*****Jail Policy Regarding Incoming Mail on Postcards:    On May 1, 2007, the Sheriff of Maricopa County instituted a new policy which requires that all non-legal INCOMING mail sent by free-world individuals or companies to a prisoner in the Maricopa County Jail must be on a pre-stamped postcard.  In addition, the policy restricts the color of ink that can be used; andrequires that the return address be printed or written rather than being placed on an adhesive label.  Along with the AzCLU and Prison Legal News, a publication located in the state of Washington, Middle Ground sent a "test" mailing to about 45 prisoners.  We sent our membership brochure, along with a cover letter, in a regular-sized envelope, posted with a legally purchased adhesive postage stamp, and used an adhestive return address label, which is the regular/standard label we use for the conduct of our business as a non-profit organization.  We will determine if this correspondence, which can't possibly be placed on a postcard-sized piece of paper, will be delivered.  If it is not, and is returned to us, we will use these pieces of evidence as part of the basis of a lawsuit against the Sheriff for infringement on our First Amendment Right to communicate with prisoners in the Maricopa County Jail.  If you know of someone in the jail who would like to receive a piece of "test" mail,  PLEASE COMMUNICATE WITH US VIA E-MAIL AND PROVIDE THE FULL NAME, BOOKING NUMBER AND ADDRESS FOR THE PRISONER.  This "test" will expire on June 30, 2007.

******SEE OUR HOME PAGE FOR INFORMATION ABOUT THE LAWSUIT CHALLENGING THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF HB 2298.  THE LAWSUIT WAS FILED ON SEPTEMBER 10, 2007.

*****Demery, et al. v. Maricopa County and Sheriff Joe Arpaio, filed May 2001.  Seeks to enjoin the Sheriff from publishing live streaming Internet images of pre-trial detainees who are in various locations throughout the holding cell area of the county jail, from being broadcast on a commercial (or non-profit) web site.  Some cameras were trained for a brief time on the women's holding cell and clearly showed women using the toilet.  Inmates were not informed of the presence of the cameras and most naturally assumed that any camera aimed at the cells was being utilized for security purposes.

In the District Court of Arizona, we won a preliminary injunction which prohibits the Sheriff from using Internet cameras for any reason in the jail.  The Sheriff filed an appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco.  On December 3, 2003, oral argument was presented by both sides in San Francisco before a three-judge panel.  On August 6, 2004, the three-member Judge's panel at the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, voting 2-1, issued its opinion in favor of Plaintiffs, with wording that was very critical of the Sheriff's Internet Camera "program."  The Case No. is 03-15698.  The ruling, 36-pages in length, states in part, "Having every moment of one's daily activities exposed to general and world-wide scrutiny would make anyone uncomfortable.   Exposure to millions of complete strangers, not to mention friends, loved ones, co-workers and employers, as one is booked, fingerprinted, and generally processed as an arrestee, and as one sits, stands, or lies in a holding cell, constitutes a level of humiliation that almost anyone would regard as profoundly undesirable and strive to avoid."  In discussing the merits of the Sheriff's claimed purpose for implementing the web cams (educating the public), the court stated, "Such exploitation of pretrial detainees is not 'appropriate to assure the detainees' presence at trial or to maintain the security and order of the detention facility . . ."  Using language from previous United States Supreme Court rulings, the Judges stated, [i]nmates are not like animals in a zoo to be filmed and photographed at will by the public or by media reporters, however 'educational' the process may be for others."  Sheriff Arpaio also asserted that his First Amendment Rights were violated because the web cams were a protected form of speech for him to serve the needs of his constituents.  The Ninth Circuit soundly rejected this argument, stating, "The web cam transmissions were not Sheriff Arpaio's personal communications.  The web cams were government property, installed on government-owned premises operated for a governmental purpose.  The 'speech', therefore, was of a governmental executive officer acting in his official capacity . . ."

The ruling on the appeal of the Preliminary Injunction does not finalize this case.  The Sheriff has now petitioned the United States Supreme Court for review of the case (keep in mind that he is using taxpayer monies to do so).  We await their decision.  We expect that the Court will decline to review the case, as there is no merit in doing so.  After the case is rejected by the United States Supreme Court,   Plaintiffs will then prepare a Motion for Summary Judgment.  If that Motion is granted, the case will settle out-of-court.  If the matter cannot be resolved in that fashion, the matter could go to trial.

The attorneys handling this matter are Scott Ambrose and Ulises Ferragut for the Plaintiffs.  Middle Ground is providing legal assistance and administrative support.  If you wish to obtain a copy of the 36-page ruling, it is a published opinion from the United States Court of Appeals web site.  We cannot mail copies of the ruling to any individuals.

On June 27, 2005, the United States Supreme Court denied review of the Sheriff's appeal.  Thus, the Preliminary Injunction will stand and we will now seek a Permanent Injunction against the Sheriff.See Arizona Republic news article, June 28, 2005, on the U.S. Sup. Ct. decision. 

As of January 2006: The Sheriff's attorneys moved the court to dismiss the lawsuit because they claim the issues are "moot" (because the Jailcam is no longer operating) and because the Madision Street Jail is no longer used to house pre-trial detainees, but the court has already ruled on this issue in the past and has reiterated its stance that the issues are not moot.  At the present time, both sides are preparing discovery records and the matter appears as though it will go to trial.  The Judge has expressed his frustration that the parties have not been able to settle the matter out-of-court (especially since the outcome of a trial against the Sheriff is pretty clear), but it is certain that the Sheriff will not back off of his position that he is entitled to operate webcams in the jail.  Our Plaintiffs are not willing to settle out-of-court unless the Sheriff agrees in writing never to operate a webcam in any of his jails.  Hence, the stalemate.   In November 2005, the Plaintiffs were deposed.   Both sides continue to pursue discovery issues.

LATEST NEWS: SEPTEMBER 11, 2006:

MIDDLE GROUND SUCCEEDS FOR JAIL PLAINTIFFS IN LANDMARK CASE ON JAIL WEB CAM ISSUE!!!

     Middle Ground Prison Reform has once again succeeded in challenging the arbitrary authority and abuse of power of a gargantuan government agency -- the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office -- with the assistance of two dedicated attorneys, Scott Ambrose (Scottsdale) and Ulises Ferragut, Jr. (Phoenix), who have helped us to persist in this litigation since 2001.  

     In  July 2001, Sheriff Joe Arpaio began broadcasting 24-hour, live streaming images of pre-trial detainees who were in the booking areas or holding cells of the jail.  Some of the broadcast images included female detainees who were using the toilet in the holding cell.  The Sheriff contracted with a now-defunct company, Crime.com, to advertise a videotape for sale on the web site, "A Day In the Life of Sheriff Arpaio."  He also conducted staged cell searches of the women's cell, and placed the images on the web site as a slide show.  Rather than showing how a pat search is conducted, these images demonstrated the sexual harassment of female detainees who were ordered to be pat-searched in front of the glass window covering the men's holding cell.

     We obtained a Preliminary Injunction against the Sheriff, but he refused to admit responsibility or even to assure us that the web cameras would not be re-started.  He spent thousands of taxpayer dollars to defend his indefensible position, all the way to the United States Supreme Court, where he was denied review.  Still, for almost 5 years, he refused to settle the matter out of court or to agree to an Injunction.

      Just a week prior to the start of the scheduled trial, however, he "blinked."

     As of September 11, 2006, a full injunction has been stipulated to which prohibits the sheriff from using the web cameras, and requires him to pay damages to the Plaintiffs, and to pay negotiated attorney fees.  The published case law, Demery v. Arpaio, 378 F. 3d 1020 (9th Cir. 2004) clearly establishes that the Sheriff was guilty of violating the constitutional rights of pre-trial detainees.   Due to the case law, neither he nor any other sheriff  will ever be allowed to broadcast live streaming images of pre-trial detainees in private areas of the jail.

     Middle Ground is proud to have assisted in litigation on this cutting-edge issue, and to have helped to prohibit Sheriff Joe Arpaio from continuing his violation of the constitutional rights of pre-trial detainees.  This case stands as a landmark decision in this age of ubiquitous Internet access.

For media coverage of this historic settlement, click on Sheriff Loses Long Battle On Jail Webcam Landmark Case