Issue 16: Arpaio's Jails are Unconstitutional - Let the Spin Begin

In a sharp rebuke to Joe Arpaio's management (or lack thereof) of the Maricopa County Jails, U.S. District Court Judge Neil Wake handed down a ruling late Wednesday that clarified and modified a 1981 consent decree that outlined how Maricopa County Jails were to be managed and how the prisoners were to be treated. The bottom line is Maricopa County Jails are unconstitutional, cruel and inhumane.

Of course, that's not what Arpaio's office wants you to think. In today's Arizona Republic, Arpaio's Chief Deputy, Jack MacIntyre said "As far as I can see, every single facility passed muster."

Jack didn't bother to look too hard.

Every MCSO Jail facility was singled out for violations of Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment constitutional rights. Every one. Food quality was singled out. Health care was singled out. Safety of detainees was singled out. Overcrowding was singled out.

To make this clear to everyone and to make it so you don't have to read all 83 pages of the report. Here are some of the Court's findings. Be sure to take a look at number 382. Unless indicated, these are direct quotes from the ruling.

U.S. District Court Ruling on Case No. CV-77-0479-PHX-NVW

Page 8, line 12: "underlying the eighth amendment is a fundamental premise that prisoners are not to be treated as less than human beings."

Page 9: line 7: "...a court may infer that the purpose of a particular restriction or condition is punishment if the restriction or condition is nor reasonably related to a legitimate governmental objective or excessive in relation to the legitimate governmental objective."

Page 9, line 17: "Retribution and deterrence are not legitimate government objectives...The cost or inconvenience of providing adequate conditions is not a defense to the imposition of punishment."

23. Confining three segregation pretrial detainees in one cell at the Towers jail for approximately twenty-two or twenty-three hours per day constitutes punishment in violation of pretrial detainees' Fourteenth Amendment rights.

38. Chronic use of portable beds in lieu of maintaining cells with hard beds or transferring inmates to other facilities violates pretrial detainee's constitutional rights.

39 ...if prospective relief is not granted, Maricopa County jails are likely to return to the longstanding practice discontinued only days before inspections for this litigation were to begin.

56. Overcrowding in the 4th Avenue Intake holding cells is not reasonably related to a legitimate governmental objective.

80. The Eighth Amendment requires that the temperature of the areas in which pretrial detainees are held or housed does not threaten their health or safety.

125. Cells are not consistently cleaned and sanitized prior to occupancy by pretrial detainees thereby causing an unconstitutional health risk.

132. The Eighth Amendment requires the Maricopa County Jails not be deliberately indifferent to prisoner's serious medical, dental and mental health needs, including conditions that are likely to cause serious illness and needless suffering in the future.

144. Although the NCCHC standards may be helpful for a jail, the Court makes its findings based on the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution.

149. It is estimated that twenty percent of the pretrial detainees housed in the Maricopa County Jails are seriously mentally ill. Many of these have schizophrenia, bipolar disease, anxiety disorders, attention deficit disorder, and other serious chronic mental illnesses.

151. Often people with serious mental illness, who are untreated or under-treated, commit minor crimes and end up in Maricopa County Jails.

193. Pretrial detainees frequently are denied access to adequate medical, mental health, and dental care because they do not receive a timely in-person assessment of the urgency of their need for treatment.

233. ...Correctional Health Services does not consistently ensure that all pretrial detainees actually receive all prescribed medications as ordered.

292. From June 1, 2007 through May 31, 2008, 93,065 pretrial detainees were booked into the 4th Avenue Intake. Of these, 21,987 (24%) were in intake more than twenty-four hours, 1,910 were in intake more than forty-eight hours, and 358 inmates were in intake more than seventy-two hours.

296. At times, the intake holding cells do not have toilet paper, and pretrial detainees are not provided with toilet paper when they request it.

297. At times, the intake holding cells do not have soap for pretrial detainees to wash their hands after using the toilet.

301. During intake, repeat offenders charged with serious violent crimes may be placed in holding cells with individuals charged with DUI or criminal speeding.

309. Defendant Arpaio does not consistently take reasonable measures to guarantee the safety of the pretrial detainees during the intake process, which constitutes a current and ongoing violation of pretrial detainee's constitutional rights.

336. Defendant Arpaio's contention that pretrial detainees can do physical exercise in their cells, or in their cells and dayrooms sufficient to meet their constitutional entitlement is unworthy of belief, and the Court does not believe it. (emphasis added)

340. ... If the pod is filled to capacity and all of the inmates wanted outdoor exercise,, each inmate would have approximately 17 square feet in which to exercise.

348. ... "Pretrial detainees classified as general population who are housed at the Towers, Durango, Estrella, and 4th Avenue Jails shall be allowed a minimum of one hour, at least four days per week, in areas that permit outdoor recreation or equivalent fresh air recreation with sufficient space for pretrial detainees to move freely.

382. Pretrial detainees may purchase additional food from the Canteen, which earned a net profit of $5,144,507.99 in fiscal year 2007. (emphasis added)

391. The Maricopa County Jail's dietician's opinions regarding nutritional equivalents are not credible, and the Court does not believe them.

402. Maricopa County Jails staff do not know who donated the food, the circumstances under which it was donated, or the age of the food.

407. Defendant Arpaio cannot establish that pretrial detainees are served adequate nutrition.

413. The jail sanitarians have instituted an improved process for washing potatoes to avoid having rocks in the potatoes served to inmates.

440. The only way a detention officer can monitor the welfare of each pretrial detainee is to actually look into each locked cell, but security walks often are performed too quickly to permit a detention officer to actually look into each locked cell.

441. Detention officers do not visually observe pretrial detainees as frequently as necessary to protect pretrial detainees' health and safety in the 4th Avenue Intake areas, the Madison court holding cells, the 4th Avenue psychiatric unit, and the segregation units.

452. Incident reports are not prepared for every incident of inmate violence, including some incidents for which pretrial detainees require medical treatment.

458 The Eighth Amendment requires that the Maricopa County Jails take reasonable measures to ensure the health and safety of prisoners.

459. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that pretrial detainees not be subjected to confinement conditions that constitute punishment, i.e., conditions that pose a risk to health and safety beyond that which is reasonably related to legitimate governmental objectives.

475. This leaves the parties in the following status. Plaintiffs have proven, or Defendants failed to disprove, current and ongoing violations of constitutional right and of the Amended Judgment as originally written or as narrowed by the Second Amended Judgment. Defendants are in breach of the Amended Judgment as found in these findings and conclusions and as restated and narrowed by the Second Amended Judgment entered this day.

476. With this conclusion to Defendants' Renewed Motion to Terminate the Amended Judgment, there is now no matter pending before the Court. As in any case closed by entry of a permanent injunction, enforcement for non-compliance with the permanent injunction may be sought by an aggrieved Plaintiff. Such enforcement may be in the form of further specific orders to implement the permanent injunction and/or contempt remedies to give incentives to cease the violations of the permanent injunction.

478 and 479 - In short (these are our words) the Plaintiffs are entitled and due attorney's fees, which "may be claimed...upon entry of this order. If enforcement proceedings become necessary, future fees may be claimed and will be determined and awarded at appropriate intervals during the enforcement procedures."

Does this sound like the Maricopa County Jails have "passed muster" to you?

We didn't think so.

Can you help?

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

Previous issues:

For more information on this issue, visit our web site www.JoesGotToGo.com.