|
Talk about a biased court system. Sheriff Joe has clearly refused to provide “public records” to the New Times as required by Arizona law.
But the New Times has to file a law suit, appeal it, and it still hasn’t gotten a cent for its attorneys fees!
With that in mind do you think I will really get a fair trial when I sue these Mesa Community College cops in Federal Court for violating my civil rights? Most likely not! Despite the fact the cops illegally searched me, forced me to answer questions, and physically roughed me up I am sure they will walk away from this lawsuit with a slap on the wrist if I win the case. But most likely the court will say they did nothing wrong. Court sides with 'New Times' in case Sheriff's Office sent public records too slowly
Michael Kiefer The Maricopa County Sheriff's Office did not comply with Arizona public-records laws by refusing to provide public documents in a timely manner to a local newspaper, the Arizona Court of Appeals ruled Tuesday. One sheriff's official even testified under oath that she did not comply with a request from a Phoenix New Times reporter because she was angry with him. And on another occasion, the Sheriff's Office delayed providing investigative records concerning a political rival of Sheriff Joe Arpaio until New Times sued and Arpaio had already won a primary election against that rival; the office had already provided those records to a local TV station. A spokesman for the Sheriff's Office called the dispute "a clash of personalities." But a panel of three appellate judges ordered that the case be remanded to Maricopa County Superior Court to determine whether New Times is entitled to tens of thousands of dollars in attorneys' fees if the Sheriff's Office acted arbitrarily, capriciously and in bad faith. The case dates to spring of 2004 when former New Times reporter John Dougherty began a series of investigative articles about Arpaio. Those articles included one that led to charges against the paper for publishing Arpaio's address online and the October 2007 arrests of two New Times editors when they published the contents of a grand jury subpoena. According to New Times attorney Steven Suskin, the Sheriff's Office stopped cooperating with Dougherty in 2004, after he wrote the first of several articles that were unfavorable to Arpaio. "Arpaio was running for re-election," Suskin said. "Dougherty was writing all these articles, gathering public records and they shut us off. They gave us nothing, in one case for over four months." In September 2004, New Times filed a petition for special action in Superior Court to compel the Sheriff's Office to honor nine separate public-records requests and also asked to be reimbursed for attorneys' fees. The Sheriff's Office turned over the documents without further delay. But Superior Court Judge Michael Jones refused to award the attorneys' fees, which Suskin would only say totaled tens of thousands of dollars. In his ruling, Jones called the New Times claims "unsupported by anything other than argument and histrionics." "Having determined that all the records in existence previously requested by the petitioners were disclosed, and that they were disclosed within a reasonable time and in a reasonable manner, I must deny the relief requested by the petitioners," Jones wrote. New Times appealed, and the court heard oral arguments in September 2006, according to Suskin. The ruling was published Tuesday. The Appeals Court judges, however, found that only one of the requests had in fact been produced in a timely manner. Although Arizona public-records laws do not set a specific number of workdays to provide public documents, several of the requests took more than three months to fill. Among the most egregious cases cited in the appellate ruling were: • A request for information about an investigation into Dan Saban, who was running against Arpaio in the Republican party primary election. Dougherty requested information that had already been given to a local TV station. He received it 143 days later, after Arpaio had already won the primary. • Long-time Sheriff's office public-information officer Lisa Allen MacPherson testified in a deposition that she did not respond to one request because she was angry with Dougherty. • On another occasion, when Dougherty asked MacPherson about a jail inmate who had died, she could not confirm that there had been a death. Days later, when she learned that someone had actually died, she still did not report the information to Dougherty. MacPherson was not available for comment on Tuesday; nor was sheriff's Captain Paul Chagolla, another public-information officer who figures in the case. Sheriff's Deputy Chief Jack MacIntyre, who is also an attorney, called the dispute "a real personal conflict that escalated to the point probably that it clouded the usual day-to-day obligation of the sheriff's office employee in this case." "This was a regrettable situation," MacIntyre said. "But it was a fairly unique situation where one of our officers that was responsible for filling public-records requests was truly afraid of the reporter, that there was a genuine personal joint vendetta between the two of them. Neither one was completely without blame, but the publicrecords law requires public records to respond. That is unfortunate that it got to that level. I think we have taken the steps to preclude personality matters getting to this level ever again."
|