Was the proceedings against Sheriff joe Illegal? The notorious [former] sheriff's Joe Arpaio of Maricopa county was issued an injunction to stop arresting people for whom there was no reasonable suspicion that they had committed a crime. That his deputies for an addition 18 months continued this practice.
I am not going to get into the whole immigration debate, or if there was even one American victim. But the general idea floated by the journalist was that these arrests were unconstitutional. Basically what the courts did was issued an injunction telling the sheriff not to violate 18 USC 242 or 42 USC 1983, and then when he continued the practice they had him prosecuted before a bench judge and the sentence could be as much as 6 months. Mind you that [former] sheriff Joe lost the election.
He should have challenged this prior to a violation <a href=https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/388/307/case.html">walker v birmingham 388 US 307 (1967) in that a plain and adequate remedy existed at law, to the extent that they were charging him in equity was unlawful because violating the court order is effectively a criminal act under 18 USC 241/242 or civilly under 42 usc 1983 and therefore it violates his 7th amendment rights because he would have had a trial by jury. See Schoenthal v. Irving Trust Co. 287 U.S. 92 (1932). In fact, the whole process was designed to deny him jury trial rights because up to 6 months for a misdemeanor or 6 months for contempt carries no jury trial rights. see Duncan v. Louisiana 391 U.S. 145 (1968) and Bloom v. Illinois 391 U.S. 194 (1968). Another factor to consider is that Sheriff Arpiao is no longer sheriff, and punishing him would not be curative, in fact the whole matter is effectively moot as far as equity is concerned. On a final note, it has been said that it was the sheriff's deputies who was violating the order-not the sheriff himself. In a typical civil suit a Sheriff could be named in his individual capacity suit, and his official capacity suit. In an individual capacity suit someone is suing the sheriff directly, and in an official capacity suit they are suing the governmental unit that has control over a particular function of the sheriff. The prosecution alleged and the judge agreed that it was the sherriff who knowingly violated the order. It is much easier to prove that the sheriff department had a practice, than it is to show that he had the intent. But even alleging a conspiracy, the remedy at law is still 18 usc 241.
For every real victim, Sheriff Joe Should have been criminally tried under 18 USC 242, or (subject to sovereign or qualified immunity) sued civilly under 42 USC 1983 and let a jury determine this matter as is his right. The proceedings against him at this point are unrelated to avoiding some kind of imminent harm upon people in Maricopa county and were not curative, they are punitive for violating a court order. A court order that was illegally issued. If the prosecutions case was strong then the prosecutor and the judge would have proceeding under 18 usc 241/242, but because the case was either weak or non-existent it was designed so that no jury could could interfere in their scheming to make an example out of him.
Sure Sheriff Joe was a bad guy. But the courts of equity are out of control, and if they can ensnare him and convict him threatening months in prison without a jury trial under powers that a court doesn't even have, we are all in danger. We are all in danger not only from these tyrants on the bench who conspire to put people they don't like in prison without legal justification or even jurisdiction, but could double that harm by putting any one of us into the custody of gaolkeepers just as bad as he was. If they wanted legal justification and jurisdiction for their actions, they would have known to prosecute under criminal law not contempt.
We need to stand up and demand that the modern starchamber be shut down.
I hope to resume case laws soon.