Yet another trumped-up investigation against Sheriff Arpaio dismissed by the courts



A m e r i c a n  P o s t – G a z e t t e

Distributed by C O M M O N  S E N S E , in Arizona

Thursday, September 1, 2011

Another sham investigation into Arpaio bites the dust

Arizona Republic desperately trying to make Arpaio look like he’s under constant investigation, but the politically-charged complaints continue to be dismissed         


Arizona Republic
August 30, 2011 
 

http://www.azcentral.com/news/election/azelections/articles/2011/08/30/20110830maricopa-county-sheriffs-office-discrimination-suit-dismissed.html 

A federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit accusing the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office of discrimination, negligence and abuse during one of Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s worksite-enforcement raids, writing that there was no evidence of unconstitutional conduct.

The lawsuit stemmed from a sheriff’s raid at a Phoenix landscaping company in February 2009 that led to 40 arrests on suspicion of identity theft and fraud. Among those arrested was Celia Alvarez, who claimed in her lawsuit that she was subjected to unreasonable search and seizure and was injured by a deputy during the raid.

U.S. District Judge Stephen McNamee issued a ruling on Friday that dismissed Alvarez’s suit on the grounds that Arpaio, the Sheriff’s Office and county administrators did not know of, participate in or authorize any unconstitutional conduct during the worksite raids.

The raid on Handyman Maintenance Inc. began like most of Arpaio’s other worksite-enforcement operations, with dozens of deputies descending on a business armed with warrants to seize business records and arrest employees suspected of identity theft and fraud.

Alvarez was working at the facility near 19th Avenue and Lower Buckeye Road and hid in a compartment in a trailer when the deputies arrived, according to her complaint. When a deputy discovered Alvarez in her hiding spot and tried to pull her out, Alvarez hit her head, according to court documents.

Later, when Alvarez was standing in line with other suspects, a sheriff’s employee warned Alvarez not to speak on two occasions and then struck Alvarez’s forearm with a clipboard before apologizing, according to court records.

Finally, Alvarez claimed she was stripped to her underwear and searched in front of men and then later stripped naked for another search.

McNamee ruled that Alvarez did not produce any evidence that a strip search took place, nor could she produce anyone who saw the search who could confirm her version of events for the lawsuit.

An attorney for Alvarez declined to comment on McNamee’s ruling.

The basis of Alvarez’s claim and McNamee’s ruling both centered on facts specific to Alvarez’s detention and arrest at the landscaping company in February 2009, but the case also raised broader questions about whether Arpaio’s deputies engage in a “pattern or practice” of discriminating.

McNamee ruled that Alvarez could not prove sheriff’s deputies discriminated against her because of her race. Arpaio’s attorney, Tim Casey, said the ruling could affect future claims of department-sanctioned discrimination that arise from the worksite raids.

The Sheriff’s Office earlier this year agreed to pay $200,000 to two Hispanic men who accused deputies of racial profiling during the same worksite raid in which Alvarez was arrested. But Julian and Julio Mora were stopped outside the business, and Casey said the Sheriff’s Office agreed to settle that claim because the agency could not produce the deputy who stopped the Moras to refute it.

Alvarez’s case was different, Casey said.

“It’s the first time, to my knowledge, that the court has addressed this kind of action in this context and determined that there is no animus,” Casey said. “The sheriff’s position has been: In this case, you’re challenging the entire pattern and practice of what we do in workplace enforcement. It’s nice that they were vindicated in this.

Join Our Mailing List

Comments

  1. Legal Beagle says:

    Arpaio is lucky the courts aren’t so corrupt that they would uphold any of these political vendetta lawsuits. The judges probably realize if there isn’t a shred of truth to any of them, it’s not worth the risk of getting reversed at the higher court level. Far too many judges seem to be siding with corrupt activists these days.

  2. It is despicable the way these groundless suits continue to be brought against the Sheriff. Why aren’t sanctions awarded against the idiots who bring them? Is the deck that stacked against the Sheriff since he is a political conservative? The people bringing these suits are slimes and we need to expose them publicly for the disgusting vermin they are.

  3. Conservative American says:

    This is the current Marxist tactic: file a lawsuit! The primary objective is not to win cases but rather to have the ability to intimidate with the mere threat of a lawsuit. Simply by virtue of making the Marxists go to trial, their primary objective is denied them.

    Moral: Never be intimidated into surrender by the Marxists. Turn the tables on them by forcing them to duke it out.

  4. This is a rare occassion where I do support the decision in Arpaio’s favor. Even a blind pig can find an acorn now and then. I do not believe that the majority of the suits filed against our Trusty Shurf are groundless, but this is an exception.

  5. Conservative American says:

    What’s that? You support ACORN? Gee, and that’s your “seeing eye” pig too! It’s bacon!

    • Speaking of learning, I think you need to learn to read and process information. It’s posts like yours that are making the moderates like myself become anti-conservative. How about some intelligent discussion instead of pompus hot air and insults? Or is that beyond your capabilities?

Speak Your Mind

*