Arpaio's Targeting Case Study

On August 23, 2014 Sgt. Lavelle was assigned to the 83 Precinct. She was present for duty at 0800 hours as the domestic violence Sergeant and she conducted several home visits. At 1450 hours she was post changed to the 83rd Precinct desk and she assumed the duties of the 83 desk office. Sgt. Lavelle remained as the Desk Sergeant for the entire tour. I presented Sergeant Lavelle with a copy of the command log entry for August 23, 2014 depicting the validation of two arrests at about 2040 hours when Mr. Carlton Smith

Forensic argument_ in our city (Phoenix, AZ) we used to have our sheriff Joe Arpaio who was well known as the thoughts sheriff of all the time. Even though, he was doing a great job by keeping our families safe and taking care of the animal cruelty. He was also known as the most racial sheriff of the town. He became notorious to undocumented families after activist start noticed he was violating the federal judge order to stop enforcing civil immigration laws. In 2011 he had a preliminary injunction where the order banned deputies from detaining anyone solely on suspicion they were undocumented. Again, he continued to detain illegal immigrants event though he had an order from the judge. Now, he still in trials and might face up to six months

A lawsuit was filed on March 21, 2016 by Fresno Police Sergeant Cervantes who is suing Fresno Police Department and three other detectives. He states workplace harassment and discrimination due to his Hispanic ethnicity. Further details state, “Sgt. Paul Cervantes accuses Sgt. Tim Tietjen and Detectives Brad Alcorn and Cary Phelps of smearing his reputation with false accusations and spreading rumors that he’s a dirty cop. Tietjen, Alcorn and Phelps are white.”(Lopez, para.2) Such accusations can lead to further tensions, costly legal battles, and government investigations. Sergeant Cervantes seeks unspecified damages, attorney fees for discrimination, retaliation, defamation and malicious prosecution. He also states he has been subjected to such discrimination and harassment since January 2008 to the present. Furthermore, it is not the first time Fresno Police Department has been sued for similar incidences. There is an ongoing problem in the department that needs to be resolve.

Amid Arpaio's residency in Arizona, the Latino people group was gradually being undermined. With cops under Arpaio going about as mouthpieces to his supremacist strategies, it was a daunting task for both the casualties of such frameworks and the progressives contrary to such approaches. Supporters of Arpaio energized around him effortlessly, safeguarding him with patriot talk painting Arpaio as the essential nonentity of a campaign to evacuate "unlawful settlers."

and raids accordingly”. (Kiefer) Judge Snow added that Sheriff’s Deputies used race as a major

Joe Arpaio was a sheriff of Maricopa County and a judge ordered him to stop going and investigating people based on whether they were undocumented immigrants or not. The judge did this because one, it’s a federal offence and has nothing to do with his job as a sheriff in Maricopa County. Second of all, in order for him to investigate people he needed to have probable cause and/or needed to think that there is some sort of crime being committed. Sheriff Arpaio basically told the judge that he wasn’t going to look for a crime and stated that he was just going to go into Latino neighborhoods and see if people were undocumented and then arrest them. The judge continued by telling Arpaio that he didn’t think he understood that he was not allowed

Monday morning during a press conference, President Donald Trump defended the pardoning of former Sheriff Joe Arpaio. In brief, Arpaio was initially found guilty on the charges of criminal contempt for violating court orders, despite the legal argument that he was not knowingly defying the judge’s orders. Specifically, the order to not detain any suspected undocumented immigrants. These rulings were given after a case in 2013 found him guilty of racial profiling.

Shadow immigration enforcement occurs when state or local police officers with no immigration enforcement authority exercise their regular police powers in a distorted way for the purpose of increasing federal immigration enforcement. Shadow enforcement typically involves the disproportionate targeting of vulnerable “foreign-seeming” populations for hyper-enforcement for reasons wholly independent of suspected involvement in criminal activity as defined by state or local

Apart from periodically publishing stop and search records, supervisors and managers of police force are now required to closely monitor such statistics and take timely actions if something wrong is being observed. Also stricter rules on stop and search have since been imposed, along with the requirement of police officers writing a detailed report on spot about every single incident which subjects to review seems helpful in improving police conduct (Fyfe 1979; Skogan and Frydl 2004 in Miller 2010). While stop and search practice has been somehow improved, racial discrimination can still be seen in stop and search statistics. The notion of “Black and minority ethnic groups, particularly black people, have for many years been disproportionately at the receiving end of police stop and search—a fact associated with profound community resentment towards the police” (Bowling and Phillips 2002 in Miller 2010) still largely applies today. Miller’s (2010) analysis indicate that black people are about 6 times more likely to be stopped and searched, while it is about 2 times more likely for Asians. Similar idea is seen in Bennetto’s (2009) report, which draws on police statistics that shows in 2009 “black people are seven times more likely to be stopped and searched than white”, worse than Miller’s analysis with the most recent figures in 2008. No official explaination is provided by Police, but Bennetto (2009) assumes this may be caused by simply discrimination of

Law Enforcement in the 21st Century gives an extensive view of law enforcement practices at all levels and the limitations within the scope

Robert Weisberg a Faculty Co-Director of the Stanford Criminal Justice Center and professor of law explain in his article “Sheriff Arpaio Pardoning: Racial Profiling Contempt Of Court And The Law” the actions that took him to court and later to be acquitted by Donald Trump. Weisberg claims, “He’d been detaining large numbers of people on the ostensible ground that there was reasonable suspicion that they were immigration law violators. But the evidence showed that his officers were actually detaining people simply because they supposedly looked Latino/a, without the real justification. Weisberg mentions, “ But the evidence showed that his officers were actually detaining people simply because they supposedly looked Latino/a, without the reasonable suspicion of crime needed to justify a seizure.” This statement reinforces the idea that the justice system need a reform as soon as possible, since Arpaio was able to do all these actions against Latinos without been stopped The importance here lies in the fact that Latinos will always be a target unlike white people that will never have to worry for been stopped in the freeway because the way they look, because police will never distrust

In Miami, Florida police officers in the early 2000’s did not report all stops correctly so once they started reporting all stops this is the information they collected. (Alpert, Dunham, Smith, 2007) They found out that Hispanics were stopped much more frequently than whites or blacks. Hispanics were pulled over 29,805 times in 2001, whites were stopped 18,360 times in 2001 and blacks were pulled over 17,701 times in 2001. In Miami it is about eighty percent white population. Then looking at the reports Hispanics

Law enforcement officials often confront situations where it’s an almost certainty that illegal activities are taking place despite not having sufficient resources to investigate every possible perpetrator. Research on race and vehicle stops by police show that African American drivers are disproportionately stopped in traffic by police for driving violations (Kowalski & Lundman, 2007). The reason is because law enforcement officials use characterizations or

reports after each stop, detailing the events of the stop to ensure that they are not factoring in race with their decisions. They must provide information such as the person’s gender, race, the alleged offense the person has committed, whether any property was taken into custody and if there was probable cause for the search, whether the

Harris states that the rate that law enforcement officers find contraband for blacks is not higher for the hit rate for white people. Law officials rarely find contraband and seldom find a plethora of contraband. The media never show or tell about the times that law officials do not find any contraband of any sort. This type of racial profiling holds true in the case of Sergeant First Class Rossano Gerald who is a black man in the United States Army. Sergeant Rossano was on his way to a family reunion with his twelve year old son named Gregory. Almost as soon as they crossed the borders into Oklahoma from Arkansas, an Oklahoma Highway patrol officer pulled them over. Even though Sergeant Gerald made sure he was extra on the road was told not to follow too closely to the other vehicles. Not even a half an hour further in to the state Sergeant Gerald was pulled over again. This accusing him of switching lanes illegally the sergeant denies this allegation and told the officer about the previous stop. Even though Sergeant Gerald had all of his information the trooper signaled for more squad cars. The troopers ask Sergeant Gerald to get out of his car the sergeant politely refused, then asked the officers to call his officer in charge the officer refused. Then the officer put Sergeant Gerald and Gregory into a patrol car and turned off the air conditioning and turned on the car fan that blew out hot air. Then the officer began to search