Feds Close Investigation Of Sheriff Joe Arpaio; No Charges Filed

PHOENIX ' Federal authorities said Friday that they're closing their abuse-of-power investigation into Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio in Arizona without filing charges against him.

Authorities were investigating America's self-proclaimed toughest sheriff for his part in failed public corruption cases against officials who were odds with him. Arpaio brought cases against a judge and two county officials in 2009.

Federal authorities also decided to not prosecute matters tied to alleged misuse of county credit cards by sheriff's officials, alleged misspending of jail-enhancement funds and other matters.

"They did their investigation, they didn't find enough probable cause and they didn't bring an indictment," Arpaio said at a hastily called news conference after returning from the Republican National Convention in Florida. "We don't go around framing anybody. My people are not crooks."

Assistant U.S. Attorney Ann Birmingham Scheel released a statement saying her office "is closing its investigation into allegations of criminal conduct" by current and former members of the sheriff's and county attorney's offices.

Scheel, who is based in Arizona, said she was acting on behalf of the U.S. Department of Justice. In a four-page letter to Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery explaining the decision, Scheel wrote that "our limited role is to determine whether criminal charges are supportable. After careful review, we do not believe the allegations presented to us are prosecutable as crimes."

"I've been in law enforcement for 50 years. Nothing surprises me. But I know my people did the right thing," said the 80-year-old Arpaio, who is running for a sixth term as sheriff in Arizona's most populous county. "I'm just happy for my organization, for my deputies. Not for me."

The federal probe focused specifically on the sheriff's anti-public-corruption squad. In a separate probe, the U.S. Justice Department has accused Arpaio's office of a wide range of civil rights violations, and in another case, a federal judge has yet to rule in a civil case brought by a group of Latino plaintiffs that claimed Arpaio and his deputies engaged in racial profiling.

The timing of the federal authorities' announcement ' at 5 p.m. on a Friday before a holiday weekend ' was questioned by some Arpaio critics.

"It is a miscarriage of justice that the federal government is dropping its case against Sheriff Arpaio and to make such an announcement on the Friday night before the Democratic National Convention can only be politically motivated to shield the administration from criticism," Pablo Alvarado, director of the National Day Laborer Organizing Network, said in a statement.

Arpaio and his top ally, former County Attorney Andrew Thomas, were embroiled in a three-year feud with county officials and judges and defended their investigations as necessary to root out corruption.

The officials who were targets of the investigations contend the probes were trumped up as retaliation for political and legal disagreements with the sheriff and prosecutor.

Criminal cases against former Superior Court Judge Gary Donahoe and county supervisors Mary Rose Wilcox and Don Stapley were dismissed after a judge ruled that Thomas prosecuted one of the three officials for political gain and had a conflict of interest in pressing the case.

Authorities say the charges against Donahoe were filed in a bid to prevent the judge from holding a hearing regarding Arpaio and Thomas' claim that judges and county officials conspired to hinder a probe into the construction of a court building.

Donahoe had disqualified Thomas from handling the court building investigation and was poised to hold another hearing over a request to appoint special prosecutors to handle the probe. The hearing was called off after the charges were filed against the judge.

The judge also had been critical of the ability of Arpaio's office to bring inmates to court on time for hearings.

Thomas was disbarred in early April by an ethics panel of the Arizona courts that found he brought unsuccessful criminal cases against the judge and two county officials for the purpose of embarrassing them.

In the separate probe, which is still ongoing, the Justice Department says Arpaio's office racially profiles Latinos, retaliates against critics of its immigration patrols and bases its immigration patrols on racially charged citizen complaints that did not allege crimes. The sheriff denies the allegations.

And in the civil case, the Latino plaintiffs aren't seeking monetary damages. Instead, they want a declaration that Arpaio's office uses racial profiling and an order requiring policy changes. If Arpaio loses the case, he won't face jail time or fines.

Earlier on HuffPost:

• Maricopa County Employees Call Latinos Derogatory Names

  Jail employees frequently refer to Latinos as "wetbacks," "Mexican bitches," and "stupid Mexicans," according to the lawsuit. An email that included a photography of a Chihahua dressed in swimming gear with the caption "A Rare Photo of a Mexican Navy Seal" was widely distributed by sheriff's office supervisors.

• Officers Mistreat Latinos In Routine Traffic Enforcement

  The lawsuit recounts how a Latina woman who was five-months pregnant and a U.S. citizen was stopped as she pulled into the driveway. "After she exited her car, the officer then insisted that she sit on the hood of the car. When she refused, the officer grabbed her arms, puled them behind her back, and slammed her, stomach first, into the vehicle three times. He then dragged her to the patrol car and shoved her into the backseat," reads the complaint. She was cited for failure to provide identification, which was later changed to failure to provide proof of insurance. The issue was resolved when the woman proved she had insurance to a court. In yet another case, two officers followed a Latina U.S. citizen a quarter of a mile to her home without flashing their lights. When she arrived home, they insisted that she stay in the car. The reason for the stop was a "non-functioning license plate light." After she tried to enter her home, officers took her to the ground, kneed her in the back and handcuffed her. She was brought to a Maricopa County Sheriff's Office (MCSO) substation and cited for "disorderly conduct," which was later dismissed, according to the lawsuit.

• Latinos Are Indiscriminately Detained In Immigration Raids

  A Latina born in the United States was taken into custody for four hours in a raid to determine her immigration status. Arpaio was quoted in response, "That's just normal police work. You sometimes take people in for probable cause for questioning and they're released." The suit notes that the reason for her detainment -- being Latina and present during a raid -- were insufficient.

• Arpaio And MCSO Staff Foster Discrimination Against Latinos

  Arpaio received a letter reading, "If you have dark skin, then you have dark skin. Unfortunately, that is the look of the Mexican illegals who are here illegally. ... I'm begging you to come over ... and round them all up." The sheriff labeled this as "intelligence" and forwarded to his deputy chief of enforcement operations for someone to "handle this." Upon receiving a letter backing the policy of "stopping Mexicans to make sure they are legal," he sent a letter of appreciation to the authors and kept three copies for himself, according to the lawsuit. An email circulated among MCSO staff had an image of a fake driver's license from "Mexifornia" and listed the driver's class as "illegal alien."

• MCSO Employees Fail To Provide Assistance To Prisoners With Limited English

  The failure to provide adequate language assistance caused some female Latina prisoners to remain with sheets or pants soiled from menstruation, alleges the suit. Others have allegedly been put in solitary confinement for "extended periods of time" for not understanding a command in English.

• MCSO Arrests Arpaio Critics Expressing Their First Amendment Rights

  The suit claims on multiple occasions that people were arrested for merely applauding against the office's immigration policies. The judge presiding over the case of the arrestees found that the deputy who made the arrest "believes it is his role to make uncomfortable anyone who express[es] views that disagree with the sheriff" and that he had "trampled" over the First Amendment. The court acquitted them.