:Maricopa County Sheriff's Office controversies

The MCSO Vision Statement as posted on their own web site states: “The Maricopa County Sheriff's Office is a fully integrated law enforcement agency committed to being the leader in establishing the standards for providing professional quality law enforcement, detention, and support services to the citizens of Maricopa County and to other criminal justice agencies.”{{cite web|url=http://www.mcso.org/index.php?a=GetModule&mn=About_Mcso |title=Vision Statement |access-date=April 4, 2010 |work=mcso.org |publisher=Maricopa County Sheriff’s Department |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100403083220/http://www.mcso.org/index.php?a=GetModule&mn=About_Mcso |archive-date=April 3, 2010 }}

A December 2008 report by the Goldwater Institute compared MCSO with their peer agencies in the same cities. In violent crime, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) showed the MCSO has a 69% increase compared to their peers of 18% and −11%. For homicides, the MCSO had a 160% increase compared to other jurisdictions which were near zero.{{cite web |url= http://www.goldwaterinstitute.org/Common/Img/Mission%20Unaccomplished.pdf |title= Mission Unaccomplished: The Misplaced Priorities of the Maricopa County Sheriff 's Office |access-date= April 4, 2010 |work= mcso.org |publisher= Goldwater Institute |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20100423184135/http://www.goldwaterinstitute.org/Common/Img/Mission%20Unaccomplished.pdf |archive-date= April 23, 2010 |url-status= dead }}

In 2009, the East Valley Tribune won a Pulitzer Prize for its five-part series that exposed how police protection suffered as the MCSO increased efforts to combat illegal immigration. The Tribune reporters Ryan Gabrielson and Paul Giblin produced the five-part series “Reasonable Doubt,” which exposed slow emergency response times and lax criminal enforcement as the department focused more of the agency's resources on seeking out and arresting illegal immigrants.{{cite web|url=http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/page/reasonable_doubt |title=Reasonable Doubt |access-date=April 4, 2010 |work=East Mesa Tribune |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080914125018/http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/page/reasonable_doubt |archive-date=September 14, 2008 }}

The MCSO has been accused of racial profiling in lawsuits filed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). In one suit, the ACLU alleged that MCSO deputies arrested and detained U.S. citizens and legal residents without justification, stopping them as they were driving down a public roadway, and transporting them to the site of an immigration raid.{{cite web |url=https://www.aclu.org/immigrants-rights/aclu-sues-maricopa-county-sheriffs-office-illegal-arrest-and-detention-us-citizen- |title=ACLU Sues Maricopa County Sheriff's Office For Illegal Arrest And Detention Of U.S. Citizen And Legal Resident | American Civil Liberties Union |publisher=Aclu.org |date=August 19, 2009 |access-date=October 24, 2010 |archive-date=November 6, 2010 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20101106221356/http://www.aclu.org/immigrants-rights/aclu-sues-maricopa-county-sheriffs-office-illegal-arrest-and-detention-us-citizen- |url-status=live }} A separate class-action suit, filed by the ACLU and the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF) alleged that MCSO deputies unlawfully stopped and mistreated individuals because they were Latino. The lawsuit charged that this practice is discriminatory and unlawfully violates the Fourth (1789) and Fourteenth Amendments (1868) to the United States Constitution, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Constitution of Arizona.{{cite web |url=https://www.aclu.org/immigrants-rights/sheriff-arpaio-sued-over-racial-profiling-latinos-maricopa-county |title=Sheriff Arpaio Sued Over Racial Profiling Of Latinos In Maricopa County | American Civil Liberties Union |publisher=Aclu.org |date=July 16, 2008 |access-date=October 24, 2010 |archive-date=September 11, 2010 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100911090235/http://www.aclu.org/immigrants-rights/sheriff-arpaio-sued-over-racial-profiling-latinos-maricopa-county |url-status=live }}

In 2013, judge G. Murray Snow of the United States District Court for the District of Arizona ruled in a civil lawsuit, in which a number of Hispanic individuals represented by the ACLU alleged racial profiling by the Sheriff's Office. Among other remedies, Judge Snow appointed a court monitor to oversee compliance with his orders that included video cameras in every police car, and training of staff.{{cite web |last=Hensley |first=JJ |title=Racial-profiling lawsuit ruling: Judge imposes conditions on Arpaio, Sheriff's Office |work=AZCentral |publisher=The Arizona Republic |date=October 2, 2013 |url=https://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/20131002sheriff-arpaio-racial-profile-lawsuit-ruling.html |access-date=June 5, 2014 |archive-date=June 7, 2014 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140607055856/http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/20131002sheriff-arpaio-racial-profile-lawsuit-ruling.html |url-status=live }} Further controversy erupted when department training videos surfaced in which Judge Snow's orders were trivialized.{{cite web |title=Sheriff Joe Arpaio Called Before Federal Judge For 'Trivializing' Racial Profiling Finding |work=Fox News Latino |date=March 24, 2014 |url=http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/news/2014/03/24/sheriff-joe-arpaio-called-before-federal-judge-for-trivializing-racial/ |access-date=June 5, 2014 |archive-date=June 7, 2014 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140607004039/http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/news/2014/03/24/sheriff-joe-arpaio-called-before-federal-judge-for-trivializing-racial/ |url-status=live }}

In June 2008, the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) began an investigation of the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office.{{cite press release | title= Assistant Attorney General Thomas E. Perez Speaks at the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office Investigative Findings Announcement | publisher= United States Department of Justice | date= December 15, 2011 | url= http://www.justice.gov/crt/opa/pr/speeches/2011/crt-speech-111215.html | access-date= December 16, 2011 | archive-date= January 7, 2012 | archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20120107132733/http://www.justice.gov/crt/opa/pr/speeches/2011/crt-speech-111215.html | url-status= live }} In March 2009, the US Department of Justice notified Arpaio that they were investigating the department for civil rights violations, in unfairly targeting Hispanics and Spanish-speaking people. The DOJ found "reasonable cause to believe that MCSO engages in a pattern or practice of violating the Constitution and laws of the United States" and that "MCSO is broken".

In October 2009, it was reported that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) was investigating Arpaio for using his position to settle political vendettas.{{cite web|url=http://www.kpho.com/news/21470567/detail.html |title=Sources: FBI Investigating Joe Arpaio |publisher=KPHO Phoenix |website=kpho.com |date=October 29, 2009 |access-date=October 24, 2010 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20101020184811/http://www.kpho.com/news/21470567/detail.html |archive-date=October 20, 2010 }}

In January 2010, it was reported that the Department of Justice had impaneled a grand jury to investigate allegations of abuse of power by Arpaio.{{cite web|url=http://www.kpho.com/news/22177676/detail.html |title=Grand Jury Impaneled To Probe Arpaio, MCSO |publisher=KPHO Phoenix |website=kpho.com |date=January 7, 2010 |access-date=October 24, 2010 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110614060423/http://www.kpho.com/news/22177676/detail.html |archive-date=June 14, 2011 }}

In March 2010, it was reported that an investigation into Arpaio is "serious and ongoing", according to United States Attorney General Eric Holder;{{cite web|url=http://www.kpho.com/news/22963860/detail.html |title=AG: Arpaio Probe Serious, Ongoing |access-date=April 4, 2010 |work=kpho.com |publisher=KPHO Phoenix |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110614060445/http://www.kpho.com/news/22963860/detail.html |archive-date=June 14, 2011 }} however, by August 2012, the Department of Justice decided to close its criminal investigation and to not bring any charges.{{cite web |last=Christie |first=Bob |author2=Jacques Billeaud |title=Joe Arpaio Investigation Closed; No Federal Charges Will Be Filed Against Him |work=The Huffington Post |date=August 31, 2012 |url=https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/31/joe-arpaio-investigation-_n_1848384.html |access-date=June 5, 2014 }}{{cite web |last=Santos |first=Fernanda |title=Inquiry Finds No Misdeeds by Sheriff in Arizona |work=The New York Times |date=August 31, 2012 |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/01/us/arpaio-is-not-charged-as-us-inquiry-ends.html?_r=0 |access-date=June 5, 2014 |archive-date=June 6, 2014 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140606204218/http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/01/us/arpaio-is-not-charged-as-us-inquiry-ends.html?_r=0 |url-status=live }}

Very soon after the Waddell Buddhist temple shooting in 1991, the Office arrested four men acting on a tip from a patient at a mental-health facility. After thirteen hours of interrogation, all four signed confessions. Later two other men were arrested for nine counts of murder.{{cite news |last1=Hermann |first1=William |title=Valley Buddhist temple massacre has had lasting impact |url=http://archive.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/local/articles/20110814buddhist-temple-murders-west-valley-impact.html |access-date=August 16, 2020 |work=The Arizona Republic |date=August 14, 2011 |archive-date=February 23, 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210223221805/http://archive.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/local/articles/20110814buddhist-temple-murders-west-valley-impact.html |url-status=live }}

The Office settled the matter with cash payments of over two million dollars.

In October 2008, federal judge Neil V. Wake of the United States District Court for the District of Arizona ruled that conditions in Maricopa County jails violated the constitutional rights of inmates.{{cite web |url=https://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2008/10/23/20081023ruling1023.html |title=Judge backs county inmates in jail case |publisher=Azcentral.com |date=October 23, 2008 |access-date=October 24, 2010 |archive-date=July 9, 2011 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110709060652/http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2008/10/23/20081023ruling1023.html |url-status=live }}

In April 2010, Wake ruled that conditions in the Maricopa County jails continued to violate the constitutional rights of inmates.{{cite web |author=JJ Hensley |url=https://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2010/04/08/20100408maricopa-county-jail-conditions.html |title=Judge: County failed to improve jails' medical, mental-health conditions |publisher=Azcentral.com |date=April 8, 2010 |access-date=October 24, 2010 |archive-date=April 13, 2010 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100413162444/http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2010/04/08/20100408maricopa-county-jail-conditions.html |url-status=live }}

File:Maricopa County Courthouse.jpg

In October 2009, a courtroom video was posted on YouTube, showing an MCSO Detention Officer removing documents from a defense attorney's files.{{cite web|url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UIoyJ-LyAaE |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/varchive/youtube/20211215/UIoyJ-LyAaE |archive-date=December 15, 2021 |url-status=live|title=Maricopa County Sheriff's employee takes documents from defense attorney |publisher=YouTube |date=December 1, 2009 |access-date=October 24, 2010}}{{cbignore}} Detention Officer Adam Stoddard was subsequently found in contempt-of-court for violating attorney–client privilege, was ordered by judge Gary Donahoe to hold a press conference and to publicly apologize for his actions.{{cite web |author=JJ Hensley |url=https://www.azcentral.com/fb/articles/2009/11/18/20091118docontempt1118-ON.html |title=Officer found in contempt of court in document case |publisher=Azcentral.com |date=November 18, 2009 |access-date=October 24, 2010 |archive-date=October 21, 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121021131334/http://www.azcentral.com/fb/articles/2009/11/18/20091118docontempt1118-ON.html |url-status=live }} On the deadline set by the court, Detention Officer Stoddard, under orders from Sheriff Joe Arpaio,{{cite web|url=http://www.heatcity.org/2009/11/judge-orders-officer-to-apologize-or-face-jail-for-taking-attorneys-file.html|title=Judge orders officer to apologize or face jail for taking attorney's file « Heat City|website=www.heatcity.org|author=Nick R. Martin|author-link=Nick R. Martin|access-date=June 9, 2012|archive-date=June 22, 2012|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120622163447/http://www.heatcity.org/2009/11/judge-orders-officer-to-apologize-or-face-jail-for-taking-attorneys-file.html|url-status=live}}{{cite web|url=http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/valleyfever/2009/11/arpaio_i_decide_who_holds_pres.php|title=Arpaio Pissed Over Judge's Ruling that MCSO Detention Officer Must Hold Apologetic Press Conference or Go to Jail|first=James|last=King|date=November 18, 2009|access-date=June 9, 2012|archive-date=November 10, 2011|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20111110150149/http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/valleyfever/2009/11/arpaio_i_decide_who_holds_pres.php|url-status=dead}} declined to apologize and was jailed. Arpaio argued that only he could order his Detention Officer's actions, and that the court had no authority to enforce any action against his officer, a position that the Appeals Court rejected in Stoddard's appeal. The Appeals Court did order that Judge Donahoe's order to make an apology be stricken and replaced with a fine.{{cite web|url=http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/valleyfever/2010/04/judge_gary_donahoes_contempt_r.php|title=Judge Gary Donahoe's Contempt Ruling In Arpaio Detention Officer Case Upheld, but Odd Sanction Remanded|first=Paul|last=Rubin|date=April 6, 2010|access-date=June 9, 2012|archive-date=February 8, 2012|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120208031757/http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/valleyfever/2010/04/judge_gary_donahoes_contempt_r.php|url-status=dead}}{{cite web |url=https://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2009/12/01/20091201abrk-stoddard1130.html |title=MCSO detention officer to be jailed |publisher=Azcentral.com |date=December 1, 2009 |access-date=October 24, 2010 |archive-date=April 17, 2015 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150417194356/http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2009/12/01/20091201abrk-stoddard1130.html |url-status=live }} The next day, 20 MCSO detention officers failed to report for work at the downtown Phoenix Superior Court. A bomb threat was called in, causing the building to be evacuated. The same afternoon, more than 150 deputies and detention officers gathered outside the courthouse and reiterated their support for the jailed detention officer.{{cite web |last=Kiefer |first=Michael |url=https://www.azcentral.com/community/phoenix/articles/2009/12/02/20091202courtdisrupted02-ON.html |title=Sickout, bomb threat disrupt Superior Court proceedings |publisher=Azcentral.com |date=December 2, 2009 |access-date=October 24, 2010 |archive-date=September 25, 2010 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100925052833/http://www.azcentral.com/community/phoenix/articles/2009/12/02/20091202courtdisrupted02-ON.html |url-status=live }} The MCSO appealed the contempt order, and pending the outcome of the appeal, the deputy was released from jail. Ultimately, the contempt-of-court ruling was upheld, however the court of appeals threw out the penalty (that the officer apologize), and sent the case back to the superior court for the imposition of a fine.{{cite web |last=Kiefer |first=Michael |url=https://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2010/04/06/20100406joe-arpaio-deputy-contempt-of-court.html |title=Contempt-of-court ruling against Arpaio deputy upheld |publisher=Azcentral.com |date=April 7, 2010 |access-date=October 24, 2010 |archive-date=June 15, 2010 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100615060246/http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2010/04/06/20100406joe-arpaio-deputy-contempt-of-court.html |url-status=live }}

On July 23, 2004, a SWAT team (Special Weapons And Tactics) served a search warrant looking for "a stockpile of illegal automatic weapons and armor-piercing pistol ammunition" that they believed was hidden at an upscale home. In the course of serving the warrant, multiple tear gas cartridges were launched into the home, the result of which was the home catching fire. During the fire, SWAT forced the homeowner's 10-month-old pit bull puppy back into the home with a fire extinguisher, resulting in the dog's death. It was reported that the officers laughed over the incident. The armored personnel carrier (APC) used during the assault also ran over and damaged a neighbor's vehicle when its brakes failed. Police recovered two weapons: one antique shotgun; and one 9mm pistol. After failing to find illicit weapons the police served an arrest warrant for the house's owner, who was also wanted on a misdemeanor warrant for failing to appear in Tempe Municipal Court on several traffic citations.{{cite web |author=John Dougherty |url=http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/2004-08-05/news/dog-day-afternoon/full |title=Dog Day Afternoon |publisher=Phoenix New Times |date=August 5, 2004 |access-date=October 24, 2010 |archive-date=October 18, 2010 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20101018121647/http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/2004-08-05/news/dog-day-afternoon/full/ |url-status=dead }}

During his term as Sheriff, Arpaio began to serve inmates spoiled food and limited meal times to twice a day.{{cite news | url=http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/Southwest/10/29/chain.gang.reut/ | work=CNN | title=Sheriff runs female chain gang | date=October 29, 2003 | access-date=April 3, 2010 | archive-date=April 13, 2010 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100413134557/http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/Southwest/10/29/chain.gang.reut/ | url-status=live }}

Arpaio banned inmates from possessing "sexually explicit material" including Playboy magazine, after female officers complained that inmates openly masturbated while viewing them, or harassed the officers by comparing their anatomy to the nude photographs in the publications. The ban was challenged on First Amendment grounds but upheld by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.{{cite web|url=http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=9th&navby=case&no=9716021v3&exact=1+9716021v3 |title=Mauro v Arpaio |work=FindLaw |date=August 17, 1999 }}

In February 2007, Arpaio instituted an in-house radio station he calls KJOE.{{cite news

|url=http://www.kpho.com/news/10932222/detail.html

|title=Arpaio Launches KJOE Radio

|date=February 5, 2007

|publisher=KPHO.com

|access-date=August 20, 2008

|url-status=dead

|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070325164925/http://www.kpho.com/news/10932222/detail.html

|archive-date=March 25, 2007

}} Arpaio's radio station broadcasts classical music, opera, Frank Sinatra hits, American patriotic music, and educational programming. It operates from the basement of the county jail for five days a week, four hours each day.{{Citation needed|reason=Your explanation here|date=September 2017}}

In March 2007, the Maricopa County Jail hosted "Inmate Idol",{{cite news

| url= https://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/local/articles/0324idle0324.html

| last= Villa

| first= Judi

| title= Inmates cut loose in 'Idol' knockoff; Jail contest aims to build self-esteem

| date= March 24, 2007

| publisher= The Arizona Republic

| access-date= September 19, 2007 }} a takeoff on the popular television series American Idol.

Starting in July 2000, the Maricopa County Sheriff's website hosted “Jail Cam”, a 24-hour Internet webcast of images from cameras in the Madison Street Jail, a facility which processed and housed pretrial detainees. The goals of the broadcasts were the deterrence of future crime and improved public scrutiny of jail procedures. The cameras showed arrestees being brought in handcuffed, fingerprinted, booked, and taken to holding cells; with the site receiving millions of hits per day.{{cite news |first=Mindy |last=Sink |url=https://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=940DEFD61631F937A1575BC0A9669C8B63&scp=1&sq=arpaio%20cameras%20jail&st=cse |title=Hoping People Watch Jail And Won't Want to Visit |work=The New York Times |date=August 24, 2000 |access-date=February 10, 2017 |archive-date=December 8, 2008 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081208215815/http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=940DEFD61631F937A1575BC0A9669C8B63&scp=1&sq=arpaio%20cameras%20jail&st=cse |url-status=live }} Twenty-four former detainees brought suit against the Sheriff's office, arguing that their Fourteenth Amendment rights of due process had been violated.{{Citation needed|reason=Your explanation here|date=September 2017}}

Under Arpaio, the Maricopa County Jails have lost accreditation multiple times.{{cite web |last=Lemons |first=Stephen |url=http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/bastard/2009/01/sheriff_lawbreaker_joe_arpaios.php |title=Sheriff Lawbreaker: Joe Arpaio's Jails Lose Accreditation Again, and Again, and Again |publisher=Blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com |date=January 12, 2009 |access-date=October 24, 2010 |archive-date=February 2, 2010 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100202041913/http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/bastard/2009/01/sheriff_lawbreaker_joe_arpaios.php |url-status=dead }} In September 2008, the National Commission on Correctional Health Care (NCCHC) terminated the accreditation of all Maricopa County Sheriff's Office jails for failure to maintain compliance with national standards, and providing false information about such compliance.{{Citation

|last=Reinhart

|first=Mary K.

|title=Jail health care loses accreditation

|newspaper=East Valley Tribune

|location=Phoenix, AZ

|date=September 30, 2008

|url=http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/article_6fff57cc-4521-5ea4-89e4-4dfa497583bc.html1

}}{{dead link|date=June 2017 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }}

{{Cite news

|title=Accreditation Termination Letter

|author=Edward Harrelson|publisher= President of the National Commission on Correctional Health Care

|date=September 25, 2008

|url=http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/pdf/Letter%20from%20the%20NCCHC.pdf

}}{{dead link|date=June 2017 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }} In October 2008, judge Neil V. Wake of the United States District Court for the District of Arizona ruled that grossly inadequate conditions at the Maricopa County Jail, overseen by Arpaio, are unconstitutional and jeopardize the health and safety of prisoners.{{cite web |url=https://www.aclu.org/prisoners-rights/judge-calls-maricopa-county-jail-conditions-unconstitutional |title=Judge Calls Maricopa County Jail Conditions Unconstitutional |publisher=Aclu.org |date=October 22, 2008 |access-date=October 24, 2010 |archive-date=January 10, 2011 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110110053751/http://www.aclu.org/prisoners-rights/judge-calls-maricopa-county-jail-conditions-unconstitutional |url-status=live }}

Arpaio set up a "tent city" as an extension of the Maricopa County Jail ({{Coord|33|25|40|N|112|07|26|W|type:landmark_region:US-AZ|display=inline|name=Maricopa County Jail}}). Tent City was located in a yard next to a more permanent structure containing toilets, showers, an area for meals, and a day room.{{Citation

|url=http://www.cofad1.state.az.us/opinionfiles/cv/cv010239.pdf

|date=September 26, 2002

|title=Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County, Cause No. CV 97-008668

|author=The Honorable Jeffrey S. Cates, Judge

|url-status=dead

|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090307230026/http://www.cofad1.state.az.us/opinionfiles/cv/cv010239.pdf

|archive-date=March 7, 2009

}} It has become notable particularly because of Phoenix, Arizona's extreme temperatures. Daytime temperatures inside the tents have been reported as high as 150 °F (65 °C) in the top bunks.{{Cite web|url=http://www.kpho.com/news/14205568/detail.html|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110614070039/http://www.kpho.com/news/14205568/detail.html |url-status=dead |title=AWOL Soldiers Serving Sentences At Tent City – Phoenix News Story – KPHO Phoenix|archive-date=June 14, 2011}}

During the summer of 2003, when outside temperatures exceeded {{convert|110|F|C|0|sp=us}}, which is higher than average, Arpaio said to complaining inmates, "It's 120 degrees in Iraq and the soldiers are living in tents, have to wear full body armor, and they didn't commit any crimes, so shut your mouths."{{Citation

|url=http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/nation/20030725-2230-phoenixheat.html

|title=Phoenix is sizzling through what could be the hottest July on record

|author=Ananda Shorey

|date=July 25, 2003

|publisher=signonsandiego.com

|access-date=October 20, 2007

|url-status=dead

|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071009182800/http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/nation/20030725-2230-phoenixheat.html

|archive-date=October 9, 2007

}} Inmates were given permission to wear only their pink underwear.{{Citation needed|reason=Your explanation here|date=September 2017}}

Arpaio also maintains a facility called The Maricopa County Southeast Jail Facility. According to a news report from the Phoenix New Times, this facility has been in use since 2004 as an alternative to the Tent City. This facility has been alleged by the Phoenix New Times to be for celebrities and friends of Arpaio only. This facility is full of amenities and dubbed the "Mesa Hilton" as it is in stark contrast to the Tent City set up for normal inmates. It is where Adam Stoddard, a Deputy of Arpaio who stole confidential documents from an attorney's file, spent his time for contempt of court.{{cite web

|url=http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/valleyfever/2009/12/where_in_the_world_is_deputy_a.php

|title=Where in the World's Deputy Adam Stoddard? Our Bet's in the Mesa Hilton

|date=December 2, 2009

|author=Sara Fenske

|access-date=May 7, 2012

|archive-date=December 5, 2009

|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20091205150251/http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/valleyfever/2009/12/where_in_the_world_is_deputy_a.php

|url-status=dead

}}

In 1995, Arpaio reinstituted chain gangs. In 1996, Arpaio expanded the chain gang concept by instituting female volunteer chain gangs.{{Citation

|url=http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0403/10/acd.00.html

|title=Anderson Cooper 360 transcript

|date=March 10, 2004

|author=Anderson Cooper

|work=CNN

|access-date=March 4, 2009

|archive-date=June 4, 2011

|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110604123739/http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0403/10/acd.00.html

|url-status=live

}} Female inmates work seven hours a day (7 a.m. to 2 p.m.), six days a week. He has also instituted the world's first all-juvenile volunteer chain gang; volunteers earn high school credit toward a diploma.{{Citation

|url=http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0403/11/lt.01.html

|title=CNN reporter Eric Phillips interviews Sheriff Arpaio and a juvenile offender

|date=March 11, 2004

|access-date=October 20, 2007

|archive-date=October 28, 2007

|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071028190844/http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0403/11/lt.01.html

|url-status=live

}} (CNN Live Today transcript)

One of Arpaio's most visible public relations actions was the introduction of pink underwear, which the Maricopa County Sheriff's website cites as being "world famous." Arpaio subsequently started to sell customized pink boxer shorts (with the Maricopa County Sheriff's logo and "Go Joe") as a fund-raiser for the Sheriff's Posse Association. Despite allegations of misuse of funds received from these sales, Arpaio declined to provide an accounting for the money.{{Citation

|url=http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/1999-05-27/news/blowing-his-cool/

|title=Blowing His Cool

|date=May 27, 1999

|author=Tony Ortega

|publisher=Phoenix New Times

|access-date=June 19, 2008

|author-link=Tony Ortega

|archive-date=December 8, 2008

|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081208180304/http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/1999-05-27/news/blowing-his-cool/

|url-status=dead

}}

Arpaio's success in gaining press coverage with the pink underwear resulted in him extending the use of the color. He introduced pink handcuffs, using the event to promote his book, Sheriff Joe Arpaio, America's Toughest Sheriff.{{Citation

|url=http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0114052pinkcuffs1.html

|title=Not Pretty In Pink

|date=January 14, 2005

|publisher=The Smoking Gun

|access-date=June 19, 2008}}

In 2008, when Phoenix Mayor Phil Gordon called for a federal investigation into Arpaio's immigration enforcement tactics, Arpaio's office responded by demanding the mayor's emails and phone logs. Arpaio also had his critic Maricopa County Supervisor Don Stapley, a Republican, arrested on suspicion of failing to properly disclose business interests. Stapley agreed to a $3.5 million settlement in his lawsuit against Arpaio, Thomas, and the county for false arrest.{{cite web |last=Billeaud |first=Jacques |title=Arizona county settles 2 lawsuits vs. sheriff |publisher=Associated Press |date=December 20, 2013 |url=http://bigstory.ap.org/article/arizona-county-settle-2-lawsuits-vs-sheriff |access-date=June 5, 2014 |archive-date=December 21, 2013 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131221041144/http://bigstory.ap.org/article/arizona-county-settle-2-lawsuits-vs-sheriff |url-status=dead }}

In 2005, the Arizona State Legislature passed a state law making it a felony, punishable by up to two years in prison, to smuggle illegal immigrants across the border. While already a federal crime, Arizona's law, also known as the “Coyote law”, made it legal for local police to enforce immigration law and also classified persons being smuggled as co-conspirators subject to penalties as laid out in the law.{{Citation

|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/10/us/10smuggle.html?ex=1304913600&en=d28539b33576bf6b&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

|title=Arizona County Uses New Law to Look for Illegal Immigrants

|author=Randal C. Archibald

|date=May 10, 2006

|work=The New York Times

|access-date=October 20, 2007}}

Arpaio instructed his sheriff's deputies and members of his civilian posse to arrest illegal aliens. Arpaio told The Washington Times, "My message is clear: if you come here and I catch you, you're going straight to jail.... I'm not going to turn these people over to federal authorities so they can have a free ride back to Mexico. I'll give them a free ride to my jail."{{cite web |url=http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2006/may/10/20060510-115750-3996r/ |title=Arizona sheriff uses posse, new law to jail illegals |publisher=The Washington Times |date=May 11, 2006 |access-date=April 3, 2010 |archive-date=April 20, 2010 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100420092716/http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2006/may/10/20060510-115750-3996r/ |url-status=live }}

On March 3, 2009, the United States Department of Justice "notified Arpaio of the investigation in a letter saying his enforcement methods may unfairly target Hispanics and Spanish-speaking people"{{Citation

|url=http://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/stories/2009/03/09/daily40.html

|date=March 11, 2009

|title=Obama administration targets Arpaio

|publisher=Phoenix Business Journal

|access-date=March 11, 2009

|archive-date=October 25, 2012

|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121025113616/http://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/stories/2009/03/09/daily40.html

|url-status=live

}} Arpaio denied any wrongdoing and stated that he welcomed the investigation, and would cooperate fully.{{Citation

|url=https://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/2009/03/11/20090311investigation0311.html

|date=March 11, 2009

|title=Arpaio to be investigated over alleged violations

|author=Daniel González

|publisher=Arizona Republic

|access-date=March 11, 2009

|archive-date=May 10, 2010

|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100510073120/http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/2009/03/11/20090311investigation0311.html

|url-status=live

}} By May 2009, Arpaio had hired a Washington, D.C. lobbyist, who wrote to Obama administration officials, suggesting that the decision to probe Arpaio had been driven by political rivalries and score settling.{{Citation

|url=http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/12/arpaio_turns_to_former_bush_doj_official_to_stymie.php

|date=December 14, 2009

|title=Arpaio Turns to Former Bush DOJ Official To Stymie Federal Probe

|author=TPMMuckraker

|access-date=December 20, 2009

|archive-date=December 17, 2009

|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20091217093942/http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/12/arpaio_turns_to_former_bush_doj_official_to_stymie.php

|url-status=live

}} In July 2009, Arpaio publicly stated that he would not cooperate with the investigation.

{{Citation

|url=http://www.kpho.com/news/19991075/detail.html

|date=July 8, 2009

|title=Arpaio To DOJ: 'Don't Pick On Me'

|publisher=KPHO

|access-date=December 20, 2009

|url-status=dead

|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110614060330/http://www.kpho.com/news/19991075/detail.html

|archive-date=June 14, 2011

}}

In October 2009, the Department of Homeland Security removed the authority of Arpaio's 160 federally trained deputies to make immigration arrests in the field. Despite the actions of the Department of Homeland Security, Arpaio maintained that he will still pursue illegal aliens under Arizona state law.{{cite news|title=Tough sheriff's immigration duties face limits after complaints|date=October 8, 2009|work=CNN|url=http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/10/08/arizona.sheriff.immigration/#cnnSTCVideo}} As of 2012 and beyond, he continued to do so.{{Citation|url=https://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2011/07/14/20110714mcso-palo-verde-arrest0714-ON.html|title=Worker with expired Mexican ID arrested at nuclear plant|author1=JJ Hensley|author2=Ryan Randazzo|name-list-style=amp|date=July 14, 2011|work=Arizona Republic|access-date=April 16, 2020|archive-date=March 3, 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160303222140/http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2011/07/14/20110714mcso-palo-verde-arrest0714-ON.html|url-status=live}}

Reports claim that, under Arpaio, the MCSO may be improperly clearing as many as 75% of cases without arrest or proper investigation.Justice Denied: The Improper Clearance of Unsolved Crimes by the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office https://goldwaterinstitute.org/AboutUs/ArticleView.aspx?id=2666{{Dead link|date=April 2019 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }}Mission Unaccomplished: The Misplaced Priorities of the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office http://www.goldwaterinstitute.org/article/2629 {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100625220739/http://goldwaterinstitute.org/article/2629 |date=June 25, 2010 }}{{cite news |title=Goldwater Institute: Arpaio's crime clearance rate a sham |publisher=AzCapitolTimes.com |date=May 22, 2009 |url=http://azcapitoltimes.com/news/2009/05/22/goldwater-institute-arpaio8217s-crime-clearance-rate-a-sham-2/ |access-date=June 7, 2012 |archive-date=March 8, 2013 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130308213037/http://azcapitoltimes.com/news/2009/05/22/goldwater-institute-arpaio8217s-crime-clearance-rate-a-sham-2/ |url-status=live }}{{cite web|url=http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/story/139717 |title=The numbers don't match Arpaio's hype |access-date=April 13, 2010 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090531082515/http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/story/139717 |archive-date=May 31, 2009 }} The sheriff's office failed to properly investigate serious crimes, including the rape of a 14-year-old girl by classmates,{{cite news |last=Fenske |first=Sarah |title=How the MCSO Neglected a 14-Year-Old Rape Victim |publisher=Phoenix New Times |date=May 28, 2009 |url=http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/2009-05-28/news/two-statutory-rape-allegations-tell-us-everything-we-need-to-know-about-the-mcso-s-priorities/ |archive-url=https://archive.today/20130131112854/http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/2009-05-28/news/two-statutory-rape-allegations-tell-us-everything-we-need-to-know-about-the-mcso-s-priorities/ |url-status=dead |archive-date=January 31, 2013 |access-date=June 7, 2012 }}{{cite news |last=Bernstein |first=Josh |title=Sexual assault victim claims MCSO failed to do its job |publisher=ABC15 |date=May 21, 2009 |url= http://www.abc15.com/content/news/investigators/story/Sexual-assault-victim-claims-MCSO-failed-to-do/Clk4sc9W30WbpU6Si-4TgA.cspx |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20090523094549/http://www.abc15.com/content/news/investigators/story/Sexual-assault-victim-claims-MCSO-failed-to-do/Clk4sc9W30WbpU6Si-4TgA.cspx |archive-date=May 23, 2009}} the rape of a 15-year-old girl by two strangers,See Part IV "Public safety shortchanged throughout county" http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/page/reasonable_doubt {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080914125018/http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/page/reasonable_doubt |date=September 14, 2008 }}http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/pdf/reasonable_doubt/elmirage.pdf {{dead link|date=May 2016|bot=medic}}{{cbignore|bot=medic}} and the rape of a 13-year-old girl by her father.http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/pdf/reasonable_doubt/elmirage1.pdf {{dead link|date=May 2016|bot=medic}}{{cbignore|bot=medic}} These cases were "exceptionally cleared" without investigation or even identifying a suspect in one case which are not in accordance with the FBI standards for exceptional clearance.{{cite web |url=http://victimpower.org/2009/05/31/exceptionally-cleared/ |title=Victim Power |publisher=Victim Power |access-date=October 24, 2010 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150527145602/http://victimpower.org/2009/05/31/exceptionally-cleared/ |archive-date=May 27, 2015 |url-status=dead }} In the case of the 15-year-old girl, the case was closed within one month and before DNA testing was even complete. In the case of the 13-year-old, the case was closed because her mother did not want to "...pursue this investigation". In the case of the 14-year-old, the case was closed because a suspect declined to come in for questioning. In a statement to ABC15, the Sheriff's Office claimed, "The Goldwater Institute's report cites the FBI's Uniform Code Reporting handbook, which is a voluntary crime-reporting program to compile statistical information and reports. The UCR is not intended for oversight on how law enforcement agencies clear cases...The Sheriff's Office has its own criteria for clearing cases."

In an interview on the ABC Nightline news program, when asked to explain why 82 percent of cases were declared cleared by exception, Arpaio said "We do clear a higher percentage of that. I know that. We clear many, many cases—not 18 percent." Nightline contacted the MCSO after the interview and was told that of 7,346 crimes, only 944, or 15%, had been cleared by arrest.{{cite web |url= https://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/sheriff-joe-arpaio-unapologetic-tactics-illegal-immigrant-crackdowns/story?id=9219341&page=2 |title=Sheriff Joe Arpaio Unapologetic About Tactics, Illegal Immigrant Crackdowns |publisher=ABC News |date=July 23, 2009 |access-date=October 24, 2010}}

Starting in July 2000, the MCSO's website hosted Jail Cam, a 24-hour Internet webcast of images from cameras in the Madison Street Jail, a facility which processed and housed only pretrial detainees. The stated goals of the broadcasts were the deterrence of future crime and improved public scrutiny of jail procedures. The cameras showed arrestees being brought in handcuffed, fingerprinted, booked, and taken to holding cells; with the site receiving millions of hits per day. Twenty-four former detainees brought suit against the MCSO, arguing that their Fourteenth Amendment rights of due process had been violated.

U.S. District Court Judge Earl H. Carroll held in favor of the former detainees, issuing an injunction ending the webcasts. By a two to one vote, a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld the injunction, with the majority opinion stating:

:... Second, Sheriff Arpaio argues that the cameras are justified by the County's interest in having its pretrial detention centers open to public scrutiny. We have given prison officials wide latitude in administering pretrial detention facilities, in guaranteeing detainees’ attendance at trial, and in promoting prison safety. But we fail to see how turning pretrial detainees into the unwilling objects of the latest reality show serves any of these legitimate goals. As the Supreme Court has recognized, "[i]nmates ... are not like animals in a zoo to be filmed and photographed at will by the public or by media reporters, however ‘educational’ the process may be for others.{{Citation

|url=https://www.usatoday.com/tech/columnist/ericjsinrod/2004-09-01-sinrod_x.htm

|date=August 9, 2004

|title=Jailhouse Webcams: Courts aren't seeing their way clear

|work=USA Today

|access-date=September 4, 2017

|archive-date=February 25, 2012

|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120225160131/http://www.usatoday.com/tech/columnist/ericjsinrod/2004-09-01-sinrod_x.htm

|url-status=live

}}{{Cite web|url=https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/coa/newopinions.nsf/870530A1FDABD79688256EE800580191/$file/0315698.pdf|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081219055243/http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/coa/newopinions.nsf/870530A1FDABD79688256EE800580191/%24file/0315698.pdf |url-status=dead |title=Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona |archive-date=December 19, 2008|website=www.ca9.uscourts.gov}}

In his dissenting opinion, Circuit Judge Carlos Bea wrote:

:... What the majority avoids—perhaps because of the all-too-predictable result—is to ask the question basic to any review questioning the validity of governmental action under a rational basis analysis: were the webcasts reasonably related to the purpose of deterring public behavior that could result in pretrial detention? The answer clearly is Yes. ... Similarly unexamined is the Sheriff's purpose of providing transparency of jail operations as a civic good.

:Sheriff Arpaio's methods to achieve his purposes of public deterrence and governmental transparency may not suit the fine sensibilities of some group advocates and jurists. But absent a violation of the constitutional rights of Plaintiffs—and I see none—such differences of opinion must be vindicated, if at all, in the ballot box, not in the courtroom.

The Supreme Court of the United States refused to hear an appeal of the case. Ultimately, Maricopa County was required to pay the detainees' legal costs and damages.{{cite web|url=https://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/0912jailcam0912.html |archive-url=https://archive.today/20120722115946/http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/0912jailcam0912.html |url-status=dead |archive-date=July 22, 2012 |title=Arpaio loses long battle over jailcam |publisher=Azcentral.com |date=September 12, 2006 |access-date=October 24, 2010}}

From 2004 through November 2007, Arpaio was the target of 2,150 lawsuits in U.S. District Court and hundreds more in Maricopa County courts, with more than $50 million in claims being filed,{{Citation

|url=http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/2008-06-12/news/judge-neil-wake-takes-action-in-the-jail-conditions-lawsuit-against-arpaio/

|date=June 12, 2008

|title=Judge Neil Wake takes action in the jail conditions lawsuit against Arpaio

|publisher=Phoenix New Times

|access-date=April 3, 2010

|archive-date=February 17, 2010

|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100217161029/http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/2008-06-12/news/judge-neil-wake-takes-action-in-the-jail-conditions-lawsuit-against-arpaio/

|url-status=dead

}} fifty times as many prison-conditions lawsuits as the New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago, and Houston jail systems combined.{{Citation

|url=http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/2007-12-20/news/inhumanity-has-a-price/

|date=May 20, 2007

|title=Inhumanity Has a Price

|author=John Dickerson

|publisher=Phoenix New Times

|access-date=April 3, 2010

|archive-date=February 6, 2010

|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100206192650/http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/2007-12-20/news/inhumanity-has-a-price/

|url-status=dead

}} Allegations of cruel treatment of inmates as well as living conditions have been cited by Amnesty International in a report issued on the treatment of inmates in Maricopa County facilities.{{Citation

|url=http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/engAMR510511997?open&of=eng-2am

|date=August 1, 1997

|title=Ill-treatment of inmates in Maricopa County jails, Arizona

|publisher=Amnesty International

|url-status=dead

|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20030909151038/http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGAMR510511997?open&of=ENG-2AM

|archive-date=September 9, 2003

}}

In 1998, Arpaio commissioned a study, by Arizona State University criminal justice professor Marie L. Griffin, to examine recidivism rates based on conditions of confinement. Comparing recidivism rates under Arpaio to those under his predecessor, the study found "there was no significant difference in recidivism observed between those offenders released in 1989–1990 and those released in 1994–1995."{{cite book

|last=Griffin

|first=Mary L

|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=8SkFHEBeEqkC&q=griffin+%22The+Use+of+Force+by+Detention+Officers,

|title=The Use of Force by Detention Officers

|publisher=LFB Scholarly Publishing

|isbn= 1-931202-01-X

|page=42

|year=2001}}

Family members of inmates who have died or been injured in jail custody have filed lawsuits against the MCSO. Maricopa County paid more than $43 million in settlement claims during Arpaio's tenure.{{Citation

|url=http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/story/115427

|date=May 3, 2008

|title=Special Report: Health and death behind bars

|publisher=East Valley Tribune

|url-status=dead

|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100305181201/http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/story/115427

|archive-date=March 5, 2010

}}

In August 2001, Charles Agster, a 33-year-old mentally handicapped man, died in the county jail, three days after being forced by sheriff's officers into a restraint chair used for controlling combative arrestees. Agster's parents had been taking him to a psychiatric hospital because he was exhibiting paranoia, then called police when he refused to leave a convenience store where they had stopped en route. Officers took Agster to the Madison Street jail, placed a spit hood over his face and strapped him to the chair, where he had an apparent seizure and lost consciousness. He was declared brain dead three days later. A medical examiner later concluded that Agster died of complications of methamphetamine intoxication. In a subsequent lawsuit, an attorney for the MCSO described the amount of methamphetamine in Agster's system as 17 times the known lethal dose. The lawsuit resulted in a $9 million jury verdict against the county, the MCSO, and Correctional Health Services.{{Citation

|url=http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/story/61786

|date=May 25, 2006

|title=Jury awards $9M in jail death

|author=Gary Grado

|publisher=East Valley Tribune

|url-status=dead

|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090918070846/http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/story/61786

|archive-date=September 18, 2009

}}

One major controversy includes the 1996 death of inmate Scott Norberg, a former American football wide receiver for Brigham Young University, who died while in custody of the MCSO.{{Citation

|title=Family of ex-BYU. football player to get $8.25 million

|url=http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=NewsLibrary&p_multi=DSNB&d_place=DSNB&p_theme=newslibrary2&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&p_topdoc=1&p_text_direct-0=0F364E9124BE074E&p_field_direct-0=document_id&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&s_trackval=GooglePM

|publisher=Associated Press

|date=January 12, 1999

|access-date=April 3, 2010

|archive-date=October 23, 2012

|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121023233802/http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=NewsLibrary&p_multi=DSNB&d_place=DSNB&p_theme=newslibrary2&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&p_topdoc=1&p_text_direct-0=0F364E9124BE074E&p_field_direct-0=document_id&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&s_trackval=GooglePM

|url-status=live

}}

Norberg was arrested for assaulting a police officer in Mesa, Arizona, after neighbors in a residential area had reported a delirious man walking in their neighborhood.{{Citation

|url=http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/1999-04-15/news/murder-on-madison-the-norberg-remix/2

|title=Murder on Madison: The Norberg Remix

|date=April 15, 1999

|publisher=Phoenix New Times

|access-date=May 9, 2008

|archive-date=July 24, 2008

|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080724231925/http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/1999-04-15/news/murder-on-madison-the-norberg-remix/2

|url-status=dead

}} Arpaio's office repeatedly claimed Norberg was also high on methamphetamine, but a blood toxicology performed post-mortem was inconclusive. According to a toxological report, Norberg did have methamphetamine in his urine, though "there would be no direct effect caused by the methamphetamine on Norberg's behavior at the time of the incident".{{Citation

|url=http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/1998-12-17/news/tweaking-the-truth/

|title=Tweaking the Truth

|date=December 17, 1998

|publisher=Phoenix New Times News

|access-date=July 8, 2009

|archive-date=June 2, 2009

|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090602140807/http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/1998-12-17/news/tweaking-the-truth/

|url-status=dead

}} During his internment, evidence suggests detention officers shocked Norberg several times with a stun-gun. According to an investigation by Amnesty International, Norberg was already handcuffed and face down when officers dragged him from his cell and placed him in a restraint chair with a towel covering his face. After Norberg's corpse was discovered, detention officers accused Norberg of attacking them as they were trying to restrain him. The cause of his death, according to The Maricopa County Medical Examiner, was due to "positional asphyxia". Sheriff Arpaio investigated and subsequently cleared detention officers of any criminal wrongdoing.{{Citation|url=http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/Issues/1997-03-20/news/news.html |title=Flashes |date=March 20, 1997 |publisher=Phoenix New Times News |access-date=October 20, 2007 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20050427063512/http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/issues/1997-03-20/news/news.html |archive-date=April 27, 2005 }}

Norberg's parents filed a lawsuit against Arpaio and the MCSO. The lawsuit was settled for $8.25 million (USD).{{Citation

|url=http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/1999-01-14/news/the-8-million-victim/

|title=The $8 Million Victim

|date=January 14, 1999

|publisher=Phoenix New Times News

|access-date=May 10, 2008

|archive-date=September 22, 2008

|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080922141035/http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/1999-01-14/news/the-8-million-victim/

|url-status=dead

}}

Richard Post was a paraplegic inmate arrested in 1996 for possession of marijuana and criminal trespass. Post was placed in a restraint chair by guards and his neck was broken in the process. The event, caught on video, shows guards smiling and laughing while Post is being injured.{{Citation needed|date=February 2013}} Because of his injuries, Post has lost much of the use of his arms.{{Citation

|url=http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/1997-01-23/news/jailers-show-a-paraplegic-who-s-boss/1

|title=Jailers Show a Paraplegic Who's Boss

|author=Tony Ortega

|date=January 23, 1997

|publisher=Phoenix new timesnews

|access-date=October 20, 2007

|archive-date=April 15, 2008

|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080415210800/http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/1997-01-23/news/jailers-show-a-paraplegic-who-s-boss/1

|url-status=dead

}} Post settled his claims against the MCSO for $800,000.{{Citation

|url=http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-72732952.html

|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121105025927/http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-72732952.html

|url-status=dead

|archive-date=November 5, 2012

|date=April 1, 2001

|title=Star of Justice

|author=Barry Graham

|publisher=Harper's Magazine}}

Brian Crenshaw was a legally blind and mentally disabled inmate who suffered fatal injuries while being held in Maricopa County Jail for shoplifting. The injuries that led to his death were initially blamed on a fall from his bunk but were later discovered to have been the result of a brutal beating by jail guards on March 7, 2003. A lawsuit filed in The Maricopa County Superior Court of Arizona by the lawyer for Crenshaw's family stated:

An external examination report of The Maricopa County Medical Examiner's Office concluded that Brian's death was caused by "complications of blunt force trauma due to a fall." This conclusion was reached largely on the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office's relation of their "history" of Brian's injuries to the Medical Examiner's Office; a history that included the MCSO's implausible story that all of Brian's injuries were caused by a fall from his cell bed. The Maricopa County Medical Examiner conducted no autopsy; nor was the Maricopa County Medical Examiner informed by MCSO or The Maricopa County Correctional Health Services about Brian's beating on March 7, 2003 and/or related events. An independent autopsy report later narrowed the cause of Brian's death to peritonitis and sepsis secondary to the duodenal perforation. A fall from Brian's 4-foot, 2 inch bunk could not have simultaneously caused a broken neck, broken toes, and a duodenal perforation.[https://www.scribd.com/doc/17465231/Brian-Crenshaw-wrongful-death-case-Third-Amended-Complaint-20-Sep-2006 Third Amended Complaint] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170307133055/https://www.scribd.com/doc/17465231/Brian-Crenshaw-wrongful-death-case-Third-Amended-Complaint-20-Sep-2006 |date=2017-03-07 }}, Evans et al. v. Maricopa County et al., September 20, 2006, pp. 8–9.

In July 2004, The Phoenix New Times published Arpaio's home address in the context of a story about his real estate dealings. In October 2007, a Maricopa County special prosecutor served Village Voice Media, the Phoenix New Times{{'}} corporate parent, with a subpoena ordering it to produce "all documents" related to the original real estate article, as well as the IP addresses of all visitors to the Phoenix New Times website since January 1, 2004. The Phoenix New Times then published the contents of the subpoena on October 18.{{cite web|url=https://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/1019newtimes1019.html|title=Sheriff's deputies arrest New Times owners.}} Phoenix New Times editors Michael Lacey and Jim Larkin were arrested and jailed by Maricopa Sheriff's Deputies on misdemeanor charges of revealing grand jury secrets after the publication of the subpoena.{{Citation

|url = http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/2007-10-18/news/breathtaking-abuse-of-the-constitution/1

|title = Breathtaking Abuse of the Constitution

|date = October 18, 2007

|author1 = Michael Lacey

|author2 = Jim Larkin

|name-list-style = amp

|publisher = Phoenix New Times

|access-date = October 20, 2007

|archive-date = October 20, 2007

|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20071020031006/http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/2007-10-18/news/breathtaking-abuse-of-the-constitution/1

|url-status = dead

}} On the following day, the county attorney dropped the case and fired the special prosecutor.{{cite news |last1=Bui |first1=Lynh |title=New Times prosecutor defends handling |url=https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-arizona-republic-new-times/156574652/ |work=The Arizona Republic |date=October 21, 2007 |page=1}}{{Cite news

|url=http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003661135

|title=No Charges for Execs Arrested in 'Phoenix Times' Case

|date=October 20, 2007

|agency=Associated Press

|publisher=Editor & Publisher

|access-date=October 20, 2007

|archive-date=October 23, 2007

|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071023220221/http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003661135

|url-status=live

}} In a subsequent lawsuit, Lacey and Larkin won $3.75 million in damages for false arrest.{{cite web |last=Hedley |first=Matthew |title=Joe Arpaio Loses: New Times Co-Founders Win $3.75 Million Settlement for 2007 False Arrests |work=Valley Fever |publisher=Phoenix New Times |date=December 20, 2013 |url=http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/valleyfever/2013/12/joe_arpaio_loses_new_times_co-.php |access-date=June 5, 2014 |archive-date=December 22, 2013 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131222030107/http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/valleyfever/2013/12/joe_arpaio_loses_new_times_co-.php |url-status=dead }}

On November 28, 2007, it was ruled that the subpoenas were not validly issued{{Citation

|url=http://www.superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/MediaRelationsAndCommunityOutreach/CourtCases/Rulings/rulingsReaditem.asp?autonumb=284

|title=Ruling in the Matter of: CR MISC 2007

|date=November 28, 2007

|author=Hon. Anna M. Baca

|publisher=Judicial Branch of Arizona, Maricopa County

|access-date=December 29, 2010

|url-status=dead

|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100528142112/http://www.superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/MediaRelationsAndCommunityOutreach/CourtCases/Rulings/rulingsReaditem.asp?autonumb=284

|archive-date=May 28, 2010

}} and in April 2008, the New Times editors filed suit against Arpaio, County Attorney Andrew Thomas and Special Prosecutor Dennis Wilenchik.{{Citation

|url=https://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/local/articles/0430manninglawsuit0430.html

|title='New Times' executives sue Arpaio

|date=April 30, 2008

|publisher=Arizona Republic

|author=Michael Kiefer

|access-date=May 10, 2008}}

In 2009, The East Valley Tribune ran a series of articles that criticized the Maricopa County sheriff for a decline in normal police protection due to an increased focus towards arresting illegal immigrants. The five-part series titled “Reasonable Doubt,” which received a Pulitzer Prize for Local Reporting, described "slow emergency response times and lax criminal enforcement."Mark Flatten, [http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/story/138178 "Tribune celebrates winning Pulitzer Prize"] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090925113223/http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/story/138178 |date=September 25, 2009 }}, East Valley Tribune, April 20, 2009

On December 23, 2009, The Arizona Republic published an editorial titled “The Conspiracy that won't stop.”{{cite news |url= https://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/opinions/articles/2009/12/23/20091223wed1-23.html |title= The conspiracy that won't stop |newspaper= Arizona Republic |date= December 23, 2009 |access-date= April 16, 2020 |archive-date= May 25, 2011 |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20110525042707/http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/opinions/articles/2009/12/23/20091223wed1-23.html |url-status= live }} The editorial board referenced a published letter written by the Yavapai County Attorney, Sheila Polk, titled “Arpaio, Thomas are abusing power” ”{{cite web |url=https://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/opinions/articles/2009/12/21/20091221polk22-ON.html |title= Arpaio, Thomas are abusing power |access-date= April 4, 2010 |author= Sheila Polk |publisher= The Arizona Republic |date= December 22, 2009}} in which Polk was critical of Arpaio. The Editorial Board claimed that “As a result of stepping forward, Polk now may join the fast-growing list of Arizona public officials forced to defend themselves against criminal investigations for the "crime" of having upset Arpaio and Thomas.”

Arpaio's practices have been criticized by organizations such as Amnesty International, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Arizona Ecumenical Council, the American Jewish Committee,{{Citation|url=http://www.jewishaz.com/issues/story.mv?080425+statement |date=July 24, 2009 |title=Valley rabbis' statement on Sheriff Joe Arpaio |publisher=Jewish News of Greater Phoenix |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20101029144216/http://www.jewishaz.com/issues/story.mv?080425%2Bstatement |archive-date=October 29, 2010 }} and the Arizona chapter of the Anti-Defamation League.{{Citation|url=https://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/0413gordonarpaio0413.html|date=April 13, 2008|title=Phoenix Mayor Gordon calls for FBI investigation of Arpaio|publisher=The Arizona Republic}} The editorial board of The New York Times called Arpaio "America's Worst Sheriff".{{cite news |title=America's Worst Sheriff (Joe Arpaio) |author=The New York Times editorial board |newspaper=The New York Times |date=December 31, 2008 |url=http://theboard.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/12/31/americas-worst-sheriff-joe-arpaio/ }}

On December 2, 2009, County Attorney Andrew Thomas and Sheriff Arpaio filed a federal lawsuit alleging racketeering charges against four judges, as well as various private attorneys, all current members of the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors and some county managers.{{cite web|url=http://www.mcso.org/include/pr_pdf/Judicial%20Complaints%20News%20Brief%202009.pdf |title=Maricopa County Sheriff's Office, Joe Arpaio, Sheriff, News Brief |access-date=April 4, 2010 |work=mcso.org |publisher=Maricopa County Sheriff’s Department |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100613070237/http://mcso.org/include/pr_pdf/Judicial%20Complaints%20News%20Brief%202009.pdf |archive-date=June 13, 2010 }}

On March 11, 2010, Arpaio announced that “the Department of Justice Office of Public Integrity in Washington, D.C. has agreed to review allegations of corruption involving the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors and judicial officials and others. RICO complaints previously filed by the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office and the Maricopa County Attorney's Office were formally withdrawn so as not to duplicate or hinder the Department of Justice review or any additional investigation necessary.”{{cite web|url=http://www.mcso.org/include/pr_pdf/3-11-2010%20News%20Release.pdf |title=Department of Justice Office of Public Integrity Agrees to Review Allegations of Maricopa County Public Corruption Investigated by Sheriff's Office |access-date=April 4, 2010 |work=mcso.org |publisher=Maricopa County Sheriff’s Department |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100331052428/http://www.mcso.org/include/pr_pdf/3-11-2010%20News%20Release.pdf |archive-date=March 31, 2010 }}

On March 13, 2010, in a letter sent to Arpaio's lawyer, Robert Driscoll of Alston & Bird, Raymond N. Hulser, Acting Chief, Public Integrity Section Criminal Division of the U.S. Department of Justice, responded that he was "dismayed to learn that (the Sheriff's Office's) mere referral of information to the Public Integrity Section was cited and relied upon in a pleading in federal court, and then used as a platform for a press conference." Husler also noted in this letter that no review of the materials would be undertaken by the Public Integrity Section.{{cite web|url=http://www.kpho.com/news/22830763/detail.html |title=DOJ Chastises Arpaio's Attorney |access-date=April 4, 2010 |work=kpho.com |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110614060535/http://www.kpho.com/news/22830763/detail.html |archive-date=June 14, 2011 }}{{cite web|url=http://www.kpho.com/download/2010/0313/22830757.pdf |title=Letter from 'Raymond N. Hulser, Acting Chief, Department of Justice Office of Public Integrity Section to Mr. Robert Driscoll Alston & Bird LLP |access-date=April 4, 2010 |work=kpho.com |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110614060650/http://www.kpho.com/download/2010/0313/22830757.pdf |archive-date=June 14, 2011 }}

In a subsequent lawsuit filed by the targets of the RICO action, U.S. District Judge Neil V. Wake called the RICO action "patently frivolous" and ruled that Arpaio and Thomas were not immune from civil liability.{{cite web |last=Stern |first=Ray |title=Federal Lawsuit Against Sheriff Joe Arpaio and Former County Attorney Andrew Thomas to Proceed; No Immunity, Judge Rules |work=Valley Fever |publisher=Phoenix New Times |date=April 20, 2012 |url=http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/valleyfever/2012/04/federal_lawsuit_against_sherif.php |access-date=June 5, 2014 |archive-date=June 6, 2014 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140606203609/http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/valleyfever/2012/04/federal_lawsuit_against_sherif.php |url-status=dead }} Several millions of dollars in awards and settlements resulted from this lawsuit, including $1.27 million to retired Superior Court Judge Gary Donahoe and $975,000 to former County Supervisor Mary Rose Wilcox.{{cite web |last=Stern |first=Ray |title=Wolfswinkel Family to Get $1.4 Million in County Settlement Over Legal Abuses; $5 Million in Total Payouts Thanks to Andrew Thomas and Joe Arpaio |work=Valley Fever |publisher=Phoenix New Times |date=April 26, 2013 |url=http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/valleyfever/2013/04/wolfswinkel_family_to_get_14_m.php |access-date=June 5, 2014 |archive-date=July 14, 2014 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140714163519/http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/valleyfever/2013/04/wolfswinkel_family_to_get_14_m.php |url-status=dead }}{{cite web |last=Cassidy |first=Megan |title=Mary Rose Wilcox awarded $975,000 from Arpaio suit |work=AZ Central |publisher=The Arizona Republic |date=June 2, 2014 |url=https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/arizona/politics/2014/06/02/wilcox-arpaio-payout-lawsuit-abrk/9884143/ |access-date=June 5, 2014 |archive-date=June 4, 2014 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140604231149/http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/arizona/politics/2014/06/02/wilcox-arpaio-payout-lawsuit-abrk/9884143/ |url-status=live }}

{{Reflist}}

{{Portal|Arizona}}

• [http://www.mcso.org/ Maricopa County Sheriff's Office]
• [https://web.archive.org/web/20100612192118/http://mcso.org/index.php?a=GetModule&mn=Sheriff_Bio Joe Arpaio Official Bio]
• [https://web.archive.org/web/20110614070112/http://www.kpho.com/search/form.html?qt=%22joe%20arpaio%22&p=1&video=on&stories=on&date Local News Coverage of Arpaio from KPHO.com and CBS 5 News (KPHO-TV)]
• [https://web.archive.org/web/20081209054657/http://www.azfamily.com/blcS.sc?search=arpaio Local News Coverage of Arpaio from azfamily.com and KTVK-3TV]

Category:Government of Maricopa County, Arizona

Category:History of Maricopa County, Arizona

Category:Law enforcement scandals

Category:Political controversies in the United States