Accused by the Justice Department of running an agency rife with civil-rights violations, Sheriff Joe Arpaio faces a difficult choice: agree to a long and possibly contentious process of federal monitoring or enter an unprecedented legal battle for control of his office.

Arpaio, who has until Jan. 4 to announce whether he'll even discuss a reform program with the Justice Department, appears to be in a standoff. He has denounced the investigation as political, denied allegations of racial profiling and rejected findings of retaliation against critics.

Yet, in an interview Saturday, Arpaio said he will talk with the Justice Department to see if a compromise can be reached rather than open a legal drama that could ultimately put the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office under judicial supervision.

"We're going to see what they want -- what they're going to throw at us with a threat of going to federal court," he said. "And then if we have to go to federal court, OK. ... If I have to fight for the people of Maricopa County, I'll do it."

Experts said that the Justice Department has targeted more than 20 U.S. law-enforcement agencies with similar probes in the past 20 years that and not one had fought the allegations in court.

"There's a hurdle there, and it's a big untested hurdle," said Sam Walker, professor emeritus of criminal justice with the University of Nebraska at Omaha. "The question is, if a community or police department really fights it, what will happen? ... This could be a frontier case."

The Justice Department's findings were based on a three-year investigation that included analysis of public records and statistics as well as interviews with more than 400 people.

Arpaio repeatedly denied that MCSO engages in unconstitutional policing. He said that despite the Justice Department's 22-page report spelling out repeated examples of civil-rights violations, there is no culture of discrimination in his agency, and therefore no policies or practices that need to be reformed.

Arpaio would not say point-blank whether he will accede to Justice Department reform demands.

Asked if he would accept court oversight of MCSO, the sheriff answered, "I don't intend to do anything until we evaluate what they (Justice officials) say. ... Let's see what happens in the next 60 days."

If the sheriff refuses to back down, experts on law-enforcement practices said, the result is likely to be a courtroom battle and a takeover of his agency.

"If he remains combative, he's highly likely to end his career with the department under federal oversight," said Scott Greenwood, an attorney who handled a similar case in Cincinnati.

"Reasonable lawyers would not allow clients to take that step," Greenwood said. "The Department of Justice does not file a lawsuit until it has all of the evidence to prove these cases."

Arpaio responds

The Justice Department gave Arpaio two months to reach a voluntary settlement. For such an agreement to succeed, Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez said it should include reforms to internal affairs and training, as well as an independent-monitoring process.

Arpaio said Friday that he will not agree to be "controlled by some federal monitor or something."

Yet on Saturday he talked of cooperating with the Justice Department and said he has done so throughout the investigation, even though federal lawyers sued MCSO for withholding records during the probe.

At the same time, the sheriff rejected as false all of the allegations concerning systemic civil-rights violations. He acknowledged isolated incidents of misconduct by deputies or detention officers, but he said those occurred during arrests of 7,000 suspected illegal immigrants and jail contact with 40,000 others.

"You're bound, with 50,000, to get a few complaints," Arpaio said.

Likewise, the sheriff denied unlawfully targeting critics for arrest during political protests. "We don't go after anybody," he said. "Actually, they go after me. They're demonstrating in front of my building, calling me every kind of name. If you want to talk about civil-rights violations, what about that?"

Arpaio accused the Justice Department of targeting him and timing its critical report for political reasons, but he did not mention that the investigation, which was launched during President George W. Bush's administration, could have been completed much sooner if MCSO had cooperated and not forced the department to go to court for records.

He said Attorney General Eric Holder sought a distraction because he is "on the hot seat" over a scandal involving firearms trafficking in Arizona. He said Democrats are trying to discredit him because of what he says is his influential role in Republican presidential campaigning. He has endorsed Texas Gov. Rick Perry, who polls show is in fifth place among the seven major candidates.

"All of this is coincidental?" Arpaio said of the Justice Department inquiry. "Come on. Even Obama is concerned about me."

Greenwood, general counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union, said Arpaio's obstinance, his 19-year tenure as sheriff and the fact that he is an elected official rather than an appointee create unique circumstances. "This is the one most likely to end up with a court-appointed monitor and DOJ running the department," he said.

Walker, who served as a Justice Department consultant in two other civil-rights investigations, agreed. "Sheriff Joe has been belligerent and recalcitrant from the very beginning, so I don't expect him to implement reforms voluntarily," he said. "He's really kind of a cartoon character in American law enforcement."

Past cases

At least during the past 15 years, U.S. law-enforcement agencies under similar pressure have elected, sometimes grudgingly, to sign memorandums or court-enforced consent decrees rather than fight.

More than 20 such settlements have occurred -- from Los Angeles to Miami to New York -- with varying outcomes. In each case, police agreed to work with the Department of Justice and community groups to hammer out detailed policies and practices aimed at eliminating racial profiling, unwarranted use of force, unlawful searches and other civil-rights violations.

Those compacts are the first step in a process that may go on for years -- a sort of probation for police agencies. The objective is not just to impose new policies but to alter police cultures that the Justice Department believes have gone rogue.

Experts said the cure can be costly and time-consuming, but the alternative -- federal litigation and injunctions -- may be even more expensive and protracted.

In its letter to Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery, the Justice Department advised that Arpaio has 60 days to take "clear steps" toward reaching an agreement to correct violations. Otherwise, "the United States will conclude that voluntary compliance is not possible and will initiate civil litigation to compel compliance."

The letter says a voluntary agreement must include civil-rights training for deputies and an overhaul of the sheriff's systems for complaints, internal investigations, data collection and accommodating foreign inmates.

Legal and criminological professionals say the success of a reform campaign depends to some extent on clearly defined reforms and community involvement but primarily on the willingness of an agency's top law officer.

David Harris, a law professor at the University of Pittsburgh, recently told the Times-Picayune of New Orleans: "If you have a leader who is not committed to it, who has it stuffed down his or her throat, who doesn't believe in it, who doesn't think it is necessary, it is going to be very difficult to get long-term results."

In a past inquiry, Arpaio agreed to oversight yet remained entrenched in his tactics.

In 1997, federal authorities completed a similar investigation aimed at treatment of inmates in Maricopa County jails, finding a plethora of civil-rights violations such as excessive force and improper restraints.

Arpaio signed a consent agreement, then joined then-U.S. Attorney Janet Napolitano in a news conference, in which he announced he was not changing anything in his jail: "The chain gangs stay. The tents stay. The pink underwear stays. All my programs stay," he declared. "This has nothing to do with my policies and programs. Nothing changes."

There were no consequences from Washington, D.C., or at Maricopa County ballot boxes.

This time, the Justice Department did not invite Arpaio to its news conference, and it criticized him for failing to cooperate with the investigation.

Mixed results

Those who study policing point to the Cincinnati Police Department as an example of successful transformation and of the key role played by an agency's top cop.

In the late 1990s, Black community groups complained about discriminatory enforcement, including the deaths of 15 African-Americans shot by officers. Greenwood became lead attorney in a class-action lawsuit that was joined by the Justice Department. As the case developed, another police shooting sparked the Cincinnati riot of 2001.

Greenwood said Chief Thomas Streicher was resistant to change. A court-appointed monitor was thrown out of the police station. Streicher faced a contempt motion in federal court.

Then, suddenly, police administrators began to cooperate. The Fraternal Order of Police joined in. "The Police Department realized that it really had to change or it would fail," Greenwood said. "It became a model of success."

An independent monitor's final report described the makeover as "one of the most successful police-reform efforts ever undertaken in this country."

Greenwood credits Streicher, who has since retired, as well as community groups and clear guidelines established with help from the Justice Department.

Since 2008, when federal oversight ended, the number of police shootings fell dramatically, along with complaints of discrimination. Beyond that, Greenwood said, "there is absolutely a stronger sense of professional pride among officers."

Law-enforcement experts said there is no set course for civil-rights cases and outcomes seem checkered.

The Pittsburgh police department reportedly made dramatic improvements under a progressive police chief but regressed after he left.

Oakland, Calif., adopted what Greenwood described as an ideal set of reform measures but never implemented them. "They have great policies in place," he said. "They just ignore them."

Walker, the University of Nebraska professor emeritus, who has written 11 books on policing, said a flawed police culture can be difficult to overcome, particularly in an agency that has been under one chief for more than a decade.

Both men said that situation becomes even more complicated when the boss, such as Arpaio, holds an elective office and cannot be fired.

On Saturday, the sheriff said political enemies are trying to force him out of office, but he will not resign or back down. He said he's considering a run for U.S. Senate, but otherwise will seek a sixth term as sheriff.

"I'm going to keep doing this. I'm not going to surrender," Arpaio said. "I'd say 99 percent I'm running for sheriff again next year."