppression sweep is no coincidence.


Gaining insight from inside the jury room

May 15th, 2009, 5:51 pm by Le Templar

superiorcourtweb

I’ve been away from this blog for a while because I spent much of the week serving as juror No. 1 in the state of Arizona v. Sara Byron, a criminal trial before Maricopa County Superior Court in downtown Phoenix.  Being called to jury duty is quite common these days, as at least one of every four adults in this county receives a summons in a single year. Perhaps that’s why so many people who came to the courthouse last week were visibly upset at the idea of getting picked for a trial, even if it lasted only a few days.

On the other hand, it’s still rare for daily news journalists to actually be sworn in. Too often, we know about the case at hand, or we know some of the court officials and law enforcement investigators involved, or we simply can’t be trusted to avoid news reports as the trial progresses.

So I had never been in a jury pool before, which disappointed me because I have long considered jury service to be one of the two basic duties of every U.S. citizen (the other duty is voting). I did have some idea how a Maricopa County jury works, thanks to a 2002 ABC television series called “State v.” But I always wanted to experience this firsthand. Juries from a cross-section of the community are an essential check on the power of a potentially overzealous government, an issue that came up in this particular trial.

Nervous about working with complete strangers who didn’t want to be there, I was pleasantly surprised by what happened. The five women and three men (and two alternates) were normal people with interesting lives who strove in small ways to make our task less onerous – from holding the elevator door for each other to sharing lunch bills to bringing donuts and other treats for the jury deliberation room. It also helped that all of us wanted to follow the rules as outlined by Judge John Hannah. And we shared the same views about the criminal case as soon as the closing arguments were over.

Sara Byron co-owned a dental office in Sun City West, and she was locked in a bitter legal dispute with another co-owner, the dentist, who claimed he actually controlled the business. About a year ago, someone went into the office in the middle of the night, poured gasoline around various pieces of the expensive equipment and started several fires which eventually burned themselves out.

Suspicion fell on Byron because the arsonist got into the building without breaking any door locks or windows. Her alleged motives were revenge against the dentist who dragged her into court, or to obtain insurance money to buy the business outright. But Byron pointed to her roommate and close friend Donavan Bering. After a series of interviews, Bering eventually confessed to the detective that she arranged for the arson with another roommate, Zachary Proctor, who was the one who entered the building and set the fires. Bering and Proctor both pleaded guilty to felony arson.

At this point, you’re probably wondering why Byron as the co-owner was on trial. Well, the roommate Bering said she actually planned the crime with Byron, who handed over a key to the office to make it happen. But Byron insisted the roommate was lying. Bryon told a sheriff’s detective she never would want the business destroyed; that’s why she had fought so hard with the dentist to keep it. Assistant Maricopa County Attorney Jon Wendell didn’t buy Byron’s story, and took the case to trial.

Unfortunately for the prosecutor, Bering was the only person to claim that Byron was part of the conspiracy, and Bering was a terrible witness. Her explanations changed wildly over time. She couldn’t reconcile her story that Byron expected the fire to be disguised as an accident for the insurance money, with how the arson actually was carried out in such an obvious manner. Byron’s defense lawyer, Justin Beresky, called a litany of witnesses who testified that Bering constantly lied about events in her life to manipulate other people.

Finally, Bering’s accomplice, who came across as far more credible, testified for the defense that he wasn’t given any reason to believe Byron was involved.

Once we jurors gathered in our windowless conference room, one woman didn’t even want to bother with deliberations. Quoting from the judge’s instructions, she argued for an immediate vote of not guilty, “The state has the burden of proving its case beyond a reasonable doubt, and this is not even close!”

But Carol the forewoman said we owed it to the state (and county taxpayers) to review all of the evidence and be confident in our final decision. That required about 45 minutes of discussion. As we kept identifying more holes in the prosecution’s case, several of us wondered why there was a trial in the first place. Wendell’s explanation in his closing argument, and again to the jurors after the verdict was read, was that Byron had to be guilty “because she was the only one who benefited” if the business was destroyed.

And that’s the ultimate beauty of including citizen jurors in the administration of justice. If you believe in the concept of innocent until proven guilty, then we never should convict someone simply because a government prosecutor or judge wants to believe that person did wrong. Jurors apply common sense and a diversity of experiences to test whether the accused really deserves to lose her freedom and reputation.

Sara Byron cried and whispered “thank you” as the jurors walked past after the judge had read our verdict. It was our reward for doing our duty as citizens in a country that values liberty so deeply.

Texas town highlights why we can’t ignore abuse of police power

March 17th, 2009, 12:23 pm by Le Templar

It’s hard for a lot of people in Maricopa County to understand why there’s so much national consternation about Sheriff Joe Arpaio and his tactics for arresting illegal immigrants. I suspect one reason behind the gap between local and national views is because we are simply so close to the issue. “Illegal immigration is a huge problem here. Sheriff Arpaio is trying to do something about it. What more do we need to know?”

Well, I came across a story over the weekend that provides an analogy for why it’s important to not simply take Arpaio at his word and to independently determine if the rights of American citizens and foreigners are being trampled under the guise of cracking down on illegal activity.

Tenaha is a tiny town of 1,046 on the Texas-Louisana border that appears to have an official policy of forcing black travelers to turn over their money and their vehicles to the police to avoid facing drug charges. The Chicago Tribune reported on a federal class-action lawsuit filed against the town. The leading lawyer says only about one in four cases did Tenaha actually charge someone with drug possession from 2006 to 2008. Nearly three-quarters of the time, the police seized anything they could put their hands on without finding any drugs, or at least without charging the “suspects” with a crime.

The police tactic described is particularly chilling. Imagine traveling by motor vehicle to a distant part of the country. You are carrying extra cash, maybe because you are going to gamble at a casino, or maybe you just don’t trust credit cards. You are pulled over in a small town by the local police and they come up with a reason to search your car. Then, you are shocked when told they found some drugs hidden under the seat or in the trunk. You are facing felony charges and potentially serious jail time.

The police say if you will “voluntarily” turn over your money and some other possessions, they will let you go and the justice system will look more favorably on you if this eventually goes to court.

You know the police are lying about finding any drugs. But if you say “no,” you have to come up with bail money and you will be fighting this dark cloud far from home for months. Say “yes” and you lose your belongings, but at least you can walk away.

Officials in Tenaha say they are using state drug forfeiture laws as a tool to challenge a large amount of drug trafficking that passes through their community.

“We try to enforce the law,” Mayor George Bowers told the Chicago Tribune. “We’re not doing this to raise money.”

So, do you buy the mayor’s explanation? I sure don’t.

Add in the fact that police have pre-printed forms because they handle this type of “transaction” so often, and the evidence that blacks seem to be targeted beyond all rational proportions, and it seems like something sinister is going on.

The Tenaha mayor’s explanation has some eerie similarities to what the sheriff’s office said when it tried to convince Tribune reporters last year that deputies weren’t violating anyone’s civil rights while making illegal immigration stops, despite what those reporters saw with their own eyes.

It’s good that the federal government is taking a close look at what Arpaio is doing. What kind of long-term success can we hope to achieve against the dangers of illegal immigration if we have to sacrifice liberty and freedom from police abuse in the process?

Dan Saban gets smart … in a car

July 3rd, 2008, 12:27 pm by Le Templar

sabansmartcar.JPG
Photo courtesy of Saban campaign

   For some reason I can’t explain, I got quite a laugh when I first saw this photograph of Dan Saban, Democratic candidate for Maricopa County sheriff, riding high (low? sideways?) in a decked out Smart Car. So I thought I’d share.
   The Saban campaign sent out the photo with a news release about how Saban’s attitude toward fuel economy reflects the fiscal responsibility he would bring to the sheriff’s office. I don’t discount his sincerity. But I sure hope Saban doesn’t think sheriff’s deputies are going to be catching any criminals by chasing them in one of these vehicles.

Dan Saban finally speaks out on Sheriff Arpaio

May 15th, 2008, 10:30 am by Le Templar

dansaban2008.gif

Dan Saban 

   Opinion writers at the Tribune were informally discussing Wednesday the story about Gov. Janet Napolitano taking $1.6 million in funding that Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio has been using for illegal immigration enforcement. One question I had: Where is Dan Saban, the alleged Democratic challenger to Arpaio’s fifth term as sheriff?
Saban has been remarkably quiet as a candidate, given that he has been working for more than five years to defeat Arpaio, a Republican, at the ballot box.
   I don’t see Saban standing next to Phoenix Mayor Phil Gordon or Guadalupe Mayor Rebecca Jimenez when they complain about Arpaio’s illegal immigrant sweeps. I don’t see Saban standing next to Phoenix attorney Michael Manning when he claims the county jails are so poorly run that inmates are routinely dying in Arpaio’s custody. In fact, I don’t see Saban much of anywhere, other than occasional quotes in the Phoenix New Times, which has a full-fledged mission to drive Arpaio out of office.
   If Saban isn’t prepared to instantly react to these legitimate controversies, then what exactly is Saban’s campaign up to? In fact, why isn’t Saban, who has decades of service in Valley law enforcement, among the first to tackle those issues that Arpaio’s critics believe should bring the sheriff down?
   In other words, is Saban a serious candidate or is he wasting everyone’s time including Joe Arpaio’s?
   So it was interesting to find in my email shortly after that meeting a guest column from Saban talking about who should serve criminal warrants, the issue that underlies this week’s feud between Arpaio and Napolitano. Now, I happen to disagree with Saban that Arpaio and other Arizona sheriffs have any unique responsibility for serving warrants and tracking down fugitives. Given the mobility of American society, and our proximity to the Mexican border, this task belongs to every law enforcement agency and should be addressed through broad alliances and task forces. (Just like Napolitano has now ordered the Department of Public Safety to do.) But I respect that Saban is actually speaking out on how he would manage the sheriff’s office differently than Arpaio.
   Today, Saban followed up with an early notice to the media that he will be turning in his signature petitions on Friday to formally qualify for the September primary ballot.
   Maricopa County voters deserve a robust debate about Arpaio’s 16 years in office and whether he should have another term. Perhaps Saban is finally starting to fully engage in that debate.

Napolitano, Arpaio feud likely to delay next state budget

May 14th, 2008, 3:14 pm by Le Templar

arpaioweiers.JPG

From left: Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas, Sheriff Joe Arpaio and state House Speaker Jim Weiers at a news conference Monday (Capitol Media Services).

   There go those hopes of seeing the next state budget adopted anytime soon.
Stalled budget talks are likely to get caught up in the immediate fallout from Gov. Janet Napolitano’s decision to take away $1.6 million that Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio has been using for illegal immigration enforcement.
   One lawmaker with at least some influence was standing next to Arpaio Monday at a hastily called news conference to protest Napolitano’s act. Another lawmaker who knows a thing or two about state budgets was the primary champion of Arpaio’s funding last year.
   I expect both of them to rattle all sorts of cages in and around the Capitol unless Napolitano does the unlikely and changes her mind about using the $1.6 million to fund a new statewide fugitive warrant task force. Certainly, Republican leaders will try telling Napolitano face-to-face she has to give Arpaio his money back if she wants budget negotiations to go anywhere.
   The governor, a Democrat, has won most budget showdowns with Republicans in the past. Even with the public volatility of the illegal immigration debate, I wouldn’t bet against her this time either. For those who can’t get things done without a deadline, the state budget has to be adopted by June 30 to avoid any risk of violating the state constitution.

Ignore the rumors, Arpaio is in charge

April 19th, 2008, 10:09 am by Le Templar

arpaio.jpg

Sheriff Joe Arpaio (Tribune photo)

You might have seen the Tribune story Friday about Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio telling Guadalupe that the town has 180 days to embrace his approach to illegal immigration enforcement, or to find a new local police agency. Arpaio dropped this bit of news during a meeting with the Tribune Editorial Board. Arpaio, his top deputy on illegal immigration issues and a pair of publicity handlers came to Mesa to discuss how immigration enforcement has evolved over the past three years at the sheriff’s office. You’ll read more about that in the near future.

But I want to address for a moment widespread rumors that Arpaio doesn’t really run the sheriff’s office anymore. Stories are being told in courtroom hallways and coffee shops that old age has caught up with Arpaio; that he’s lost a sizeable amount of his mental faculties. The rumors continue that Arpaio is largely a figurehead and public face while shadowy assistants are actually in charge, making all of controversial decisions but escaping most public scrutiny. I saw absolutely no evidence of this during our 90-minute conversation with Arpaio Friday. He was firmly in control of the meeting and had a clear understanding of what the office has done on illegal immigration and how that has changed over time. He anticipated questions and never was befuddled or confused.

As with publicists and public information officers everywhere, Lisa Allen MacPherson and Capt. Paul Chagolla did seek several times to further explain or clarify Arpaio’s comments. But Arpaio interrupted them almost as often to make the point his way or to move on to another topic.

Whether you love or hate Arpaio’s approach to illegal immigration, I’m convinced he knows exactly what he’s doing.

ADVERTISEMENT