|
Edited on Sat May-08-10 03:21 AM by atreides1
Charles Agster 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 enroute. 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 sheriff's office 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 sheriff's office, and Correctional Health Services.
Scott Norberg One major controversy includes the 1996 death of inmate Scott Norberg, a former Brigham Young University football wide receiver, who died while in custody of the Sheriff's office. 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. 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". 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 Norberg’s parents filed a lawsuit against Arpaio and his office. The lawsuit was settled for $8.25 million.
Brian Crenshaw 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 alleged 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 Examiners 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 '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 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.
The lawsuit against Arpaio and his office resulted in an award of $2 million. As in the Scott Norberg case, it was alleged that Arpaio's office destroyed evidence in the case. In the Crenshaw case, the attorney who represented the case before a jury alleged digital video evidence was destroyed
Improper clearance of MCSO cases New reports show that, under Arpaio, the MCSO may be improperly clearing as many as 75% of cases without arrest or proper investigation. The sheriff's office has failed to properly investigate serious crimes, including the rape of a 14 year old girl by classmates, the rape of a 15 year old girl by two strangers, and the rape of a 13 year old girl by her father. 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. The case of the 15 year old girl, the case was closed within one month and before DNA testing was even complete, the 13 year old's because her mother didn't want to "to pursue this investigation," and the 14 year old's 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
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." <32> Arpaio denied any wrongdoing and stated that he welcomed the investigation, and would cooperate fully.<33> 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. In July, 2009, Arpaio publicly stated that he would not cooperate with the investigation.
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 has maintained that he will still pursue illegal aliens under Arizona state law.
Conflicts with local news media 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. 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. On the following day, the county attorney dropped the case and fired the special prosecutor.
On November 28, 2007, it was ruled that the subpoenas were not validly issued and in April 2008, the New Times editors filed suit against Arpaio, County Attorney Andrew Thomas and Special Prosecutor Dennis Wilenchik.<81>
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.<82> The five-part series titled “Reasonable Doubt,” which received a Pulitzer Prize for local reporting, described "slow emergency response times and lax criminal enforcement."
On December 23, 2009, the Arizona Republic published an editorial titled “The Conspiracy that won’t stop.” The Editorial Board referenced a published letter written by The Yavapai County Attorney, Sheila Polk, titled “Arpaio, Thomas are abusing power” ” 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
|