You don’t have to live in Maricopa County or even the state of Arizona to recognize the name Sheriff Joe Arpaio. He’s the one who keeps inmates in pink underwear in a tent city and who is a vocal critic of (what he says are illegal) Latin American immigrants. In their report, the Department of Justice accused Arpaio of a pattern of racial profiling and discrimination. And, they say their investigation isn’t over.

The DOJ investigation into the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office (MCSO) began three years ago and it continues to this day. The feds became interested in Arpaio in the midst of countless complaints of racial profiling and over bias in his policing practices and policies. These complaints, the DOJ found, were based in fact.

One of Arpaio’s favorite practices, and one that the DOJ has particular problems with, is his immigration “sweeps,” in which he targets groups, neighborhoods and businesses in an effort to root out illegal immigrants. The problem is that the sweeps frequently target areas where there is no known illegals and instead may only be marked by a group of Latinos gathering outside.

Thomas Perez, in charge of the DOJ’s civil rights division, says, “Arpaio’s own actions have helped nurture MCSO’s culture of bias,” noting there are no policies in place to safeguard against such violations.

Arpaio, and his employees, has frequently been criticized for assuming anyone speaking Spanish or with brown skin is an illegal immigrant and worthy of detention until their immigration status is confirmed. U.S. citizens have been caught up in his sweeps and people have been held without any criminal cause.

Another area of concern is in the county jails, where inmates who don’t speak English are regularly berated and referred to with racial slurs. The language barriers are frequently used to punish non-English-speakers by sending them to segregation for failing to follow commands in a language they don’t understand.

Arpaio has until January 4^th to agree to make significant changes before the federal government sues him and the department and leaves the outcome in the hands of a judge. Such measures would also likely result in the loss of millions in federal funding. The MCSO will be required to set up policies against discrimination and improve training among other things.

But, the DOJ warns, their investigation isn’t over. They plan on continuing their look at reports of excessive force against Latinos, mishandled sex crime cases, and the damage that the office may have done to encourage witnesses and victims to come forward and report crimes.

When one of the top law enforcement agencies in your state is criticized for arresting and detaining people without criminal cause, it’s a real problem. There are certain procedures and laws that must be followed even when dealing with suspected criminals. If you’ve been charged with a crime and believe your rights were violated by the police, we may be able to help.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Arizona has become the first state to begin charging friends and family who wish to visit loved ones in prison. Hardly a notable distinction, particularly since the fee is being misrepresented as a way to pay for the background checks associated with visitor application approvals. Anyone wishing to visit an inmate, however, will now be required to submit a one-time $25 fee with their application.

The fee is called a “background check fee” though the chief of staff for the state Senate has said the fee won’t go to pay for background checks at all. Instead Wendy Baldo admits “We were trying to cut the budget and think of ways that could help get some services for the Department of Corrections.” She goes on to say the fee won’t pay for background checks but will go into a fund for maintenance and repairs.

As a result of the fee and numerous families who have complained, a Tempe-based group called the Middle Ground Prison Reform, has filed suit against the Department, saying the fee is unconstitutional as it amounts to nothing more than a special tax on a single group of people. The same group has also filed suit in regards to another money-making fee for the state, one which charges 1% for every deposit made into an inmate’s account.

Prison isn’t a walk in the park and small things can make the difference between an inmate being motivated to change and one who walks out as the same person who entered. Things like visits, letters, phone calls, and even employment within the walls can keep an inmate positive and can facilitate rehabilitation, reducing recidivism. When you make it more difficult for the incarcerated to have any positivity in prison, it doesn’t only hurt them, it potentially impacts public safety.

The Department of Corrections refuses to comment on the fee as there is pending litigation. They have also not released whether or not visitation numbers have changed since the implementation of the fee. However, it seems that most families would be willing to pay, if possible, in order to provide some support to the loved ones that are in custody.

Interestingly, the state Department of Public Safety provides free background checks to individuals who want to know what’s on their own record, if they supply the fingerprints. I wonder what would happen if those applying for visitation would send a copy of their free background check in lieu of their $25 fee?

Once you are convicted of a crime, you will find this is only one of the more minor obstacles that you will face. The best thing to do is to avoid a conviction in the first place. If you are facing criminal charges, contact our offices today to discuss the details of your case and what can be done.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

If you’re ordered to pay restitution by a judge in a criminal case, you can expect that you will have to pay it, particularly if you were sentenced in Maricopa County. That county was recently recognized as one of the top five in the country on collecting money owed to victims. According to the Arizona Republic, the county collected about $500,000 in delinquent payments from 266 defendants since 2008.

The ranking was done by the National Center for Victims of Crime and Maricopa County’s recognition means other counties across the nation may soon be following their lead. So, what does Maricopa County do that other courts don’t? Well, they don’t take no for an answer.

Chronic non-payers are brought before the judge, sometimes on a monthly basis. They are asked things about their income, their bills, and even what kind of phone they use. “If they’re ordered to pay $100 a month and they come in with a BlackBerry, I know they’re paying $150 a month for a data plan,” said Superior Court Judge Roland Steinle.

Their payments are based on what they are able to pay. But, this doesn’t mean the defendants are given any breaks. The court will send representatives to their homes to see how they’re living if the judge feels it’s necessary to determine their ability to pay.

If they simply refuse to pay—jail time will be ordered.

It’s called Restitution-Enforcement Court and it’s a pretty unique program. But it seems to be working. Arizona’s Constitution states that victims are entitled to “prompt” restitution, and the court wants to see this be a reality.

Restitution is most often ordered in theft and fraud cases, where something of value is taken from a citizen and the defendant is ordered to repay them. But fines and court costs are commonplace in all criminal cases.

Penalties like these are just the tip of the iceberg when you are facing criminal charges. Jail or prison time is obviously the most feared consequence of a criminal act, but even probation and a suspended license can make your life difficult.

If you are charged with a crime and unsure of what to do, contact me to discuss your case today. An attorney consultation can provide insight into just what sort of sentence you might be facing and how you might be able to avoid the most serious of penalties.

Related posts:

1. Large Theft Ring Dismantled in Maricopa County It’s one thing to steal from retailers, but it’s quite...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Jack Harris, Phoenix’s former Chief of Police granted an interview to The Arizona Republic this past week in which he spoke candidly about the politics involved in leading a modern, urban police force and those politics that contributed to his ultimate retirement.

Harris states that it is the City Manager’s job to limit politics in the Police Department ranks but that was something that simply didn’t happen. While Harris claims he was well-liked by the union and other powerful figures in the beginning, times changed and so did the players in the game. Once it was determined he wouldn’t go along with what these figureheads wanted from the department, they made it difficult for him.

Harris permanently retired just a few weeks ago and the Republic cites politics, battles with the police union, and the issues of questionable kidnapping statistics the department used to gain a federal grant while under his leadership all as reasons for his ultimate decision to leave the department.

But Harris states that his seven years is a pretty long stint when compared with other big-city chiefs. He says most in his position only last 3-5 years and end up leaving because of the politics, being forced out by politicians and powerful officials who want “their guy” in the chief’s place.

One of the issues at the center of Harris’ struggle with the union was his disdain for using city officers as immigration enforcement. That was something the union wanted to see Phoenix PD playing a bigger role in and something Harris resisted. But this issue didn’t arise until the current union board was elected.

Similarly, members of a newly elected City Council were not bashful about their desire to see Harris gone, something other members criticized them for. Those who were adamant about him leaving were even accused of violating a City Charter which dictated the absence of politics in the position of police chief.

But like nearly every other powerful position within the criminal justice system, politics has its way of sneaking in. When officials are more concerned about what makes them “electable” than what is right, we find ourselves in the midst of police and court officials who want to use their power to make statements rather than enforce and interpret the law of the land with respect to due process.

And gaming stats on Arizona criminal charges for funding is a serious and troubling accusation, though perhaps not surprising.

In a system that is wrought with politics and often plagued with a politically popular tough-on-crime mentality, the criminal defense attorney is often the only person out there with a criminal defendant’s constitutional rights in mind. If you are facing criminal charges and worried about your outcome, contact our offices for a consultation on your case today. 

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

All across the country, lawmakers are crossing the aisle, coming together to reform the criminal justice system and simultaneously save money. With budgets stretched thin and corrections soaking up a lot of what is there, lawmakers are looking to cut prison populations while keeping the public safe and some who would’ve opted for more “tough on crime” legislation years ago are moving in the other direction in order to reduce spending.

But an editorial in the Arizona Republic points out that Arizona may lag behind once again in the area of meaningful criminal justice reform.

The Arizona department of Corrections released a report stating that if we stay on the same track, the state will need 8,500 additional new prison beds by 2017, with $974 million in construction costs and $150 million more in annual upkeep of the new beds.

In response, the Arizona Association of Criminal Defense Attorneys has stated the state needs to make serious changes to the order of things or face “fiscal insolvency”. They have said our state is addicted to incarceration, and by all accounts it is.

And although conservatives across the country are pushing for reform in these very areas, Governor Jan Brewer has recommended the state increase the corrections budget by $8.4 million, simultaneously cutting spending on higher education by $234 million. Nothing like paying for prisons with the futures of our children.

She has also suggested an application fee for visitors to state prisons. This means family and friends who wished to visit loved ones would have to pay. There’s been no talk from the Governor on how this would work considering many of the people behind bars (and their friends and family) live below the poverty line and unlikely to be able to afford such a fee. She believes the fee could generate $2.3 million.

Half of the prison population in Arizona is non-violent offenders. States across this nation are seeing that it is actually in the interest of public safety to keep some of these lowest level offenders, who have been convicted of non-violent, misdemeanor criminal charges out of prison, using alternatives like probation and treatment instead.

According to the editorial at AZCentral.com, Mississippi restored parole services and “rolled back” truth in sentencing laws to the tune of $200 million. Texas is working on similar changes, using money to expand treatment centers at a fraction of the cost they would’ve spent on building new prisons.

It could be that some conservatives who would have likely voted for “tough on crime” measures twenty years ago are only seeking this major reform because it’s fiscally responsible. Or it could be that they also beyond the monetary value of treatment in lieu of incarceration.

Though Arizona has not taken a big turn towards prison alternatives, there are programs and alternatives available around the state. Depending on the charge you face and things like your criminal history, a criminal defense attorney could work with you to keep you out of prison. If you’re facing charges, contact me today to discuss your options.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

About seven years into a fourteen year prison sentence, a young man walked free from an Arizona prison—freed by DNA evidence initially used by the prosecution to gain a confession.

The suspect was 20 years old back in 2003 when he confessed to assaulting a woman in the park. But now DNA evidence has proven it wasn’t his genetic material on the victim, a fact that helped spur his release from prison and raise questions about the validity of a confession.

Yes he initially confessed to attacking the woman. But he was also facing 120 years in prison on unrelated child pornography charges. When confronted he immediately admitted the images found on his parent’s computer were his. The confession of rape took a bit longer.

After denying the attack repeatedly (60 times), four hours into an intense line of questioning, he confessed. Now he states the confession came when he was at the end of his rope and upon suggestions that it would give him a more lenient sentence in court. After all he was told DNA evidence on the scene was quite compelling and police made it seem as if a conviction was inevitable.

According to the Arizona Republic, he wanted to get out of pre-trial detention, go to prison, and seek resolution on the back-end of the case (through the appeals process). He didn’t believe he stood a good chance at trial and said of the decision to confess “It really was a business decision…I regretted it from the moment I made the decision.”

The confession and following guilty plea were part of a plea agreement. False confessions are not as rare as people think. When defendants are confronted told they will likely lose there case, and a confession can shave years off a prison term.

Facing charges of child porn and sexual assault, he was sentenced to fourteen years. Now, he’s free. And despite the DNA evidence being not his, police and prosecutors still believe he was the assaulter.

Despite his freedom, he will remain a registered sex offender because of the child pornography charges. And he never denied those photos were his, so the registration requirement is only right. As a matter of fact, his “business decision” to attack his case from the back-end through appeals seems to have worked for his benefit, considering he would’ve likely still been in prison if he had went to trial and not negotiated a more lenient sentence on the child pornography charges.

Regardless of the criminal charges you are facing, you may face a tough line of questioning from police. Consulting with your attorney before you answer questions can help ensure you don’t say anything that can be used against you in court.

Depending on your charges and the specific circumstances of your case, a mutually beneficial plea agreement might be an option for you. Contact our offices today to discuss your case and receive a free consultation.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.