Rift over results, costs in Arpaio-era racial profiling case still splits Maricopa County

More than a decade after a federal judge first ordered a stop to
racial profiling of Latinos during traffic stops, the Maricopa County
Sheriff’s Office is still trying.

Fourteen years, three sheriffs
and millions in legal fees later, a rift remains between those who wish
to look past the days of “America’s Toughest Sheriff” Joe Arpaio and
those who still grapple with the legacy of his racist policies.

Compliance with federal monitor

At
a community meeting Wednesday night Sheriff Jerry Sheridan, Arpaio’s
former second-in-command, denounced his one-time boss’ policies,
assuring the audience the department has changed.

“MCSO is the best-run police department in the country, because of the scrutiny,” Sheridan said.

For years, a 15-member team of former police chiefs
and commanders appointed by U.S. District Judge G. Murray Snow has
overseen the Arizona department’s efforts to comply with court orders.

To
get rid of the monitor, the department must clear a backlog — once
2,000 cases, now 700 — of internal investigations on civil rights abuse
accusations, plus eliminate “indicia of racial bias” from its annual
traffic stop reports. Latinos are still more likely than white drivers
to be arrested when pulled over, and those stops are longer on average.

The sheriff’s office admits there are disparities but says that’s not enough to prove racial bias.

Instead, Sheridan said, “MCSO has a perception problem.”

To
help, Sheridan says hired Rudy Bustamante, a former community relations
officer for Immigration and Customs Enforcement who is Latino. Sheridan
also boasted Wednesday night about his relationships with Hispanic
business leaders and clergy and even the Mexican ambassador to the United States.

Not everyone was convinced.

“That’s
hilarious. He hired a known ICE agent by the name of Rudy Bustamante.
What Mexicans are he talking about?” county resident Albert Rivera asked
outside the meeting. “We do not like him, nor do we respect him. All
the things that he’s been doing, all the things that he did under Arpaio
— why should we even trust him after all these years?”

Raul Piña,
a former elementary school principal and member of the department’s
community advisory board, called the sheriff’s rhetoric “offensive.”

“The
messaging is that ‘the Hispanics love me, except for these activists,
except for these zealots.’ And it’s been a wedge in our community for
years,” Piña told Courthouse News on Tuesday, referring to Sheridan’s
similar past statements.

Piña said he joined the advisory board in 2016 after some of his students came to school crying.

“They
were telling stories in tears about family members who were being
detained. That compelled me to try to do something,” he said.

Eight
years later, Piña says he is still waiting for the department to take
accountability. In his eyes, the sheriff’s office appeals too many court
orders rather than following them.

“What that tells me is that
they still have not arrived at the place of ownership of the racial
profiling,” he said. “They still have not arrived at a place of
acceptance of the reform process. Until you do that, you might have
tune-ups in the engine, but you don’t have an overhaul until you accept
the reform process.”

“When is enough enough?”

Many
complaints about the court orders and monitoring team focus on the
costs of compliance, rather than the effort to eliminate racial
profiling. The department also pays the legal fees of both the American
Civil Liberties Union, which represents the plaintiff class, and the
federal monitor.

An independent audit commissioned by Snow suggests the department has grossly inflated the costs of complying with the court orders, but some Maricopa County residents say enough is enough.

“There
has to be another option,” former police officer and Marine veteran
Chris Clark said after the meeting. “Either way, you have an
astronomical expense. I know it’s being argued.”

Clark, like many
in attendance Wednesday, complained that the monitoring team has made
more than $30 million since it joined the case in 2013.

“Why did
the judge not consider the U.S. Marshals? The attorney general? DPS?
Another tax-funded entity that can do it that’s already funded by the
public to serve as that monitoring team?” Clark asked. “He chooses a
for-profit industry. That’s a huge issue.”

He speculated that the monitor may not want to close the case if it keeps collecting profits.

County resident Doug Marrs suggested that the court order’s requirements were too strict to achieve 100% compliance.

“At
what point does the monitor say ‘here’s where we started, here’s where
we are’?” Marrs asked. “What level of efficacy is this monitor applying
to this problem set?”

Few questions answered 

Some attendees left the meeting frustrated that a new format prevented them from asking direct questions. After tensions nearly boiled over in a July session, Snow ordered meetings to be held in the federal courtroom in Phoenix under his supervision.

Once
Snow, Sheridan, the monitoring team and the ACLU had spoken, members of
the community advisory board had less than 30 minutes to ask half a
dozen questions submitted online.

Sheridan brushed off questions
about the audit, which found that 72% of the $226 million the department
attributed to court compliance was completely unrelated to the case.

“I really don’t know what this has cost,” he said.

Other questions included whether the sheriff’s office works with ICE — Sheridan said no — and how many members of the monitoring team are Mexican-American — none.

Snow said community members will get more time to speak directly to the sheriff and monitor at the next meeting in January.

Neither the sheriff’s office nor the ACLU replied to requests for comments.