Main Menu

Arpaio defends birther posse

In an interview with Phoenix TV station KNXV, Sheriff Joe Arpaio defends his action in appointing a posse to investigate Tea Party allegations that Barack Obama committed election fraud by running for President as an non-eligible candidate.

"First of all, about 300 people signed petitions," Arpaio said of the investigation into Obama’s birth certificate. "I am the chief law enforcement officer, they asked me to look at that situation. I don’t dump everything in the wastebasket. So I have my ‘Cold Case Posse’ which I’ve had for five years. It’s free; it doesn’t cost a penny to the taxpayers. Made up of ex-cops and some lawyers, so let them look at it."

,

58 Responses to Arpaio defends birther posse

  1. avatar
    dunstvangeet September 29, 2011 at 3:26 pm #

    My question to Sheriff Joe Arpaio…

    You only have jurisdiction over crimes that occur in Maricopa County, correct?

    Exactly what crime are you investigating (whether it is cold or not) that happened in Maricopa County? And how are you not wasting the time of former police officers and others that could be investigating actual cold cases that you do have absolute jurisdiction over?

  2. avatar
    Obsolete September 29, 2011 at 4:02 pm #

    Simple. Arpaio believes he has jurisdiction over anyone with dark skin.

  3. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy September 29, 2011 at 4:31 pm #

    I understood that Arpaio didn’t actually look at the complaint, and so the “Cold Case” posse is supposed to figure out if any crime was committed over which the Sheriff has jurisdiction.

    dunstvangeet: Exactly what crime are you investigating (whether it is cold or not) that happened in Maricopa County?

  4. avatar
    katahdin September 29, 2011 at 7:11 pm #

    Considering that the sheriff has thousands of unserved warrants, he should really be too busy to investigate allegations that are without evidence.

  5. avatar
    CarlOrcas September 29, 2011 at 7:25 pm #

    dunstvangeet: You only have jurisdiction over crimes that occur in Maricopa County, correct?

    The sheriff and his sworn deputies can investigate any crime in the state of Arizona…..not just Maricopa County.

    As I recall the candidate’s affidavit in Arizona is signed by the candidate and has him/her swear they are eligibile for the office, blah, blah.

    So………theoretically…….if Obama were not eligible to be president he committed perjury on the affidavit and Arpaio and his deputies could investigate that crime. Of course he is eligible and he didn’t commit perjrury but that’s not the sort of thing that usually bothers the sheriff.

    On top of all that the posse members are not sworn officers and have absolutely no authority to investigate a crime, refer a complaint for prosecution or arrest anyoine.

    Other than that it all makes sense.

  6. avatar
    Keith September 29, 2011 at 7:37 pm #

    CarlOrcas: The sheriff and his sworn deputies can investigate any crime in the state of Arizona…..not just Maricopa County.

    As I recall the candidate’s affidavit in Arizona is signed by the candidate and has him/her swear they are eligibile for the office, blah, blah.

    So………theoretically…….if Obama were not eligible to be president he committed perjury on the affidavit and Arpaio and his deputiescould investigate that crime. Of course he is eligible and he didn’t commit perjrury but that’s not the sort of thing that usually bothers the sheriff.

    On top of all that the posse members are not sworn officers and have absolutely no authority to investigate a crime, refer a complaint for prosecution or arrest anyoine.

    Other than that it all makes sense.

    First, I don’t believe that is correct.

    Sheriff Arpaio has jurisdiction only in Maricopa County, period. He is NOT a State official, he is a County official. If a crime occurs in Maricopa County and the perpetrator moves to or the crime continues in another jurisdiction (County or State or Country) he can work with the corresponding jurisdiction to continue the investigation. If, for example, he wants to interview someone in Tucson who won’t or can’t come up to Phoenix for the interview, he has to get permission from Sheriff Dupnik. If he is in hot pursuit of someone across county lines, then fine, he can continue that hot pursuit.

    Second, I believe that the candidates affadavits were signed by the Chairs of the DNC and RNC.

  7. avatar
    Keith September 29, 2011 at 7:39 pm #

    katahdin:
    Considering that the sheriff has thousands of unserved warrants, he should really be too busy to investigate allegations that are without evidence.

    Spoken from truth.

    Does this mean that every lunatic on the planet is now going to bury Joe with ‘petitions’ to investigate their own personal bizarro world view?

  8. avatar
    CarlOrcas September 29, 2011 at 8:00 pm #

    Keith: First, I don’t believe that is correct. Sheriff Arpaio has jurisdiction only in Maricopa County, period. He is NOT a State official, he is a County official.

    The sheriff and his AZPOST certified deputies have full peace officer authority throughout the state of Arizona……just like all certified peace officers no matter who employs them.

    It is considered good form to notify an agency when you are in their area but it is not necessary and doesn’t happen very often and certainly not under the circumstanes you describe.

    As far as whether Obama signed his Arizona candidacy form it only took two nanoseconds to find it on the internet…..on a birther website……..

    http://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2008/12/07/obama-not-eligible-obama-not-natural-born-citizen-obama-signature-on-arizona-candidate-nomination-paper-moniquemonicat-blog-did-obama-commit-fraud-did-obama-lie/

  9. avatar
    gorefan September 29, 2011 at 8:46 pm #

    Keith: He is NOT a State official,

    Wouldn’t he have to turn this over at some point to the State Attorney General’s office? They would decide if there was anything actionable.

  10. avatar
    Montana September 29, 2011 at 8:52 pm #

    We won the election and now these sore losers will continue to spew your hate with lies (They hate and can’t debate). The way our court system works is that you get a competent lawyer (Strike One), verifiable facts (Strike Two) and present them to a judge, if the facts are real and not half baked internet lies, then, and only then, you proceed to trial (Strike three). The Birthers seem to be having a problem with their so call facts (internet lies) that they present. Let’s face it no reasonable man or woman will go along with you until you guys win a case, but until then, you will continue to appear dumb, crazy or racist, or maybe all three. You guys are a bunch of sore losers and feeding on your own is still foolish.

  11. avatar
    CarlOrcas September 29, 2011 at 9:01 pm #

    gorefan: Wouldn’t he have to turn this over at some point to the State Attorney General’s office? They would decide if there was anything actionable.

    Virtually all police cases are handled by county attorneys in Arizona. That’s where a perjury case would go.

    The AG’s office handles major crimes.

  12. avatar
    Keith September 29, 2011 at 9:39 pm #

    CarlOrcas: The sheriff and his AZPOST certified deputies have full peace officer authority throughout the state of Arizona……just like all certified peace officers no matter who employs them.

    It is considered good form to notify an agency when you are in their area but it is not necessary and doesn’t happen very often and certainly not under the circumstanes you describe.

    As far as whether Obama signed his Arizona candidacy form it only took two nanoseconds to find it on the internet…..on a birther website……..

    http://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2008/12/07/obama-not-eligible-obama-not-natural-born-citizen-obama-signature-on-arizona-candidate-nomination-paper-moniquemonicat-blog-did-obama-commit-fraud-did-obama-lie/

    I stand corrected.

  13. avatar
    Keith September 29, 2011 at 9:44 pm #

    CarlOrcas: The sheriff and his AZPOST certified deputies have full peace officer authority throughout the state of Arizona……just like all certified peace officers no matter who employs them.

    However that does not give them authority to initiate investigations over matters that arise outside their jurisdiction.

  14. avatar
    Keith September 29, 2011 at 9:49 pm #

    Sorry, I hit submit too soon.

    Since, however, the State Capitol is within Maricopa County, I suppose an argument could be made that it is within Joe’s jurisdiction. On the other hand, jurisdiction is not only geography, it is also proper authority. Is investigation and enforcement of election law within the proper authority of a County Sheriff?

  15. avatar
    CarlOrcas September 29, 2011 at 9:54 pm #

    Keith: However that does not give them authority to initiate investigations over matters that arise outside their jurisdiction

    They have the authority to investigate and arrest anywhere in the state of Arizona.

    Most agencies have enough to do in their own area without wandering around the state but they can.

  16. avatar
    CarlOrcas September 29, 2011 at 10:01 pm #

    Keith: On the other hand, jurisdiction is not only geography, it is also proper authority. Is investigation and enforcement of election law within the proper authority of a County Sheriff?

    Any peace officer can investigate a violation of any criminal statute. In this case that would be perjury…..a felony.

  17. avatar
    Keith September 29, 2011 at 11:36 pm #

    CarlOrcas: They have the authority to investigate and arrest anywhere in the state of Arizona.

    Most agencies have enough to do in their own area without wandering around the state but they can.

    Can you cite authority for your assertion please? I am not really doubting you, I’m just trying to educate myself about this. The closest I can come is ARS 11-441 subsection E:

    E. The sheriff may assist in the execution of the duties prescribed in this section in another county at the request of that county’s sheriff.

    I read that to mean that a Sheriff must, by State law, get approval from the other County Sheriff to operate in the other County (hot pursuit operations excepted, of course). Furthermore the strict interpretation would be that, for example, Dupnik would have to invite Arpaio to operate in Pima County, Arpaio could not ask for permission (I assume the practical way around this would be for Arpaio to ‘unofficially’ ask Dupnik to ‘officially’ invite him.

    I appreciate that this is different in different States. TV shows often introduce conflict between police departmental jurisdiction, especially in California.

    I’m trying to get some confirmation one way or the other about Arizona.

  18. avatar
    CarlOrcas September 30, 2011 at 12:28 am #

    Keith: Can you cite authority for your assertion please? I am not really doubting you, I’m just trying to educate myself about this. The closest I can come is ARS 11-441 subsection E:
    E. The sheriff may assist in the execution of the duties prescribed in this section in another county at the request of that county’s sheriff.

    Title 11 deals with the definition of and operation of the state’s counties. It has nothing to do with criminal laws, law enforcement, etc.

    The title that does that is 13 which defines most of the crimes and then gets into what peace officers can do and when and where they can do it. The oldest section dealing with the issue is:

    13-3871. Authority of peace officers

    The authority of a peace officer may extend in any of the following circumstances to any place within the state:

    1. Where he has the prior consent of the chief of police, marshal, sheriff, or other department or agency head with peace officer jurisdiction, or his duly authorized representative, having the primary responsibility for law enforcement within the jurisdiction or territory.

    2. Under any of the circumstances set forth in section 13-3883.

    Notice that section 1 says what you do……but….big BUT….the legislature changed all that in, as I recall the late 60’s, when it passed 13-3883 which gave peace officers full probable cause arrest powers without any restrictions anywhere anytime…………….

    13-3883. Arrest by officer without warrant

    A. A peace officer, without a warrant, may arrest a person if the officer has probable cause to believe:

    1. A felony has been committed and probable cause to believe the person to be arrested has committed the felony.

    2. A misdemeanor has been committed in the officer’s presence and probable cause to believe the person to be arrested has committed the offense.

    3. The person to be arrested has been involved in a traffic accident and violated any criminal section of title 28, and that such violation occurred prior to or immediately following such traffic accident.

    4. A misdemeanor or a petty offense has been committed and probable cause to believe the person to be arrested has committed the offense. A person arrested under this paragraph is eligible for release under section 13-3903.

    5. The person to be arrested has committed any public offense that makes the person removable from the United States.

    B. A peace officer may stop and detain a person as is reasonably necessary to investigate an actual or suspected violation of any traffic law committed in the officer’s presence and may serve a copy of the traffic complaint for any alleged civil or criminal traffic violation. A peace officer who serves a copy of the traffic complaint shall do so within a reasonable time of the alleged criminal or civil traffic violation.

    So that’s it. Bottom line is that most departments don’t waste their resources running around in other areas though it happens, especially in drug investigations. (A Chandler officer was killed in a drug sting gone bad in Phoenix last year or the year before.)

    And the laws on this are essentially the same in California.

  19. avatar
    Daniel September 30, 2011 at 1:22 am #

    “I’ll give it to the cold case posse” just sounds nicer than, “I’ll put that in the round file”

  20. avatar
    Lupin September 30, 2011 at 3:01 am #

    Obsolete: Simple. Arpaio believes he has jurisdiction over anyone with dark skin.

    Well put. I couldn’t agree more.

    Short version: It’ll be a snowy day in Hell when a g*d*mn n*** is going to be presidenting over Joe Arpaio, no sirree.

  21. avatar
    Keith September 30, 2011 at 5:50 am #

    CarlOrcas: Notice that section 1 says what you do……but….big BUT….the legislature changed all that in, as I recall the late 60′s, when it passed 13-3883 which gave peace officers full probable cause arrest powers without any restrictions anywhere anytime…………….

    OK, IANAL and I don’t mean this to degenerate too far into, yeah, but, yeah, but… because I really don’t know a lot about what I am talking about here.

    Yeah but… 😎 13-3883 seems to be talking about arrest, not initiating an investigation. OK, if Arpaio happened to be in Pima county and saw a crime take place, then he could arrest the culprit. But I don’t read anything that indicates that MCSO is allowed to investigate a murder that took place in Pima County without the express permission of the PCSO.

    I also don’t see how the MCSO is empowered to investigate election fraud within its charter. It seems to me that is the Secretary of State’s jurisdiction.

  22. avatar
    Tarrant September 30, 2011 at 8:07 am #

    The reality is if Arpaio really believed a crime had been committed he wouldn’t have given it to this 100% unfunded volunteer “cold case posse”.

    Turning the case over like this, combined with his comments that it could take “five years” to investigate this issue, makes it clear to me that all he’s trying to do is get the birthers that approached him to both shut up yet still support him, while actually doing nothing.

  23. avatar
    Scientist September 30, 2011 at 9:35 am #

    CarlOrcas: As I recall the candidate’s affidavit in Arizona is signed by the candidate and has him/her swear they are eligibile for the office, blah, blah.
    So………theoretically…….if Obama were not eligible to be president he committed perjury on the affidavit and Arpaio and his deputies could investigate that crime

    I think you are misunderstanding what perjury is. Simply swearing to something that turns out not to be true is not perjury. Perjury has to involve swearing to something that you know factually is untrue.

    The affidavit for candidates in Arizona doesn’t have them swear as to where they were born. It has them swear they are “eligible”. What does that mean? Are those born outside the US known to be ineligible as a matter of fact? Hardly. In fact, the law is quite unclear and open to debate. In a fictional case of someone with a US citizen parent, born outside the US, neither you nor I could say beyond a reasonable doubt whether they would be eligible or not. This board has even discussed the case of a naturalized citizen from Guyana who believes he is eligible to run for President based on his reading of the Constitution. If he signs the Arizona affidavit is he committing perjury? No, because he believes he is eligible (even though most legal scholars would disagree).

    So, even in the totally fiictional case that Obama were born outside the US, there is no violation of Arizona law to investigate here.

  24. avatar
    CarlOrcas September 30, 2011 at 9:44 am #

    Scientist: I think you are misunderstanding what perjury is. Simply swearing to something that turns out not to be true is not perjury. Perjury has to involve swearing to something that you know factually is untrue.

    I know exactly what perjury means. Arizona law is quite specific.

    In this case the birthers are desperately searching for something Sheriff Arpaio could use to justify his pose’s “investigation” and that’s as close as I could come.

  25. avatar
    CarlOrcas September 30, 2011 at 9:51 am #

    Keith: Yeah but… 13-3883 seems to be talking about arrest, not initiating an investigation.

    You can’t arrest someone without an investigation….no matter how brief it may be. Also there is no law outlining when and where a peace officer can investigate something….just when and where an arrest can occur.

    Keith: I also don’t see how the MCSO is empowered to investigate election fraud within its charter. It seems to me that is the Secretary of State’s jurisdiction

    The MCSO doesn’t have a “charter”. It is just a law enforcement agency that employs peace officers who are empowered to arrest people for commiting crimes. Perjury is a crime no matter what context it occurs in.

    I don’t believe the Secretary of State has any law enforcement powers or responsibilities.

  26. avatar
    Scientist September 30, 2011 at 10:00 am #

    CarlOrcas: I know exactly what perjury means. Arizona law is quite specific.

    Does Arizona law consider it perjury to take a legal position on a complex constitutional issue? Because that is what one is doing by signing the affidaviit of eligibility. Other than the requirement of being 35, which is a matter of fact, the other aspects of presidential eligibility are open to interpretation (as evidenced by countless posts on this board). Making a perjury indictment, let alone a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt, out of someone’s interpretation of 14 years residency or natural born citizen is overreach of mammoth proprotions.

    Even if one took all the birther allegations as being true there is no underlying Arizona crime here. And it seems to me that is I go to my local cops with a wildly improbable story that even if true were no crime, it would be totally improper of them to launch an investigation, whether by regular officers or by a posse of retired cops.

  27. avatar
    Scientist September 30, 2011 at 10:01 am #

    CarlOrcas: Perjury is a crime no matter what context it occurs in.

    There is no perjury in interpreting natural born citiizen one way vs another.

  28. avatar
    Sef September 30, 2011 at 10:06 am #

    I would expect that if Sheriff Joe starts making noise about arresting the President he might expect a visit not unlike that which our ex-AF guy received from the Secret Service. Such a thing could be viewed as a threat, so if Joe has any smarts he will keep his mouth shut.

  29. avatar
    CarlOrcas September 30, 2011 at 10:30 am #

    Scientist: There is no perjury in interpreting natural born citiizen one way vs another.

    Didn’t say there was, did I?

  30. avatar
    CarlOrcas September 30, 2011 at 10:36 am #

    Scientist: Does Arizona law consider it perjury to take a legal position on a complex constitutional issue?

    Did I say it does? No.

    Scientist: it would be totally improper of them to launch an investigation, whether by regular officers or by a posse of retired cops.

    You are absolutely right. This is nothing new from Arpaio. If you are not familiar with the trouble he and the former county attorney got into when they investigated the county board of supervisors and siting judges you might want to check out the Arizona Republic and Phoenix New Times archives.

  31. avatar
    The Magic M September 30, 2011 at 10:37 am #

    CarlOrcas: Didn’t say there was, did I?

    You wrote:

    “So………theoretically…….if Obama were not eligible to be president he committed perjury on the affidavit”

    What would constitute perjury on Obama’s affidavit if not the NBC = two citizen parents issue? Or are we still talking about “he was born in Kenya and knows it” here?

  32. avatar
    Sef September 30, 2011 at 10:52 am #

    CarlOrcas: Did I say it does? No.

    Danger! Danger! Look out for the falling strawman!!

  33. avatar
    Scientist September 30, 2011 at 10:56 am #

    The Magic M: What would constitute perjury on Obama’s affidavit if not the NBC = two citizen parents issue? Or are we still talking about “he was born in Kenya and knows it” here?

    In fact, regardless of where he was born or who his parents were, Obama’s statement regarding his eligibility is factually true, since the US Congress has declared him to be eligible. Therefore, he could not possibly have committed perjury under any circumstances.

    Speaking of which, I wonder whether the Sheriff will also investigate McCain, who signed the identical affidavit. He was only declared eligible by the Senate in a non-binding resolution,, rather than an official proceeding involving both houses, as was the case for Obama.

  34. avatar
    CarlOrcas September 30, 2011 at 10:58 am #

    The Magic M: You wrote:
    “So………theoretically…….if Obama were not eligible to be president he committed perjury on the affidavit”

    Actually what I wrote was:

    “So………theoretically…….if Obama were not eligible to be president he committed perjury on the affidavit and Arpaio and his deputies could investigate that crime. Of course he is eligible and he didn’t commit perjrury but that’s not the sort of thing that usually bothers the sheriff.”

    Notice the second sentence that you left out.

  35. avatar
    Scientist September 30, 2011 at 11:05 am #

    CarlOrcas: Actually what I wrote was:
    “So………theoretically…….if Obama were not eligible to be president he committed perjury on the affidavit and Arpaio and his deputies could investigate that crime. Of course he is eligible and he didn’t commit perjrury but that’s not the sort of thing that usually bothers the sheriff.”
    Notice the second sentence that you left out.

    Carl, I think you are missing the point. Even if he were NOT eligible, he didn’t commit perjury, since eligibility is a matter of opinion and you cannot commit perjury by holding an opinion, even a grossly mistaken one.

  36. avatar
    CarlOrcas September 30, 2011 at 11:17 am #

    Scientist: Carl, I think you are missing the point. Even if he were NOT eligible, he didn’t commit perjury, since eligibility is a matter of opinion and you cannot commit perjury by holding an opinion, even a grossly mistaken one.

    No….you are missing the point. I don’t for a second think O bama is ineligible or that he committed perjury. I simply offered a THEORETICAL avenue by which Arapaio could justify what he is doing.

    Arapaio has initiated investigations (and gotten indictments) on thinner gruel than this. He failed in the end and it will probably cost the former county attorney his law license but never underestimate Arapio’s willingness to stretch things for a few minutes face time on TV.

  37. avatar
    Tarrant September 30, 2011 at 11:33 am #

    That said, I hate and am not fooled by Arpaio’s statemer that is not costing the taxpayers any money. It reminds me of when someone in my group at work, an engineer, decided to go down to the machine shop and build a part themselves because “Why pay the technician to do it when we can build it ourselves and not lose money from the budget?” Meanwhile the engineer is being paid 3x more to build something more slowly than the technician. But he doesn’t think of his own labor as a “cost” – he’s not thinking that he’s being paid his higher salary to do engineering, not to build parts.

    Likewise, every hour spent dealing with this “cold case posse” and every press conference Arpaio spends talking about the issue costs the taxpayers because it’s time that could be spent doing the job he’s actually paid to do, but that can never be regained. It is a net loss. But then again given Arpaio’s thousands of outstanding warrants perhaps nothing would get done anyway.

  38. avatar
    Scientist September 30, 2011 at 11:34 am #

    CarlOrcas: No….you are missing the point. I don’t for a second think O bama is ineligible or that he committed perjury. I simply offered a THEORETICAL avenue by which Arapaio could justify what he is doing.

    Please answer the following question yes or no: Would a candidate who signed the Arizona declaration believing that he was eligible, based on one or another legal theory, but was later found to be ineligible based on a court rejecting his theory be guilty of perjury?

    I say no, and if that is true then there is not only no perjury here, there is NO POSSIBILITY of perjury here.

    I am assuming (without having followed all the details) that in the other cases involving Arpaio there was at least a possible crime (but maybe there wasn’t there either).

  39. avatar
    G September 30, 2011 at 11:41 am #

    Agreed. It is a simple way of “passing the buck” and only paying mere lip service to an issue he perceives as coming from a contingent of his potential constituents and political supporters. From his POV, it is as much of a “win” as he can eek out of being publicly boxed in the corner by WND’s little stunt.

    By passing it on to the “Cold Case Posse”, he doesn’t actually have to do anything and has an extremely long time window to use as an excuse to blow this off while still giving the appearance that he’s attending to their needs.

    Tarrant: The reality is if Arpaio really believed a crime had been committed he wouldn’t have given it to this 100% unfunded volunteer “cold case posse”.Turning the case over like this, combined with his comments that it could take “five years” to investigate this issue, makes it clear to me that all he’s trying to do is get the birthers that approached him to both shut up yet still support him, while actually doing nothing.

  40. avatar
    BatGuano September 30, 2011 at 12:06 pm #

    G:
    By passing it on to the “Cold Case Posse”, he doesn’t actually have to do anything and has an extremely long time window…..

    currently arpaio has only committed to the posse starting an “inquiry” to see if there is evidence of a crime and that they have jurisdiction for an investigation. it would seem to me that such an inquiry wouldn’t take more than a week. so i’ve been encouraging birthers ( and obots ) to stay on joe for updates and get him to commit to “yes, there is evidence of a crime and we are investigating”, ” yes, there is evidence of a crime and we’re turning it over to another agency” or ” nope, no evidence of a crime. have a wonderful afternoon.”

  41. avatar
    CarlOrcas September 30, 2011 at 12:10 pm #

    Scientist: Please answer the following question yes or no: Would a candidate who signed the Arizona declaration believing that he was eligible, based on one or another legal theory, but was later found to be ineligible based on a court rejecting his theory be guilty of perjury?

    Arizona law requires the person must “believe” the statement was false at the time it was made.

    13-2702. Perjury; classification

    A. A person commits perjury by making either:

    1. A false sworn statement in regard to a material issue, believing it to be false.

    2. A false unsworn declaration, certificate, verification or statement in regard to a material issue that the person subscribes as true under penalty of perjury, believing it to be false.

    B. Perjury is a class 4 felony.

    Scientist: I say no, and if that is true then there is not only no perjury here, there is NO POSSIBILITY of perjury here.

    For the umpteenth time……i agree……no perjury…..just trying to explain how Arpaio can twist the law to serve his own ends.

    Scientist: I am assuming (without having followed all the details) that in the other cases involving Arpaio there was at least a possible crime (but maybe there wasn’t there either).

    There wasn’t.

  42. avatar
    Tarrant September 30, 2011 at 12:13 pm #

    BatGuano: currently arpaio has only committed to the posse starting an “inquiry” to see if there is evidence of a crime and that they have jurisdiction for an investigation. it would seem to me that such an inquiry wouldn’t take more than a week. so i’ve been encouraging birthers ( and obots ) to stay on joe for updates and get him to commit to “yes, there is evidence of a crime and we are investigating”, ” yes, there is evidence of a crime and we’re turning it over to another agency” or ” nope, no evidence of a crime. have a wonderful afternoon.”

    Agreed, an such investigation would take a few days if done seriously. The fact that Arpaio repeatedly says it could be “Up to five years” is anoter good clue that he has no intention of this going anyplace but the circular file.

  43. avatar
    bjphysics September 30, 2011 at 12:15 pm #

    The Panchurian Candidate Petition

    The people over at Fogbow should get 300+ (match or exceed the birther signature count) signatures on a petition calling for the same type of investigation into John McCain.

    I’ll start the wordsmithing here:

    We the undersigned citizens are respectfully requesting that you initiate a criminal investigation under the authority of A.R.S. 13-2407 A-C (or whatever), into the unseen birth document of John McCain. The document has never been published or examined by document experts and its existence is questioned throughout the nation, including within Maricopa County. Reportedly, several experts have declared the document will show John McCain’s birth outside the Canal Zone in Panama; therefore, he is not a Natural Born Citizen as he attested to on the Arizona Presidential Preference Election Candidate Nomination Paper (A.R.S. whatever). We urge you to continue to support the Rule of Law and to investigate and determine whether the alleged fraud has occurred…blah, blah, blah.

    Naturally, I don’t expect anybody to use my quick rewording. I’m sure there are plenty of smart legal types at Fogbow that can come up with wording that is just as valid or superior to the birther petition.

  44. avatar
    Keith September 30, 2011 at 12:50 pm #

    CarlOrcas: The MCSO doesn’t have a “charter”. It is just a law enforcement agency that employs peace officers who are empowered to arrest people for commiting crimes. Perjury is a crime no matter what context it occurs in.

    I don’t believe the Secretary of State has any law enforcement powers or responsibilities.

    Yeah, charter was the wrong word.

    But you are saying that, professional courtesy aside, the MCSO could decide to investigate a murder in Tucson or a car theft in Yuma or a Gas station holdup in Kingman? I suspect that the intention of the 13-3883 was to ensure that if a PO was the only one around no matter what county jurisdiction, then he/she was on duty and not to set up every Sheriff in the state with state wide jurisdiction for any case they decided drew their fancy.

    Obviously, if Joe is out hunting on the North Rim, and comes across a crime in progress, say a shooting, or maybe a polygamist community, then he would be responsible to handle the situation.

    I agree that perjury is a crime, anywhere in the state, but if perjury is committed in Nogales, why would Sheriff Joe have jurisdiction to go down there and deal with it? It just seems absurd to me. Why have county sheriffs at all then? Why not one centrally controlled State Police force instead? This is obviously a theoretical argument because the candidates statement would have been filed in Phoenix, clearly within the MCSO’s jurisdiction.

    And I get that the SOS doesn’t have law enforcement duties. I would think that the SOS would have the first responsibility to investigate accusations of electoral fraud, and then if he/she thinks there may be a case to then refer the case to the Sheriff or even the FBI depending. But then I guess the Sheriff would do the investigation no matter how he heard of the accusations, especially if the accusations involve the SOS. The choice to do so would be rife with political implications of course, so he would need to be extremely careful about it.

  45. avatar
    Predicto September 30, 2011 at 1:11 pm #

    I don’t see why everyone is jumping on CarlOrcas here. He is providing useful information and insight into Arpaio’s methods and motivations. Several people are reading more into Carl’s posts than he actually said, and then attacking him for not anticipating their counter arguments in advance. Lighten up, folks – you are not debating Arpaio or even an Arpaio supporter here.

  46. avatar
    BatGuano September 30, 2011 at 1:18 pm #

    Predicto:
    Lighten up, folks – you are not debating Arpaio or even an Arpaio supporter here.

    hear hear.

  47. avatar
    CarlOrcas September 30, 2011 at 1:35 pm #

    Keith: But you are saying that, professional courtesy aside, the MCSO could decide to investigate a murder in Tucson or a car theft in Yuma or a Gas station holdup in Kingman?

    Yes….theoretically. For instance they could be investigating a car theft ring and the investigation could involve thefts in Maricopa County and throughout the state.

    Keith: I agree that perjury is a crime, anywhere in the state, but if perjury is committed in Nogales, why would Sheriff Joe have jurisdiction to go down there and deal with it? It just seems absurd to me. Why have county sheriffs at all then?

    Sheriff is a constitutional officer in Arizona…..that’s why they are there. As far as perjury in Nogales is concerned he wouldn’t go there unless it related to another case in Maricopa County…..like the auto theft ring situation.

    As far as election fraud is concerned it would depend on what it involved who would investigate it. For instance stealing a ballot box would be theft not election fraud. Just like false swearing on a candidate affidavit would be perjury.Stealng the ballot box would probably be handled by local authorities. Widespread voter fraud would probably go straight to the Attorney General’s office. He does have some investigators with peace officer powers.

  48. avatar
    CarlOrcas September 30, 2011 at 1:36 pm #

    Predicto: Lighten up, folks – you are not debating Arpaio or even an Arpaio supporter here.

    Pigs will fly before I am an Arpaio supporter!!

  49. avatar
    Rickey September 30, 2011 at 3:18 pm #

    Predicto is correct. CarlOrcas is not saying that Obama committed perjury if it were to turn out that he is not eligible. What he is saying is that perjury would be the pretext for Arpaio to justify filing charges against Obama. Obviously, a charge of perjury would be impossible to sustain and it isn’t going to happen.

    The general consensus is that Arpaio didn’t want to alienate the birthers by telling them to take a hike, so he turned it over to his “cold case posse.” The “cold case posse” seems to me to be Arpaio’s version of a circular file.

  50. avatar
    G September 30, 2011 at 4:03 pm #

    That is certainly my view of the situation.

    Rickey: The general consensus is that Arpaio didn’t want to alienate the birthers by telling them to take a hike, so he turned it over to his “cold case posse.” The “cold case posse” seems to me to be Arpaio’s version of a circular file.

  51. avatar
    Keith September 30, 2011 at 8:03 pm #

    CarlOrcas: Sheriff is a constitutional officer in Arizona…..that’s why they are there. As far as perjury in Nogales is concerned he wouldn’t go there unless it related to another case in Maricopa County…..like the auto theft ring situation.

    pshew… That’s what I was trying to get to. If a crime doesn’t involve Maricopa County, then the MCSO has no jurisdiction.

  52. avatar
    CarlOrcas September 30, 2011 at 8:40 pm #

    Keith: pshew… That’s what I was trying to get to. If a crime doesn’t involve Maricopa County, then the MCSO has no jurisdiction.

    Good gracious you’re grasping at straws.

    So, Keith, explain how he could go there if he didn’t have authority or jurisdiction? He either has it or he doesn’t.

    He wouldn’t be taking calls for service in Nogales. The Santa Cruz SO or Nogales PD would probably get there first. But…..he can go there and investigate crimes, arrest people, etc. and that would normally occur in the course of investigating a crime that originated in Maricopa County.

    Bottom line: Peace officers in Arizona have full authority anywhere in the state 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

    Got it?

  53. avatar
    Sef September 30, 2011 at 9:54 pm #

    CarlOrcas: Good gracious you’re grasping at straws.

    So, Keith, explain how he could go there if he didn’t have authority or jurisdiction? He either has it or he doesn’t.

    He wouldn’t be taking calls for service in Nogales. The Santa Cruz SO or Nogales PD would probably get there first. But…..he can go there and investigate crimes, arrest people, etc. and that would normally occur in the course of investigating a crime that originated in Maricopa County.

    Bottom line: Peace officers in Arizona have full authority anywhere in the state 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

    Got it?

    But the bottom line is that if Sheriff Joe tries to do anything the Secret Service will have some words with him.

  54. avatar
    CarlOrcas September 30, 2011 at 10:00 pm #

    Sef: But the bottom line is that if Sheriff Joe tries to do anything the Secret Service will have some words with him.

    Sheriff Joe isn’t going to do anything but pound his chest…..when there’s a TV camera around.

  55. avatar
    Keith October 1, 2011 at 12:41 am #

    CarlOrcas: Good gracious you’re grasping at straws.

    So, Keith, explain how he could go there if he didn’t have authority or jurisdiction? He either has it or he doesn’t.

    He wouldn’t be taking calls for service in Nogales. The Santa Cruz SO or Nogales PD would probably get there first. But…..he can go there and investigate crimes, arrest people, etc. and that would normally occur in the course of investigating a crime that originated in Maricopa County.

    Bottom line: Peace officers in Arizona have full authority anywhere in the state 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

    Got it?

    I think so, Carl. I think we are on the same page and need not argue about it.

    Joe can go to Nogales anytime he wants, I’m sure he likes shopping for booze at the B-52 just like any tourist. I got it that if he or one of his officers happens to be in town and witnesses a crime, then he can deal with it, at least until it can be handed over the the SCCSO. I understand that a Peace Officer is on duty statewide, and is empowered to do his job when his job needs to be done.

    I have also got it that he can, in the process of investigating a crime that happened in Maricopa, go to any county and do what he needs to do. That all basically follows from the principle of ‘hot pursuit’ as far as I’m concerned (but may very well not be the legal derivation).

    The key words here being ‘crime that happened in Maricopa’ (or some ‘reasonable connection’). So of course if he is dealing with a statewide car theft ring, he can go where he needs to go to the job done. I expect he would liaise with the other sheriff out of professional courtesy if nothing else, but, yes, I get it that he is allowed and needs to do so.

    What I don’t get is that he could pick up the paper or the phone, learn of a crime that occurred in Santa Cruz County and didn’t affect Maricopa County in any way, and say to himself, that’s an interesting problem maybe I’ll just send my guys down to Nogales and check it out. It just isn’t his job to be Sheriff of Santa Cruz County. The ARS mentions this scenario in two different spots, the one I found and the one you pointed out, and both places says it must be at the invitation of the local Sheriff, not insistence of the visiting Sheriff.

    Do you understand what I am saying?

  56. avatar
    CarlOrcas October 1, 2011 at 10:47 am #

    Keith: Do you understand what I am saying?

    Yes. But what you don’t undertand is that the authority of peace officers (all of them, not just sheriffs) is absolute and not dependent on anyone’s permission.

    Could a sheriff send his deputies outside his county to “check” things out? Yes. But they don’t unless it directly relates to soemthing they are working. Why? Because they have better things to do..

  57. avatar
    CarlOrcas October 1, 2011 at 11:42 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy: Sheriff Joe contemplates run for the US Senate

    The Sheriff has opened (and closed) the Senate door a number of times during his nearly 20-years in public office. He’s kinda like a fan dancer….lots of tease.

    Montini has been his nemesis for most of that time and just loves tweeking him.

    It’s been a while since I saw any polling but as I recall Arpaio doesn’t do that well outside Maricopa County and, in recent years, his approval numbers have softened a bit there as well.