Judge: Arpaio will face contempt hearing in April

After months of fiery hearings, legal filings and stern warnings, a federal judge presiding over a racial-profiling case has announced he will take legal action against the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office.

Sheriff Joe Arpaio will face a civil contempt hearing in federal court this spring.

U.S. District Judge G. Murray Snow announced during a Thursday telephone conference that he will oversee a civil contempt of court proceeding against the six-term Maricopa County sheriff during a four-day mini trial in April.

Snow has repeatedly threatened to level criminal- or civil-contempt proceedings against the office, and the judge spent the past week reviewing pleadings in which attorneys for Arpaio tried to persuade Snow not to take the monumental step.

The trial is set to take place April 21-24.

The Maricopa County Sheriff's Office had no comment on the announcement.

Snow, whose measured judicial approach had created calm in the courtroom, was clearly fed up with the agency in the last few hearings, charging that Arpaio and others had repeatedly defied his orders.

Snow last month said he would cite the agency for civil contempt, or if he deemed the measure insufficient, refer the agency to the U.S. Attorney's Office for criminal-contempt prosecution unless Arpaio's attorneys could convince him otherwise.

Plaintiffs attorney Dan Pochoda, legal director for the American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona, said the plaintiffs were pleased with Snow's announcement that civil-contempt proceedings should be initiated.

"He did not waste time clearing his calendar and making sure all attorneys were available for the required evidentiary hearing," Pochoda said. "We believe that this is the proper course."

Snow has cited various areas of concern that signal that Arpaio and his officials had flouted his orders:

The office's failure to disclose information that plaintiffs had requested prior to trial, including all information possessed by the Sheriff's Office regarding traffic stops, which may have broadened the scope of the court's actions.

Top officials' failure to relay the court's directives to rank-and-file deputies to discontinue stopping and detaining anyone solely on suspicion of being in the country illegally, and Arpaio's public statements that he would continue to turn suspects over to immigration authorities.

A traffic stop, months after Snow's orders, by now-former Deputy Ramon "Charley" Armendariz that violated the court's edicts.

The agency's failure to follow the court's required procedures in recovering potential body-camera recordings, and other investigations surrounding Armendariz.

Snow has indicated that he is unsure whether the violations warrant criminal- or civil-contempt proceedings, and has enlisted arguments from both sides of counsel.

A finding of civil contempt would likely amount to fines for the office, perhaps compensating the individuals whose rights were violated after the judge issued his initial order. Criminal contempt is more punitive, and could result in harsher monetary penalties or even jail time.

Snow had advised Arpaio and his top aides to retain criminal-defense attorneys in case he refers for prosecution.

In a written statement filed earlier this month, Arpaio's attorneys apologized for general errors while maintaining that any missteps were unintentional.

"Sheriff Arpaio readily concedes that mistakes have been made in the communication and, in some instances, implementation of Court Orders," the statement reads. "He genuinely regrets those mistakes, and is committed to working with the Court Monitor to carry out existing directives and minimize further mistakes."

The latest legal hurdle stems from a 2007 class-action civil-rights case that alleged the Sheriff's Office's immigration sweeps amounted to discriminatory policing against Latinos. Snow agreed and imposed an operational overhaul that would prevent the behavior in the future.

But Snow has become increasingly agitated over the past year as information surfaced, which he perceived as resistance by agency officials and outright defiance from their outspoken leader.

Point by point, Arpaio's attorneys countered the judge's assertions in their filing earlier this month. They stressed that a jury would have to find the sheriff "willfully disobeyed" the judge's orders to find him in contempt, which, they said, was not the case.

For one, Arpaio could not be solely responsible for distributing information about the court's order, they said, quoting testimony stating that a former deputy chief was primarily the point of contact for such matters.

Attorneys also said Arpaio did not intend to defy the judge when speaking about his ongoing ability to detain immigrants for Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

And finally, they said, Arpaio could not be accountable for the actions of a "rogue" former deputy who had secretly recorded traffic stops and stashed IDs, driver's licenses and license plates in his home.