“Are 4th Amendment violations so commonplace that we should just accept them?” No. But I do not see a DO’s violation as proof that the Sheriff has committed unlawful acts that warrant the type of response being suggested at blogs linked from this one. (Again, correct me if I am wrong, and the typical solution is to exclude the evidence, not to lock up the officer who committed the violation.)

“Is it ironic that criminal defense attorneys think Sheriff Joe is violating the law or is it ridiculous that you think defense attorneys can never believe someone is guilty before a conviction?” The irony is that although many of us do not adhere to the presumption of innocence, I thought criminal defense lawyers would. Maybe it is not irony, but stupidity on my part.

“I am a big fan of observing individuals who don’t realize blatant, systematic abuse of power and repeated constitutional violations and I see it often where others may not.” I wonder if the FBI will also see it in the case of the Sheriff.

As to the links:

The Southcarolina blog – I could be flip and say that if the FBI is investigating you (or the Sheriff) he must be guilty. That investigation may bear fruit, but until then it is only an instigation (not even an allegation.) There was something I found ironic in the video: the former US Atty (now defense lawyer) alleges violations of law that if correct happened when he was the US Atty. Why no charges at that time?

One serious problem with the video is that it mentioned the raid at Mesa City Hall and it mentioned that the Sheriff said the raid was to arrest illegal immigrants. What the video did not report was that the City or its contractor had hired illegal immigrants and several were arrested while working at City Hall (during the raid). To me, this selective reporting raises an issue of bias.

Otherwise, the video relied on people that have an axe to grind and was little more than the same allegations that are floated elsewhere. The primary one is that the Sheriff retaliated against people by investigating them. The video made clear that the Sheriff could present a defense that there were other reasons for the investigation. Whether that defense is viable is, of course, a question that might be answered at a trial (or perhaps might convince the FBI not to file charges on those allegations.)

Gamso Blog – That addressed actions by a Detention Officer, not the Sheriff. I am unaware of how acts the DO took can be considered illegal acts by the Sheriff, but I am always willing to be enlightened. What the DO did has been ruled a violation of the 4A (ignoring the pending appeal), which is serious, but there are literally volumes written on 4A violations and these are not uncommon.

Arpaio.com – I skimmed through much of it. Leaving aside the obvious bias (it still has a link supporting the opposition candidate in the election a year ago): Perhaps the most serious allegations are under a heading “Blood on Arpaio’s Hands.” Accepting as true all the reports (which are certainly based on true incidences of injury and death in the jails) none of those reports actually shows that the Sheriff was the actor in the matter. So, as above, unless there is some way that another person’s acts show the Sheriff committed an illegal act, I don’t see how that proves he did so.

Other allegations on the site date back to as long ago as 1995 and include that the Sheriff refused to investigation his chief deputy. Bad policy and poor choice? Sounds like yes. Crime? Hard for me to see without more evidence. There was also a section with a heading (something like) “the Truth.” This discussed, and took issue with, a bunch of the Sheriff’s hyperbole, but I see no evidence of criminal acts. (Ready to be enlightened with specifics.) There was also a blog with the last two entries in April 2009 and May 2008 that were so old I did not read these. And last, a public forum that I did not read at all. (I assume those who have written in that forum have reported evidence of wrong-doing to the proper authorities).

I am a big fan of irony and see it often where others may not. I see irony in that Mr. Brown, a criminal defense lawyer (and other bloggers who are also), appear (to me) to take a guilty until proven innocent approach with the Sheriff. Then again, the FBI has been investigating him for over a year, so he must be guilty of something.

Whether or not the Sheriff has committed illegal acts is something that time will tell. Thank you, Mr. Brown for providing this forum and your input on the matter.

http://www.arpaio.com/
http://gamso-forthedefense.blogspot.com/2009/12/back-to-maricopa.html
http://www.southcarolinacriminaldefenseblog.com/2009/12/more_arpaio_maricopa.html

I think there’s more than enough there for someone to independently verify and decide if what he’s doing really is illegal.

I am pretty sure that if the Phoenix judges were fed up with what is going on, they could prevail upon the state atty general to investigate. Or they could quit en masse.

Since this has not happened, you Arizonans are condemned to live with the morons you’ve elected.

Don’t feel bad. If morons could not run for office and get elected, you wouldn’t have a true democracy.

So, to Mr. Brown, Donte, or anyone else, please provide me with details of these violations. Not here on Mr. Brown’s blog, but on a blog he sometimes links to, they appear to be calling for armed insurrection over the Sheriff’s acts and they offer insults to those of us who are not anxious to participate. Given that level of hyperbole, I don’t think it unfair to ask for specific factual information.

And again, to be clear, I do not know if the Sheriff is in violation or not. But, the DOJ has been investigating him for close to a year. To me that DOJ is now resorting to hot-lines is an indication that it has not found substantial evidence of any violations. But this is conjecture on my part and maybe Mr. Brown or someone with knowledge of DOJ procedures and policy can provide factual information.