A lawsuit or (much less commonly) "suit in law" is a civil action brought in a court of law in which a plaintiff, a party who claims to have incurred loss as a result of a defendant's actions, demands a legal or equitable remedy. The defendant is required to respond to the plaintiff's complaint. If the plaintiff is successful, judgment will be given in the plaintiff's favor, and a variety of court orders may be issued to enforce a right, award damages, or impose a temporary or permanent injunction to prevent an act or compel an act. A declaratory judgment may be issued to prevent future legal disputes. Although not as common, lawsuit may also refer to a criminal action, criminal proceeding, or criminal claim.

A lawsuit may involve dispute resolution of private law issues between individuals, business entities or non-profit organizations. A lawsuit may also enable the state to be treated as if it were a private party in a civil case, as plaintiff or defendant regarding an injury, or may provide the state with a civil cause of action to enforce certain laws.

The conduct of a lawsuit is called litigation. One who has a tendency to litigate rather than seek non-judicial remedies is called litigious.^[1] The plaintiffs and defendants are called litigants and the attorneys representing them are called litigators.^[2]

Rules of procedure and complications in lawsuits[link]

Rules of criminal or civil procedure govern the conduct of a lawsuit in the common law adversarial system of dispute resolution. Procedural rules are additionally constrained/informed by separate statutory laws, case law, and constitutional provisions that define the rights of the parties to a lawsuit (see especially due process), though the rules will generally reflect this legal context on their face. The details of procedure differ greatly from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, and often from court to court within the same jurisdiction. The rules are very important for litigants to know, however, because they dictate the timing and progression of the lawsuit—what may be filed and when, to obtain what result. Failure to comply with the procedural rules may result in serious limitations upon the ability to present claims or defenses at any subsequent trial, or even dismissal of the lawsuit.

Though the majority of lawsuits are settled and never reach trial,^[3] they can be very complicated to litigate. This is particularly true in federal systems, where a federal court may be applying state law (e.g., the Erie doctrine in the United States) or vice versa, or one state applying the law of another, and where it additionally may not be clear which level (or location) of court actually has jurisdiction over the claim or personal jurisdiction over the defendant. For example, about 98 percent of civil cases in the United States federal courts are resolved without a trial. Domestic courts are also often called upon to apply foreign law, or to act upon foreign defendants, over whom they may not, as a practical matter, even have the ability to enforce a judgment if the defendant's assets are outside their reach.

Lawsuits become additionally complicated as more parties become involved (see joinder). Within a "single" lawsuit, there can be any number of claims and defenses (all based on numerous laws) between any number of plaintiffs or defendants, each of whom can bring any number of cross-claims and counterclaims against each other, and even bring additional parties into the suit on either side after it progresses. However, courts typically have some power to sever claims and parties into separate actions if it is more efficient to do so, such as if there is not a sufficient overlap of factual issues between the various associates.

The progress of a lawsuit[link]

The following is a generalized description of how a lawsuit may proceed in a common law jurisdiction:

Pleading[link]

A lawsuit begins when a complaint is filed with the court. This complaint will state that one or more plaintiffs is seeking damages or equitable relief from one or more stated defendants, and will identify the legal and factual bases for doing so. It is important that the "plaintiff selects the proper venue with the proper jurisdiction to bring his lawsuit." The clerk of a court signs or stamps the court seal upon a summons, which is then served by the plaintiff upon the defendant, together with a copy of the complaint. This service notifies the defendants that they are being sued and that they have a specific time limit to file a response. By providing a copy of the complaint, the service also notifies the defendants of the nature of the claims. Once the defendants are served with the summons and complaint, they are subject to a time limit to file an answer stating their defenses to the plaintiff's claims, including any challenges to the court's jurisdiction, and any counterclaims they wish to assert against the plaintiff.

In a handful of jurisdictions (notably, the U.S. state of New York) a lawsuit begins when one or more plaintiffs properly serve a summons and complaint upon the defendant(s). In such jurisdictions, nothing needs to be filed with the court until a dispute develops requiring actual judicial intervention.

If the defendant chooses to file an answer within the time permitted, the answer must address each of the plaintiffs' allegations by admitting the allegation, denying it, or pleading a lack of sufficient information to admit or deny the allegation. Some jurisdictions, like California, still authorize general denials of each and every allegation in the complaint. At the time she or he files an answer, the defendant will also raise all "affirmative" defenses she or he may have. She or he may also assert any counterclaims for damages or equitable relief against the plaintiff, and in the case of "compulsory counterclaims," must do so or risk having the counterclaim barred in any subsequent proceeding. The defendant may also file a "third party complaint" in which she or he seeks to join another party or parties in the action if she or he believes those parties may be liable for some or all of the plaintiff's damages. Filing an answer "joins the cause" and moves the case into the pre-trial phase.

Instead of filing an answer within the time specified in the summons, the defendant can choose to dispute the validity of the complaint by filing a demurrer (in the handful of jurisdictions where that is still allowed) or one or more "pre-answer motions," such as a motion to dismiss. The motion must be filed within the time period specified in the summons for an answer. If all such motions are denied by the trial court, and the defendant loses on all appeals from such denials (if that option is available), then the defendant must file an answer.

Usually the pleadings are drafted by a lawyer, but in many courts persons can file papers and represent themselves, which is called appearing pro se. Many courts have a pro se clerk to assist people without lawyers.

Pretrial discovery[link]

The early stages of the lawsuit may involve initial disclosures of evidence by each party and discovery, which is the structured exchange of evidence and statements between the parties. Discovery is meant to eliminate surprises and clarify what the lawsuit is about, and to make the parties realize they should settle or drop frivolous claims and defenses. At this point the parties may also engage in pretrial motion practice in order to exclude or include particular legal or factual issues before trial.

At the close of discovery, the parties may either pick a jury and then have a trial by jury or the case may proceed as a bench trial heard only by the judge if the parties waive a jury trial or if the right to a jury trial is not guaranteed for their particular claim (such as those under equity in the U.S.) or for any lawsuits within their jurisdiction.

Trial and judgment[link]

At trial, each person presents witnesses and enters evidence into the record, at the close of which the judge or jury renders their decision. Generally speaking, the plaintiff has the burden of proof in making his claims. The defendant may have the burden of proof on other issues, however, such as affirmative defenses.

There are numerous motions that either party can file throughout the lawsuit to terminate it "prematurely"—before submission to the judge or jury for final consideration. These motions attempt to persuade the judge, through legal argument and sometimes accompanying evidence, that because there is no reasonable way that the other party could legally win, there is no sense in continuing with the trial. Motions for summary judgment, for example, can usually be brought before, after, or during the actual presentation of the case. Motions can also be brought after the close of a trial to undo a jury verdict that is contrary to law or against the weight of the evidence, or to convince the judge that she or he should change his decision or grant a new trial.

Also, at any time during this process from the filing of the complaint to the final judgment, the plaintiff may withdraw his or her complaint and end the whole matter, or the defendant may agree to a settlement. If the case settles, the parties might choose to enter into a stipulated judgment with the settlement agreement attached, or the plaintiff may simply file a voluntary dismissal, so that the settlement agreement is never entered into the court record.

Appeal[link]

After a final decision has been made, either party or both may appeal from the judgment if they believe there had been a procedural error made by the trial court. Even the prevailing party may appeal, if, for example, they wanted a larger award than was granted. The appellate court (which may be structured as an intermediate appellate court) and/or a higher court will then affirm the judgment, decline to hear it (which effectively affirms it), reverse, or vacate and remand, which involves sending the lawsuit back to the lower trial court to address an unresolved issue, or possibly for a whole new trial. Some lawsuits go up and down the appeals ladder repeatedly before finally being resolved.

Some jurisdictions, notably the United States, prevent parties from relitigating the facts on appeal due to a history of unscrupulous lawyers deliberately reserving such issues (the "invited error" problem) in order to ambush each other in the appellate courts. The idea is that it is more efficient to force all parties to fully litigate all relevant issues of fact before the trial court. Thus, if a party does not raise an issue of fact at the trial court level, he or she generally cannot raise it upon appeal. Furthermore, appellate courts in such jurisdictions will not question the facts as found by a judge or jury in the trial court as long as there was some evidence in the record to support such findings, even if the appellate judge himself or herself would not have personally believed the underlying evidence if he or she had been present in the trial court when such evidence was entered into the record.

When the lawsuit has finally been resolved, or the allotted time to file an appeal has expired, the matter is res judicata. The plaintiff is precluded from bringing an action resulting from the same claim again. In addition, other parties who later attempt to re-litigate a matter already ruled upon from a previous lawsuit will be estopped from doing so.^[4]

Enforcement[link]

When a final judgment is entered, the plaintiff is usually barred under the doctrine of res judicata from trying to bring the same or similar claim again against that defendant, or from relitigating any of the issues, even under different legal claims or theories. This prevents a new trial of the same case with a different result, or if the plaintiff won, a repeat trial that merely multiplies the judgment against the defendant.

If the judgment is for the plaintiff, then the defendant must comply under penalty of law with the judgment, which will usually be a monetary award. If the defendant fails to pay, the court has various powers to seize any of the defendant's assets located within its jurisdiction, such as:

• Writ of execution
• Bank account garnishment
• Liens
• Wage garnishment

If all assets are located elsewhere, the plaintiff must file another suit in the appropriate court to seek enforcement of the other court's previous judgment. This can be a difficult task when crossing from a court in one state or nation to another, though courts tend to grant each other respect when there is not a clear legal rule to the contrary. A defendant who has no assets in any jurisdiction is said to be "judgment-proof."^[5] The term is generally a colloquialism to describe an impecunious defendant.

Indigent judgment-proof defendants are no longer imprisoned; debtor's prisons have been outlawed by statute, constitutional amendment, or international human rights treaties in the vast majority of common law jurisdictions.

History of the term "lawsuit"[link]

During the 18th and 19th centuries, it was common for lawyers to speak of bringing an "action" at law and a "suit" in equity; an example of that distinction which survives today may be found in the text of the Civil Rights Act of 1871. The fusion of common law and equity in England in the Judicature Acts of 1873 and 1875 led to the collapse of that distinction, so it became possible to speak of a "lawsuit". In the United States, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (1938) abolished the distinction between actions at law and suits in equity in federal practice, in favor of a single form referred to as a "civil action."

In England and Wales the term "claim" is far more common; the person initiating proceedings is called the claimant.

American terminology is slightly different, in that the term "claim" refers only to a particular count (or cause of action) in a lawsuit. Americans also use "claim" to describe a demand filed with an insurer or administrative agency. If the claim is denied, then the claimant (or policyholder or applicant) files a lawsuit with the courts and becomes a plaintiff.

In medieval times, both "action" and "suit" had the approximate meaning of some kind of legal proceeding, but an action terminated when a judgment was rendered, while a suit also included the execution of the judgment.

Financing for Lawsuits[link]

In the United States, plaintiffs and defendants that lack financial resources for litigation or other legal expenses may be able to obtain legal financing. Legal financing companies can provide a cash advance to litigants in return for a share of the ultimate settlement or award. If the case ultimately loses, the litigant does not have to pay any of the money funded back. Legal financing is different from a typical bank loan. The legal financing company does not look at credit history or employment history. Litigants do not have to repay the cash advance with monthly payments, but do have to fill out an application so that the legal financing company can review the merits of the case.

Legal financing can be a practical means for litigants to obtain financing while they wait for a monetary settlement or an award in their personal injury, workers' compensation, or civil rights lawsuit. Oftentimes, plaintiffs who were injured or forced to leave their jobs still have mortgages, rent, medical expenses, or other bills to pay. Other times, litigants may simply need money to pay for the costs of litigation and attorneys' fees. For this reason, many litigants turn to reputable legal financing companies to apply for a cash advance to help pay for bills.

Defendants, civil rights organizations, public interest organizations, and government public officials can set up an account to pay for litigation costs and legal expenses. These legal defense funds can have large membership counts where the members contribute to the fund. Unlike legal financing from legal financing companies, legal defense funds provide a separate account for litigation rather than a one-time cash advancement, though both are used for purposes of financing litigation and legal costs.

See also[link]

Look up lawsuit or actio popularis in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.

• Actio popularis
• compensation culture
• divorce lawsuit

• frivolous litigation
• Jonathan Lee Riches
• lawyer
• legal defense fund
• legal financing
• list of environmental lawsuits
• personal injury
• Power (philosophy)
• restorative justice
• revenge
• Thirteenth stroke of the clock
• Tort reform

References[link]

Joe Arpaio
Arpaio speaking in Phoenix on February 26, 2011
Maricopa County Sheriff
Incumbent
Assumed office January 1, 1993
Preceded by	Tom Agnos
Personal details
Born	Joseph M. Arpaio (1932-06-14) June 14, 1932 (age 80) Springfield, Massachusetts, U.S.
Political party	Republican
Spouse(s)	Ava Arpaio
Occupation	Sheriff

Joseph M. "Joe" Arpaio (born June 14, 1932) is the elected Sheriff of Maricopa County in the U.S. state of Arizona. First voted into office in 1992, Arpaio is responsible for law enforcement in Maricopa County. This includes management of the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office, county jail, courtroom security, prisoner transport, service of warrants, and service of process. Arpaio styles himself as "America's Toughest Sheriff."^[1][2] He is well known for his outspoken stance against illegal immigration.^[3] Arpaio has become a flashpoint for controversy surrounding Arizona's SB1070 anti-illegal immigration act.^[4] He is also known for his investigation of President Barack Obama's citizenship.^[5][6][7]

Arpaio was once widely popular among voters in Arizona.^[8] His popularity has waned since 2007, notably by independent and Republican voters but still has a 57% positive job rating among Republicans; he has been re-elected five times.^[9][10]

History and law enforcement background[link]

Arpaio was born Joseph M. Arpaio in Springfield, Massachusetts on June 14, 1932, to Italian parents both from Lacedonia, Italy.^[11] Arpaio's mother died while giving birth to him, and Arpaio was raised by his father, a grocery store owner. Arpaio completed high school and worked in his father's business until age 18 when he enlisted in the United States Army.^[12]

Arpaio served in the Army from 1950 to 1954 in the Medical Detachment Division and was stationed in France for part of the time as a military policeman.^[13]

Following his discharge in 1954, Arpaio moved to Washington, D.C. and became a police officer, moving in 1957 to Las Vegas, Nevada. He served as a police officer in Las Vegas for six months before being appointed as a special agent with the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, which later became part of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA).^[14] During his 25-year tenure with the DEA, he was stationed in Argentina, Turkey and Mexico, and advanced through the ranks to the position of head of the DEA's Arizona branch.^[15]

In 1992, Arpaio successfully campaigned for the office of Maricopa County Sheriff. The voters of Maricopa County re-elected him in 1996, 2000, 2004, and 2008.^[16]

Arpaio married his wife Ava in 1958. Together, they have two children and four grandchildren.^[17] They currently reside in Fountain Hills, Arizona.^[18]

Actions as Maricopa County Sheriff[link]

Arpaio at the 2011 Veterans Day parade in Phoenix, Arizona, along with his wife Ava

Television[link]

In late 2008 and early 2009, Arpaio came out in Smile...You're Under Arrest!, a three-episode Fox Reality Channel series in which persons with outstanding warrants were tricked into presenting themselves for arrest.^[19]

On June 9, 2011, Arpaio was interviewed on Fox News on KSAZ-TV about a song on iTunes called "F#@K Sheriff Joe" by Contraband, describing him on his deathbed battling his own mortality.^[20]

Jails[link]

Arpaio's practices include serving inmates surplus food^[21] and limiting meals to twice daily.^[22] He has also banned inmates from possessing "sexually explicit material" including Playboy magazine after female officers complained that inmates openly masturbated while viewing them or harassed the officers by comparing their anatomy to that of the nude models in the publications. The ban was challenged on First Amendment grounds but upheld by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.^[23]

In February 2007, Arpaio instituted an in-house radio station he calls KJOE.^[24] Arpaio's radio station broadcasts classical music, opera, Frank Sinatra hits, patriotic music and educational programming. It operates from the basement of the county jail for five days a week, four hours each day.

In an ongoing case, federal judge Neil V. Wake ruled in 2008 and 2010 that the Maricopa County jails violated the constitutional rights of inmates in medical and other care related issues.^[25][26]

Tent City[link]

Arpaio set up a "Tent City" as an extension of the Maricopa County Jail.^[27] Arpaio has described Tent City as a concentration camp.^[28] Tent City is located in a yard next to a more permanent structure containing toilets, showers, and an area for meals.^[29] It has become notable particularly because of Phoenix's extreme temperatures.

On July 2, 2011, when the temperature in Phoenix hit 118 °F (48 °C), Arpaio measured the temperature inside Tent City at 145 °F (63 °C). Some inmates complained that fans near their beds were not working, and that their shoes were melting from the heat.^[30] During the summer of 2003, when outside temperatures exceeded 110 °F (43 °C), Arpaio said to complaining inmates, "It's 120 degrees in Iraq and the soldiers are living in tents, have to wear full body armor, and they didn't commit any crimes, so shut your mouths."^[31] In 1997, Amnesty International published a report on Arpaio's jails which found that Tent City is not an "adequate or humane alternative to housing inmates in suitable ... jail facilities."^[32] Tent City is criticized by groups contending that there are violations of human and constitutional rights.^[33] Those critical of Arpaio also point out that the vast majority of inmates within Tent City have not been convicted; rather, they are merely awaiting trial.^[34]

Volunteer chain gangs[link]

In 1995, Arpaio reinstituted chain gangs. In 1996, he expanded the chain gang concept by instituting female volunteer chain gangs.^[35] Female inmates work seven hours a day (7 a.m. to 2 p.m.), six days a week. He has also instituted the world's first all-juvenile volunteer chain gang; volunteers earn high school credit toward a diploma.^[36]

Pink underwear[link]

One of his most visible public-relations actions was the introduction of pink underwear, which the Maricopa County Sheriff's website cites as being, "world-famous."^{[citation needed]} Arpaio subsequently started to sell customized pink boxers (with the Maricopa County Sheriff's logo and "Go Joe") as a fund-raiser for Sheriff's Posse Association. Despite allegations of misuse of funds received from these sales, Arpaio declined to provide an accounting for the money.^[37]

Arpaio's success in gaining press coverage with the pink underwear resulted in his extending the use of the color. He introduced pink handcuffs, using the event to promote his book, Sheriff Joe Arpaio, America's Toughest Sheriff.^[38]

Selective Service registration and organ donors[link]

In 2001, he was the first sheriff to require all inmates aged 18 and over to register for the Selective Service System. (Registration is required by federal law for all U.S. males between 18 and 26 years of age, as well as for resident aliens of the same age, regardless of their immigration status.) Since 2001, a total of 28,000 inmates (including 9,000 aliens) have registered for Selective Service.^[39][40]

Arpaio also started the "Have a Heart" program in which inmates may volunteer to be organ donors.^[40]

Sheriff's posse[link]

Building upon Maricopa County's 50-year-old program, Arpaio expanded the all-volunteer citizen posse through heavy recruiting. The volunteers perform many duties for the sheriff's office:

• Search and rescue
• Emergency communications
• Prisoner transport
• Traffic control
• Backup for sworn deputies
• Office administrative duties
• Holiday Mall Patrol (which provides motorist assistance and security for shoppers during the holiday shopping season)
• Deadbeat parent details targeting men and women with outstanding arrest warrants for failure to pay child support
• Assisting in immigration sweeps
• Current investigation of President Barack Obama's birth certificate

Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio. standing in the blue suit behind Arizona State Senator Russell Pearce

In November 2010, Arpaio created an armed illegal immigration operations posse, to help his deputies enforce immigration law. Members of this posse include celebrity actors Steven Seagal, Lou Ferrigno, and Peter Lupus.^[41]

Controversies[link]

Arpaio has been a controversial sheriff. His practices have been criticized by government agencies such as the United States Department of Justice, United States District Courts, and organizations such as Amnesty International,^[42] the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the Arizona Ecumenical Council, the American Jewish Committee,^[43] and the Arizona chapter of the Anti-Defamation League.^[44] The editorial board of The New York Times called Arpaio "America's Worst Sheriff".^[45] Controversial issues surrounding Arpaio have included allegations of racial profiling, in which the ACLU has sued the sheriff.^[46][47]

Unconstitutional jail conditions[link]

Federal Judge Neil V. Wake ruled in 2008, and again in 2010, that the Maricopa County jails violated the constitutional rights of inmates in medical and other care related issues.^[25][26] This ruling was a result of a lawsuit brought by the ACLU, which alleged that "Arpaio routinely abused pre-trial detainees at Maricopa County Jail by feeding them moldy bread, rotten fruit and other contaminated food, housing them in cells so hot as to endanger their health, denying them care for serious medical and mental health needs and keeping them packed as tightly as sardines in holding cells for days at a time during intake."^[48]

In a ruling issued in October 2010, the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ordered Arpaio to follow Judge Wake's 2008 ruling, which required Arpaio to end severe overcrowding and ensure all detainees receive necessary medical and mental health care, be given uninterrupted access to all medications prescribed by correctional medical staff, be given access to exercise and to sinks, toilets, toilet paper and soap and be served food that meets or exceeds the U.S. Department of Agriculture's dietary guidelines.^{[49][50][51][52]}

Lack of cooperation with Department of Justice[link]

In June 2008,^[53] the Department of Justice Civil Rights Division began an investigation of Arpaio amid accusations of discrimination and unconstitutional searches and seizures. The investigation was conducted under the authority of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which forbids discrimination related to programs that receive federal funds. On July 7, 2009, Arpaio held a press conference, and announced that he would not cooperate with the investigation, either by providing documents, or permitting interviews with personnel. On September 2, 2010, the Department of Justice filed suit against Arpaio,^[54] to compel his cooperation with the investigation. A spokeswoman for the Justice Department stated that it was unprecedented for an agency to refuse to cooperate with a Title VI investigation, and that this is the first time the Justice Department has sued to compel access to documents and facilities.^[55][56][57] The suit was settled in June 2011, after Arpaio allowed federal officials to interview Sheriff's office employees, and review hundreds of thousands of documents for the investigation.^{[58] [59]}

Racial profiling[link]

On December 15, 2011, the Justice Department released their findings after a 3-year investigation of Arpaio's office amid complaints of racial profiling and a culture of bias at the agency's top level. The report stated that under Arpaio, the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office has "a pervasive culture of discriminatory bias against Latinos" that "reaches the highest levels of the agency."^[60]

The Justice Department accused Arpaio of engaging in "unconstitutional policing" by unfairly targeting Latinos for detention and arrest, and retaliating against critics.^[61] In the report, a Justice Department expert concluded that Arpaio oversaw the worst pattern of racial profiling in U.S. history.^[62]

Loss of authority to identify illegal immigrants[link]

Based on the Justice Department report on discriminatory policing practices within the MCSO, on December 15, 2011, the United States Department of Homeland Security revoked the MCSO's federal authority to identify and detain illegal immigrants.^[63]

In a separate action on December 23, 2011, U.S. District Court Judge G. Murray Snow enjoined Arpaio and the MCSO from "detaining any person based only on knowledge or reasonable belief, without more, that the person is unlawfully present within the United States," halting anti-illegal immigration enforcement by MCSO in its current form.^[64]

Federal grand jury inquiry[link]

As of December 2011, a federal grand jury had been investigating Arpaio's office on criminal abuse-of-power allegations since at least December 2009 and was specifically examining the investigative work of the sheriff's anti-public corruption squad.^[65]

Abuse of power[link]

In February 2010, Judge John Leonardo found that Arpaio "misused the power of his office to target members of the (Board of Supervisors) for criminal investigation".^[66]

In 2008, a federal grand jury began an inquiry of Arpaio for abuse of power, in connection with an FBI investigation.^[67][68] Arpaio is being investigated for politically motivated and "bogus" prosecutions, which a former US Attorney called "utterly unacceptable".^[67][68] Phoenix Mayor Phil Gordon has called Arpaio's "long list" of questionable prosecutions "a reign of terror".^[68]

The targets of Arpaio's alleged abuse of power have included:

• Phil Gordon, Phoenix Mayor^[67]
• Dan Saban, Arpaio's 2004 and 2008 opponent for the office of Sheriff of Maricopa County^[67]
• Terry Goddard, Arizona Attorney General^[67]
• David Smith, Maricopa County Manager^[67]
• The Maricopa County Board of Supervisors^[67]
• Barbara Mundell, Maricopa Superior Court Presiding Judge^[67]
• Anna Baca, former Maricopa Superior Court Presiding Judge^[69]
• Gary Donahoe, Maricopa Superior Court Criminal Presiding Judge^[67]
• Daniel Pochoda, ACLU attorney^[67]
• Sandra Dowling, former Maricopa County School Superintendent^[68]
• Mike Lacy, Editor, Phoenix New Times^[68]

As of July 2010, only Sandra Dowling has been successfully prosecuted.^[68] Indicted on 25 felony counts, Dowling eventually pled guilty to patronage for giving a summer job to her daughter, a single class-2 misdemeanor which was not among the original counts, although as part of the plea bargain she also agreed to recuse herself from the Maricopa County Regional School District. Dowling has since filed suit, alleging negligence, malicious prosecution, abuse of process and several constitutional violations.^[70]

Feud with Maricopa County Board of Supervisors and Maricopa Superior Court[link]

Over the two years prior to September 2010, feuding between Arpaio and former Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas on one side, and the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors on the other side cost at least $5.6 million, most of which was paid to private attorneys. Arpaio and Thomas filed several lawsuits against the Board of Supervisors, including a federal civil-racketeering suit against the supervisors, four judges and attorneys who work with the county. Arpaio and Thomas lost every case, either by ruling of the courts, or by dropping the case.^[71]

In early 2010, Arpaio and Thomas sought to have a grand jury indict a number of Maricopa County Judges, Maricopa County Supervisors, and employees of the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors. The grand jury, in an unusual rebuke, ordered the investigation ended. This action has been described as meaning that "...the case is so bad, there's no further evidence that could be brought [to substantiate it]". Legal experts agree this is a rare move.^[72] Thomas and a subordinate attorney on his County Attorney staff faced a hearing later in 2011 before the Ethics Committee of the Arizona Bar, the result of which was a number of possible sanctions up to permanent loss of their law licenses.

In November and December 2010, lawsuits naming Arpaio were filed by Judge Gary Donahoe, retired Maricopa County Superior Court judges Barbara Mundell, Anna Baca, and Kenneth Fields, County Supervisor Don Stapley, Deputy County Manager Sandi Wilson, and Susan Schuerman, executive assistant to Supervisor Don Stapley.^{[73][74][75][76][77][78]} Conley Wolfswinkel (a business associate of Stapley) filed suit in January, 2011.^[79][80] Other targets of Arpaio's investigations, including Maricopa County Supervisor Mary Rose Wilcox,^[69] and Maricopa Deputy County Manager Sandi Wilson^[72] have filed notices of claims (the precursor to filing suit) totalling about $56 million dollars.^[72]

Election law violation[link]

During the month of July 2010, a committee established by Arpaio, the Campaign to Re-Elect Joe Arpaio 2012, funded advertisements critical of Rick Romley, a candidate in the Republican Primary for Maricopa County Attorney and Arizona Attorney General candidate Tom Horne, despite the fact that Arpaio is not currently running for re-election (his term does not expire until the end of 2012).^[81]

An order issued on the behalf of the Maricopa Elections Department on August 24, 2010, found that one of the advertisements, a direct mailer, advocated the defeat of Romley, and was an in-kind contribution to Bill Montgomery (Romley's primary election opponent), in violation of Arizona election law. The order stated that the Campaign to Re-Elect Joe Arpaio 2012 will be fined three times the amount of money that was spent on the mailer.^[82] In September, 2010, Arpaio's campaign was fined $153,978 in this matter.^[83] Montgomery ultimately defeated Romley in the primary election, with Romley stating Arpaio's ads "hurt" his results.^[84]

Misuse of funds[link]

An analysis by the Maricopa County Office of Management and Budget, completed in April 2011, found Arpaio had misspent almost $100 million over the previous 5 years.^[85][86][87]

The analysis showed that money from a restricted detention fund which could only legally be used to pay for jail items, such as food, detention officers' salaries and equipment, was used to pay employees to patrol Maricopa County.^[85] The analysis also showed that many Sheriff's Office employees, whose salaries were paid from the restricted detention fund, were working job assignments different from those recorded in their personnel records. Arpaio's office kept a separate set of personnel books detailing actual work assignments, different from information kept on the county's official human-resources records.^[86]

Arpaio used the detention fund to pay for investigations of political rivals, and activities involving his human-smuggling unit.^[85][86]

The analysis also showed a number of inappropriate spending items, including a trip to Alaska where deputies stayed at a fishing resort, and trips to Disneyland.^[86][88]

Separate investigations by The Arizona Republic uncovered widespread abuse of public funds and county policies by Arpaio's office, including high-ranking employees routinely charging expensive meals and stays at luxury hotels on their county credit cards.^[89]

The Republic also found that a restricted jail enhancement fund was improperly used to pay for out-of-state training, a staff party at a local amusement park, and a $456,000 bus, which was purchased by Arpaio in violation of county procurement rules.^[85][90]

Munnell memo[link]

In September 2010, a 63 page internal memo, written by Maricopa Deputy Chief Frank Munnell, was made public. The memo alleged years of misconduct and mismanagement by Arpaio's second in command and other top MCSO officers, including the use of a public-corruption task force to conduct politically motivated probes into political opponents. The memo alleged that top officials in the MCSO "willfully and intentionally committed criminal acts by attempting to obstruct justice, tamper with witnesses, and destroy evidence."^[91] Arpaio forwarded the memo to the Pinal County Sheriff's Office, requesting they conduct an administrative investigation. Former top MCSO staffers claimed that Arpaio knew of the acts alleged in the Munnell memo, but took no action to stop them.^[92] Arpaio has not commented publicly on the allegations.

In October 2010, the US Attorney for Arizona confirmed that the FBI and Department of Justice had received copies of the Munnell memo, and were conducting criminal investigations into its allegations.^[93]

Adam Cox[link]

Adam Eugene Cox was arrested in Knoxville, Tennessee in January 2012 for making death threats against Arpaio. In October 2011, Cox posted the Internet message "I plan to kill Arpaio first. He will be filled with a thousand bullet holes before the year is out. He won't (expletive removed) with Obama." On March 14, 2012, he was convicted^[94] of harassment and sentenced to a "bootcamp" probation^[95] and ordered to pay court costs. He was also ordered to attend anger management counseling and maintain no contact with the sheriff.

Investigation of President Obama’s birth certificate[link]

On March 1, 2012, Arpaio and members of his Cold Case Posse held a news conference announcing their belief that President Barack Obama’s long-form birth certificate, released by the White House on April 27, 2011,^[96] is a computer-generated forgery. Additionally, the Posse’s six-month-long investigation included an examination of President Obama’s Selective Service card and contended that it, also, is a forgery. Much of the evidence supporting their claims was presented at that press conference and at a second press conference held on March 31, 2012.^{[citation needed]}

Department of Justice Racial Profiling Lawsuit[link]

On May 10, 2012, the United States Department of Justice filed suit against Arpaio, the MCSO, and Maricopa County, alleging that "The Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office (MCSO) and Sheriff Joseph M. Arpaio have engaged and continue to engage in a pattern or practice of unlawful discriminatory police conduct directed at Latinos in Maricopa County and jail practices that unlawfully discriminate against Latino prisoners with limited English language skills."^[97] A DOJ representative said that the agency was left with no choice but to file suit after Arpaio's attorneys balked at a demand for a court-appointed monitor to ensure the Sheriff's Office complies with any settlement terms. Arpaio has rejected the notion of a court-appointed monitor, and denied that the MCSO engages in racial profiling.^[98][99]

Election results[link]

2000 election results[link]

2004 election results[link]

2007 failed recall petition[link]

In November 2007, a group calling itself Arizonans for the U.S. Constitution and Recall of Joe Arpaio filed the paperwork to begin an effort to recall Arpaio and County Prosecutor Thomas from office for allegedly disobeying and violating the United States Constitution and abuse of power.^[101] Their petition to get a recall question for the two officials onto the next general election ballot failed when the group was unable to collect the more than 200,000 registered voter signatures required.^[102] In a survey taken by the Walter Cronkite School of Journalism and Mass Communication, while the petition was in circulation, nearly three out of four respondents opposed the recall, and 65 percent of the respondents held a positive opinion of Arpaio.^[103]

2008 election results[link]

Books[link]

• Joe Arpaio and Len Sherman, America's Toughest Sheriff: How We Can Win the War Against Crime, (1996). Summit Publishing Group, ISBN 1-56530-202-8
• Joe Arpaio and Len Sherman, Joe's Law: America's Toughest Sheriff Takes on Illegal Immigration, Drugs, and Everything Else that Threatens America, (2008). AMACOM, ISBN 0-8144-0199-6

References[link]

External links[link]

Wikimedia Commons has media related to: Joe Arpaio

	Arizona portal
	Biography portal
	Law enforcement/Law enforcement topics portal

• Official Bio
• Official Election Website
• Local News Coverage of Arpaio from KPHO.com and CBS 5 News (KPHO-TV)
• Local News Coverage of Arpaio from azfamily.com and KTVK-3TV