Home

|

Arpaio's Record

|

Rights Abuses

 

Using the power of the Law to justify outrageous conduct

 

There is an old quote from Lord Baron Acton that says, "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." In our opinion, there is no better example of this in Maricopa County than Joe Arpaio. Since coming to office with a promise to serve one term, Arpaio has become the most sued sheriff in America, costing taxpayers over $42,000,000 in settlements from over 5,000+ lawsuits with over 2,600+ just for civil rights violations--including those cases that cost taxpayers tens of millions of dollars.

 

Arpaio always claims to be tough on crime, but in order to make himself look tough, his office has violated the Constitution's Eighth Amendment, which prohibits cruel and usual punishment. He has made cruel and inhumane treatment of people in his jails a priority, even promoting deputies whose actions have resulted in the death of detainees and prisoners. Remember, many of these detainees are awaiting trial and have not yet been convicted of a crime. But Arpaio calls them "criminals," ignoring one of the central principles of our justice system: that everyone is innocent until proven guilty by a court of law. But Arpaio ignores that basic principle, acting as though he is judge, jury, and, in some cases, executioner. Our constitution establishes the rights that distinguish our democracy from tyranny. But as you will see below, there is ample, persistent and irrefutable evidence that Joe Arpaio cares little for the Constitution, for the binding agreements he has signed, or for public opinion when it disagrees with his point of view.

 

Arpaio has from the start claimed to be tough on crime, but in order to make himself look tough, his office has violated the Constitution's Eighth Amendment (the Bill of Rights) prohibitions against cruel and usual punishment by publicly has made cruel and inhumane treatment of people in his jails a priority, in fact, promoting deputies whose actions have resulted in the death of detainees and prisoners. As you will see below, there is ample, persistent and irrefutable evidence that Joe Arpaio cares little for the Eighth Amendment, binding agreements he signed, or for public opinion when it disagrees with his point of view.

 

Why this is important

 

"First they came…" is a poem attributed to Pastor Martin Niemöller (1892–1984) about the inactivity of German intellectuals following the Nazi rise to power and the purging of their chosen targets, group after group.

           When the Nazis came for the communists,
           I remained silent;
           I was not a communist.

 

           When they locked up the social democrats,
           I remained silent;
           I was not a social democrat.

 

           When they came for the trade unionists,
           I did not speak out;
           I was not a trade unionist.

 

           When they came for the Jews,
           I remained silent;
           I wasn't a Jew.

 

           When they came for me,
           there was no one left to speak out.

 

When power goes unchallenged, innocent people are put at risk, rights are jeopardized, and the people's business is shortchanged.

Humiliating Pretrial Detainees

Under the guise of deterring crime, Joe Arpaio posted web cams in the men's holding cell (including a bunk area), a pre-intake area, the intake search area (where prisoners are searched), and the toilet area of the women's holding cell.

 

In a lawsuit filed to stop the practice, it was revealed that Arpaio posted the video from these web cams on a commercial web site, which included a sales pitch that viewers could "Watch what’s happening at Madison Street Jail NOW," and "(w)atch as SWAT teams raid male and female inmate holding cells in search of smuggled drugs and crude weapons." The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled in Demery v. Arpaio that these web cams violated the 14th Amendment's Due Process prohibition against the punishment of anyone "prior to an adjudication of guilt" in that:

 

           "Plaintiffs were certainly harmed by Sheriff Arpaio’s
           actions. Having every moment of one’s daily activities
           exposed to general and world-wide scrutiny would make any-
           one uncomfortable. Exposure to millions of complete strang-
           ers, not to mention friends, loved ones, co-workers and
           employers, as one is booked, fingerprinted, and generally pro-
           cessed as an arrestee, and as one sits, stands, or lies in a hold-
           ing cell, constitutes a level of humiliation that almost anyone
           would regard as profoundly undesirable and strive to avoid...
           Demery v. Arpaio."

 

The court's decision also cited the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling that "“[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.” Houchins v. KQED, Inc., 438 U.S. 1, 5 n.2 (1978)

 

   USA Today - Jailhouse Web cams: Courts aren't seeing their way clear

   New York Times - Hoping People Watch Jail And Won't Want to Visit

 

Unconstitutional Jail Conditions and Arpaio's Culture of Cruelty

In a deposition for the Mauro v. Arpaio case, Joe Arpaio states "I don't think you should live better in jail than on the outside . . .They shouldn't be country clubs. No Club Fed in my jails. When you go to jail you should have to give up certain things - smoking, coffee, adult magazines, and R-rated movies. Jail means punishment . . .This is my jail and they stay here until they're convicted and sent to state prison . . .I've seen some of them interviewed on national television, saying they'll sign plea agreements just to get out of my jail and be sent to prison (emphasis added)."

 

While we do not argue with the final court decision in Mauro v. Arpaio, we do believe that extorting prisoners to give up their rights is unacceptable. It must also be pointed out there is a recognized difference between a "jail" and a "prison." This difference is pointed out in a dissenting opinion in this way: "Jails hold people pending trial, and for short punitive sentences after conviction. Prisons hold people convicted and sentenced to substantial incarceration, ordinarily for felonies." Arpaio stated the following in a January 1995 newsletter called Roundup: "...I repeatedly emphasized I wanted to...make the jails places of punishment." It is this difference that Joe Arpaio fails to see and which lends itself to making the Maricopa County jails a travesty of justice and a drain on the taxpayer's pockets to the tune of more than $42,000,000--and counting.

 

Despite claims by Arpaio that his jails are "humane" or that his jails have "always passed Constitutional muster," a total of seven independent analyses and three internal documents--one written by Arpaio himself--has found jail conditions to be well below Constitutional muster AND have fallen on the deaf ears of both the MCSO and the Board of Supervisors, who have taken no action to address these concerns.

 

MCSO Jail Studies Highlighting Inhumane Conditions

   Miller Report (1996)

   Department of Justice Warning Memorandum (1996)

   Arpaio Confidential Letter (1996)

   Sullivan Report (1997)

   Liebert Report (1997)

   MCSO Jail Doctor Warning (1999)

   DoJ Settlement (1999) Joint Motion | Motion for Conditional Dismissal

   Moore Audit (2000)

   Swatzell Report (2002)

   Liebert Report (2003) Part 1 | Part 2

   Maricopa County Correctional Health Services Report (2003)

   U.S. District Cout Ruling on Graves v. Arpaio (2008) Findings | Judgement| Wilcox Fees

 

Further proof there were serious issues at the MCSO jails is the fact they were placed on probation by the National Commission on Correctional Health Care ("NCCHC") numerous times and that there was a report indicating that some of the essential NCCHC standards were not being met (Hart v. Arpaio).

 

Most damning is the recent decision in the Graves v. Arpaio case. The findings, written by U.S. District Court Judge Neil V. Wake, prove that Arpaio manages the jails in an unconstitutional, cruel and inhumane manner. Comically, Supervisor Andy Kunasek has stated the ruling was a vindication for the Sheriff and the County, when anyone who reads the judgement cannot help but see it is exactly the opposite.

 

There are also first-hand accounts of the jail conditions. Be warned, some of these accounts are shocking and contain adult language.

 

Web Links

   East Valley Tribune: Special Report: Health and death behind bars

   Hart v. Hill Amended Judgment (1995)

   Jon's Jail Journal: Roach Attack

   Jon's Jail Journal: Sufferer of the Week

   Phoenix New Times: Inhumanity Has a Price

   Ripoff Report: Sheriff Joe Arpaio's Maricopa County Estrella Jail

   Arizona Republic - E.J. Montini: Not guilty but locked up in Arpaio's jail

 

Video

The source of each video clip is noted below the clip.

 

"America's Toughest Sheriff" is a 2001 documentary film produced for television broadcast on BBC Chanel 5 and released there under the title "The Toughest Sheriff in America." You can watch an extended preview of the film for free at the director's (Max Jourdan) web site. The film is available for purchase or rental on NetFlix and Blockbuster. All footage here is used with permission.˙

 

(Note: if more than one of the videos start automatically, please check your Quicktime playback settings and make sure "Play movies automatically" is not checked.)

 

MCSO Inmates Discuss Life in the Jails (7.9MB)

Source: documentary film "America's Toughest Sheriff"

In an attempt to get away from these complaints and the lawsuits and to escape culpability for his actions, Arpaio, in 2004, filed a legal motion in Hart v. Arpaio to terminate an existing consent decree that protects the rights of pre-trial detainees regarding medical care, mental health care, overcrowding, and protection from assault, among other provisions. In July 2006, the Sheriff filed a petition for a writ of certiorari from the Ninth Circuit’s denial of their writ of mandamus asking the Ninth Circuit to terminate the consent decree. The Supreme Court denied Arpaio's request in October 2006.

 

Arpaio's "Tough" Jail Programs Don't Work

 

One question that Joe Arpaio should answer for voters is this: do his so-called tough programs work? It's one thing to be tough and effective with the taxpayer's money, but it's another thing altogether to be tough and not get the taxpayer's money's worth. The key metric (factor) people use to judge the effectiveness of jail rehabilitation programs is the recidivism rate, or whether people return to the jail after some short period of time. Arizona State University was hired to perform an analysis. After studying the jail programs, ASU determined Arpaio's programs were ineffective, with over 60% of both groups evaluated returning to jail in 30 months or less.

 

ASU: Arpaio's Programs Are Ineffective (5.6MB)

˙

Source: documentary film "America's Toughest Sheriff"

 

ASU Study: Jail Recidivism in Maricopa County PDF

 

When presented with these findings, rather than accept them and ask what he could do to decrease his recidivism rate, Arpaio said he was going to keep to his program regardless of the fact they didn't help and then complained to anyone who would ask that the only thing the researchers told him was the inmates didn't like the food or the tents.

Intimidating people to give up their right to free speech.

Bullying people to not challenge him is a key strategy for Joe Arpaio. During his tenure as Sheriff, employees have been demoted or fired for supporting political opponents--an exercise of their First Amendment Rights; newspapers have been denied access to public documents; business owners were arrested for publishing negative stories and public information; and in some cases, "special attention" in the jails. Recently, a volunteer chaplin who ministers to jail inmates was told he was no longer welcome in the jails after exercising his First Amendment rights to the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors about Arpaio's lack of fiscal control.

 

   West Valley View: The high price of our sheriff's folly

   Arizona Republic: Sheriff Joe is suing for slander

   Arizona Republic: E.J. Montini: Sheriff decides chaplain must go

   Arizona Republic: Arpaio's Probe of panel stirs questions

   East Valley Tribune: Thomas uses private lawyers on opponents

   East Valley Tribune: Careers linked to Arpaio support (2005)

   People: Sheriff with a Vengeance

   Phoenix New Times: Breathtaking Abuse of the Constitution

   Phoenix New Times: Our Community Under Siege

   Phoenix New Times: Enemies List

   Phoenix New Times: Extraordinary Contempt

   Phoenix New Times: Power Play

   Phoenix New Times: Cyberspace Invaders

   The Arizona Conservative: Arpaio Denigrates District 22 PCs, Pressures Media to Kill

Unflattering Story [PDF]

   Stinson, Morrison & Hecker: Notice of Claim - The Phoenix New Times (2008)

 

 

Keeping you in the dark

 

Arizona's Public Records Law Title 39, Chapter 1, Article 2, Section 39-121 states "Public records and other matters in the custody of any officer shall be open to inspection by any person at all times during office hours. The purpose is to make sure the public's right to know is not infringed upon so citizens can find out what their elected and government officials are up to. After all, "daylight is the best disinfectant." Yet, despite this law, there is one elected official who does everything in his power to make sure you don't know anything he doesn't want you to know: Joe Arpaio.

 

West Valley View: The West Valley View "had been removed from the list of news organizations the Sheriff's Office sends its press releases to because Arpaio's public information officers didn't like the stories and editorials the View was writing about their boss - even though most politicians understand the American press' traditional role in writing critical editorials about public officials and public measures.

 

By refusing to provide the View with public records or to talk to the paper's reporters, the sheriff's public information officers were in clear violation of the state's Public Records Law. But they didn't care about the law. All they cared about was "punishing" a community newspaper that refused to toe the line of the man who proclaims himself "America's toughest sheriff." Their bullying tactics meant that the people who read this newspaper were denied vital information about crimes in their communities. Arpaio appealed the case all the way to the Arizona Supreme Court--he lost that too. [Read more]

 

   West Valley View: A bureaucrat is stomping on your rights

   West Valley View: The high price of our sheriff's folly

 

Tucson Citizen: Arpaio's refusal to provide information isn't limited only to requests originating in Maricopa County. The Tucson Citizen was also denied the opportunity to lawfully review public records, and as a result, won $25,000 in legal fees from Maricopa County taxpayers due to Arpaio's office's refusal to provide public information. [Read more]

 

Phoenix New Times: On several occasions, the MCSO refused to follow the law and refused to provide public documents the Phoenix New Times had requested. When asked why, a senior MCSO official said under oath it was because "she was mad at them." According to the Arizona Republic: among the most egregious examples include:

 

           • A request for information about an investigation into Dan Saban,

           who was running against Arpaio in the Republican party primary election.

           Dougherty requested information that had already been given to a local TV

           station. He received it 143 days later, after Arpaio had already won the

           primary.

 

           • Long-time Sheriff's office public-information officer Lisa Allen testified
            in a deposition that she did not respond to one request because she was

           angry with Dougherty.

           • On another occasion, when Dougherty asked Allen about a jail inmate

           who had died, she could not confirm that there had been a death. Days

           later, when she learned that someone had actually died, she still did not

           report the information to Dougherty.

 

When the East Valley Tribune reported in February 2008 that the MCSO was resisting establishment of a statewide policy to fire law enforcement officers caught using steroids. The policy would prohibit any officer from street duty if they have any trace of anabolic steroids in their body. In an amazing admission to the Tribune, the MCSO said they "did not know whether their deputies are ever tested for drugs." Arpaio's office was looking to opt-out because they "get sued enough." When asked for clarification, both Arpaio and Chief Deputy Hendershott completely refused to speak to the newspaper.

 

As part of a special series on health and death in the MCSO jails, the Tribune reported the efforts of an interfaith group's request for solid proof that the jails had been inspected for health and safety violations as required by law. Yet despite public records requests by the group and the East Valley Tribune, those requests have been repeatedly denied over months and months and months--a clear violation of Arizona's Public Records Law.

 

   East Valley Tribune: Arpaio resisting steroid policy

   East Valley Tribune: Sheriff's office fires back on steroids issue

   East Valley Tribune: Special Report: Health and death behind bars

 

When it comes to letting the public know about its actions, the Maricopa County Sheriff doesn't seem to think the Arizona Public Records Law applies to him. Like Leona Helmsley, he probably thinks the law applies only to the "little people."

 

   East Valley Tribune: Court tells Sheriff Arpaio to comply with law

   Phoenix New Times: Information Blockade

 

 

Detainees die in MCSO jails and Arpaio couldn't care less

One of the issues that got Joe Arpaio elected in 1992 was voter dissatisfaction with the single $4M lawsuit settlement prior chief Tom Agnos paid to wrongly arrested subjects. You'd think that voters would be interested in knowing that the Sheriff has tried desperately to cover these facts up, often ignoring requests to be interviewed about them by local news outlets.

 

   Arizona Republic: Abuse lawsuits against Arpaio settled

   KPHO 5 (CBS): 5 Investigates Jails' Use of Restraint Chairs (2005) | Video

   BBC 4 Transcript: Torture, Inc. America's Brutal Prisons

   Phoenix New Times: Hangin' With Sheriff Joe (1996)

   Phoenix New Times: Dead End

   East Valley Tribune: Special Report: Health and Death Behind Bars
   KPHO 5 (CBS) Inmate Dies In 15-Minute Beating
   KPHO 5 (CBS) Video Contradicts MCSO's Version Of Jail Slaying

 

With his typical bluster, Joe Arpaio has said on numerous occasions, in essence, "these things happen." He often blames the victim and diverts attention away from his own and his staff's culpability and responsibility. Arpaio's view is in direct conflict with the law (all of which he has reportedly sworn to enforce). The courts have held there is a "specific Eighth Amendment right to be free from a jail official’s deliberate indifference to inmate-on-inmate assaults. This right is clearly established. See Farmer,511 U.S. at 833 (“Having incarcerated ‘persons with demonstrated proclivities for antisocial criminal, and often violent, conduct, having stripped them of virtually every means of self-protection and foreclosed their access to outside aid, the government and its officials are not free to let the state of nature take its course.”) (citation and alterations omitted); Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 526-27 (1984) (“Inmates have necessarily shown a lapse in ability to control and conform their behavior to the legitimate standards of society by the normal impulses of self-restraint; they have shown an inability to regulate their conduct in a way that reflects either a respect for law or an appreciation of the rights of others. . . . Within this volatile ‘community,’ prison administrators . . . are under an obligation to take reasonable measures to guarantee the safety of the inmates themselves.” Hydrick v. Hunter, 466 F.3d 676, 698 (9th Cir. 2006). [read more]

 

The murder of Scott Norberg (26.5MB)

Source: documentary film "America's Toughest Sheriff"

 

 

The murder of Robert Cotton (26.5MB)

Source: KPHO Channel 5 Investigates October 13, 2008

 

There are literally hundred of lawsuits filed against Joe Arpaio each year trying to get some justice for former inmates who have suffered harm in MCSO jails. Countless have been injured, many have died. Here are the names of six who have died and whose death resulted in lawsuits lost by the MCSO since Joe Arpaio became sheriff.

 

Scott Norberg died June 1, 1996 while under the care of Joe Arpaio. Norberg died while in a Sheriff's restraining chair and after having been beaten, tasered and a towel shoved into his mouth while strapped into a restraint chair. Some witnesses, including a court clerk and the former Maricopa County Chief Medical Examiner say Mr. Norberg's death was a homicide. The pre-trial settlement: $8.25M. [read more]

 

Charles Agster III died August 6, 2003. Agster, 33, who was medically determined to be mentally retarded, was arrested for trespassing on August 6, 2001. Detention officers pulled a hood over his head and slammed him into a restraint chair. Agster was asphyxiated to the point that he became brain dead. He was pronounced legally dead three days later. In 2006, a federal court awarded $9 million to his family. [read more]

 

Phillip Wilson died November 18, 2003. Wilson, a plumber with a degree in graphic design, was sentenced to two months in jail in July 2003 for a parole violation in connection with a previous drugs possession offence. Five days after arriving in Tent City, he was savagely beaten by a jail gang and fell into a coma. He died in hospital the following November. The court found in the MCSO's favor in a court trial. It is being appealed. [read more]

 

Deborah Braillard died January 23, 2005, Braillard, 46, was documented as a diabetic in the jail's health records. Her cell mates say a nurse did not give Braillard insulin, and then detention officers ignored her when she went into diabetic shock. Braillard died from lack of insulin. She was arrested for --alleged-- probation violations and had not appeared before a judge at the time of her death. [read more]

 

 

Brian Crenshaw died April 15, 2003. Crenshaw was a blind inmate serving a six-month shoplifting sentence. He was allegedly beaten into a coma by MCSO jail guards. The injuries that led to his death included a perforated intestine, broken neck, broken toes and other internal injuries, all, according to Arpaio, resulting from a fall from a four-foot-high bunk. His family was awarded $2M in a pre-trial settlement. [read more]

 

Clint Yarbrough died December 21, 2005, less than six hours after he entered Joe Arpaio's jail. According to the lawsuit filed against Arpaio, as a result of asking convenience store staff to "call 911," Yarbrough was tasered, denied medical services, water, and was placed into a restraint chair by "six to 12 jailers." He died six hours later. The Maricopa County Board of Supervisors approved a pre-trial settlement worth over $2M. [read more]

 

Other Abuses

 

There are other jail abuse cases that have cost the taxpayers dearly. Jeremey Flanders won a $635,000 lawsuit against the MCSO, which the court held Joe Arpaio was personally resposnible for 35% of the judgement. In that case, the Judge wrote Joe Arpaio "admitted knowing about and in fact intentionally designing, some conditions at Tent City that created a substantial risk of inmate violence: the lack of individual security and inmate control inherent in Tent City; the small number of guards; a mixed inmate population subject to overcrowding; extreme heat and lack of amenities." It's clear that Joe Arpaio knows about the conditions in his jails and can't be trusted to fix the problems he has admitted to exist.

 

Arizona Court of Appeals: "Jeremy Flanders v. Maricopa County"

Phoenix New Times: In the Crosshairs | Tent City Beating is Nearly Fatal

 

MCSO Jail "Psych" Ward Deaths

These prisoners of MCSO jail committed suicide while in the jail's "Psych" ward, which is used to house prisoners or detainees with known or perceived mental disorders:

 

           • Thomas Bruce Cooley

           • Kevin Holschlag

           • Michael Sanderson

           • Juan Vasquez

 

 

Racial Profiling

is against the law. In a report titled "Report on Racial Profiling," published in 2001, the Arizona Attorney General described it this way:

 

           "The term “racial profiling” refers to the use by law enforcement personnel of an            individual’s race or ethnicity as a factor in articulating reasonable suspicion to stop,            question or arrest an individual (unless race or ethnicity is part of an identifying            description of a specific suspect for a specific crime.) Individual law enforcement            personnel who profile suspects on the basis of race or ethnicity violate the civil            rights of those individuals. When race and ethnicity become factors in suspicious            behavior, the civil rights of racial and ethnic minorities as a group are violated.            This practice also leads to a negative interaction with the police. The State of            Arizona and its political subdivisions cannot tolerate racial profiling if Arizona is to            remain consistent and fair in its application of justice."

 

Federal case law also provides guidance in whether certain police activities can be classified as racial profiling and the impacts those stops have on the population as a whole. It is not beyond comprehension that whenever an Anglo-American watches a news story about Arpaio's sweeps that they don't, at some point, think to themselves "I'm glad I'm not Hispanic." That is one of the impacts of racial profiling. That Arpaio refuses to consider this is another troubling aspect of his tenure as Sheriff.

 

           Note: when reading judicial opinions, it is important to stay focused on the            opinions regarding the facts of the case and the specific point being argued.            Whether the original verdict was upheld or reversed doesn't mean any other issue            at law is upheld or reversed.

 

The U.S. courts are very aware of the impacts racial profiling has on communities and our society. One such case is United States v. Montero-Camargo, 208 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2000), which says "Stops based on race or ethnic appearance send the underlying message to all our citizens that those who are not white are judged by the color of their skin alone."

 

The courts have upheld that the Constitution's Fourth Amendment prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures extends to the investigatory stop of a vehicle. See United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873, 878 (1975). This decision also provides support for the notion that Sheriff's deputies who speed up to tailgate suspected vehicles thereby forcing the driver to take lawful evasive actions are also violating the Fourth Amendment's protections when those vehicles are pulled over and searched.

 

Other courts have found "reasonable suspicion may not be "based on broad profiles which cast suspicion on entire categories of people without any individualized suspicion of the particular person to be stopped." United States v. Rodriguez-Sanchez, 23 F.3d 1488, 1492 (9th Cir. 1994), overruled in part on other grounds by United States v. Montero-Camargo, 208 F.3d 1122, 1131--32 (9th Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied sub nom. Sanchez-Guillen v. United States, 531 U.S. 889 (2000).

 

What these decisions say is combinations of racial profiling and unconstitutional searches equal a violation of law that affects U.S. citizens of Hispanic descent that should not be tolerated.

 

Yet racial profiling is what we get with Arpaio's sweeps and denial is always his defense. The East Valley Tribune lays out a damning case of racial profiling by describing reporter's eyewitness accounts of deputies pulling over vehicles that have committed no crimes. In fact, the reports says the "MCSO’s sweeps could be textbook examples in the federal field guide of what not to do. Arrest reports and e-mails sent regularly to ICE by deputies document that “reliable, empirical data” is nonexistent. Instead, deputies either don’t justify the operation or say it is in response to business owners’ complaints. [read more]

 

Print/Web

Arizona ACLU: Sheriff Arpaio Sued Over Racial Profiling Of Latinos In Maricopa County [PDF]

Arizona ACLU: Driving while Black or Brown [PDF]

ICE: Immigration Enforcement Agreement

East Valley Tribune: Sweeps and saturation patrols violate federal civil rights regulations

Arizona Attorney General's Report on Racial Profiling (2001)

Settlement Agreement in Arnold v. Arizona Department of Public Safety (2/2/2005)

Amended Complaint: Ortega Melendres, et al. v. Arpaio, et al. (7/16/2008)

U.S. Department of Justice: Guidance regarding the use of race by federal law enforcement agencies (2003)

Chicago Tribune: Does crackdown cross the line?

The Washington Post: The Reign of 'Sheriff Joe'

The Washington Post: Ariz. Sheriff Accused Of Racial Profiling

The New York Times: Immigration, Outsourced

 

Video

 Nick Hentoff on Showtime's B.S.! Arpaio's county border random drug checks

Can you help?

Do you have a story that helps explain the case why Joe's got to go? Send it to us at: info@joesgottogo.com