Joe Arpaio's Appeal in Melendres Does Not Deny MCSO's Racial-Profiling in Saturation Patrols
Following Monday's hearing before federal Judge G. Murray Snow, where Snow meted out a verbal shellacking to Sheriff Joe Arpaio and his Chief Deputy Jerry Sheridan, Arpaio briefly appeared outside the Sandra Day O'Connor U.S. Courthouse, reminding reporters that Snow's ruling against him in Melendres v. Arpaio was under appeal.
This was echoed by Tom Liddy of the Maricopa County Attorney's Office, who spoke for the defense team. But what neither Arpaio nor Liddy explained is that the sheriff's appeal does not challenge the judge's final order or his findings of facts and conclusions of law within the context of Arpaio's notorious immigration sweeps.
That's right, Arpaio's legal beagles are not contesting Snow's judgment that the MCSO racially profiled Latinos and violated their rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution during the sweeps.
Rather, Joe's appeals attorney, Eileen Dennis GilBride of the firm Jones, Skelton, Hochuli, writes in the opening brief to the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals that Snow's order is "impermissibly overbroad" because it covers "regular patrol duties" as well as the MCSO's saturation patrols.
GilBride argues that:
"The judgment should be vacated to the extent it covers regular patrol activities, and the class should be partially decertified and limited to `All Latino persons who, since January 2007, have been or will be in the future, stopped, detained, questioned or searched by MCSO agents during a saturation patrol while driving or sitting in a vehicle on a public roadway or parking area.'"
GilBride contends that most of the evidence of racial profiling (at least, the evidence the MCSO did not destroy) is from the sweeps, therefore, Snow's findings and final order should be limited to MCSO activity within the saturation patrols.
"As is noted above," writes GilBride, "Defendants are not challenging the court's findings and conclusions with respect to immigration-related saturation patrols. They do challenge the injunction as it relates to MCSO regular patrols...
"Leaving aside the saturation patrols, the record lacks evidence that MCSO has a pattern, practice, or policy of violating Hispanics' Fourth or Fourteenth Amendment rights during regular patrols." (Italics, mine.)
So, GilBride maintains that, "The judgment and injunction should be vacated as to all activities outside of saturation patrols."