Courts

Court Rules Maricopa County Can Be Held Liable For Sheriff Joe's Criminal Racism

Maybe you still don't think Joe Arpaio committed any crimes, but the courts are not going to wait for you, or your president, to catch up.

By  
on

Former Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio (Photo by John Moore/Getty Images)

Sheriff Joe Arpaio is famous for being racist. Take away the lawsuit and the contempt and the presidential pardon and what you have here is a man who instituted illegal and unconstitutional racial profiling in Maricopa County while he was in charge.

Now, maybe you don’t think racial profiling is that big of a deal. Maybe you even think it’s a good idea that should be encouraged. Maybe you are too stupid to know that racial profiling does not produce enforcement results, while behavioral profiling seems to work quite well. However you come to your personal evil is not my concern. Courts have roundly rejected racial profiling as compatible with a free society.

Arpaio is a criminal, and that Donald Trump decided to pardon him says more about Donald Trump than it does about the state of the law or the seriousness of his crimes. The relevant legal question is just how far up the chain we go to attach liability for Arpaio’s crimes.

Today, the Ninth Circuit ruled that a lawsuit against Maricopa County, where Arpaio worked, can go forward. The County can be held liable for the constitutional violations committed by its former sheriff.

Maricopa County made a number of arguments to evade responsibility for Sheriff Joe. Their first argument is interesting… and offensive. From the Ninth Circuit ruling:

First, the County argued that when a sheriff in Arizona adopts policies relating to law-enforcement matters, such as the traffic-stop policies at issue here, he does not act as a policymaker for the county. He instead acts as a policymaker for his own office, or perhaps for the State. The County contended that, because Arpaio’s policies were not policies of the County, it could not be held liable for the constitutional violations caused by execution of them.

Sponsored

Maricopa County argued that the Sheriff of Maricopa County didn’t make “policy” for Maricopa County? Arpaio was the sheriff there for 24 years. To turn around and say that he wasn’t a “policy maker” while he instituted a scheme of racist policing is an offensive joke. If my rabid, drooling attack dog bites the UPS guy, I don’t get to say, “It’s not policy of this household to bite people.”

The district court rejected this argument:

We have already rejected Maricopa County’s first argument—that Arpaio was not a final policymaker for the County. In Melendres v. Maricopa County, 815 F.3d 645 (9th Cir. 2016) (Melendres III), we noted that “Arizona state law makes clear that Sheriff Arpaio’s law-enforcement acts
constitute Maricopa County policy since he ‘has final policymaking authority.’” Id. at 650 (quoting Flanders v. Maricopa County, 54 P.3d 837, 847 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2002)). Because that determination was arguably dicta, we have conducted our own analysis of the issue, and we reach the same conclusion…

It is true that sheriffs in Arizona are independently elected and that a county board of supervisors does not exercise complete control over a sheriff’s actions. Nonetheless, “the weight of the evidence” strongly supports the conclusion that sheriffs in Arizona act as final policymakers for their respective counties on law-enforcement matters. See McMillian, 520 U.S. at 793. Because the traffic-stop policies at issue fall within the scope of a sheriff’s law-enforcement duties, we conclude that Arpaio acted as a final policymaker for Maricopa County when he instituted those policies.

It is my opinion that we are never going to be rid of bad, racist, or murderous cops until the cities that employ them are forced to pay, handsomely and repeatedly. If Maricopa County wants to elect racist sheriffs, fine, that’s democracy. But then they also get all of the cost and expense of voting for sheriffs who violated the Constitution.

Eventually, the people need to demand better law enforcement.

Sponsored

U.S. v. County of Maricopa, Arizona [Uscourts.gov]

Topics

, ,