Published On: Wed, Jul 27th, 2016

Sheriff Owes Taxpayers $6M for Contempt in Racial Profiling Case

Susanne.Posel-Headline.News.Official- sheriff.joe.arpaio.racial.profiling.contempt.6.million.taxpayers_occupycorporatismSusanne Posel ,Chief Editor Occupy Corporatism | Media Spokesperson, HEALTH MAX Group

Sheriff Joe Arpaio is in trouble with the law and the opposing attorneys want him to pay up.

Nearly six million dollars in fees have racked up in the contempt of court case against Arpaio and three of his deputies for intentionally violating court orders; as well as the sheriff’s “intention to violate and manipulate the laws and policies regulating their conduct.”

So far Apraio has cost the people of Maricopa County over $10.4 million.

US District Court Judge Murray Snow has already issued several punishments for Arpaio’s civil contempt case. Now Snow is deciding whether or not to charge Arpaio with criminal contempt.

The sheriff is facing fees, fines and even jail time.

Arpaio is being accused of racial profiling and using policing tactics against resident Hispanics and alleged undocumented immigrants.

The sheriff has been using “saturation patrols” reminiscent of the slave patrols in the pre-Civil War South. These roaming officers were tasked with “rounding up people in the country without proper documents” by “stopping cars” without probable cause and “detaining people while they ran immigration status checks through the federal government’s database.”

Several years ago Arpaio’s tactics were ruled illegal and the sheriff was told to stop. At the time the judge ordered “a sweeping overhaul of the agency, including making patrol officers wear body cameras and conducting more training to ensure officers aren’t making unconstitutional traffic stop.”

Regardless of this order, Arpaio violated the court’s ruling and did so publicly; including “letting deputies conduct his signature immigration patrols 18 months after the judge barred them.”

The 162 page decision, the court decided that Arpaio “intentionally failed” to participate in the injunction; and rather chose to engage “in multiple acts of misconduct, dishonesty, and bad faith with respect to [Hispanics] class and the protection of [their] rights.”

Leave a comment

You must be Logged in to post comment.