WaPo: Former Ariz. sheriff Joe Arpaio, who took extreme stance on immigration, is convicted of criminal contempt by Matt Zapotosky. Opinion link below.
Arpaio was also found to have violated the Fourth Amendment rights of detainees: Courthouse News Service: Judge Finds Arizona’s Arpaio Guilty of Criminal Contempt by Nicholas Iovino:
Arpaio gave a lieutenant a direct order to transport non-felons that ICE refused to take into custody more than hour to a Border Patrol station in Casa Grande, Arizona, according to witness testimony.
“This meant, in effect, that MCSO officers were required by defendant to detain persons not suspected of any crime for the additional hour and 15 minutes to hour and 30 minutes it took to deliver the detainees to the nearest Border Patrol station,” Bolton wrote in her ruling. “These detentions, in violation of the Fourth Amendment, were exactly what the preliminary injunction intended to stop.”
Opinion here: United States v. Arpaio, CR-16-01012-001-PHX-SRB (D. Ariz. July 31, 2017):
Not only did Defendant abdicate responsibility, he announced to the world and to his subordinates that he was going to continue business as usual no matter who said otherwise. For example, ICE changed its policy to only accept felons who violated civil immigration law, and in response Defendant declared that he created a backup plan. (Ex. 3B 557:6-9; Ex. 3G 63:17-21; Gov’t Ex. 36G.) The backup plan directed the Human Smuggling Unit to take illegal immigrants for whom state charges were unavailable to Border Patrol if ICE did not agree to take them. (Gov’t Ex. 36E.) In mid to late 2012, Defendant gave Lieutenant Jackowinicz a direct order to take people ICE would not to Border Patrol. (Trial Tr. Day 3-AM 583:14-584:7.) This meant, in effect, that MCSO officers were required by Defendant to detain persons not suspected of any crime for the additional hour and 15 minutes to hour and 30 minutes it took to deliver the detainees to the nearest Border Patrol station, Casa Grande in Pinal County. (Trial Tr. Day 3-PM 705:4-11.) These detentions, in violation of the Fourth Amendment, were exactly what the preliminary injunction intended to stop. (Gov’t Ex. 1 at 7-8, 17, 23-24, 38, 40.) When confronted by Mr. Casey about the violations in October 2012, Defendant told him that it was a mistake and that it would not happen again, but there is no evidence that Defendant ever gave his subordinates a contrary instruction. (Trial Tr. Day 1-PM 154:7-24.)
The evidence shows a flagrant disregard for Judge Snow’s order. …