"And as I was a top law enforcement official in the Department of Justice," said Arpaio, "and the Drug Enforcement Administration as well as the recipient of awards for superior management of federal officers, the court should have every confidence that I will direct this activity to its timely completion."
OK, case closed, right?
Bzzzt. Wrong. On Wednesday, GilBride, who also wrote Arpaio's appeals' brief, asked for "clarification" from the court. Surely, when the judge indicated that the statement should be sent to all MCSO personnel, he didn't mean jail staff and posse members, too?
GilBride urged the court to "to limit its application to the sworn side of MCSO," contending that jail staff do not participate in traffic stops. Ditto posse members.
In response, lead plaintiffs' attorney Stanley Young, of the California firm Covington and Burling, pointed out that "posse members and detention officers sometimes assist with and/or are present at large patrol operations."
As evidence, Young offered the court sign-in rosters from the MCSO's last sweep, in October 2013, apparently showing the presence of posse and jail staff.
"The goal in this instance is dissemination within the MSCO of accurate information about the Court's orders, such that the Court's orders can be followed. It may be that compliance with the Court's orders can best be accomplished if all MCSO personnel receive the correct information, without regard to the distinctions that Defendants now try to draw between `detention officers and volunteers' and `street enforcement.'"
As an example of why this remedial education is necessary for everyone at the MCSO, Young cited the latest misstep by a member of the MCSO brass.
"There is no equivocation here. Despite the fact of reports in the media, there is no court finding that the sheriff's office racially profiled."
MacIntyre's statement is, of course, a big fat whopper, one that Arpaio himself made in a fundraising letter, when he called allegations of racial-profiling by his office "unfounded."