Pregnant Latina Says She Was Forced to Give Birth in Shackles After One of Arpaio’s Deputies Racially Profiled Her

image
Editor's note: This is one of a group of individual accounts of racial profiling by Sheriff Joe Arpaio's forces.


The bleeding kept her up all night, drenching her black-and-white-striped jail uniform.

Alma Chacón feared her baby would arrive early. Her nightmare had started with a traffic stop a day earlier. She'd been weeping since. "What if the baby is born here, in the jail?" she thought.

In the afternoon, she was shackled and transported to Maricopa County Medical Center, where she gave birth in a "forensic restraint." She couldn't hold her baby daughter or kiss her. She could only watch as hospital personnel carried the infant out the door. She wouldn't see the baby for 72 days.

Her case raises questions about the use of racial profiling by Maricopa County sheriff's deputies during traffic stops, but, most importantly, sheds light on the mistreatment of unconvicted immigrants inside county jails.

Chacón retells her story inside her trailer home in Queen Creek. Outside, her children play in the shell of a home under construction. It's Chacón's dream townhome, and she's been building it a block at a time.

She looks younger than 35; her long, black hair rains straight to the small of her back. The immigrant from Durango, Mexico, has quiet tears. She came to America when she was 16 on a tourist visa and never looked back.

No one promised it would be easy. Tamale sales and housecleaning have barely enabled her to feed her children. The father of the first four of her kids died six years ago in a car accident.

Fear of deportation was always a normal part of Chacón's life in Queen Creek. The town, with a population of 23,000 on the outskirts of Maricopa County, has a contract with the Sheriff's Office for police services. Like many immigrants, she drives slowly so she doesn't attract suspicion.

But that didn't help the afternoon of October 12, 2008, when she came head to head with a sheriff's deputy. It was a Sunday and she was on her way to cash a check at the grocery store. Giselle, her 8-year-old, was along for the ride.

"He looked at me, did a U-turn, and got behind the car," she said of the sheriff's deputy. "There wasn't time to check my plates."

When he came to the driver's-side window, she handed him her Mexican consular card.

"When are you due?" the deputy asked in English.

"October 21," she answered.

Minutes later, he put her in handcuffs. There were two warrants for her arrest.

Turns out Chacón owed more than $1,000 in fines for driving without a license and had a misdemeanor shoplifting charge. She said that because she isn't allowed to get a driver's license because of her undocumented status, she wasn't able to earn money to pay the fines. She had to drive, she said, to work and support her children. She said even the shoplifting charge came because, after her husband died, she was desperate and stole food to keep her children alive.

"If someone doesn't come and pick up your daughter in 30 minutes, I'll call CPS [Child Protective Services],' the deputy told her.

A neighbor picked up a sobbing Giselle.

"That's when the nightmare inside the nightmare began," she said.

She spent her first night at the Fourth Avenue Jail on a cold cement bench. The following day she was taken to the Estrella jail.

During her second night behind bars, the bleeding started. On the morning of October 14, she felt contractions. Her hands and feet shackled, she was in labor and ushered into a paramedic's van by a detention officer who restrained her to the stretcher.

"That's not necessary," the paramedic told the officer.

"It's my job," the officer responded. The guard was a Latina.

She thought she would be released from the shackles once she arrived at the hospital, but she wasn't.

The officer chained her ankle to one leg of the hospital bed.

A nurse requested that she be freed to get a urine sample. But the officer suggested instead that her bed be dragged over to the bathroom.

Later she was changed from her jail uniform into a hospital gown.

"The officer chained me by the feet and the hands to the bed," she said. "And that's how my daughter was born."

Baby Jaqueline was delivered at 9:25 p.m. and weighed 6.28 pounds. Chacón stared at her daughter as nurses cleaned her. It was a precious eight minutes, she said. But they didn't allow her to hold the baby.

When questioned later about the incident, Sheriff Joe Arpaio said, "I wasn't the one who kept her from holding the baby. Ask the hospital."

Sheriff's Office policy states that jail inmates be restrained for "security reasons in an unsecured facility," said Jack MacIntyre, an MCSO deputy chief. McIntyre said a 12-foot chain link was attached to Chacón's leg.

"Let's assume someone is faking labor — that's a hypothetical — and she then chose to escape and hit or assault the hospital staff," McIntyre said. "She could do that easily because it's an unsecured area."

Sentenced, pregnant state prison inmates are treated better than un-sentenced ones in Maricopa County jails. Arizona Department of Corrections policies state: "A pregnant woman will not be restrained in any manner while in labor, while giving birth, or during the postpartum recovery period."

1 | 2 | Next Page >>
 
  • Julie T. 01/09/2012 10:32:00 PM

    May fortune forbid that any of you ever have to flee your home country due to economic SEVERE opression, or life threatening political violence. Then again, the US isn't exactly doing very well in either spectrum. The tables will turn, and then you will be asking for HUMANITY to forgive your trespasses due to need. Then, you will see why the grass was green on "your" side.

  • just a girl 01/06/2012 3:47:00 PM

    if you can't afford the kids you have, than why keep on having more?!

  • 01/03/2012 2:27:00 PM

    And you should go back to 1492,what would this country be if it was'nt settled by Europeans?Like Mexico ? They say the've been around so many years ,then why is it such a backwards country?

  • 01/03/2012 2:25:00 PM

    Would you like to go back to 1492?

  • 01/03/2012 2:22:00 PM

    She's an Illegal playing the profiling card no more no less,send her back to Mexico in shackles

  • 12/24/2011 4:24:00 PM

    U know, the repugnicans don't need to blame the liberals anymore for letting illegals in and allowing them to stay. Their boy, Sheriff Jo(k)e Arpa(h)o(le)i is doing all that and more for them, one lawsuit and abuse at a time.

  • Davidpun 12/22/2011 6:12:00 AM

    Perhaps you are right that she has broken the law and deserves to be sent home. Perhaps we should act more forecfully to eliminate illegal immigration. However, that doesn't mean we need to tolerate a bunch of racist thugs dressed in uniforms getting high on terrorizing helpless women. Certain occupations attract certain personailty types. The Boy Scouts attract people who want to help and to mentor children. It also attracts pedophiles. Prison security and law enforcement attracts people who want to uphold the law and make this country a safer place. It also attracts psycopaths and sadists who love to dress up in uniforms and feel they can humiliate and hurt vulnerable human beings with impunity. I wonder which category Joe Arpaio belongs to.

  • Cool Maria30 12/22/2011 5:42:00 AM

    Gerald, you give us white people a bad name. I'm a white American, so what? The white people may claim this is thier land but if you educated yourself on how we aquired this land you would find out that it belonged to the Indians and we stole it from them by killing them off and putting the suvivors on small pieces of land. So you idiot you should be deported to a place where no one has to listen to your BS. Also there is a state statute that specifically states that no female prisoners are to be shackled or restrained while in labor.. Arpio and his people need to get a grip and treat people like people no matter what countrythey are from. This woman was not a violent offender and was not proven guilty of anything at the time she gave birth.What i9s wrong with your morality?

  • Eargust 12/22/2011 2:17:00 AM

    why are you in there to begin with...wake up....what ever skin color you are idiot

  • Jeni 11/18/2010 10:48:00 PM

    Its something that Whites don't realize this is not their land they took it stole it and then they got the nerve to say this group and that group don't belong here, maybe they need to go back to pre-school and figure out which one of these thngs don't belong here and point to themselves. I'm Indian by blood and I am just as fed up with the racism and hateful treatment of whites to Natives and others of color who they seem to have hatred for by how they treat people. God remembers who was here FIRST!!! This land is our land not theirs because they never knew how or even wanted to share. They take and take and raped and destoyed this beautiful continient, and they wonder why they are losing it all!!!

  • Bigballin 11/06/2010 5:41:00 PM

    White people hate taking care of their elders, so in 20 years all these bigots are gonna be in nursing homes getting cared for by who? The Latino children of the Latina mothers they persecuted, oppressed, harassesd and raped. Better watch out white old man, I remember what you did to my mama! So it's in your interest to be humane to us because your grandkids are gonna forget about you. You know, enstranged families, it's a white thing.

  • Rawdog 11/06/2010 5:31:00 PM

    Hey white man, your white bloodline is illegal, so go and deport yourself back to Europe you racist sob. Your forefathers violated every law the natives held dear, and now it's the opposite, but you hold dear laws that oppress, not that protect mother earth but protect your false riches that you rob from her and the American people.

  • Rawdog 11/06/2010 5:25:00 PM

    I know so many white boys with warrants that get off with warnings from fellow white cops when they get pulled over, if they ever get pulled over. But the way this woman gets treated Sounds like classic racial profiling. Arpio and all you conservative white men have no heart, compassion, or empathy. This is a pregnant women and you treat her like an animal. No wonder why white American men are so sexist and racist, what if that was your mother? Oh yeah I forgot women are not equal through the white mans point of view. You know GERALD, I'm a 27 year old true native American citizen , and I'm fed up that the government never deported the true illegal aliens like yourself and your ancestors back to England, the Rhine land and Europe. Just remember Gerald, you and your whole white bretheren and your bloodlines are illegal, who was here first In 1492, natives, maxicans and non whites. Period. I'm also fed the government doesn't educate the population about the history, social equity and racism in Amerikkka, which is why we continue to have racist bigots like GERALD, who in turn are only going to continue the cycle of racism and oppression by brainwashing his kids into thinking in a hateful and racist mindstate like himself. I feel sorry for you. All that hate inside. No wonder you like arpaio

  • 10/25/2010 12:53:00 AM

    Welcome to the RNC Health Care with a side of Racists Politics Hold the sarcasm.

  • Cowboy_at_the_falls 08/21/2010 4:46:00 PM

    this man is a menace. the people in Arizona nut be out in the sun too long to allow this crteep to stay in power. WHERE'S JOHN MCCAIN?

  • Gerald 12/12/2009 4:20:00 AM

    I have no sympathy for this woman. She should have been caught and deported a long time ago. Sheriff Joe Arpaio has my full support, and I hope his department continues to crack down on illegal immigration in Arizona. As a 27 year old American, I am fed up with the government's unwillingness to strengthen our borders and deport illegal aliens.

  • I eat conservatives 11/24/2009 6:10:00 PM

    Why are conservative supporters of this fascist Sheriff so willing to allow our police departments to treat criminals like they would be treated in a third world country? Why are you all so willing to turn this nation into what you hate -- third world countries? You all are what is wrong with this country. If you want us to torture pregnant women... then YOU are the problem and perhaps YOU need to leave this country.

  • Compassionate Conservative 11/23/2009 7:50:00 PM

    Those of you MEN who keep harping on the fact that she had 5 children and should've "kept her legs closed" obviously don't know squat about Hispanic culture. Virtually 100% of Hispanics are staunchly Roman Catholic and are taught from childhood that using any form of birth control is wrong. In fact, many Central & South American countries have outright BANS on birth control and abortion. Latina women don't "pump out chilren to get Welfare"...having large families is all they know, it's what they've been taught to do!! If someone could just get the Roman Catholic Church to pull its head out of it's ass and back off from people's private sex lives, then we would see a huge reduction in the number of children being born to parents who really don't want anymore children to feed!! I have to agree that this woman needed to be arrested because she did have outstanding warrants. I have several friends who are police officers, and they have to arrest people for outstanding warrants all the time. It's nothing personal, it's part of what their job and the law requires. But should she have been shacked during labor and denied proper medical care while in the jail? Hell no!!! That was disgusting and desipicable. I hope she receives some kind of reparation for that injustice. And I hope she is able to better her life in the future for herself and her children through whatever education she is trying to pursue. I wish her the best of luck.

  • Southern Hoosier 11/22/2009 12:39:00 PM

    Yes a very sad story, but it doesn't change the fact that she is in the country illegally and needs to be deported. It also show that we will probably continue to have children out of wedlock that we as taxpayers will have to support. Let me guess, six years ago when her husband was killed, he was drunk, had no driver license and no insurance, right? And how many innocent people died with him?

  • MesaMan23 11/20/2009 10:29:00 PM

    I agree with why the MCSO arrested her: The two warrants. What I don't agree with is what probable cause the MCSO had to pull her over. From what I have read, it doesn't sound or look like she was committing a traffic offense at the time of the arrest. As for her treatment in Joe's jails, it is deplorable. No woman should be restrained while en route to the hospital, unless she's fighting with the EMT. However, I also don't see why she didn't keep her legs closed or used condoms. She didn't need another mouth to feed if she can't feed the ones she has now. While I agree with Shannon about her disgraceful treatment, I also must add that she's partly at fault for what happened to her.

  • batman 11/20/2009 3:03:00 PM

    She was brought in on the same thing anybody else would be, why should it be different for an illegal??? Why is it everybody is so worried about these criminals and not about the LEGAL TAX PAYING citizens???? She should have been released because she is a ILLEGAL HISPANIC with outstanding warrants???? You Liberals really baffle me?? Please explain your point of view??

  • Ben 11/20/2009 3:50:00 AM

    TO : Moving out of AZ in 3 months Yes - but I know Mexican families with State health care Access and Food stamps and they make 4000 US a month. They suck out the system left and right and shout "racial profiling." The state of AZ can save lots of money when they control the addresses in the Food stamp - and Health care Access form just a bit...! Go Jo - get all of them!

  • Lynch M All 11/19/2009 11:41:00 PM

    If kids 1 through 4 are considered United States citizens for the mere fact that they were born to a woman here illigally, should we incarcerate baby Jacqueline because she was born to a woman in custody? In the future, her situation might improve greatly if she keeps her legs chained together.

  • Moving out of AZ in 3 months = 11/16/2009 3:01:00 AM

    Hey USA #1, your worthless comments were posted you twat. You bitch about Illegal aliens consuming tax dollars via health care, but do you bat an eyelash at worthless white trash collecting on welfare. I love it when I see an individual purchasing candy/chips/junk Americans love on an EBT card. I'm glad I can contribute to your state sponsored obesity. I have to wonder if you are the same type of lower/middle class white right wing patriot who complains about big government and the prevalence of socialism in America, all the while sticking your hand out for your next welfare check. �We pay for Mexicans which claim Health care ( Access) and food stamps here but they do work and have income above 1000 US� -Ben Ben your statement is astounding, if immigrants are receiving AHCCCS and food stamps, well my friend that means they are here legally. Worthless JOE you�re supporters are a dull bunch, good for a laugh. I don�t support amnesty towards someone who is here illegally; however I detest racism, ignorance, and tyrannical use of power. This state fucking sucks. PERIOD

  • observer 11/14/2009 4:32:00 PM

    Shannon, You are spot on! Who is doing the dirty work in America, no one wants to do and taking care of the bigots in the nursing homes will be interesting to see.

  • Shannon 11/14/2009 2:56:00 PM

    I agree that she broke the law and should have been put in jail. I have noticed that a lot of the negative comments such as "She will have time to bond with her child in Mexico" or "Joe Rules" are from men, who have no idea how horribly painful labor is. I could not imagine being tied down during it and she should sue for everything that she can get. A lot of you seem to forget that America was founded on illegal immigration and the only real Americans are Indians. When I start to see American Indians protest immigration then I will listen but until then all of you KKK wanna be members need to shut the hell up. In about 30 years the Hispanics will be the majority so it might be in your best interest to be nice to the people whose children will be taking care of you in the nursing home.

  • Inflame the people-win the vot 11/14/2009 1:11:00 AM

    Arpaio has been in power for over 16 years and had no problem with illegal immigration while Arizona built it jails, prisons, communities and put in in the Penthouse in the luxury Wells Fargo Bank building, until it became a great political issue to gain votes.

  • Steve 11/13/2009 11:01:00 PM

    It takes all kinds... But, I am shocked at the posts from all these sensitive, tollerant people here. I can only assume that they must fit into the same catagory as this poor woman, who does not belong here to begin with. Stop the whinning about MY countries policies and practices; it's not yours, you have no right. Go to YOUR home where you have rights. Live and let live, just do it legally or go else where. If you refuse to do it legally, then dont complain when you get caught. Suck it up.

  • Mike 11/13/2009 12:18:00 PM

    While I do not condone shackling anyone unless their behavior has demonstrated that it is necessary, I find it hard to believe that everyone is supporting a woman who is a clear law breaker (shoplifting, parking illegally and then not paying the fines and an illegal immigrant). The illegal immigration problem has grown to the size it has because of benign neglect of the federal, state and local governments with the explicit support of the employers of the illegal immigrants. Sheriff Arpaio is at least trying to enforce the law. Without laws being enforced then the entire legal system is undermined and lawlessness commences. Failure to enforce the laws is a slippery slope. If you don't like the laws then lobby to get them changed, but do not condone attempts to enforce the laws - it is self-defeating.

  • Wake up Women of Arizona! 11/13/2009 4:18:00 AM

    This is not about punishing an illegal. This is about inhumane treatment of a pregnant woman in labor. This is how the un-sentenced women in labor are treated in Arpaio's jail -- Joe's Law! It's time the women of Arizona got after these deplorable conditions of confinement. You have a responsibility to help your fellow women.

  • DemocratequalsCommunist 11/12/2009 10:32:00 PM

    Let's see....2 warrants....lawbreaking welfare sponge....yep...deport her fat ass and take her little bambinos with her.

  • Ben 11/10/2009 4:51:00 AM

    Why is that lady still here? She is from Mexico - Right? She is not US Citizen - Right? Why don't we send her back to MEXICO and she applies to come to the USA? Is it not the case that the only reason Mexican girls get Baby's in the USA like rabbits is - because that is their ticket not to get deported?? I bet it is!! In 25 years the South is in Mexico's Hand without guys like Jo Arpaio! Jo was not there when she got the Baby - ask the doc what he has done!!! Jo go for it! Get them all - let them stay in line at IRS and come here legally! We pay for Mexicans which claim Health care ( Access) and food stamps here - but they do work and have income above 1000 US. They F... the system and Phoenix NT gives them a false voice! That is sick! And I vomit about the try to make Jo look bad! Racial profiling - NOT!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • Ben 11/10/2009 4:51:00 AM

    Why is that lady still here? She is from Mexico - Right? She is not US Citizen - Right? Why don't we send her back to MEXICO and she applies to come to the USA? Is it not the case that the only reason Mexican girls get Baby's in the USA like rabbits is - because that is their ticket not to get deported?? I bet it is!! In 25 years the South is in Mexico's Hand without guys like Jo Arpaio! Jo was not there when she got the Baby - ask the doc what he has done!!! Jo go for it! Get them all - let them stay in line at IRS and come here legally! We pay for Mexicans which claim Health care ( Access) and food stamps here - but they do work and have income above 1000 US. They F... the system and Phoenix NT gives them a false voice! That is sick! And I vomit about the try to make Jo look bad! Racial profiling - NOT!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • Matt 11/09/2009 2:19:00 PM

    The lady will have ample time to bond with her child--in Mexico where she belongs. Why should a felon in this country, ILLEGALLY, be treated differently than any other prisoner who has broken the law multiple times!

  • Concerned Citizen 11/09/2009 5:41:00 AM

    This is not about illegal immigrants but it's all about how we still allow Third World dictator methods in the Maricopa County jail. Shackling the inmate mother and taking her baby from her is the height of barbaric, inhumane treatment by monsters. Abuse of the baby is beyond description. The world is watching Arizona. This is shameful and disgraceful!

  • darkitec 11/09/2009 2:44:00 AM

    So no where in your story do you state that she's currently a legal immigrant. Thus I'm assuming that she's currently here illegally. Why should I have any sympathy for her situation. As far as I'm concerned the Police haven't done their job. She's still here illegally. Pack her but and her damn kids up and ship them across the border until she's filled out paperwork to return here legally.

  • Nemo 11/07/2009 8:08:00 PM

    I don't care what crime she committed. A woman has the right to bond with her child. Joe is a fascist cunt and we all know it. No amount of flag waving will make his shit stain disappear. This country was founded on freedom. Freedom of the press, freedom to peaceful protest, and freedom to pursue life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Joe denies all those freedoms. The New Times is one of the few people standing up to him. All you sad souls in AZ are in my prayers.

  • Joel 11/05/2009 6:37:00 AM

    For everyone calling this racial profiling, I have to wonder, what do you call it when a white person with a warrant for their arrest for shoplifting and driving without a license gets pulled over, arrested, and booked into jail? Isn't it called good police work? You want the Sheriff to take the race out of it, but you keep putting the race into it. What was the cop supposed to do? Let her go? Give her a warning? I thought there was all this criticism about not serving all those arrest warrants? Here, one gets served, but since it's on a Latino pregnant woman, the cops are racists? It doesn't matter what Arpaio does, the New Times, and about 10% of the population, will say it's wrong. The other 90% support him, and support law enforcement, and fully recognize what is being attempted here. If any of you 10% truly cared about immigrants, or immigration reform, you'd be spending your time at the legislature trying to get the law changed. Instead you waste your time trying to get law enforcement to stop enforcing the law, and writing comments on an unnoticed website. Articles like this do nothing but spread false fear and contempt...and, perhaps more importantly, portray the author as standing up for human rights. But if the author, or any other protester actually stood up for human rights, they'd be running for office, or petitioning their congress, or organizing a referendum drive, or any number of other things that might actually accomplish something positive. But it's so much easier to type out a story, especially when you don't have to concern yourself with facts. So you do that instead...and tell yourself that you're not afraid to do something. But "something" ought to be working towards a greater something, shouldn't it? The steer manure I just put on my rye grass is equally effective at helping immigrants as this article, and any other protest against the Sheriff. They all do "something"... but absolutely nothing for immigrants.

  • USA #1 11/03/2009 7:26:00 PM

    i wrote a KICKASS response but I guess new times screens all the comments and only puts the ones they want to be posted. Only the comments that agree with their side of the article. What a joke!! New Times is for FAGGOTS!!!!! Way to go JOE arrest all those smelly bastards and send them back to where their ILLEGAL asses came from. This is the land of the free and the home of the brave not the land of smelly mexicans and liberal ass bitches. thats why everybody wants what we got because their countries SUCK ASS!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • USA #1 11/03/2009 7:21:00 PM

    Joe!!!! You ROCK!!!!! I used to NOT like you but now I LOVE you!!!!. We need more Sheriffs like you in our country. SEND ALL ILLEGALS BACK TO WHERE THEY CAME FROM!!!!!!!! BOO HOO FOR THIS ILLEGAL...SHE GOT WHAT SHE DESERVED AS SHE WAS NOT ALLOWED HERE TO BEGIN WITH!!! GREAT JOB AND HATS OFF TO THE ARRESTING OFFICER...YOUR AWESOME. NEW TIMES IS FOR FAGS!!!!!! ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS DO NOT BELONG IN THE USA!!! GO BACK TO WHERE YOU CAME FROM AND IF YOU WANT TO COME HERE DO IT LEGALLY AND LEARN HOW TO SPEAK ENGLISH!!!!! GET THE HELL OUT OF MY COUNTRY!!!!

  • USA #1 11/03/2009 7:17:00 PM

    Joe!!!! You ROCK!!!!! I used to NOT like you but now I LOVE you!!!!. We need more Sheriffs like you in our country. SEND ALL ILLEGALS BACK TO WHERE THEY CAME FROM!!!!!!!! BOO HOO FOR THIS ILLEGAL...SHE GOT WHAT SHE DESERVED AS SHE WAS NOT ALLOWED HERE TO BEGIN WITH!!! GREAT JOB AND HATS OFF TO THE ARRESTING OFFICER...YOUR AWESOME. NEW TIMES IS FOR FAGS!!!!!! ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS DO NOT BELONG IN THE USA!!! GO BACK TO WHERE YOU CAME FROM AND IF YOU WANT TO COME HERE DO IT LEGALLY AND LEARN HOW TO SPEAK ENGLISH!!!!! GET THE HELL OUT OF MY COUNTRY!!!!

  • Gia 11/02/2009 4:42:00 PM

    Yup. This asshole deputy patrol car turned and followed me and my mother on our way to work early. It was about 6:30am. No reason. We were following the speed limit, did nothing wrong. We take the same route every morning. I suppose the color of our skin alerted him. I was wondering what this asshole was doing in that area anyhow. It was in the downtown area. If the asshole would have stopped us for no reason, the sheriff's office would be facing a lawsuit.

  • Ben 11/02/2009 2:48:00 AM

    You erased my rock solid comment!! So again: This is a very emotional and bad article with lots of information missing and that was NOT RACIAL profiling - and that WAS not the fault of JA. to shackle her - and the article is only a bad try to see things in a different and WRONG light. No I am not a fan of JA. I just like facts - not fiction!!!!!

  • Matt 11/01/2009 4:15:00 PM

    If you have to shoplift to feed your kids, why are you having more children? she should have tried to lift some condoms instead.

  • Matt 11/01/2009 3:40:00 PM

    I just have one thing to say, the lady had outstanding warrants! I guess we should have taken her to the mayo clinic on tax payer dollars. Deport Deport Deport! If you can's follow the law, then you need to return to your country. If your children are citizens of the U.S. they can return when they are 18 or stay here with LEGAL relatives.

  • Robert Jennings 10/31/2009 4:59:00 PM

    She deserves no better treatment than what she received. If you are going to break American law by stealing into our country then you are nothing better than any other criminal.

  • Ben 10/31/2009 4:40:00 AM

    This is a Drama Queen Article!! - Of Valeria Fern�ez! What happened here? A woman with x children - no husband and outstanding warrant became arrested while in high labour.. Jo Arpaio - as bad as he can be - was not responsible for the hand cuffs or shuckles during birth of the child! A doctor - or nurse should under all circumstances - should have said something. So interview the nurse or doctor - and do not blame people not even there! Yes that was discusting - if that happend. AND not seeing the Baby for 72 Hours - WHY??? That would have been nice to know!! All the rest of the article - just trying to form opinions -Joe's fault - NO!! Not for this! I do not see any racial profiling when she had two outstanding arrests. Anybody- mexican - european - or american should be arrested - also me! And if I had to give birth - ( NO NOT POSSIBLE) 9 days after the arrest - I would tell the Doctor or Nurse _ go to hell when I would be shackled. That has nothing to do with Jo - the arrest - racial profiling or whatsoever! I like that you at NEW TIMES are critical - but do not try to get us on your side with those drama stories!! Ben PS: Your newspaper survives from porn shop ads - from online love looking ads - and some hate against Joe - that's ok - Thats Amerika, just try to be professional!

  • Amy 10/29/2009 4:12:00 PM

    I agree, the law wasn't followed, but 5 kids? No father? Illegal? If she hadn't come up from Mexico in the first place, this wouldn't have happened. Lots of American citizen women prisoners have this degradation practiced upon them as well.

  • tj 10/28/2009 5:58:00 PM

    Keep up the great job Joe . Many of us stand behind you.

  • Commodore 10/27/2009 8:03:00 PM

    What a sorry excuse for a human being this sheriff is. He would put Jesus Christ in chains if he couldn't produce proper identification. There is a special place in hell for him and his helpers.

  • Desiree 10/27/2009 5:33:00 PM

    what the hell is wrong with people (JOE A*S H*LE). HE SAID IT WASN'T HIM THAT DIDN'T LET HER HOLD HER baby, my question to HIM then is what was done to the guard that didn't let her hold, or touch her baby? a raise???? as*!!I say get a Sheriff who DOESN'T believe in racial profiling.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! people like Joe Arpaio -racest - are why americans are seen to be racest.

  • The Class West 10/27/2009 12:17:00 AM

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT _______________________________________ JASON OKON, husband; ELIZABETH OKON, wife; EQUITY COURT SERVICES OF ARIZONA, 9th Cir. Case No. 09-16027 Plaintiffs, Agency Case No. 2:09-cv-00347-NVW and BILL STOLLER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF PHOENIX, a municipality incorporated under the laws of Arizona; JACK HARRIS; JESSIKA RODRIGUEZ, AKA Jessica Rodriguez; SCOTT MELLANDER; SANTIAGO MALDONADO; OFFICERS I-XX; CITY OF PHOENIX OFFICIALS I-XX, Defendants - Appellees. _________________________________________/ PETITIONER�S INFORMAL BRIEF (attach additional sheets as necessary) 1. JURISDICTION: � Date proceedings initiated: February 19, 2009 � Date agency�s decision entered: April 22, 2009 � Date petition for review filed: May 12, 2009 2. WHAT ARE THE FACTS OF YOUR CASE? The Plaintiffs initially filed class action claims against the Defendants for Title 42 - 1981, 1985, and 1986 violations; gross negligence; and selective prosecution on February 19, 2009. They also filed concurrent motions/applications to proceed in forma pauperis. All of the in forma pauperis applications were ultimately granted. The original complaint was dismissed with leave to amend on March 09, 2009.. The Plaintiffs filed an amended pleading on March 24, 2009 with Title 42 -1983 claims for deprivation of rights under color of state law; deprivation of rights under color of the customs and usages of the Phoenix Police Department; and ordinary and gross negligence. Plaintiff-Appellant Bill Stoller paid the filing fee of $350.00 on March 26, 2009 when the amended complaint was filed. (see Docket Text note 14.) Summonses were issued on March 25, 2009, and the U.S. District Court Clerk gave permission to the Plaintiffs to serve the defendants. On March 31, 2009, presiding U.S. District Judge Neil V. Wake issued an order which prohibited the Plaintiffs from serving the Defendants until Judge Wake reviewed the amended complaint. Judge Wake dismissed the amended complaint with prejudice on April 22, 2009. The Plaintiffs appeal from that final judgment and order. 3. PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE AGENCY � What forms of relief did you request? a. The Plaintiffs sought the following relief: 1.) Class certification; 2.) Appointment of counsel; 3.) Judgment against the Defendants jointly and severally for compensatory, special, and punitive damages that the court deemed just and proper; 4.) A declaratory judgment stating that Phoenix Police Order 1.4.3 is unconstitutional on face and/or as applied because it unduly denies to the Plaintiffs the rights, privileges, and immunities of the INA, 8 USC 1324, 287(g), and the United States Constitution; 5.) An award of costs and attorney fees when applicable; 6.) Trial by jury. � What did the agency do? The U.S. District Court - Phoenix, Judge Neil Wake, dismissed the amended complaint with prejudice on April 22, 2009. 4. PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE NINTH CIRCUIT: � What issues are you raising in this court? a.) The U.S. District Court's dismissal of the amended complaint with prejudice was an overarching abuse of discretion. The case is fee paid in full and should proceed. b.) The Plaintiffs are pro se litigants whose pleadings should be liberally construed to effect justice and due process of law. c.) All of the Plaintiffs' causes of action were sufficient on face and were supported by ample credible evidence and documentation. d.) The Defendants had federal and state statutory and fiduciary duties and their failure to perform them was an outrageous and intolerable abuse of discretion that greatly endangered the Plaintiffs. e.) Restrictions on contacting immigration officials imposed by Phoenix Police Order 1.4.3 and the customs and usages of the City of Phoenix are illegal, unconstitutional, and preempted by 8 USC 1373, 8 USC Sec. 1644, and The Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution. � What legal arguments support your position? a. General Classwide Arguments 1. Enforcement of Immigration Laws In making its decison, the U.S. District Court maintained that the Defendants had no duty to enforce immigration laws. The Plaintiff-Appellant refutes that assertion in these classwide arguments. Congress has firmly established that there is a significant public interest in the effective enforcement of immigration law through cooperative efforts of federal, state, and local government and police authorites. The Congress could have chosen to limit local enforcement pursuant to their plenary power over immigration, but it has not done so. In the absence of a limitation on local enforcement powers, the states are bound by the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution to enforce violations of the federal immigration laws. The statutory law of the United States is part of the law of each state and is inherently incorporated in state statutory law. States do not need an agreement, commonly referred to as "287(g)," or a special sanction from the federal government to arrest deportable undocumented aliens. 287(g) goes beyond the arrest powers, as states already have inherent authority to make arrests. 287(g) is not a permission slip to enforce the laws. The 287(g) statute has nothing to do with authority for arrest, which was a duty conferred by The Founding Fathers on all law enforcement authorities, �If it be asked, what is the most sacred duty and the greatest source of our security in a Republic? The answer would be an inviolable respect for the Constitution and Laws� � Alexander Hamilton. Mr. Hamilton's prolific words are reflected in U.S. Code, Title 8, Chapter 12, Subchapter II, Part VIII, 1324 (c), which states in pertinent part, "...Authority to arrest No officer or person shall have authority to make any arrests for a violation of any provision of this section except officers and employees of the Service designated by the Attorney General, either individually or as a member of a class, and all other officers whose duty it is to enforce criminal laws..." 8 USC 1324(c) The statute clearly confers a duty on "all other officers whose duty it is to enforce criminal laws" - local and state, as well as federal officers - to enforce 8 USC 1324. U.S. Code, Title 8, Section 1357(g)(10) allows any local law enforcement agencies to cooperate with the Attorney General, without a 287(g) agreement, in the identification, apprehension, or removal of aliens. The statute states in pertinent part, "(10) Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to require an agreement under this subsection in order for any officer or employee of a State or political subdivision of a State � (A) to communicate with the Attorney General regarding the immigration status of any individual, including reporting knowledge that a particular alien is not lawfully present in the United States; or (B) otherwise to cooperate with the Attorney General in the identification, apprehension, detention, or removal of aliens not lawfully present in the United States." 8 USC 1357(10) 8 USC 1357 encourages cooperation with the Attorney General in the identification of undocumented aliens using the federal standards of reasonable cause based on certain characteristics within a context that evinces immigration law violations. These characteristics may include speech; dress; proximity to the border; and other factors establishing a totality of circumstances that give local police officers reasonable cause to briefly question suspected undocumented aliens. In the complaint and amended complaint, the Plaintiffs alleged exigent circumstances that clearly warrant strict enforcement, to wit: human smuggling; gang activity; illegal drug activity; kidnapping; and USC 1324 violations such as aiding, abetting, harboring, employing; and renting to undocumented aliens. Regarding 8 USC 1324(c), in U.S. v Perez-Gonzalez, 2002 Fed App 360, the 6th Circuit affirmed that "...(a)ll officers whose duty it is to enforce criminal laws shall have authority to make arrests for a violation of any provision of this section." 2. Defendants' Failure to Enforce Nuisance Abatement Laws The State of Arizona criminal nuisance abatement statute ARS 12-991 and the local City of Phoenix nuisance codes imposed duties on the Defendants to alleviate and eradicate criminal nuisance properties. The Plaintiffs submitted ample credible evidence to support their allegations that the Defendants had reasonable cause to act to protect the Plaintiffs. The Defendants had immediate and effective remedies in their local nuisance ordinances, yet failed to invoke them. As alleged by the Plaintiffs, their inaction evinced a wanton and reckless disregard for the Plaintiffs' safety, or gross negligence. The Code of the City of Phoenix, Part II, Chapter 23, Artcle I, Division 2, Sec 23-11, states in pertinent part, "Sec. 23-11. Nuisances. (A) Anything which is obnoxious to health, or is indecent, or is offensive to the senses, or is an obstruction to the free use of property so as to interfere with the comfortable enjoyment of life or property by any considerable number of persons, or unlawfully obstructs any public street, alley, sidewalk or highway is hereby declared a nuisance and may be abated by order of the City Court. Every person who commits or maintains a nuisance shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. (B) Any building, structure or utility determined to be unsafe and an imminent danger to the health, safety or welfare of the citizens of the City of Phoenix by the Superintendent of the Housing Services Division, or any building, structure or lot which is in such a condition as to constitute an imminent danger of fire, as determined by the Fire Marshal, shall constitute a public nuisance, subject to summary abatement, through either repair, cleaning up and removal of offending material, or the prevention of access through boarding up or other appropriate means. (C) Should any of the conditions as set forth in section (B) hereof be found to exist by the designated official, such official is hereby authorized to summarily abate the nuisance in one of the manners set forth above and the cost of such abatement shall be certified to the City Treasurer who shall collect the sum due, together with interest thereon at the rate established by law, from the owner of the subject property or the person, or persons, entitled to immediate possession thereof. (Code 1962, � 27-47; Ord. No. G-1496, � 1)" Arizona Revised Statutes, � 12-991 states in pertinent part, "12-991. Nuisance; applicability; residential property used for crime; action to abate and prevent; notice; definitions A. Residential property that is regularly used in the commission of a crime is a nuisance, and the criminal activity causing the nuisance shall be enjoined, abated and prevented." These nuisance laws confer local and state duties on the defendants. The statutes apply to all crimes, irrespective of whether those crimes are federal, state, or local. Therefore, these laws further refute any argument that the Defendants had no duty to enforce immigration violations. The Plaintiff-Appellant Bill Stoller alleged numerous serious USC 1324, USC 1325, and local, state, and federal crimes occurring at residential crime properties commonly called "drophouses," "drughouses," and "dopehouses" located in and about Phoenix. The Defendants knew or should have known about these dangerous residences and conditions due to ongoing information given directly to them by the Plaintiff-Appellant and many others. The Defendants had fiduciary and legal duties to report these criminal nuisances to the Phoenix City Attorney and other officials who have standing to commence abatement actions under local and state law. As alleged in the amended complaint, the Defendants took no action and evinced a wanton and reckless disregard for the Plaintiffs' safety. Any notion of qualified immunity is preempted due to this particular totality of exigent and life-threatening circumstances as stated in the Plaintiff-Appellant's general classwide arguments herein. 3. Defendants Failure to Perform Ministerial Duties and/or Failure to Take Action in Furtherance of Their Discretionary Duties All of the personally-named Defendants are City of Phoenix police officers and officials. The Plaintiffs' clearly alleged many times that the Defendants acted with gross negligence and/or wanton and reckless disregard for the Plaintiffs' safety, which is gross negligence. The Defendants' discretionary duties were rendered ministerial due to the totality of exigent circumstances alleged in this case. In the alternative, the exigent circumstances alleged and the duties imposed on the Defendants by 8 USC 1324(c), 8 USC 1357(g)(10), ARS 12-991, and the City of Phoenix nuisance ordinances imposed numerous duties on the Defendants to take some type of action in furtherance of those duties, regardless of whether they are discretionary or ministerial in nature. The Plaintiffs alleged that the Defendants failed to even contact federal authorities and the Phoenix City Attorney after they had sufficient information indicating that serious local, state, and federal crimes had occurred. Simply communicating pertinent information does not require judgment by the Defendants and is a ministerial duty of Phoenix police and officials, who have a higher standard of responsibility and fiduciary duty than do private citizens. The Illinois Supreme Court addressed similar issues in Snyder, 167 Ill. 2d, and supports the assertions made herein, "The classification of acts as either discretionary or ministerial escapes any precise formulation and must be made on a case-by-case basis in light of the particular facts and circumstances presented. `It would be difficult to conceive of any official act that did not admit of some discretion in the manner of its performance, even if it involved only the driving of a nail.' " Snyder, 167 Ill. 2d at 474 (quoting W. Prosser, Torts, section 132, at 988-90 (4th ed. 1971). Plaintiff-Appellant's arguments herein are also supported by pertinent parts of the Restatement of Torts, 2d, and other authoritative legal treatises. b. Arguments In Support of The Stated Issues 1. The U.S. District Court's dismissal of the amended complaint with prejudice was an overarching abuse of discretion. This case is fee paid in full and should proceed. The Plaintiffs paid the filing fee of $350.00 in full to the U.S. District Court Clerk when the amended complaint was filed on or about March 24, 2009. (see Docket Text note 14) At this point the case became a fee paid case, not subject to FRCP 1915(e). Summonses were issued on March 25, 2009, pursuant to the district court rules and the Clerk's personnel authorized the Plaintiffs to serve the Defendants. The Plaintiffs paid process server Ken Davis in full and delivered the pertinent documents to him for service on the Defendants. In Hughes v. City of Albany, 76 F. 3d 53, the Second Circuit ruled that payment of only a small amount toward the filing fee qualifies the case to proceed and invokes FRCP 1915(d). The Ninth Circuit has concurred, as noted in the Hughes ruling, "("To require plaintiffs to first pay the [partial] fee and then later dismiss the case as frivolous is not contemplated by the Federal Rules of Procedure."); Butler v. Leen, 4 F.3d 772, 773 (9th Cir.1993) (per curiam)," as quoted in Hughes, 76 F. 3d 53. U.S. District Judge Neil Wake's interim order of March 31, 2009, that prevented the Plaintiffs and the process server from effecting service on the defendants was an egregious and illegal abuse of discretion and a direct violation of FRCP 1915(d), which states in pertinent part, "The officers of the court shall issue and serve all process, and perform all duties in such cases. Witnesses shall attend as in other cases, and the same remedies shall be available as are provided for by law in other cases." FRCP 1915(d) Judge Wake's subsequent review and dismissal with prejudice of the Plaintiffs amended complaint on April 22, 2009, was also an egregious abuse of discretion because the plaintiffs were never allowed to serve the summonses that had been issued. The filing fee of $350.00 was paid in full when the amended complaint was filed on march 24, 2009. Therefore, Judge Wake had no authority to arbitrarily review and summarily dismiss the Plaintiffs complaint sua spomte under the FRCP 1915(e) in forma pauperis statute. In dismissing the Plaintiffs' case with prejudice, Judge Wake constructively acted as a judge, jury, and executioner and violated the Plaintiffs' rights to due process of law and equal protection under the U.S. Constitution. In effect, Judge Wake made arguments and interposed defenses that the Defendants had the burden of pleading in their responses. The Plaintiffs were never given a chance to serve the Defendants and were denied their fundamental due process rights, such as amending a typographical error that Judge Wake noted in his final order. That error is in Count I of the complaint, in which the Plaintiffs mistakenly stated that a Phoenix police detective visited Plaintiff Jason Okon in the hospital on or about February 05, 2009. The date should have been "on or about February 05, 2006," but the Plaintiffs were never given a chance to amend the error. (see amended complaint, Count I) In a contractual light, the Plaintiffs paid good and valuable consideration of $350.00 to the U.S. District Court for services which were never performed by the Court. Hence, the U.S. District Court breached its duties and agreement to serve the Plaintiffs and the public by adjudicating this dispute with due process of law and equal protection. 2. The plaintiffs are pro se litigants whose pleadings should be liberally construed to effect justice and due process of law. The Plaintiffs diligently complied to the best of their abilities with Judge Wake's interim order granting leave to amend. The amended pleading was shortened from approximately 40 to 18 pages; the Plaintiffs' removed numerous Defendants and some Plaintiffs, even though they wanted to include them in this action; the Plaintiffs clearly separated the amended complaint into four separate and distinct counts as ordered by Judge Wake; the Plaintiffs labeled each count with subheadings such as "What Happened," "Rights Violated," "Who Violated Those Rights,." "How They Violated Those Rights, and "Damages." The Plaintiffs are all appearing pro se and the U.S. District Court had a duty to liberally construe the Plaintiffs' pleadings in the interest of justice. On the contrary, Judge Wake strictly construed both pleadings and dismissed the amended pleading with prejudice using strict standards and sanctions that are applicable only to licensed and experienced attorneys. The Plaintiffs' due process rights were violated in this regard. 3.) All of the Plaintiffs' causes of action were sufficient on face and were supported by ample credible evidence and documentation. The Plaintiffs' are all appearing pro se and their pleadings should be liberally construed to afford them due process of law in this case. Despite representing themselves, the allegations in the amended pleading are clear, concise, and alleged sufficient facts with supporting evidence to sufficiently apprise the Defendants and the U.S. District Court of the claims. All of the required elements for each count are alleged and supported. The counts are sufficient on face and meet the requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. For these reasons, the Plaintiffs' claims are not mere speculation as stated by Judge Wake in his final order. 4.) The Defendants had federal and state statutory and fiduciary duties and their failure to perform them was an outrageous and intolerable abuse of discretion that greatly endangered the Plaintiffs. The Defendants knew or should have known that serious, life-threatening, and exigent conditions existed which warranted taking some type of action, such as contacting federal authorities and the Phoenix City Attorney. The Defendants had numerous duties imposed by local, state, and federal law as stated herein. Precisely defining the Defendants' duties as discretionary or ministerial is immaterial because the Plaintiffs alleged in all counts that the defendants' took no substantive action. As stated in Plaintiff-Appellant's general arguments, the Illinois Supreme Court addressed similar issues in Snyder, 167 Ill. 2d, and supports the assertions made by the Plaintiffs, "The classification of acts as either discretionary or ministerial escapes any precise formulation and must be made on a case-by-case basis in light of the particular facts and circumstances presented. `It would be difficult to conceive of any official act that did not admit of some discretion in the manner of its performance, even if it involved only the driving of a nail.' " Snyder, 167 Ill. 2d at 474 (quoting W. Prosser, Torts, section 132, at 988-90 (4th ed. 1971). The Plaintiffs alleged in the complaints that all of the Defendants acted with a wanton and reckless disregard for the Plaintiffs' safety. Therefore, they have no qualified immunity in this case due to their gross negligence. The Plaintiffs adequately pled claims for gross negligence by alleging the additional element of wanton and reckless disregard for the Plaintiffs' safety. 5.) Restrictions on contacting immigration officials imposed by Phoenix Police Order 1.4.3 and the customs and usages of the City of Phoenix are illegal, unconstitutional, and preempted by 8 USC 1373, 8 USC Sec. 1644, and The Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Phoenix Police Order 1.4.3, a copy of which was submitted as evidence, severely restricts and may prohibit Phoenix police officers and employees from contacting federal immigration authorities. This ordinance blatantly violates 8 USC 1373 and 8 USC 1644. 8 USC 1373 states in pertinent part, "Sec. 1373. Communication between government agencies and the Immigration and Naturalization Service (a) In general Notwithstanding any other provision of Federal, State, or local law, a Federal, State, or local government entity or official may not prohibit, or in any way restrict, any government entity or official from sending to, or receiving from, the Immigration and Naturalization Service information regarding the citizenship or immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual. (b) Additional authority of government entities Notwithstanding any other provision of Federal, State, or local law, no person or agency may prohibit, or in any way restrict, a Federal, State, or local government entity from doing any of the following with respect to information regarding the immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual: 1) Sending such information to, or requesting or receiving such information from, the Immigration and Naturalization Service. (2) Maintaining such information. (3) Exchanging such information with any other Federal, State, or local government entity." 8 USC 1373 8 USC 1644 states in pertinent part, "Sec. 1644. Communication between State and local government agencies and Immigration and Naturalization Service Notwithstanding any other provision of Federal, State, or local law, no State or local government entity may be prohibited, or in any way restricted, from sending to or receiving from the Immigration and Naturalization Service information regarding the immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of an alien in the United States." 8 USC 1644. The Plaintiffs also alleged that the customs and usages of the City of Phoenix, as promulgated by its officials, restricted and may have prohibited Phoenix police officers and employees from contacting federal authorities regarding immigration law violations. Therefore, both Phoenix Police Order 1.4.3 and the customs and usages of the City of phoenix are illegal and unconstitutional because they violate federal law. � Do you have any other cases pending in this court? If so, give the name and docket number of each case. The Plaintiff-Appellant has no pending cases. � Have you filed any previous cases that have been decided by this Court? If so, give the name and docket number of each case. Yes, Plaintiff-Appellant Bill Stoller filed a previous appeal in an unrelated case. That case was dismissed when the filing fee was not paid on time. Mr. Stoller does not have the case information available at the time of this writing, but he will forward it to the Court as soon as he obtains it. Respectfully submitted, _____________________________ __________________ Bill Stoller, Plaintiff-Appellant Date ____________________________ __________________ Signature Date Address: 9449 West Potter Drive Peoria, AZ 85382 (602) 472-9353 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Case Name: OKON, et. al v. CITY OF PHOENIX, et. al. Case No.: 09-16027 IMPORTANT: You must send a copy of ALL documents filed with the court and any attachments to counsel for ALL parties in this case. You must also file a certificate of service with this court telling us that you have done so. You may use this certificate of service as a master copy, and fill in the title of the document you are filing. Please list below the names and addresses of the parties who were sent a copy of your document and the dates on which they were served. Be sure to sign the statement below. You must attach a copy of the certificate of service to each of the copies and the copy you file with the court. I certify that a copy of the opening brief and any attachments was served, either in person or by mail, on the persons listed below. ___________________________________ Signature Notary NOT required Name Address Date Served City of Phoenix Attorney 200 West Washington Street __________________ Phoenix, AZ 85002

  • Lolita 10/26/2009 1:10:00 AM

    She should have came to this country legally to start with and not committed petty crimes while she was here that landed her in this position to start with. No sympathy for yet another illegal criminal popping out an anchor baby on US soil! You waste enough of our tax dollars when we have to pay for Air Evac flights to pick you all up, take you to hospitals and pay for your medical care when a truck full of illegals rolls in the desert. We have legal citizens here that don't get decent medical treatment and avoid going to a doctor because they can't afford it. This state spends way too much money caring for our illegals, who are ALL criminals (and yes, when you come here illegally, you are a criminal!) We have enough U.S. citizens here abusing the system, popping out baby after baby to collect welfare checks. This entire state is ridiculous the way it caters to not only illegals but our society's dregs who abuse the system. We should not even be wasting our time putting them in jail, they should just be deported immediately. Ol' Joe Camel wastes more money rounding up these drop houses. He doesn't seem to give a damn what the feds tell him he can or can't do, so why not use all that money to fortify Arizona's border? Racial profiling is done all over the country, its a fact of life now. Do you think the airports don't racial profile Middle Eastern people? That the police in many states (particularly the midwest in places like Chicago) don't racial profile black people? How many of you old white ladies have clutched your purse a little tighter when you see a young black man come closer to you in a store or on the street? Its wrong, yes. But he should not be the only one coming under fire for this. Many police and federal agencies are guilty of it. Many citizens are guilty of it too!

  • Arthur Frommer was right-Avoid 10/25/2009 5:12:00 PM

    "What really kicks the locals in the teeth is economics. Tourism is a big component of Arizona business." Travel icon, Arthur Frommer was right to tell his followers to stay away from Arizona. The Tourism Bureau of AZ better wake-up and start to put full disclosure on their brochures about the reality of visiting and living in Arizona. Add this to the list: Pregnant women should avoid Arizona. Many are at risk for ending up in jail with all the crime sweeps, photo radar, tazers, being stopped and having medications (drugs) in their car, the list goes on...

  • What Goes Around, Comes Around 10/25/2009 5:00:00 PM

    "The MCSO is playing the odds, and, like any professional criminal, targets those whose appearance suggests that they are least likely to be able to fight back." This is a sick game. Shackling of inmates giving birth was abandoned but because this woman has "no voice" this allows inhumane treatment of mother and baby?? These are the heroes who save the women and children in Maricopa County with their laws and agencies and grant money? What hypocrites. What goes around comes around. Wake up Arizona - women and children are treated like nothing more than garbage. This is not about illegals which give these power abusers their sadistic pleasure while wearing a badge.

  • ChrisInTempe 10/25/2009 2:45:00 AM

    There's a whole shopping list of wrong's in this, but I'll boil it down to the essential two. 1. She should not have entered this country unlawfully. She have pursued a lawful status or stayed away. The initial screw-up was her's alone. 2. Arpaio's methods are disgusting and he deserves to be imprisoned in his own jails. Treating a pregnant woman like that is abominable. Bu that that is Arpaio's style. Incompetent at enforcing the law, ineffective in fighting illegal aliens and completely ignorant of basic human decency. I feel sorry for her kids, I truly do. I am glad to read there are family members and friends that stepped up to help them. Now she needs to get herself legal, as she should have done to begin with. Than sue Arpaio's ass off. His people actually think a woman can fake pregnancy and labor? Where the hell does he find such idiots?

  • Jason Marques 10/24/2009 8:39:00 PM

    I just read the story about the Hispanic lady who was chained to her hospital bed like an animal. This is by far the lowest Sheriff Joe and his MCSO fork-tongued evildoers have EVER sunk. Why the hell do I pay these idiots? I feel nothing but sorrow for the Hispanic lady, and nothing but rage towards Sheriff Joe, the entire MCSO, and our own useless county attorney. Maybe someone who can actually do your jobs should, sheriff and county attorney. STEP DOWN!!

  • manny 10/24/2009 3:08:00 AM

    wait til you see what Russell Pearce is trying to slip thru the legislature on Monday. Sneaking around helping candy a** and joker, thick as thiefs . RECALL

  • Jack 10/23/2009 4:57:00 PM

    She was arrested because she is a thief (shop lifitng is a crime you know)and for not paying fines for unlicensed driving. For a society to work, it's members must strive to cooperate with each other. This person wants to play by her own rules. In the country for 20 years and still not conforming to a community she chose to join. Thats why she is experiencing difficulties, not because of her backgound. It'sthis attitude that is the cause of thier immigration difficulties - NOT Sherrif Joe and the MCSO. Get a grip people - once you assume responsibility for your actions (and inactions) then your lives will get better, not by whining about being held accountable.

  • Peter Coyotl 10/23/2009 3:18:00 PM

    The Latina guard was quoted as saying "it's my job" to the paramedic who told her that restraining the patient to the stretcher was not necessary. When the patient was admitted into the hospital, her ankle was shackled to the bed post. Despite requests from the medical staff to release the woman to get a urine sample, the guard said that they could push the bed to the bathroom. The woman in labor was not a dangerous criminal in need of restraint. She was the mother of four. Her crime was that she belonged to the group of law breakers that Sheriff Joe is dedicating his life to apprehend-the Brown undocumented worker. Here was a Latina restraining another Latina because it was the policy of the county run by a mad man racist Sheriff. If the woman had been in the state prison of Arizona, she would never have had been in any restraint for this entire process. Thus, dangerous convicted criminals from prison who are giving birth are afforded more dignity than some working mother picked up in Sheriff Joe's racial profiling crusade against the undocumented. I wonder if the Latina guard ever wondered "this is just wrong" while she restrained the working mother in labor to the stretcher as the ambulance took her from jail to the hospital? I wonder if the Latina guard ever had the temptation not to shackle this working mother suffering from labor pain? If this Latina guard never had any reservation or regret over what she did then she is a coward. It takes courage to stand up to unethical treatment of others. It is never "just a job" when your duties dehumanize others, especially working mothers in labor who are shackled to a bed post because it it the policy of your racist boss. Fifty years from now, one of the greatest memories of this Latina guard's life could have been the day she told Sheriff Joe to screw himself when she refused to shackle a harmless, working mother who was about to engage in the most beautiful act possible in life-the giving of birth. Instead, she will just live the daily thought that she is just another obedient cog in the world of Sheriff Joe, the worst sheriff in America's history. I would rather be fired from that job. CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE Pregnant Latina Says She Was Forced to Give Birth in Shackles After One of Arpaio�s Deputies Racially Profiled Her

  • Emil Pulsifer 10/22/2009 11:15:00 PM

    It's all about economics. Fight fire with fire. Anti-immigrant sentiment (and enforcement) is needed by those who wish to exploit foreign workers, provided it's mostly bark rather than bite. After all, exploitation, in this case, relies on lack of status and fear. If everyone thought that undocumented laborers were no big deal, and authorities (legislators and law enforcement agencies) were openly blase, then it would be more difficult to get individuals to work 50-60 hours a week at minimum wage with no overtime pay, no benefits, and no workman's compensation in case of accidents in dangerous industries (e.g., construction). Even peons start to get ideas once they settle in, get comfortable, and get confident. Remember that huge march of 10,000 or so undocumented workers in downtown Phoenix back in April, 2006? "We finally have realized that America is open to everyone, regardless of their legal status," organizer Elias Bermudez said as he walked in the front row. (Arizona Republic quote.) I'll bet he doesn't say that today! About that time, it seems to me, individuals like Russell Pearce and Sheriff Joe Arpaio got busy, Pearce with legislation and Arpaio with his brown dragnets ("crime suppression sweeps"). The Arizona employer sanctions law that took effect in January, 2008 was a curiously toothless bit of legislation, which would surprise those who imagine that its primary intended effect was to stem illegal immigration rather than to restore an exploitable class of workers to their former state of quiet gratitude and submissiveness. Instead of requiring employers to perform federal database checks for each employee and document them, and making penalties contingent on the failure to do so, the law instead required prosecutors to prove that employers "knowingly hired" undocumented workers -- a notoriously difficult standard; and while the legislation states that employers must perform the database checks, it includes no sanctions or penalties against those who do not. So far, not a single employer in Maricopa County has been prosecuted under the law, after nearly two years. The unintended effect of the legislation has been to drive undocumented immigrants away from the use of (comparatively harmless) false IDs based on fake Social Security numbers, and into more wholesale use of stolen IDs using information from the life histories of existing or deceased citizens. As for Sheriff Arpaio's "sweeps", they netted only a couple hundred undocumented workers out of the state's half a million or more. Yet, the result is "mission accomplished", as the peons have been made afraid to raise a ruckus about the free movement of labor and other amusing notions. (Capital is free to cross borders, but labor is only free to be exploited on capital's own terms.) The wind was taken out of their sails and they are no longer "uppity", except for a hardcore few. The whole game is one of good-cop / bad-cop, and it's a delicate balance. On the one hand, undocumented workers must always have a way in, and know that jobs await them. On the other, they can't be allowed to get so comfortable that they organize among themselves and aggressively challenge the status quo. Hence the alternating cycle of closed eyes and crackdowns. The same is true of the cycle of amnesties and crackdowns. Ronald Reagan signed into law (1986) a bill giving amnesty to undocumented workers who had entered the country before 1982 and had resided here continuously since then. The law supposedly toughened border enforcement and included "tough" employer sanctions, but the U.S. Chamber of Commerce changed from opposition to acceptance once language was introduced (the "affirmative defense" clause) that explicitly rendered it toothless. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2008/jan/06/rudy-giuliani/yep-reagan-did-the-a-word/

  • Emil Pulsifer 10/22/2009 10:46:00 PM

    Nice article. Why wasn't this in the print edition? Not enough room? I'm sure it could have been squeezed onto the page used by American Apparel to feature their latest teen soft-porn ad. How much would that have cost New Times? A couple thousand dollars at most, is my guess. Theoretically, somebody, somewhere, would have had to postpone the latest Prada handbag purchase for their wife, by a couple of weeks. "David from Tempe" wrote: "I am waiting for MCSO to arrest someone on a visa (student or worker) or a passport who is well educated or connected and create a huge international incident." It's unlikely. First of all, the MCSO targets the poor, because right or wrong, they're not likely to be in a position to cause problems. So, very few late model Buick Rivieras are targeted in sweeps, I'm guessing, regardless of the appearance of the occupants. Second, someone who is well-educated or connected, even if pulled over, is more likely than not to have documentation of some sort, or at least to be able to create an impression of someone who is unlikely to be a mestiso laborer and who might cause trouble if pressed too hard: the probable result would be for the MCSO to back off in such cases rather than press their hand and hope for the best. The MCSO is playing the odds, and, like any professional criminal, targets those whose appearance suggests that they are least likely to be able to fight back. Someone who is merely here on a work or student visa but who is not well off, would be less likely to commit themselves to a multi-year legal effort in which they not only risk their status by making waves, but pit themselves against the very authorities who might make their lives difficult if challenged. Just imagine that you are a foreign guest in another country, and that you are not only a citizen of a country classed as "third world" in the country in which you are a visitor, but also have dark skin in a country where that is scarcely empowering, and additionally have no special financial resources or political connections. How likely is it that, over a traffic stop where you are not arrested, you will lend yourself to a persistent campaign or lawsuit which the authorities regard as troublemaking? What really kicks the locals in the teeth is economics. Tourism is a big component of Arizona business. If some well-off Mexican tourists should be pulled over and their papers rudely demanded, and then they should announce, with considerable fanfare and media coordination, that they won't be coming back to Maricopa County any time soon to spend their money, because the local Sheriff is an asshole, and that they'll be recommending New Mexico to their friends, and if word hits the Arizona Republic of a backlash in Mexico among tourists, supported by some highly critical op-eds in major Mexican media sources, then maybe you'll see Uncle Joe Arpaio reined in. Because let's face it, he's just a monkey on a chain, and if his masters yank that chain he'll become a good little boy again and stop throwing his poop.

  • Michael Fallai 10/22/2009 9:36:00 PM

    Well I'm glad that MCSO has finally found their level of competence. They can successfully keep in shackles a pregnant woman in childbirth. Child rapists... not so much.

  • Michael Fallai 10/22/2009 9:30:00 PM

    Where's the so-called "pro-life" crowd on this one? Surely they can scrape up a few protesters to go outside 4th Ave. Jail and protest against Arpaio!

  • Mark 10/22/2009 2:49:00 PM

    I can't believe this! If the state prison system doesn't restrain women in labor; why is the MCSO doing it. And that whole "maybe she is faking labor" argument is bullshit!!!!! She was bleeding and obviously in medical distress. Joe, you need to retire and let someone sane take over your job.

  • Fuck MacIntyre 10/22/2009 8:50:00 AM

    Somebody needs to shove this asshole Jack MacIntyre, an MCSO deputy chief up Arpaio ass.. No wait, he's already up Arpaio's ass. I hope this prick MacIntyre gets run over by a truck, in fact I hope it 2 trucks. What a piece of shit he is.

  • David 10/22/2009 5:47:00 AM

    While she is an undocumented immigrant (known now), when she was first pulled over, that was not known. We have a constitution in this country that covers everybody, citizen or not, whether you accept it or not. I am constantly amazed at the lack of human compassion shown to documented and undocumented immigrants in this county. I am waiting for MCSO to arrest someone on a visa (student or worker) or a passport who is well educated or connected and create a huge international incident. We have several hospitals in town (Barrow, etc) that attract foreign rich people who will pay cash ($100k plus) for medical and surgical services.

  • alex 10/22/2009 5:14:00 AM

    Angela, good point. that guy who could roam freely and escaped is a sexual harasser; yet this woman who was giving birth is shackled down, simply because she doesnt have some papers?!?! not to mention she couldnt see her own child, a US CITIZEN for 72 days. this will definitely affect her life as well. this whole order is f*&ked

  • lou 10/22/2009 3:49:00 AM

    this is america. ? very sad, she will remember this forever.

  • angela 10/22/2009 3:48:00 AM

    so much for bonding. was all the shackles necessary.? look at the guy who escaped was free to roam around. And walked off. wonder what the reason the p o had for pulling her over??

 
Browse Voice Nation
  • Voice Places

    Voice Places

    Discover restaurants, nightlife, travel, shopping...

  • VOICE Daily Deals

    VOICE Daily Deals

    Get 50 to 90% off every day on restaurants, movies, massages...

  • Best Of

    Best Of...

    More than 10,000 of the BEST things to eat, drink, and experience

  • My Voice Nation

    My Voice Nation

    Join the Village Voice community and get exclusive deals and info

  • Happy Hour

    Happy Hour

    Your local Happy Hour guide at your fingertips

or

Log in or Sign up

Social Connect:

Use your favorite account to access My Voice Nation.


Use your My Voice Nation account to log in:





Forgot password?
or

Sign Up or Log in

Social Connect:

Sign up for My Voice Nation with your preferred network.


Sign up for a My Voice Nation account:



Privacy policy