Back to Maricopa

Stoddard's lawyer wants the whole letter.

You remember the letter. It contains the words "going to,” “steal” and “money” grouped near each other in a single sentence at the bottom of the handwritten page. Those words, seen from across a courtroom, on a paper sticking partway out of a criminal defense lawyer's file, alarmed Stoddard because . . . . Frankly, I have no idea. No, that's not fair. Stoddard said that from those four words he thought that the letter was either evidence of a "future crime" or some sort of illegal communication from inside to outside the jail.

That doesn't strike me as a particularly rational inference, but I'm not a Maricopa County Sheriff's employee. In any event, they alarmed Stoddard enough to believe that he had to take that paper and have a copy made. Or so he said. And it's what he did.

When at a later time he read the whole letter later, he decided those fears were unfounded, but he developed an actual "security concern." He testified:

My security concern was knowing Inmate Lozano [the defendant she was standing up in court with at the time] is associated with the Mexican Mafia, and knowing some of the Mexican Mafia history on how they get information from the inside tothe outside, the outside to the inside of the jail, that he could be trying to solicit Ms. Cuccia [his lawyer, the attorney from whose file the paper was taken] to help him in some way, shape, or form in this misconduct.

Let's imagine that's true. So what? Oh, I mean I get it that if there's a conspiracy to coerce an innocent attorney into helping the Mexican Mafia (notice that even the court reporter used uppercase to emphasize the horror of the thing) violate Sheriff Joe's security, it's a bad thing. But what does that have to do with whether Stoddard had any basis to pull the letter out of Cuccia's file?

Let's go back.

When Stoddard, who's some sort of law enforcement officer (Detention Officer isn't a job title in my neck of the legal woods, but I gather he does court security and jail transport work for the Sheriff) first read a paper, or part of one, in Cuccia's file, and then when he took that paper out and had it photocopied, he implicated at least two legal concerns: attorney-client privilege and the Fourth Amendment.

The law of privilege is state specific and riddled with exceptions, but the guts of it is that communications between attorney and client in the course of representation are secret. They're even secret when they include information that law enforcement officers or prosecutors or judges or newspaper reporters might like to have. The privilege can be waived, the communication can be made public, but only with the consent of the client, in this case Lozano. (It's the client's privilege, not the lawyer's). The reason for the privilege is to encourage clients and lawyers to speak freely with each other so that the lawyer has the information necessary to do her job and the client the information necessary to make any choices that need to be made.

The Fourth Amendment is different. You know the text (or you should).

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The protection of the Fourth Amendment is not absolute. The courts have limited it and narrowed it and found exceptions to it so often that it seems mostly illusory today. But it's still there. And it's supposed to mean something. While only the client has a legal right to complain about the violation of attorney-client privilege, it seems clear that both Lozano and Cuccia had a Fourth Amendment protected interest in the contents of her file.

Again, Fourth Amendment law is largely a sea of exceptions, but the underlying principle always applies: Law enforcement cannot search through your stuff without a warrant or some circumstance that makes a warrant unnecessary.

In this case, Stoddard might argue that because he could read the problematic words from across the room, what's known as the plain view exception applies. That exception is, essentially, that cops don't have to be blind. If they see something that is obviously illegal (the legal language is that the problematic nature of what's seen must be "immediately apparent"), they can seize it. But there's nothing about the words "going to" "steal" and "money" in a paper in the file of a criminal defense lawyer that shows the paper's criminal nature to be immediately apparent.

The other potentially relevant exception arises when there's a combination of probable cause and an exigency. Probable cause is sufficient basis to believe that the paper is criminal. An exigency is some circumstance that would make getting a warrant so cumbersome that the evidence would be lost. Even if there were probable cause, and it's hard to see, Stoddard could have asked the judge for a warrant. They were in court, for godssake. In front of a judge. No problem if there was probable cause to get a warrant before Cuccia destroyed the incriminating paper. So no exigency; therefore no exception.

As for probable cause, the Supreme Court says that's enough cause for a reasonable person to believe it, but maybe not enough to make it more likely than not. Got that? When it's probably not true but reasonable people would believe it anyway, that's probable cause. Really. Honest. Here's the language from Texas v. Brown (admittedly a plurality opinion, but everyone accepts it).

As the Court frequently has remarked, probable cause is a flexible, common-sense standard. It merely requires that the facts available to the officer would "warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief," Carroll v. United States, 267 U. S. 132, 162 (1925), that certain items may be contraband or stolen property or useful as evidence of a crime; it does not demand any showing that such a belief be correct or more likely true than false. A "practical, nontechnical" probability that incriminating evidence is involved is all that is required. Brinegar v. United States, 338 U. S. 160, 176 (1949).

So no exception to the Fourth Amendment. Therefore, no right, none, zippo, for Stoddard to reach in and take the paper (let alone copy it).

Still, this is Maricopa County, so when Judge Donahoe held the contempt hearing, he insisted that Lozano waive his attorney-client privilege in the letter. Or maybe just in the four words Stoddard claims to have relied on.

Now, Stoddard wants it all. He needs the letter, his lawyer says, in order to defend himself. Aside from the fact that it's too late for that - the time to defend was when the contempt hearing was going on - it's hard to see how the letter would help. And he doesn't explain.

Here's the basic reason. You can't justify an act by its consequence. An illegal search doesn't become legal because it turns up drugs. You have to have a legitimate basis to invade the privilege or the Fourth Amendment at the time you do it. Doesn't count if you find the basis later. And Stoddard didn't read the letter until after he swiped it.

What will happen next? As always, this is Maricopa County, so all we really know is that it will be problematic.

But that's the future, because there's more in the present. There's Judge Barbara Mundell.

According to Ray Stern at the New Times, she's the "top judge" on the Superior Court (which would seem to make her the Mt. Everest of judges but who am I to, er, judge) and one of the subjects of four judicial complaints filed by Sheriff Joe's chief deputy on November 30. (The complaints are linked from this page.) Her response, according to Stern:

The allegations are false, frivolous and slanderous. This is the latest attempt to intimidate the judiciary and interfere with the fair, impartial and timely administration of justice. This attempt will fail. The bench of the Maricopa County Superior Court will continue to provide access to the courts, decide cases based upon the law and not politics, protect the rights of victims and defendants and ensure public safety.

It probably won't shock anyone to know that among the other judges against whom complaints were filed is Gary Donahoe. Of course, they're all also facing that civil racketeering suit filed by Sheriff Joe and the County Attorney.

Some people are calling Maricopa County "Marikafka." I don't think that does it justice.

Lunatic Mainstream (Updated/corrected)

I haven't written about the birthers here. I haven't talked about the teabaggers (either sort, but it's the quasi-political ones I'm speaking of ignoring) or the truthers. I don't really have anything much to say, ordinarily, about people obsessed with wild allegations, driven to them out of fear (which is basically the case with those folks).

They're like the people who wear tin foil hats to keep out the mind-control rays from the aliens (or the government). You shake your head, and move on. It's like the serious members of the Flat Earth Society and the people who've experienced alien abduction first hand, except there are more of them and they're armed. Still, there's really nothing much to say about them unless you really like making fun of the lame and the halt.

The refusal to be educated is telling. Turley posted about this billboard put up by a Colorado car dealer.

He was particularly struck by the thoughts of "passing motorist Keith Walters" who said

I can’t honestly say he’s a Jihadist, but there’s a lot of things that are questionable. The whole birth certificate controversy. From what I’ve read, there’s no proof Obama isn’t a Muslim. And I don’t believe there’s any racism [in the billboard]. I think that should be a question asked to any president who — they have some questionable backgrounds.

What Turley loved was the "there's no proof" part. He writes,

The sign is legitimate because “there’s no proof Obama isn’t a Muslim.” There’s no proof that he is not the Anti-Christ or the Second Coming either

Well, yeah. But don't give them any ideas on that Anti-Christ thing. After all, 21 % of the electorate in New Jersey already either believe he's the Anti-Christ or aren't sure. But I digress. Sort of.

Because the part of what Mr. Walters said that got to me was "from what I've read." See, Walters isn't some illierate bozo who just believes any crackpot thing someone tells him. He's a literate guy who actually goes and checks things out, reading Glenn Beck's book, maybe*, and the hysterical rantings of Lou Dobbs. If you get all your information from the troglodytes, you're not going to learn that they're troglogdytes.

The real question, though, is what happens when you're told. Do you listen? Can you hear another voice and take seriously what you're told? Can a birther be persuaded by evidence? The scary thought is "Maybe not." And what then? Either we rant in response or we make fun of the (mentally) lame and halt or we throw up our hands in despair and say nothing because there's nothing much to say.

Which is why I haven't taken them on.

But now . . . .

I can kind of shake my head at them, laugh once in a while at their smug ignorance, but mostly just ignore the usual run of these folks. Even Limbaugh and O'Reilley and Sarah Palin. Half of it is schtick and they know it. They believe what they say because every good snake oil salesman believes in the snake oil while selling it. But they're also cartoons (influential, but cartoons).

What's frightening, what set me off on this tirade, is the mayor of Arlington, Tennessee, one Russell Wiseman. He set himself up on Facebook and, in what is apparently the first thing he put on his page, demonstrated that he's not just crazy, he's stupid, too.

The Memphis Commercial Appeal explained.

In the opinion of Arlington Mayor Russell Wiseman, President Barack Obama's speech on Tuesday night on the war in Afghanistan was deliberately timed to block the Christian message of the "Peanuts" television Christmas special.

Got that? Islamist counter-programming. Don't believe the Commercial Appeal's paraphrase? Here's what they say Wiseman actually wrote. (I can't vouch for it. I'm not on Facebook and, in any event, he's taken the Facebook page down.)

Ok, so, this is total crap, we sit the kids down to watch 'The Charlie Brown Christmas Special' and our muslim president is there, what a load.....try to convince me that wasn't done on purpose. Ask the man if he believes that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and he will give you a 10 minute disertation (sic) about it....w...hen the answer should simply be 'yes'....

There's more, of course. Wiseman understands that it's already too late.

In Wiseman's extensive thread that attacked the president, his supporters and Muslims, he stated "...you obama people need to move to a muslim country...oh wait, that's America....pitiful."

And there's still more. There always is when you've gone this far off the deep end.

you know, our forefathers had it written in the original Constitution that ONLY property owners could vote, if that has stayed in there, things would be different........

So: Obama conspired (perhaps only with himself, but maybe with his good buddy bin Laden) to advance the Islamist cause by ensuring that this year people will only be able to watch twenty-six rather than twenty-seven times the miracle of the tree and Linus' reading from the Gospel. My god it's dastardly.

The thing is, I'm not horrified. I'm not even appalled any more. But the man actually holds elective office.

Perhaps I'm the one who's out of step.

Sigh.

Thanks, I think, to Sara at Preaching to the Choir for pointing me to this story.

___________

UPDATE/CORRECTION

Joel Rosenberg wisely (which is pretty much a given) points out that I've maligned Glenn Beck. He is neither a birther or a near-birther. He's actually driving the birthers nuts because he won't sign on with them (See here, for instance.) Since this is a mea culpa, I'll refrain from the actual joke.

We Need A Little Killing, Now

While I've been obsessing over the Gunfight at the Maricopa Corral (Sheriffgate? Crime and No Punishment? 2009: An Arizona Odyssey?) Ohio has been polishing the execution table (they don't actually use a gurney) at the Southern Ohio Correctional Facility.

Ken Biros is scheduled to be murdered on Tuesday. The day before Thanksgiving, a panel of judges on the 6th Circuit largely ignored precedent and law and reached out to lift the stay to let the killing go forward. Yesterday, the entire 6th Circuit (well, except for Deborah Cook who didn't participate, but she'd have been on the side of the killers so her vote wouldn't have changed anything) voted to not to rehear that decision.

Judge Sutton wrote a gratuitous opinion explaining that Biros should be pleased because he's now getting a state-of-the-art execution (OK, that's not quite what Sutton wrote. What he actually said is that Ohio has now "improved" a "facially constitutional" system. And he adds that Biros will be killed by the method that Baze said the Constitution required.

Judge Moore takes issue with how badly the panel decision "directly contradicts binding precedent" and how Sutton (one of the judges on the panel) continues to ignore or misrepresent law, logic, and the record of the case
in an effort to achieve a particular outcome in the most perfunctory manner possible.
Finally, Judge Martin weighs in to excoriate Sutton (and Gibbons who joined his opinion here and was also on the panel with him) for prejudging a challenge to Ohio's new protocol.

On the whole, I would rather that we all went home today having only made a hash of our mootness jurisprudence rather than having made a hash of our mootness jurisprudence and having offered up views on an issue that is not currently, but soon will be, before us.

And, of course, it will be before them very soon since Biros filed on Friday (sorry, I don't have a link to a free copy) an amended complaint challenging the constitutionality of the new protocol (and the competence of those who are to administer it).

Meanwhile, and lest there be any uncertaintly on where he stands when it comes to killing folk, Governor Ted denied clemency.

As I've wondered before, so I do again, What's the rush? It's not like Biros is going anywhere?

Maricopa Burning

Where the hell do you begin?

Two more court buildings in Maricopa County were evacuated Thursday.

One was because of yet another bomb threat, perhaps called in by the same person who called in the bomb threats that emptied court buildings Wednesday and who may be the person who called in bomb threats on Monday that were pretty basically ignored. No bomb's have actually been found so far.

The other building had to be emptied after a release of pepper gas. It might have been an accident. Or not.

Sheriff Joe's people are working hard to find the person or persons responsible for the bomb threats.

Meanwhile, the question on everyone's mind (OK, the minds of at least three or four of us) is "Where's Adam?" We know that he allegedly tried to turn himself in to his buddies Tuesday evening but they refused to book him into the jail due to some sort of clerical error. So he stayed there as a volunteer. His lawyer, deputy prosecutor Liddy, promised to get the error fixed in the morning. That would be Wednesday morning.

By Thursday afternoon, people (by which I mean Nick Martin at Heat City) were starting to wonder whether Stoddard was actually in custody anywhere. The Sheriff's website provides no indication that he's ever been booked.

Ray Stern at New Times reports that he was finally booked Thursday morning after what Liddy describes as two nights in the jail as a volunteer. (Right now, Thursday night, there's still no indication in the on-line booking information that Stoddard has in fact been booked.) But while Liddy confirms that Stoddard's been booked and is in some form of custody, he won't confirm that Stoddard is actually in a cell. Liddy does assure us that Stoddard, unlike all Sheriff Joe's other guests, is not being forced to wear pink undies and use pink towels.

Anyway, Nick says the Sheriff's office released this picture which it claims is Stoddard's booking photo. Still doesn't show up on the Sheriff's website, though.





Meanwhile, the Maricopa County Association of Detention Officers plans daily candlelight vigils outside the courthouse in support of Stoddard until he is released. They "will not stand down." By gum.

And Stern tells us that Liddy said that Judge Donahoe said (you start to see how reliable this is likely to be) that Stoddard will be held in custody until after Christmas.

OK, a quick review.

Stoddard is or is not in custody. Regardless, he's not suffering the indignities of being in Maricopa custody. Then again, he's a political prisoner being held captive by his boss and chief supporter.

Stoddard is in jail (or someplace) and is being represented by Deputy County Attorney (that's a prosecutor, folks) who happens to be the son of famed Watergate burglar G. Gordon Liddy.

Court business is constantly disrupted by sick-outs, protests, and bomb scares. And someone can't (or won't) control his pepper spray.

I'm waiting to see the tanks rolling down main street.

Maricopa Meltdown

The big news out of Maricopa County today seems to be that there is no news.

Oh, yesterday's bomb scare ended just in time for there to be a big crowd gathered for the Adam Stoddard support rally, er, press conference. You know, the one where 150 or so of Sheriff Joe's folk gathered to proclaim that Stoddard had behaved exactly right because his eyes "glazed over" a piece of paper (after he removed it from defense attorney Joanne Cuccia's file because he hadn't previously inspected that page to see what danger it might pose the courtroom). During the glazing, he noticed the words "going to," "steal," and "money" - not as a phrase, but "grouped together," whatever that might mean. And although he had no business glazing at that page in the first place, he became so alarmed at the danger that paper posed to the courtroom (violent insurrection, perhaps) that he just had to take that paper and have a photocopy made.

They condemned Judge Donahoe who had held a three-day hearing and concluded that Stoddard had no right to take the page (which was really pretty much self-evident from the get go). And they said that they would "refuse to stand down" which is either a good thing a bad thing or neither or both depending on what the hell it means.

Deputy County Attorney Liddy, who is representing Stoddard, complained about the "political war" in Maricopa County, though the only side he condemned was the judiciary. Sheriff Joe chased his own tail on that metaphor.

"I do have a political prisoner in jail who happens to be my detention officer," Arpaio said.

What are we talking about? Ghandi was a political prisoner. So was Nelson Mandela. Depending on your point of view, maybe Leonard Peltier or Mumia Abu Jamal qualifies. Sadaam Hussein said he was. Patrick Henry maybe.

Maricopa County Detention Officer Adam Stoddard?

Well, who am I to argue with Sheriff Joe. If he says he's housing a political prisoner who's on his side in the uprising, I guess he is, though usually it's the other side that restrains the movement of the political prisoner. Of course, "housing" is surely the right word since there's no indication yet from the media that Stoddard is actually in custody. You'll recall that when he first turned himself in on Tuesday, Sheriff Joe's tough as nails deputies refused to book Stoddard in because there was something wrong with the paperwork. So Stoddard, making like Otis at the Mayberry jail, decided to stay anyhow.

Meanwhile, you'll recall that on Tuesday Sheriff Joe and the county prosecutor filed civil racketeering charges against the County Supervisors and a number of other officials, including the same Judge Donahoe who found Stoddard in contempt.

And today Sheriff Joe's chief deputy filed judicial complaints alleging bias and misconduct against four of the local judges - including, again, Judge Donahoe.

This would be farce if it weren't so damn serious.

And there's really no end in sight.

Today's news has been brought to you by Heat City, Simple Justice, the Arizona Republic, blogger Mike McClellen, and the Phoenix New Times.

Sickouts and Bomb Threats - The Fun Never Stops

It is, of course, Maricopa County.

Where 19 of the Sheriff's detention officers came down with the flu this morning. And a 20th is out for what the Criminal Court Administrator called "unforeseen circumstances" (tacitly acknowledging that the sudden onslaught of sniffles was foreseen*). A spokesman for the detention officers' union says the sickout wasn't coordinated. But the union has scheduled a press conference for this afternoon to show their solidarity with the voluntarily jailed contemnor and thief Adam Stoddard who was just doing his job when he illegally and indefensibly read and then appropriated papers from defense attorney Joanne Cuccia's case files.

And where, for the second time this week, a bomb threat has been called in by someone allegedly disgruntled with the Public Defender. This time, they evacuated the courthouse.

So reports the Arizona Republic.

Film at 11, as they say.

Thanks to Sarah for the news flash. (The link is to her blog, though she posted the news in a comment on Greenfield's.)
---------------
*As Milton understood, that which is foreseen may still be voluntary and evil. As God says of Satan and the fallen angels in Paradise Lost:

. . . if I foreknew,
Foreknowledge had no influence on their fault,
Which had no less prov'd certain unforeknown.

What We Don't and Who We Ain't

Taking a break from obsessing about Adam Stoddard and Sheriff Joe and Judge Donahoe and the mysteries of Maricopa, I return now to another pair of matched obsessions.

Yes, we're back to that perhaps-bowlegged violator of legal ethics, David Martin who set out to prove his client guilty of murder and the question of just what it is that criminal defense lawyers do.

Recap:

Cameron Todd Willingham was put to death by the great state of Texas for setting his home on fire and burning up his three kids inside it. Pretty much undisputed evidence at trial indicated that the fire was arson, that Willingham didn't make much effort to get his kids out and didn't seem much interested in doing so, and that he told inconsistent stories. Oh, and there was a jailhouse snitch. On that basis, you'd have convicted him, too. You might not have sentenced him die, but the jury did. The governor signed off on that, and he was murdered by the State of Texas in 2004.

Except, of course, there's that ooopsie.

The arson evidence has been examined by a number of experts who've actually studied fire and examined how it works, folks who know the science of arson investigation rather than the old-wives-tales and received wisdom of the gee-sure-seems-like-this-must-be-how-it-works school, people who know what they're talking about. And they all say there's actually not a shred of evidence that it was arson.

The Texas Forensic Science Commission was going to hold hearings and examine the evidence when the Governor appointed a new chair of the Commission who has announced that the commission should only examine evidence in secret, that Commission members should destroy all their e-mails, and that only he should be allowed to speak with the press. He's doing all this, he assured the Texas Legislature that set up the Commission, to ensure the integrity of the investigation so that everyone can be comfortable that the Commission's conclusions, like all conclusions based on secret evidence and secret deliberations and fed to the world through a single voice are unbiased and accurate. And if you don't believe it, you can examine the evidence you won't be allowed to see.

You can read all about that stuff here and here and here and by following the links in those posts.

But there's also this. Willingham was represented at trial by a sleazy, dishonest, unethical, pond-scum, bottom-sucking lawyer. Yeah, I know all the lawyer jokes. I'm not talking about them. I'm talking about this guy.



You can read about him here and here and many other spots on the blawgoshphere. He conducted an experiment to prove his client guilty. (The experiment proved nothing, but it convinced him.) He went on national television to announce his client's guilt.

What do we do? If you've been patrolling the criminal defense blogs during the last couple of weeks you've likely seen some heated discussion about what it means to be a criminal defense lawyer. (See here and here and here, for instance.)

Well, in all those discussions of who we are and what we do, nobody mentioned the object lesson of what we don't do. David Martin is that lesson. And lest we forget it, he's at it again.

This time, it's an AP story in which he explains in detail how it is that Caeron Todd Willingham was guilty and deserved to be executed. What, is he concerned that his reputation isn't sufficiently tarnished? Is he worried that he isn't getting enough attention anymore now that the Forensic Sciences Commission won't be doing anything for months and won't ever be doing anything public? Is he disappointed that Maurice Clemmons and Tiger Woods have taken over the tabloids and that Maricopa County, Arizona rather than Corsicana, Texas is the blawgosphere's hot spot?

It's really simple when you get beyond the philosphizing and the rationalizing and the noodling around the edges of purpose and calling. When you pare it down to the basics, when you stop talking about why we do and focus on what you get to the eloquence of simplicity: We defend. Some better than others. Some with more passion. But that's the Platonic "what." We defend.

And then there's Martin.

But you know, this is a time to take off after the reporter, too. See, he talked to a few jurors who said that they still think Willingham is guilty. He concluded from that that they didn't find it relevant that there's no evidence of arson. But that's not what they said. What they said is that the only evidence they have is what was presented at trial. And from that evidence they still find him guilty.

Sure. So do I. So would you.

If you haven't seen any of the new evidence, if you don't know that the trial evidence has been discredited, it's not surprising that your views haven't changed. Why would anyone expect them to?

But the jurors aren't the lawyer. It should never have mattered to David Martin whether his client was factually guilty. He certainly shouldn't have been conducting experiments to try to prove it. And he damn well shouldn't be announcing it, now.

He didn't defend. He is who we're not and what we don't do.

The jurors? They're just ignorant. The lawyer? He's dangerous.

Morning Maricopa

Today's lessons:

Detention Officer Stoddard,

• who for no legitimate reason took it upon himself to violate attorney client privilege by first pawing through defense attorney Joanne Cuccia's files in open court (behind her back but in full view of a judge and prosecutor who thought nothing amiss) and then copying a page he found there,
• who lied about it at a show cause hearing, claiming that he had a duty to read all papers attorneys bring to court and that the page in its unphotocopied form seemed to pose an immediate threat to courtroom security,
• who was found in contempt of court and ordered to apologize to Cuccia or go to jail
• who was too honest to offer an apology he didn't mean,

that Detention Officer Stoddard, is so committed to the rule of law that he did, in fact, turn himself in at a facility run by his boss, Maricopa's own Sheriff Joe Arpaio.

But as Sheriff Joe's employee surrendered to Sheriff Joe's employees, he was promptly turned away. No room at the inn for this paragon of law enforcement. It seems there was a "clerical error" in Judge Donahoe's incarceration order. So gosh darn it, they just couldn't book him.

Stoddard's lawyer, deputy county attorney Tom Liddy, plans to have the judge fix it first thing this morning. But I'm relieved. It's good to know that Sheriff Joe runs his facility so carefully that not even the slightest technical error will be tolerated. If you're locked up in Maricopa, you know that your rights have been scrupulous honored.

Anyway, Stoddard was turned away.

Yet, and here again we see the nobility and decency and commitment to the rule of law of those who work for Sheriff Joe, he refused to leave. Liddy told him to go home, but that's not the sort of guy Stoddard is. According to Liddy, Stoddard

said, no, he wanted to stay because that’s what the judge ordered.

So he apparently found a corner and bunked down for the night. Of course, since he's a volunteer and isn't actually a prisoner, I guess he doesn't have to live like others of Arpaio's guests: wearing pink undies, eating 15 cent meals, and working on the chain gang.

Meanwhile, and also yesterday, Sheriff Joe along with Andrew Thomas, the Maricopa County Prosecutor, filed a civil complaint against the Maricopa County Supervisors, a few of the Superior Court Judges, and other officials and lay people. As ABC television in Phoenix reports,

The 19-page federal complaint filed by Andrew Thomas and Joe Arpaio describes "a concerted scheme to hinder the criminal investigation and prosecution of elected officials and employees of Maricopa County, Arizona and their attorneys."

Among the judges named, you'll be shocked to hear, is Gary Donahoe. You remember him, he's the judge whose order, in Stoddard's words,

puts me in a position where I must lie or go to jail.

And, as we have seen, Stoddard is a man of uncommon integrity. Jail it is. Even though the jail didn't want him.

Further developments as they happen. Or something.

Did Arpaio Blink?

You know there's trouble when the chief law enforcement officer announces that he will defy a judge's orders.  But we're talking Maricopa County, Arizona.

When Superior Court Judge Gary E. Donahoe found Detention Officer Adam Stoddard in contempt for reading, pilfering, and copying a paper from defense counsel Joanne Cuccia's file while she was making a sentencing argument in open court, he drew a line in the desert sand.  Donahoe ordered Stoddard to hold a press conference and apologize to Cuccia.  Stoddard's boss, Lord Voldemort Sheriff Joe Arpaio announced that Stoddard wouldn't do it.

And he didn't.

There were two questions.

1. Was Donahoe bluffing?  Would he really try to lock Stoddard up, which would mean taking on Sheriff Joe in a power struggle?
2. Would Sheriff Joe continue his defiance (through his proxy Stoddard) or would he acknowledge that a judicial order had to be obeyed?
   

All day, Stoddard was in court, doing his job (peering at papers he no right to view, intimidating counsel, looking tough around judges, whatever he thinks his job is).  His lawyer said the judge's order wasn't enforceable.

And then, then Arpaio blinked.

Via Phoenix New Times and Scott Greenfield's, second update, we learn that Stoddard will go to jail.

"My officer will surrender," Arpaio said during a news conference, adding that he wouldn't say exactly where officer Adam Stoddard will be, because of security concerns.

Of course, Arpaio isn't backing off quietly.

Arpaio claims Donahoe has a "vendetta" against him and will soon release information about the judge that proves it. "For political reasons, [Stoddard's] been thrown to the wolves," Arpaio said.

One wonders, of course, if it isn't Arpaio rather than Donahoe who's throwing Stoddard "to the wolves."  It's certainly Donahoe rather than Arpaio who's named in a racketeering lawsuit announced today.

But that's just Maricopa County.

Still, Sheriff Joe went toe to toe with the court.  And Sheriff Joe blinked.

What next? & Update

ABC News in Phoenix reports that Detention Officer Stoddard has been ordered to jail.

A Maricopa County Sheriff's detention officer must report to jail Tuesday or a bench warrant will be issued for his arrest, according to court officials.

So, the ball moves from Judge Donahoe's court back to Sheriff Joe and the boys.

Scott Greenfield points out that we could be heading for a constitutional crisis if the Sheriff continues to defy court orders. There's some history of that happening nationally.
When the Court refused Georgia's attempt to seize Cherokee lands (Wooster v. Georgia), a defiant President Jackson is said (although it's probably apocryphal) to have responded, "John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it." Regardless of whether he said it, Jackson sent in troops to remove the Cherokee demonstrating that he meant it and that the Court's decisions weren't self-executing. And, of course, after Brown, the schools in Little Rock, Arkansas got integrated only because Ike sent in troops to enforce the Court's orders.

But we'll see what happens now.

One of the commentators on Scott's post reports
He has shown up in court. Judge Flores's court. This is the very court where he did his crime/contempt. And, according to witnesses is standing around with a grin on his face.

And the beat goes on.

UPDATE

Scott Greenfield taking from Nick Martin at Heat City, has updated with the latest news.

Stoddard is hanging out in the same courtroom where all this began, doing his job (which may or may not include additional snooping through confidential legal files), and not going to jail.

His lawyer says that Judge Donahoe's order is not self-executing.

Donahoe’s order said that if Stoddard did not apologize, he “shall report to the jail on December 1, 2009 and be detained until further order of this Court upon a finding that he has complied.”

But Stoddard’s attorney told Heat City today that he believes Donahoe’s order alone is not enough to put the detention officer behind bars for contempt of court.

Deputy county attorney Tom Liddy said Donahoe needs to also issue an arrest warrant or an order of confinement. He said Stoddard “cannot walk in off the street” and present himself to the jail. “It doesn’t work that way,” he said.

Meantime, Liddy said he and other attorneys still preparing to file a request with the Arizona Court of Appeals to strike down Donahoe’s ruling.

“These are tactical and strategic decisions that need to be made,” he said.