Just want to remind everyone that a pardon is an admission of guilt and can be used as evidence in a civil lawsuit. I bet Maricopa County is thrilled.
I honestly don't care if he has to pay a million or two to the county. He deserves to be in Jail, which the pardon makes impossible.
Not my point. If someone sued the county (rather than Arpaio himself) for unlawful detention, Arpaio's pardon could be used as evidence of liability on the county's part. Such a case would probably settle, but there are likely to be many. Could one of our lawyers please tell me if I'm in error here?
Off the top of my head, the admission to criminal contempt is one of refusing to follow the Court's orders. There's little disputing that point before or after the pardon. Thus the underlying allegations of wrongdoing aren't much affected, though to anyone that can show damages related specifically to Arpaio's delayed implementation which caused the contempt action, they'd have a better claim.
If I was Maricopa County, I'd argue that what Joe did as a private citizen in accepting the pardon affects only his personal liability. The EX-sheriff doing so shouldn't bind Maricopa County for liability purposes.
I wouldn't bet the farm on that claim, but it's certainly colorable.
Of course President Trump has the right to pardon anyone on any federal charges.
The problem with Arpaio isn't that he stands for strict, firm, rigid, and even tough law enforcement. Communities that want such can vote in all the 'tough-on-crime' types that they want as sheriffs, prosecuting attorneys, and judges. A community cannot get away with discriminatory, brutal, corrupt, or unconstitutional ways of enforcing the law, sentencing offenders, or treating convicts. (OK, a cop who fatally shoots someone who pulls a gun on him has done a brutal act, but we can excuse that).
President Trump has shown contempt for the rule of law essential to a sane political system. Yes, he blames President Obama for the tough time that ex-Sheriff Arpaio has had -- but the federal investigation began before Obama was President. Whether one is a conservative or a liberal one must recognize that President Obama adhered rigidly to precedents set in law in accordance with the Constitution. In that way Obama stands for legal stability; President Trump is willing to foster legal anarchy if such fits his feeling at the time.
Poll
