The Arizona Court of Appeals on Tuesday upheld a contempt-of-court finding against a Maricopa County sheriff's detention officer who rifled through a defense attorney's file during a court proceeding.

However, the court also threw out the public apology that a Superior Court judge demanded as a sanction.

The Sheriff's Office regarded the opinion as a victory, because it did not contest the contempt charge, only the sanction, which it viewed as vindictive and politically motivated.

The detention officer's defense attorney said the officer, Adam Stoddard, admitted he made a mistake when he took a letter from the file.

"But do you put a detention officer in jail 10 days for that?" asked the lawyer, Deputy County Attorney Tom Liddy.

Stoddard was on duty in a courtroom during a sentencing last October when he saw "four words" on a letter from the defendant to defense attorney Joanne Cuccia. During the contempt proceedings, Stoddard claimed he perceived a threat in the words "going to steal" and "money," and pulled the letter from a file and handed it to a courtroom deputy. Cuccia questioned Stoddard for the action, and the sentencing ended abruptly.

A new defense attorney assigned to the case asked for an order to show cause why Stoddard should not be held in contempt of court.

Presiding Criminal Judge Gary Donahoe found Stoddard in contempt and ordered him to make a "sincere" public apology to Cuccia on the courthouse plaza and issue a news release to the same effect. At the time set for the apology, Stoddard refused and was ordered to jail, where he remained for 10 days until the Court of Appeals issued a stay pending Stoddard's appeal.

The incident was regarded in the court community as a violation of attorney-client privilege. But Stoddard was held up as a hero among supporters of Sheriff Joe Arpaio. On the day after Stoddard was jailed, detention officers called in sick and held a rally to show solidarity with him.

The Court of Appeals upheld the ruling of contempt in the opinion issued Tuesday. But the panel of three appellate judges wrote, "Instead of ordering Stoddard to call a press conference and apologize to Cuccia, the court should have considered a sanction that more appropriately fit the circumstances of the contempt."

The matter was sent back to the Superior Court to come up with a more appropriate sanction, such as a fine.

Craig Mehrens, who represented Cuccia in the contempt case, said that he "admired (Donahoe) for sticking his neck out in fashioning a novel sanction."

When asked about the appropriateness of a fine, Mehrens said, "Oh, that's right: the taxpayers will pick up the tab."

But Liddy argued that Donahoe was not really the aggrieved party, and suggested the matter be sent back to the judge in whose courtroom the incident occurred. Stoddard still works in that courtroom every day.

"If we had lost, (Stoddard) would be going back to jail," Liddy said, "because he's not apologizing."