Is controversial Arizona sheriff Joe Arpaio’s time in office almost up? On Tuesday, news broke that the federal government will file criminal contempt-of-court charges against Arpaio for ignoring orders from a judge. Arpaio was ordered to stop his anti-immigration policies in Arizona, but didn’t comply.

Two days later, activists from a movement called Bazta Arpaio stood outside of the Phoenix sheriff’s office holding a balloon modeled to look like Arpaio in handcuffs. Their organizer Del Palacio said: “The community is excited. They know that this is the best chance we have to get him out of office. Momentum is on our side.”

Today Joe Arpaio goes to court for violating a judges order. Who the criminal now, Joe? #bAZtaArpaio #NoMoreHate @CASEActionAZ pic.twitter.com/mDpT6Tiln2

— Hugo Soto (@HugoSotoLA) October 11, 2016

The group is urging Hispanic people to vote against Arpaio, both to kick him out of office and also with the hopes that it will increase voter participation. The sheriff is seeking a seventh term, and has also been campaigning for Donald Trump, so the new criminal charges came at a pretty bad time for him.

Members of the Bazta Arpaio group said that he has abused their community for a long time and it is time to get him out of office. They will focus on door knocking and campaigning in Latino neighborhoods and will also drive around a red bus spreading their message.

Berta, an organizer w #baztaarpaio and one of Arpaio’s victims, encourages voters to kick him out of office nov. 8 pic.twitter.com/VFzKX14nxN

— Tania A. Unzueta (@_LaTania) October 13, 2016

The court process has been going on since 2008, when some civil rights groups filed a lawsuit regarding racial profiling in the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office. This led to findings of a pattern of racial bias and in 2013 Arpaio was told to stop his immigration-enforcement operations. These included racial profiling of Hispanic people at traffic stops, patrols in predominantly Latino neighborhoods, and detaining people solely based on their perceived immigration status.

In May of this year the judge in the case, U.S. District Judge G. Murray Snow, found Arpaio was guilty of civil contempt of court for ignoring his orders. The official charges were announced on Tuesday. Arpaio has said he didn’t defy the orders on purpose. But if found guilty, the 84-year-old self-proclaimed “toughest sheriff in America” could face six months in jail.

In his statement on the case, Arpaio blamed Obama for being corrupt and the DOJ of charging him for political reasons.

Here is Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s two-part statement about the corrupt DOJ charging him for enforcing our immigration laws. It’s a MUST read. pic.twitter.com/7LhZQXectZ

— Jeremy Nolt (@RealJeremyNolt) October 11, 2016

According to experts, this is more of a symbolic move from the judge. “He’s really taking a stance that ‘Sheriff Joe’ is not above the law. That anyone can be held accountable for their behavior–even if you’re a very popular sheriff,” said criminal justice professor Cara Rabe-Hemp.

Arpaio is an outspoken Trump supporter who joined the fight to find out the “truth” about Obama’s birth certificate. He has also become known for forcing inmates to wear pink underwear and sleep outside. No matter how the election in November goes, Del Palacio and other activists have their minds set on not letting him get re-elected as sheriff. “Regardless of what happens in the trial, we’re going to remain focused to ensure that his tenure ends on November 8” he said.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Will Arizona Voters Come Together to Remove “America’s Toughest Sheriff”? appeared first on Law Street.

According to one Idaho sheriff, the Idaho legislature shouldn’t have anything to do with making a statewide rape kit collection and tracking system because most rape accusations are just plain false.

A new bill, which is heading to the desk of the governor now, would standardize how medical clinics collect evidence from suspected sexual assaults, and would create and enforce a timeline for law enforcement agencies to send evidence for testing at a state forensic lab.

DNA collected from rape kits goes into a nationwide database in order to check for matches. Rape kits contain semen, saliva, or blood found on the victim during an examination. Agencies would need the approval of their county prosecutor if they do not believe a kit should be tested.

Idaho Governor C.L. “Butch” Otter has not yet indicated whether or not he will sign the bill. But Bingham County Sheriff Craig Rowland told Idaho Falls television station KIDK, according to OregonLive, that this new measure prohibits members of law enforcement from doing their jobs. Rowland said:

They need to let us decide if we’re going to send the kit and when we send the kits in. Because the majority of our rapes — not to say that we don’t have rapes, we do — but the majority of our rapes that are called in, are actually consensual sex.

These comments add to the systematic issue of law enforcement not always taking rape victims seriously.

“This bill sends a clear message that victims are to be taken seriously,” said Democratic Senator Maryanne Jordan to the AP. “The DNA evidence in these kits can be a powerful tool in solving these crimes.”

This new measure aims to streamline the process by bypassing skeptical police by requiring that clinics send their kits for testing, unless the victim or county prosecutor say otherwise.

“It’s hard to know if a claim is false if the kits don’t get tested,” Ilse Knecht, policy and advocacy director for the Joyful Heart Foundation told the AP. “Each one of these kits represents a survivor. … We need to take their claim seriously, treat them with respect and use the evidence.”

According to a Vox report, 2 to 8 percent of rape allegations are actually false. The six point discrepancy comes from different understandings of what rape is. Therefore, depending on where and who is doing the reporting and investigating, many cases are not considered rape, leading to discrepancies amongst state and national agencies.

“The heated public discourse about the frequency of false rape allegations often makes no reference to actual research,”–this is according to a ten-year study done by Violence Against Women. “When the discourse does make reference to research, it often founders on the stunning variability in research findings on the frequency of false rape reports. ” The study found that the range for false rape allegations was between 2 and 10 percent.

Only 32-33 percent of rapes are even reported, according to the Department of Justice, cited in a report by RAINN (Rape, Abuse and Incest National Network), and only two out of every 100 rapists will spend any time in jail. With numbers like that, legislation that aims to give a voice and legitimacy to each victim is vital.

Julia Bryant

Julia Bryant is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street from Howard County, Maryland. She is a junior at the University of Maryland, College Park, pursuing a Bachelor’s degree in Journalism and Economics. You can contact Julia at JBryant@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Idaho Sheriff: Rape Kit System ‘Unnecessary’ Because Most Accusations are False appeared first on Law Street.

The newest trend among small town sheriffs is a refusal to follow the laws of the land. What laws have caused such a visceral reaction from our law enforcement? One of the hottest topics in the American political sphere, of course. These sheriffs are refusing to follow newly enacted gun control laws.

The movement is especially popular in Colorado, although there have been issues in Florida, California, New York, and multiple other states as well. After the horrifying Aurora, Colo. and Newtown, Conn. shootings last year, state and federal leaders have attempted to put more gun control measures in place, but success has been varied.

Since the first whispers of proposed new gun laws began, there has been opposition among local sheriffs. One group, the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association, also known as CSPOA, has already announced that they would not enforce local, state, or federal gun control laws if they believe that the laws are unconstitutional. As of today, the CSPOA website lists 18 state sheriff organizations and many individual sheriffs. The founder, Richard Mack, is the former sheriff of Graham County, AZ. It also contains a section entitled “The Red Coat List,” presumably a Revolutionary War throwback reference to British soldiers who fought the newly formed United States armies. According to CSPOA, Red Coats are any individuals who try to undermine the the power of the sheriffs of CSPOA.

In March of this year, Colorado’s Governor John Hickenlooper signed new gun laws; they went into effect in July. They include universal background checks on gun purchases and a limit on the size of ammunition magazines, among other measures. The laws incited an incredibly reactionary response throughout the state. Two state senators who supported the laws were actually recalled just a few months later, and a third resigned to avoid a third vicious and expensive recall battle. So far, 55 of the 62 sheriffs in Colorado have stated that they will not follow these laws.

Reasons for refusal vary somewhat, but for the most part, these sheriffs claim that the laws are both unconstitutional and vague to the point of being ineffective. The sheriffs are almost all from rural areas–the few urban sheriffs who are following the news laws claim that they are absolutely enforceable. There are also some sheriffs who disagree with the law, but realize that it is part of their job description to comply, regardless of personal beliefs. These two types of officials are part of a minuscule minority in Colorado.

Acts of defiance are not the first steps that these Colorado sheriffs have taken. In May, a group filed a suit challenging the constitutionality of the laws in the State Court. US District Judge Martha Kreiger turned them down, stating that they didn’t have the legal authority or standing to file the case as sheriffs, although they could as a group of private citizens. There are other suits moving forward, and some of the sheriffs have signed on.

The problem with what’s happening in Colorado is that whether or not these laws are actually constitutional is a separate issue from the job for which these sheriffs have been elected. It is not a sheriff’s duty to make laws–that falls on the Legislature. Similarly, it is not a sheriff’s job to interpret a law–that falls on the Judicial system. A sheriff’s job is to enforce the laws that are enacted.

Now, what many sheriffs are doing is not focusing on the enforcement of these provisions and characterizing them as a very low priority, which is fine, and not entirely unexpected. Not all laws are enforced on the same level anywhere. I know for a fact that I have jaywalked dozens of times. Or, for a sillier example, let’s remember that in my home state of Connecticut, it’s technically illegal to dispose of a used razor. I can assure you, I have done so many times, and I’ve never had the police burst into my bathroom to arrest me. And if all these sheriffs were doing was characterizing these laws as a low priority, it would be bothersome, but in the grand scheme of things, alright.

But the sheriffs who have taken their crusade further worry me. They will face very few consequences–in some states, Governors can investigate sheriffs that don’t follow laws, but that provision is rarely enacted. Mostly, any challenge to these sheriffs will come from voters, but given that these sheriffs are almost exclusively in conservative rural areas, that’s unlikely.

Gun laws in this country will continue to be a grand debate, there’s no doubt about it. But when sheriffs, or former sheriffs, such as Mack, make statements such as, “every one of the sheriffs is going to follow the Constitution, not follow the president or the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has already ruled twice for the Second Amendment. The federal government has no right to tell me how many magazines I can have, how many guns I can have and how much ammunition I can have,” we have a problem. Sheriffs should be focusing on counteracting the epidemic of gun violence in this country. If they don’t agree with the laws that are passed, that’s a well-deserved personal belief, but it’s still their job to enforce them. In order to make this country a safer place, we need to get on the same page. But right now, we’re not even reading the same book.

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Inventorchris via Flickr]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Colorado Sheriffs Say “No Way” to New Laws appeared first on Law Street.