Sheriff Joe Arpaio's lawyers submitted a notice of appeal in Melendres v. Arpaio, the ACLU racial-profiling lawsuit, which Joe recently lost, big-time.
Currently, both sides in the case are attempting to come to some agreement on a consent decree that would enforce federal Judge G. Murray Snow's order to the MCSO to halt its prejudiced policing toward Latinos.
Also filed is a docketing statement giving a brief outline of the general issues the appeal will cover.
These include whether or not Snow committed "reversible error" in enjoining MCSO from activity that resulted in racial profiling, such as detaining people suspected of being unlawfully present in the Unites States but who are not suspected of a federal or state criminal violation.
Also at issue is whether or not the court erred in finding that the MCSO violated the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
Basically, the MCSO wants to be able to racially profile brown folks again.
Stanley Young, lead attorney for the plaintiffs in Melendres, issued the following statement:
"We believe that the Sheriff's appeal is without merit, either because the issues he raises have already been resolved on a prior appeal, or incorrectly state what the District Court did, or assert claims that are not sustainable based on the facts and the law.
"We assume that this filing is intended to protect the Sheriff's ability to appeal. As both sides told the court on June 14, we will continue to discuss a potential agreed upon remedial order and will report back to the court in August. "
The Maricopa County Board of Supervisors would have to vote on funding any possible appeal. So far, a vote has not been scheduled.
We Believe Local Journalism is Critical to the Life of a City
Engaging with our readers is essential to Phoenix New Times's mission. Make a financial contribution or sign up for a newsletter, and help us keep telling Phoenix's stories with no paywalls.
Support Our Journalism
The main sticking point is the appointment of an independent monitor. The plaintiffs want one. And Snow has said he's inclined to appoint one as well.
The sheriff's lawyers, of course, object to a monitor. Even if the parties fail to agree on a consent decree, they will submit proposals August 16 and then go before Judge Snow at the end of August to discuss the matter further.
Ultimately, Snow's word will rule as the appeals process plays out, unless the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issues a stay, which is seen as unlikely.
Note: An earlier version of this blog item was posted by mistake. Sorry for any confusion.