Thursday, October 23, 2008

Another Loss for Arpaio - another loss for the taxpayer

Yesterday, U.S. District Court Judge Neil Wake issued a ruling in the decades old case Hill v. Arpaio - a class action suit, on behalf of pre-trial detainees concerning issues of Jail Conditions under Sheriff Arpaio. You can read the entire decision here if you wish, but I have identified some fey findings and placed them at the bottom of this post. Overcrowding, Lack of proper medical treatment and inmate safety are just a few of the findings made by Judge Wake. What you see below has been lifted directly from the court's order verbatim. Remember, these are not allegations, these are now Matters of Fact proven in a court of law.

In particular, I would note that THE COUNTY HAS BEEN ORDERED TO PAY ATTORNEYS FEES to the Plaintiff's in this case. The local media has not picked up on that part of this decision, but yes, we the Taxpayers are once again picking up the tab for Arpaio's decision to not do his job. The cost is yet to be determined, as fees will need to be submitted to the court - but considering that the central attorney for the plaintiff, Debra Hill, has devoted countless hours on this case for over 7 years, the cost to tax payers will easily be in the six-figures, possibly reaching into seven-figures.

Tired of cleaning up Arpaio's messes with your hard earned tax dollars? Vote Dan Saban!!!

-APK


Ruling, In part:

P. Attorney Fees
478. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b) for the award of attorney fees, Plaintiffs are the prevailing parties on Defendants' Renewed Motion to Terminate the Amended Judgment (doc. #906) and its predecessors.

Overcrowding
57. Overcrowding in the 4th Avenue Intake holding cells violates pretrial
detainees' constitutional rights.
58. Prospective relief is necessary to correct this current and ongoing violation
of pretrial detainees' constitutional rights.

Inmate Medical Attention
171. During screening, when pretrial detainees identify that they are on
medications, staff are trained to verify these medications, obtain orders, and initiate
administration of the medications in a timely fashion.
172. However, incoming pretrial detainees with chronic medical problems,
such as diabetes, hypertension, and HIV disease, often do not receive their medications in
a timely manner.

Inmate Safety
301. During intake, repeat offenders charged with serious violent crimes may
be placed in holding cells with individuals charged with DUI or criminal speeding.
302. There are no panic buttons or intercom systems in the intake holding cells.
303. Pretrial detainees placed in intake holding cells usually can communicate
with a detention officer only when the door is opened to move pretrial detainees in or out
of a holding cell.
304. Although security cameras record activity within intake holding cells,
detention officers do not continuously watch the security cameras.

1 comment:

TommyC1 said...

Alex, for some reason I am thinking the case is Hart v arpaio, not Hill. I must be mistaken...

Republicans For Saban Web Site!