Judge rules in favor of DOJ in suit against Arpaio

Days after setting a trial date for the Department of Justice's sweeping lawsuit against Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, U.S. District Judge Roslyn Silver entered a partial but significant judgment against the six-term lawman.

The Justice Department claimed the legal victory in some of the racial-profiling sections of their wide-raging allegations, claims that largely overlapped with another, successful discrimination lawsuit against the office, headed by the American Civil Liberties Union.

While the rest of DOJ's allegations remain in legal limbo, some experts say the judgment could spark a settlement between the parties prior to the slated Aug. 10 trial.

The ACLU's case centered on traffic stops — with the plaintiffs convincing U.S. District Judge G. Murray Snow that the Sheriff's Office singled out Latinos on the pretense of crime-suppression. Critics came to see these "saturation patrols" as a means to further Arpaio's immigration enforcement, the backbone of his political platform.

Traffic enforcement is a key claim in the DOJ's case as well, but federal officials expanded their discrimination charges to include home and worksite raids. Separate allegations included discrimination against non-English-speaking inmates in the county jails, and claims of retaliation against Arpaio's critics.

Both Arpaio and DOJ attorneys used the ACLU case as foundation of their competing bids for summary judgment.

Arpaio's camp maintained that the allegations were now moot, and that Snow's imposed remedies were so exhaustive that there was no reasonable likelihood that the court could issue any further relief.

DOJ attorneys had a different interpretation of the ruling, arguing that the suit amounted to a judgment in their favor based on the "undisputed facts" already litigated in court.

"We are pleased that the court has granted our motion and entered judgment against Sheriff Arpaio and Maricopa County for engaging in discriminatory traffic stops that formed the basis for some of our central claims in this case, and has permitted our other claims to go forward to trial," said Mark Kappelhoff, deputy assistant attorney general for civil rights in an e-mailed statement.

In an e-mailed correspondence, defense attorney Joe Popolizio said that while Arpaio's counsel has yet to fully analyze the order, Monday's decision changes little.

"Unsurprisingly, it is, in part, an acknowledgement of the 2012 decision in Melendres," he said, referring to the traffic-stop case. "On the rest of the claims, however, the Court ruled that issues of fact must be resolved at the upcoming trial in which the United States still bears the burden of proof."

Monday's ruling did not touch on whether the summary judgment would warrant further remedies, and the Justice Department's motion for judgment indicated that the discussion would be premature.

MONTINI: Embattled, stubborn sheriff says he won't quit

Who is Murray Snow?: The man judging Sheriff Joe

"Once the full scope of the Defendants' unconstitutional conduct is determined, the Court can fashion appropriate remedies," government attorneys said in the motion.

Dan Pochoda, senior counsel for the ACLU of Arizona and one of the plaintiffs' attorneys on the traffic-stop case, said it's possible but unlikely Silver would order any remedies beyond what Snow prescribed for that portion of the DOJ case.

Pochoda estimated that the traffic-stop portions amounted to about 70 to 75 percent of the DOJ's case. And Snow's orders, which included bias-free training, recording devices and a court-appointed monitor, were comprehensive, he said.

The remainder of the case would focus on abuse-of-power allegations against Arpaio, many of which have already produced multimillion-dollar settlements against the office. Pochoda said Arpaio's attorneys may want to avoid another highly public, seven-figure trial.

"It certainly increases the incentive for the defendants to settle," Pochoda said.

ARPAIO THROUGH THE YEARS