Order Form - Maricopa County: Fill & Download for Free

No, he should not.First and foremost, Arpaio wasn't convicted of “doing his job”, as people say. He was convicted of contempt of court. He violated court orders, knowingly and repeatedly.Next, when it looked like Arpaio was starting to lose his case, he began a “terror campaign” against the judge, starting to investigate him and his family.Third, Arpaio has been the absolute antithesis of Republican/conservative values. He essentially turned himself into some sort of dictator here in Maricopa County, where he somehow had more power than any mayors or even the governor. It was very clear, for a couple decades, that Arpaio ran the show here; some folks, like Napolitano, essentially shared power, but when there was a weaker governor in place, Arpaio was able to do what he wanted when he wanted.Arpaio was a huge budget sap, spending funds right and left on things like tanks, new buildings, fancy gadgets he didn't need, and, obviously, massive raises for himself and his team. On top of that, the fines and lawsuits he's lost have cost taxpayers in the tens of millions (best figures put the final number close to $100 million).There are clear signs that Arpaio is also financially corrupt, as demonstrated by the LLC he holds with his wife, owning properties worth several million dollars, all documented as being paid for with “cash”. Bear in mind, Arpaio's salary is just over $100,000 annually.Finally, and very importantly, Arpaio used his office to execute an entirely racist agenda. He instructed his officers to march into Latino communities, stopping “Brown people,” and demanding proof of legal residence, frequently deciding on-the-spot that certain forms of ID weren't good enough, holding the people captive until proof could be obtained.Pardoning Arpaio will be offensive to any true American.*** EDIT ***Thanks to Michael Ali for reminding me that Arpaio also gutted the MCSO sex crimes unit to address pet cases (credit card fraud, illegal brown people), allowing hundreds of molested children to continue being molested.*** EDIT 8/28/2017 ***Somebody challenged me to provide evidence of these things, so…here you go!1) Was found in 2008 and again in 2010 to be refusing medical treatment to prisoners, most of which hadn’t been convicted of a crime, they were just waiting for trial and didn’t have bail money.Judge backs county inmates in jail caseGraves, et al. v. Arpaio, et al. - OpinionSeveral million dollars were paid out in lawsuits and fines.2) Was found to have instructed his deputies to close sexual assault cases, particularly child molestation cases, without investigation. Over 75% were closed in such a manner.http://archive.azcentral.com/12news/news/articles/20100115mcsocases01152010-CR.htmlHow the MCSO Neglected a 14-Year-Old Rape Victim — and Went to Town on Phoenix Mayor Phil GordonOnly 15% of child molestation cases resulted in an arrest.Tough Questions for America's Toughest SheriffJoe Arpaio's Deputy Told to Work Fraud Cases Instead of Child Rape CrimeWhen Arpaio claimed that he didn’t have the money for more investigators to actually investigate child abuse and molestation charges, the county provided him an extra $600K specifically to hire people to handle those cases, he used the money for other things.http://www.trivalleycentral.com/casa_grande_dispatch/arizona_news/arpaio-s-office-continues-to-investigate-sex-crime-cases/article_6ec5ec3a-0caf-11e2-ae18-0019bb2963f4.htmlSeveral million dollars were paid out in lawsuits and fines.3) At least 11 employees of Maricopa County were subjected to targeted harassment by Arpaio and have sued the county, either winning their cases or reaching settlements.Gary Donahoe, retired Superior Court judge: $1,275,000 settlement. County legal expenses: $767,127.Kenneth Fields, retired Superior Court judge: $100,000 settlement. County legal expenses: $81,040.Barbara Mundell, retired Superior Court judge: $500,000 settlement. County legal expenses: $134,273.Anna Baca, retired Superior Court judge: $100,000 settlement. County legal expenses: $112,588.Stephen Wetzel, former county technology director: $75,000 settlement. County legal expenses: $107,647.Sandi Wilson, deputy county manager and county budget director: $122,000 settlement. County legal expenses: $458,318.Don Stapley, former county supervisor: $3.5 million settlement. County legal expenses: $1,682,020.Mary Rose Wilcox, county supervisor: $975,000 settlement, plus $9,938 in court-ordered legal costs. County legal expenses to date: over $375,442.Susan Schuerman, Stapley’s executive assistant: $500,000 settlement. County legal expenses: $200,201.Conley Wolfswinkel, Stapley’s business associate: $1,400,000 settlement. County legal expenses: $1,586,152.Andy Kunasek, county supervisor: $123,110 settlement. County legal expenses: $1,150.Don’t worry, I already did the math: nearly $45 million.Maricopa County infighting, lawsuits cost taxpayers $44.4 million4) He was found to have knowingly misspent country funds in a number of ways to the tune of $100 million over a 5-year period. This included things like paying for trips to Disneyland and luxury resort stays.Joe Arpaio's staff misspent $99.5 million, budget officials say5) In 1999, Arpaio staged an assassination plot, even arresting and forcing the prosecution of a man. It turned out that he did it all as a publicity stunt. The county was sued by the “arrested,” who walked away with $1.6 million.A Phony Murder Plot Against Joe Arpaio Winds Up Costing Taxpayers $1.1 Million6) Here’s where he was found to be racially profiling Latinos:Reasonable DoubtAttorneys Allege 'Culture of Discrimination' in Arpaio’s OfficeU.S. sues Arizona sheriff over alleged violations of Hispanics’ civil rightsIn the case of Melendres v Arpaio, he stopped a legal Mexican tourist and held him illegally on the side of the road for 9 hours. After word got out, dozens of duplicate or similar such situations were found.Ortega Melendres, et al. v. Arpaio, et al.7) Between 2012 and 2016, Arpaio repeatedly sent deputies to Hawaii to check the veracity of President Obama’s birth certificate. Yes, the county paid for those trips.http:/www.obamabirthbook.com/2012/07/exposed-sheriff-joe-arpaio-corsi-birther-scam-heres-the-proof-that-arpaios-posse-fabricated-evidence-and-lied-to-the-nation/

Yes they do. Jail, anyway. I met a pair of hobos in the Maricopa County Jail downtown facility in 1988 who had committed petty theft at the K-mart on purpose in order to get into jail during a particularly cold December in the City of Phoenix. They showed me the ropes, even though I was only in for 7 days.Some people get rescued when they get arrested. Their life is so terrible and/or dangerous that they are finally glad to be going to jail in order to avoid the life they've developed for themselves out on the streets.In 2008, I met a guy in Hutchins State Jail in North Texas who had violated his parole on purpose in order to get back into jail so he could have access to psychological medications he had been prescribed when he was in prison. When I met him, he was 3 weeks "short to the door" and was already bemoaning the possibility of having to go out and fend for himself again, absent the psychiatric medications he needed.Prison is the fastest way to access social welfare in most American States. It's instant and all-inclusive. No forms to fill out, no waiting period, no rejection.

In Arizona our Supreme Court did a year long study and issued a report with recommendations that was sent to our legislature. A very reasonable report by serious, professional, credentialed people making recommendations that would make a significant impact in the system. Here is the executive summary so you can see it’s not frivolous in any way. Unfortunately it had no success in 2017. They will try again in 2018 but it’s a hard battle in our legislature.How long will it take? If we do not change our elected officials, it will take a long time. If there is no vested interest in reducing prison occupancy, it will take a long time. As Americans it is up to us to decide.TASK FORCE ON FAIR JUSTICE FOR ALL:Court-Ordered Fines, Fees, and Pretrial Release PoliciesChair – Mr. Dave Byers, Administrative Director, AOC Vice-Chair – Mr. Tom O’Connell, Pretrial Manager, AOCMr. Kent Batty, Court Administrator, Superior Court in Pima CountyHonorable Michael Robert Bluff, Associate Presiding Judge Superior Court in Yavapai CountyHonorable Maria Elena Cruz, Presiding Judge, Superior Court, Yuma CountyMr. Bob James, Deputy Court Administrator Superior Court, Maricopa CountyMs. Rebecca Steele, Deputy Director, Maricopa County Clerk of CourtHonorable Lisa Roberts , Commissioner, Superior Court in Maricopa CountyHonorable Dorothy Little, President, Arizona Justice of the Peace Association,Payson Magistrate CourtMEMBERSHonorable Antonio Riojas, Presiding Magistrate Tucson City CourtHonorable Thomas Robinson, Tempe Municipal CourtHonorable Don Taylor, Chief Presiding Judge Phoenix Municipal CourtMr. Doug Kooi, Court Administrator, Pima County Consolidated Justice CourtMr. Jeffrey Fine, Court Administrator, Maricopa County Justice CourtsMr. Michael Kurtenbach, Assistant Chief Community Services Division,City of Phoenix Police DepartmentMs. India Davis, Corrections Chief, Pima County Sheriff’s DepartmentMs. Mary Ellen Sheppard, Assistant County Manager Maricopa CountyiiiMr. Ryan Glover, Prosecutor, Glendale City Prosecutor’s OfficeMr. Paul Julien, Judicial Education Officer Education Services Division, AOC Judge Pro TemMs. Kathy Waters, Director, Adult Probation Services, AOC Liaison to Pretrial Advisory CommitteeMr. Jeremy Mussman, Deputy Director, Maricopa County Public Defender’s OfficeMr. Tony Penn, Arizona Judicial Council Public Member RepresentativePresident and CEO, United Way of Tucson and Southern ArizonaHonorable John Hudson, Presiding Judge, Gilbert Municipal CourtMr. Leonardo Ruiz, Deputy County Attorney Maricopa County Attorney’s OfficeMs. Dianne Post, Attorney, Arizona State NAACPMs. Alessandra Soler , Executive Director of the Arizona ACLUAOC Staff:Ms. Theresa Barrett, Court Programs Unit, Manager Court Services DivisionMs. Kathy Sekardi, Senior Court Policy Analyst Court Services DivisionMr. Patrick Scott, Senior Court Policy Analyst Court Services DivisionMs. Kay Radwanski, Senior Court Policy Analyst Court Services DivisionMs. Susan Pickard, Court Specialist, Court Services DivisionMs. Sabrina Nash, Administrative Assistant Court Services DivisionMs. Susan Hunt, Executive Assistant Executive OfficeivJustice for AllReport and Recommendations of the Task Force on Fair Justice for All: Court-Ordered Fines, Penalties, Fees, and Pretrial Release PoliciesExecutive SummaryTASK FORCE PURPOSEOn March 3, 2016, Chief Justice Scott Bales issued Administrative Order No. 2016-16, which established the Task Force on Fair Justice for All: Court-Ordered Fines, Penalties, Fees, and Pretrial Release Policies. The administrative order outlined the purpose of the task force as to study and make recommendations as follows:a) Recommend statutory changes, if needed, court rules, written policies, and processes and procedures for setting, collecting, and reducing or waiving court- imposed payments.b) Recommend options for people who cannot pay the full amount of a sanction at the time of sentencing to make reasonable time payments or perform community service in lieu of some or all of the fine or sanction.c) Recommend best practices for making release decisions that protect the public but do not keep people in jail solely for the inability to pay bail.d) Review the practice of suspending driver’s licenses1 and consider alternatives to license suspension.1 Throughout this report, the terminology for a driver’s license is used to reflect driving privileges or a driver license as defined in the Arizona Revised Statutes.This report describes the work and recommendations of the members of the Task Force on Fair Justice for All and does not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of the members of the Arizona Supreme Court.1Justice for Alle) Recommend educational programs for judicial officers, including pro tem judges and court staff who are part of the pretrial decision-making process.f) Identify technological solutions and other best practices that provide defendant notifications of court dates and other court-ordered deadlines using mobile applications to reduce the number of defendants who fail to appear for court and to encourage people who receive citations to come to court.The Chief Justice asked the task force to file a report and make recommendations to the Arizona Judicial Council (AJC) by October 31, 2016. The report that follows consists of 53 recommendations, plus additional educational and training recommendations for the AJC’s review and consideration.TASK FORCE ABBREVIATED RECOMMENDATIONSThe annotated recommendations are set forth in more detail in the body of the report. Below is an abbreviated list with links to the full recommendations.Authorize judges to mitigate mandatory minimum fines, fees, surcharges, and penalties if the amount otherwise imposes an unfair economic hardship.Use automated tools to determine a defendant’s ability to pay.Create a Simplified Payment Ability Form when evaluating a defendant’s ability to pay.Use means-tested assistance program qualification as evidence of a defendant’s limited ability to pay.Seek legislation to reclassify certain criminal charges to civil violations for first-time offenses.Implement the Phoenix Municipal Court’s Compliance Assistance Program statewide.Conduct a pilot program that combines the Phoenix Municipal Court’s Compliance Assistance Program with a fine reduction program and reinstatement of defendants’ drivers’ licenses.Test techniques to make it easier for defendants to make time payments on court- imposed financial sanctions.Seek legislation that would grant courts discretion to close cases and write off fines and fees for traffic and misdemeanor after a 20-year period if reasonable collection efforts have not been effective.2Justice for AllAllow probationers to receive earned time credit without consideration of financial assessments, other than restitution to victims.Eliminate or reduce the imposition of the 10 percent annual interest rate on any Criminal Restitution Order.Modify court website information, bond cards, reminder letters, FARE (Fines/Fees and Restitution Enforcement) letters, and instructions for online citation payment to explain that if the defendant intends to plead guilty or responsible but cannot afford to pay the full amount of the court sanctions at the time of the hearing, the defendant may request a time payment plan.Authorize judges to impose a direct sentence that may include community restitution (service) and education and treatment programs as available sentencing options for misdemeanor offenses.Expand community restitution (service) to be applied to surcharges, as well as fines and fees, and expand this option to sentences imposed by superior courts.Implement English and Spanish Interactive Voice Response (IVR), email, or a text messaging system to remind defendants of court dates, missed payments, and other actions to reduce failures to appear.Modify forms to collect cell phone numbers, secondary phone numbers, and email addresses.Train staff to verify and update contact information for defendants at every opportunity.Provide information to law enforcement agencies regarding the importance of gathering current contact information on the citation form.After a defendant fails to appear, notify the defendant that a warrant will be issued unless the defendant comes to court within five days.For courts operating pretrial service programs, allow pretrial services five days to re-engage defendants who have missed scheduled court dates and delay the issuance of a failure to appear warrant for those defendants who appear on the rescheduled dates.Authorize the court to quash a warrant for failure to appear and reschedule a new court date for a defendant who voluntarily appears in court after a warrant has been issued.3Justice for AllConsider increasing access to the court (e.g., offering hours at night, on weekends, or extending regular hours, taking the court to people in remote areas, and allowing remote video and telephonic appearances).Develop and pilot a system that communicates in English and Spanish (such as video avatars) to provide explanations of options available to defendants who receive tickets or citations.24. Clarify on court informational websites and bond cards that defendants may come to court before the designated court date to resolve a civil traffic case and explain how to reschedule the hearing for those defendants who cannot appear on the scheduled dates.25. Implement the ability to email proof of compliance with a law—such as proof of insurance—to the court to avoid having to appear in person.26. Suspend a driver’s license as a last resort, not a first step.Make a first offense of driving on a suspended license a civil violation rather than a criminal offense.Provide courts with the ability to collect and use updated contact information, such as a database service, before issuing a warrant or a reminder in aging cases.Authorize courts to impose restrictions on driving—such as “to and from work only”—as an alternative to suspending a driver’s license altogether.Prior to or in lieu of issuing a warrant to bring a person to court for failure to pay, courts should employ proactive practices that promote voluntary compliance and appearance.Support renewing efforts to encourage the Conference of Chief Justices and the Conference of State Court Administrators to approach Congress about extending the federal tax intercept program to include intercepting federal tax refunds to pay victim restitution awards, with an exception for those who are eligible for the earned income tax credit.Promote the use of restitution courts, status conferences, and probation review hearings that ensure due process and consider the wishes of the victim. Provide judicial training on the appropriate use of Orders to Show Cause in lieu of warrants and appointment of counsel at hearings involving a defendant’s loss of liberty.Coordinate where possible with the local regional behavioral health authority to assist the court or pretrial services in identifying defendants who have previously been diagnosed as mentally ill.4Justice for AllRevise mental health competency statutes for expediting mental competency proceedings for misdemeanor cases.Bring together criminal justice and mental health stakeholders in larger jurisdictions to adopt protocols for addressing people with mental health issues who have been brought to court.Consider the use of specialty courts and other available resources to address a defendant’s treatment and service needs, as well as risk to the community, when processing cases involving persons with mental health needs or other specialized groups.Modify Form 6–Release Order and Form 7–Appearance Bond to simplify language and clarify defendants’ rights in an easy-to-understand format.Eliminate the use of non-traffic criminal bond schedules.Amend Rule 7.4, Rules of Criminal Procedure, to require the appointment of counsel if a person remains in jail after the initial appearance.Clarify by rule that small bonds ($5-100) are not required to ensure that the defendant gets credit for time served when defendant is also being held in another case.Authorize the court to temporarily release a “hold” from a limited jurisdiction court and order placement directly into a substance abuse treatment program upon recommendation of the probation department.Expedite the bond process to facilitate timely release to treatment programs.43. Request amendment of A.R.S. § 13-3961(D) and (E) (Offenses not bailable; purpose; preconviction; exceptions) to authorize the court, on its own motion, to set a hearing to determine whether a defendant should be held without bail.Encourage the presence of court-appointed counsel and prosecutors at initial appearance hearings to assist the court in determining appropriate release conditions and to resolve misdemeanor cases.Request the legislature to refer to the people an amendment to the Arizona Constitution to expand preventive detention to allow courts to detain defendants when the court determines that the release will not reasonably assure the appearance of the person as required, in addition to when the defendant’s release will not reasonably assure the safety of other persons or the community.Eliminate the requirement for cash surety to the greatest extent possible and instead impose reasonable conditions based on the individual’s risk.5Justice for All47. Eliminate the use of a cash bond to secure a defendant’s appearance.48. Expand the use of the public safety risk assessment to limited jurisdiction courts.49. Encourage collaboration between limited jurisdiction courts and pretrial service agencies in superior courts in preparing or providing pretrial risk assessments for limited jurisdiction cases.Establish information sharing between a superior court that has conducted a pretrial risk assessment and a limited jurisdiction court when the defendant is arrested for charges in multiple courts and a release decision must be made in multiple jurisdictions.Request the Arnold Foundation to conduct research on the impact of immigration status on the likelihood of not returning to court if released to ascertain whether it is good public policy to hold these defendants on cash bond.Encourage the Arnold Foundation to conduct periodic reviews to revalidate the Public Safety Assessment [PSA] tool as to its effect on minority populations.53. Provide data to judicial officers to show the effectiveness of the risk assessment tool in actual operation.Develop an educational plan and conduct mandatory training for all judicial officers.Create multi-layer training (court personnel and judicial staff) to include a practical operational curriculum.Develop online training modules for future judicial officers.Host a one-day kick-off summit inviting all stakeholders (law enforcement, prosecutors, county attorneys, public defenders, city council and county board members, the League of Towns and Cities, criminal justice commissions, legislature, and presiding judges) to educate and inform about recommendations of the task force and provide direction for leadership to initiate the shift to a risk-based system rather than a cash-based release system.Train judicial officers on the risk principle and the methodology behind the risk assessment tool.Educate judges about the continuum of sentencing options.Educate judges about available community restitution (service) programs and the types of services each offers so that courts may order services that “fit the crime.”Launch a public education campaign to support the adopted recommendations of the task force.6Justice for AllProvide a comprehensive and targeted educational program for all stakeholders (funding authorities, legislators, criminal justice agencies, media, and members of the public) that addresses the shift to a risk-based system rather than a cash-based release system.Request that the Chief Justice issue an administrative order directing the education of all full- and part-time judicial officers about alternatives to financial release conditions. Training and educational components should: Inform judges that cash bonds are not favored. Judges should consider the least onerous terms of release of pretrial detainees that will ensure public safety and the defendant’s return to court for hearings. Train limited jurisdiction court judges to more aggressively allow payment of fines through community service, as permitted by A.R.S. § 13-810.Provide focused judicial education on A.R.S. § 11-584(D) and Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure 6.7(D) about how to determine the amount and method of payment, specifically taking into account the financial resources and the nature of the burden that the payment will impose on the defendant and making specific findings on the record about the defendant’s ability to pay.Update bench books and other judicial aides to be consistent with court-adopted recommendations.INNOVATIONS ALREADY UNDER WAYArizona courts have a history of innovation. As pretrial release issues have arisen, local courts have already begun experimenting with initiatives that support fair justice to all in Arizona. Following are a few projects that highlight promising practices that can be considered for expansion to other jurisdictions.2Compliance Assistance ProgramThe Phoenix Municipal Court has recently implemented a Compliance Assistance Program (CAP) that notifies defendants who have had their driver’s licenses suspended that they can come in to court, arrange a new and affordable time2 See Appendix B for detailed project descriptions of Innovations Already Under Way.7Justice for Allpayment program, and make a down payment on their outstanding fine. More than 5,000 people have taken advantage of the program in the first six months.Interactive Voice Response SystemThe Pima County Consolidated Justice Courts and the Glendale and Mesa Municipal courts have each implemented an Interactive Voice Response (IVR) system to notify defendants of upcoming court dates, missed payments, or the issuance of warrants. Each jurisdiction has experienced a reduction in the number of people failing to appear—up to 24 percent.3Limited Jurisdiction Mental Competency Proceedings PilotA pilot project coordinated through the Superior Court in Maricopa County authorized Mesa and Glendale municipal courts to conduct Rule 11 mental health competency proceedings originating in their courts on behalf of the Superior Court in Maricopa County. The program has reduced the time to process these matters from six months to 60 days.Justice Court Video Appearance CenterThe Maricopa County Justice Court Video Appearance Center represents the first phase of an initiative to significantly reduce the amount of time defendants are held in custody on misdemeanor charges pending appearance in the justice courts.Pima County – MacArthur Safety & Justice ChallengeIn May 2015, Pima County was selected as one of 11 jurisdictions awarded $150,000 from the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation for Phase I of an initiative to reduce over-incarceration by changing how America thinks about and uses jails. The initiative is a competition to help jurisdictions create fairer, more effective local justice systems through bold innovation. Pima County was later awarded an additional $1.5 million to move forward with Phase 2, which involves creating an implementation plan for broad system change.