Civil Rights

Sheriff Joe's New Low


Maricopa County, Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio outrages are a dime a dozen. But if reported accurately, here's one for his greatest hits file:

The most recent atrocity committed by the self-proclaimed "America's Toughest Sheriff" involves a woman who was detained while 9-months pregnant. Alma Minerva Chacon's case has been receiving media attention due to the brutality with which she was treated. The very same night of her arrest, Chacon went into labor and found herself afraid and alone, being rushed to a local hospital with her hands and legs chained in shackles.

Once she reached the hospital, nurses repeatedly begged the Sheriff's staff to allow them to unchain the mother, but they refused and Chacon was forced to give birth while still shackled to the bed. At one point, the nurse asked for them to release her so that she could be escorted to the bathroom for a urinalysis, but even that request was denied. But the worst came once Chacon gave birth to her baby girl.

Still chained to the bed, Arpaio's police staff refused to allow Chacon to hold her newborn baby and then warned her that if no one came to pick up the child within 72 hours, she would be turned over into state custody.

There's a video interview with Chacon at the link. She was apparently detained on suspicion of being in the country illegally.

MORE: The Phoenix New Times has more details. Chacon had a warrant for $1,000 in traffic fines and a misdemeanor shoplifting charge pending against her, though neither was the reason she was pulled over.

NEXT: Would ObamaCare Kill Medical Innovation?

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Remember Sheriff Joe Arpaio gets reelected every 4 years. Democracy is nothing but mob rule.

    1. Democracy got us two terms of George W. Bush. Term limits got him out. Irony? You decide.

    2. And your alternative to democracy is.. what? Fascism? Theocracy? Do you plan to nominate yourself for King?

      1. No where does it say that America was supposed to ever be a democracy. We shouldn’t be one. As to what I propose? A republic, as stated in the Constitution.

        1. You’re a fucking idiot.

          1. Take a fucking grade school history class moron. Its spelled out black and white in the Constitution. Its not a huge secret. Nice post though, you must real proud of you prize winning rhetoric.

  2. Nice…

    At least the Obama administration is routing these people more nicely:

    The subject of an ongoing immigration audit by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, ICE, the company has been clearing its books by firing some of its janitorial staff ? about 100 people so far ? believed to be working illegally.

    The probe of Seattle Building Maintenance offers an early glimpse into ICE’s approach to worksite enforcement ? stealthily targeting employers rather than workers.

    It’s a departure from the big splashy raids that used to play out on the evening news, with large numbers of immigrants being rounded up and carted off to detention, where many faced removal.

    Now, workers are quietly let go by their employers, without the direct contact with immigration agents that might lead to deportation.
    And a janitorial company in Minnesota quietly fired 1,200 workers around the same time after an investigation found they were working there illegally.

    All here.

    1. I guess that is an improvement, sparing a lot of people the needless embarrassment of being arrested at work.

  3. Jeez, those donut-woofers must really be out of shape if they’re afraid that a woman who is 9 months pregnant is going to outrun them.

  4. I assume this wasn’t the actual sheriff but his sadistic minions. If only the problem were one guy.

    1. Sheriff Joe hires the minions. I’m sure that sadism and xenophobia are two of the required qualifications in the job description.

    2. I await Sheriff Joe’s denouncing and firing of the minions.

      1. While you are waiting, I suggest you keep an eye out for advancing glaciers. And check your location periodically, you never know where continental drift might take you.

  5. C’mon, ACLU. Make yourself useful. Get a jury of women on this case, and the sky’s the limit.

    I’ve given up on the AG Holder doing anything for civil liberties that might involve going after law enforcement.

    1. “I’ve given up on the AG Holder doing anything for civil liberties that might involve going after law enforcement.”

      Why you closet federal governmentophile!

      1. I have no problem with federal law enforcement stepping in in defense of individuals’ civil rights. That libertarian in your head must be quite the hoary creature.

        1. States rights need not mix with libertarianism,tis true.

        2. Wait a second.

          If federal authorities can justifiably “step in” to defend the civil rights of individuals against local officials, then the federal authorities could also rightly take action to preserve evidence of such rights violations.

          But when I advocated making it a federal crime to tamper with or destroy such evidence, you jumped up and down about how I was an enemy of the Constitution.

          So I think we need a little clarification here from you, sir. Does the federal government currently possess the Constitutional power to take action against states and localities to protect the enumerated rights of individuals, or not?

          1. fluff
            I’m not sure what you are talking about.

    2. I’ve given up on the AG Holder doing anything for civil liberties that might involve going after law enforcement.

      Fixed it for you.

    3. “Get a jury of women on this case, and the sky’s the limit.”

      Throw in a couple of devoted fatherly types, too, and watch the sparks fly out their ears.

    4. MNG, like so many anti-libertarians, enjoys being (deliberately?) obtuse, claiming that he sees no distinction whatsoever between:

      (1) The exercise of federal power to investigate and take action against state and local governments in defense of individual liberties, and

      (2) The exercise of federal power to restrict individual liberties.

      1. Oh, so states rights IS bullocks, it’s liberty that’s important.

        Which is what I’ve always said on H&R.

  6. if reported accurately…

    Why the caveat? Might have perhaps un poco bias?

  7. I suspect the only reason LoneWacko hasn’t shown up yet is because he is masturbating furiously.

  8. Hey guys, come on. Sheriff Joe is doing God’s work in some of the toughest maternity wards in the nation.

  9. Nick wins the thread, and possibly the month.

  10. Sounds like they had chains attached to everything but the anchor.

  11. Ah, isn’t rule at the local level beautiful!

    1. Yes, rule at the local level is always and in every case pretty nearly perfect. That’s what we always say on this board.

      Seriously, read much?

      1. There’s a whooole lot of states/local rights fed haters on H&R, so I like to take every opportunity to point out how that works out often.

        1. It actually works out well. If the Federal gov’t had an Arpaio, we’d all be screwed. Instead, it’s just the terrible, awful degenerates of Phoenix and Maricopa County that have to bear the burden of their trashy sheriff.

          1. I will chain you to the keyboard if you dare preempt me again!

            1. Why can’t you just be happy for me? You never think about my feelings.

        2. I think we do our fair share of verbal assault on Chicago politicians. That’s local.

          1. At least it was, until 2009.

        3. It works out great. Thanks to federalism, people have the option of not living in Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s jurisdiction; whereas if we had an Arpaio type in charge of federal law enforcement (and we have in the past) there would be no escape without leaving the country.

          1. The police where a prime consideration in my decision to leave Phoenix.

        4. Because centralized power has such a sterling track record, doesn’t it, MNG?

          1. This kind of extreme parochial rule tends to be, well, parochial. The Founding Fathers knew that the greater the area of an electorate was dispersed the less any politician could be in the pocket of this or that parochial faction. Such extreme parochialism would be filtered out by the time it got to the level of federal power, if not at the state level.

            1. Boss Hog may be able to keep in power in Hazard County, but his parochial extremism would appall many other parts of his state, and most of the nation, thus ensuring his impotency at the federal level. But he can make life hell for those in Hazard county if enough Cooter’s and Ennis’ share his worldview…

              1. Parochial extremism can come in national flavors if the right crisis comes along.

              2. uh uh huh uh he said “Cooter” and “Ennis” uh uh huh uh uh

            2. Just how parochial is a sheriff who thinks it is his job to enforce federal law?

              1. Well, there’s parochial and then there’s power-mad. And then there’s Sheriff Joe.

                Seriously, how ludicrous does this guy have to become before he stops getting voted in, over and over?

                1. My point exactly, these kinds of people have less chance winning elections at larger levels. The Founders knew the House for example would be like a bunch of Jacobins, they were hopeful the Senate and the President, demanding wider support, could stave off narrow parochial extremism and factionalism.

                  I understand the structural advantages local rule has (voting with your feet). I think there are structural advantages to federal rule as well (I just noted one).

                  As a historical matters it all depends. If you were a black man in the Deep South in 1872 you better believe you’d be happy to see the federal government intervent over the local and state governments as much as they could!

                  1. Thanks for explaining why healthcare reform is going to die in the Senate.

            3. Look at all the congressmen and executive office holders at the federal level who nanny-state us to death, in any given year. The local parochial politicians have moved up and joined forces.

  12. Wow, what a lowlife piece of garbage. I honestly cannot believe someone hasnt taken that loser out yet!


  13. Every time I hear about “Sheriff Joe”, he sounds more and more like a local-level fascist. The jackbooted thug and his minions need to go.

  14. I’m formally submitting a request for suspension of Godwin’s Law when discussing Sheriff Joe Arpaio in the future.

    The only difference at this point is the breadth of jurisdiction.

  15. This is where the Obamanites could do something positive. Get the Justice Dept. out of the WOD and start putting together a case against Sheriff Joe.

  16. The Phoenix New Times has more details.

    Among them are that she had two warrants for her arrest: one for more than $1000 in fines for driving without a license, and one for misdemeanor shoplifting.

    Clearly she is just the sort of violent peripartum woman that needs to be shackled during birth.

    Also, the sheriff himself makes a cameo quote…

    When questioned later about the incident, Sheriff Joe Arpaio said, “I wasn’t the one who kept her from holding the baby. Ask the hospital.”

  17. Lonewacko, where are you?

  18. I told you, Warty, he’s masturbating furiously. It takes a long time when you have to use tweezers.

  19. I wonder if this qualifies as “cruel and unusual”?

    Or does that only matter after trial and conviction?

    The FBI should haul that degenerate motherfucker Arpaio out of his office in manacles and leg irons, to be held without bail for a federal trial.

    They won’t.

    1. Why? What law did he break?

      1. P Brooks wrote it right in the post you responded to.

  20. Maybe Obama will invite Joe up to the house for a beer.

  21. Among them are that she had two warrants for her arrest: one for more than $1000 in fines for driving without a license, and one for misdemeanor shoplifting.

    Be fair, with that record, it might not have been her baby.

    1. Put Andrew Sullivan on the case. He will get to the bottom of it.

  22. “”She was apparently detained on suspicion of being in the country illegally.””

    That’s all some people need to know.

    Joe is just getting away with what the people in that county will allow. If they don’t like him, they don’t have to vote for him.

    The reason Joe is popular is becuase he is executing the type of anti-immigration plan many on the right want. It’s all about villians and heros. Joe is considered by some a hero fighinting the villian of illegal immigration. To some people, attacking Joe is wrong, you don’t attack the hero, unless you’re a villian.

    The problem isn’t with Joe, but with those who empower Joe via the election booth.

    1. I’m not quite sure I’m buying this part. If she already had two outstanding warrants, that would be plenty sufficient to detain her. It still doesn’t come close to justifying the whole shackling thing, though.

  23. Presumably this is the sort of thing Arpaio wants publicized to show how tough & uncompromising he is.

    1. Come to think of it, that means we’re playing into his hands by paying att’n to him.

    2. Exactly.

      Some people forget how much political clout is gained by being tough and uncompromising against law breakers. Joe knows and takes advantage of it.

  24. Xeones, I haven’t noticed him since the mods deleted his post where I outed him as a child molester. I’m just worried that I caused him to relapse – what if he’s too busy molesting children nowadays to play with us?

    1. Were you watching The Venture Bros. last night?

      1. Nope – I was busy doing math. Did I miss something awesome?

        1. Sgt. Hatred ran out of anti-child molestation meds while at the movies with the Venture boys and many prebuscent moviegoers. Thai boys and pedophilia were central themes to last night’s episode. I thought it was fitting with this post.

  25. This county must have a lot of extra tax money to pay for the lawsuits this idiot gets embroiled in.

    1. Are there any?

    2. As I noted on The Agitator, if Maricopa County were to get hit with a billion-dollar punitive damages judgment, they might lose their affection for Sheriff Joe.

      1. It will only take one Joe lover to tank the jury.

        1. In a civil trial? I don’t think unanimity is req’d there.

          1. Yeah, that’s true. Joe may still have enough fans to tank a civil trial.

  26. …what if he’s too busy molesting children nowadays to play with us?

    I just worry that he’s going to tape it and upload the video to YouTube

    1. A nine-year-old can answer the tough questions, especially if he’d stop crying long enough to look at the camera. LOOK AT THE FUCKING CAMERA!

  27. It’s all about villians and heros.

    The worst of the worst.

    Sherriff Joe is at the gates, holding back the berserkers.

  28. Arpaio is a garden-variety sadist. I remember watching a video of him some years back — the look of utter glee on his face when he talked about humiliating the men in his jails by forcing them to wear pink clothes creeped me right the hell out.

    My attitude toward law enforcement and detaining people against their will is: yes, it is unfortunately necessary for society to have some people who must do this. But if you ENJOY doing it, that alone should disqualify you from the job.

  29. But if you ENJOY doing it, that alone should disqualify you from the job.

    Come to think of it, i feel the same way about politics.

    1. Agreed.

      If a child says he wants to be President when he grows up, the parents should seek psychiatric help immediately.

      1. One time, many years ago, we interviewed a finalist for president of my university (at the time). He said that he had wanted to be a university president since he was in high school. Creeped us right out.

      2. I believe Bill Clinton stated in his autobiography that he wanted to be president from childhood on.

        1. So did Obama, but he wanted to be president of his native country, not the US, so it doesn’t count.

  30. the parents should seek psychiatric help immediately.

    What’s the treatment for acute sociopathy?

    1. Lonewacko calls his treatment “The Funbox”.

  31. I agree that this was over the line and unecssary/stupid etc, but I’m not quite clear how it was illegal, or what basis there would be for a lawsuit.

    1. Violation of civil rights:

      (1) a person in custody has a right to medical treatment, and you can’t tell me this didn’t interfere with that.

      (2) cruel and unusual punishment. Restraints such as this go far beyond what was necessary.

      (3) the threat to take her kid – more cruel and unusual punishment. Also intentional infliction of emotional distress.

      That’s with about 30 seconds worth of thought.

    2. One more:

      Could someone explain to me how this doesn’t violate all those definitions of torture that were so fashionable before Obama got elected?

    3. As noted in the New Times article…

      Sentenced, pregnant state prison inmates are treated better than un-sentenced ones in Maricopa County jails. Arizona Department of Corrections policies state: “A pregnant woman will not be restrained in any manner while in labor, while giving birth, or during the postpartum recovery period.”

      1. Doesn’t this show that Arpaio should be shot into space on its own?

  32. hmm, I don’t know. Prisoners are often restrained when outside of the jail facility aren’t they?

    I’m also not quite clear how this would interfere with giving birth, although, I will admit I’m not an expert on the subject.

    Finally, I would agree that this wans’t necessary, although, I’m not sure being restraied falls under the category of crual and unusal.

    1. As noted in the New Times article…

      Sentenced, pregnant state prison inmates are treated better than un-sentenced ones in Maricopa County jails. Arizona Department of Corrections policies state: “A pregnant woman will not be restrained in any manner while in labor, while giving birth, or during the postpartum recovery period.”

  33. Good, then at the minimum they should be subject to departmental dicsipline.

  34. Now likely when the guy running the dept encourages such tactics for teh brown accepted folks.

  35. accepted = accented. Ironicz Law?

  36. Take a page out of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. Flood the town with so many protesters that they would have to lock them up. Then overrun the jail. I would love to see that. I do not advocate violence.

  37. She gets the last laugh. They couldn’t get her across the border before the anchor (baby) dropped.

  38. “Flood the town with so many protesters that they would have to lock them up kill them all


  39. Just on heard on the radio that Arpaio pulls 52% in polls to be the next governor, easily beating the Dem, who is the current AG.

    (Note: While truthy, this comment may not be entirely accurate in its details, due to some, ahem, distracting scenery while story was being reported.)

  40. Once she reached the hospital, nurses repeatedly begged the Sheriff’s staff to allow them to unchain the mother, but they refused and Chacon was forced to give birth while still shackled to the bed.

    A flight risk if there ever was one.

    1. Hey Joe, where’s she going with that baby in her hands?
      Hey Joe, where’s she going with that baby in her hands?

      Hey Joe, I heard you tied that woman down.
      You tied her down down.
      Hey Joe, I heard you tied that lady down.
      You tied her down to the birthing table.

      Hey Joe, where’s she gonna run to now?
      Where’s she gonna run to?
      Hey Joe, I said, where’s she gonna run to now?
      Where’s she, where’s she gonna go?

      She’s goin’ way down south.
      Way down south to Mexico way.
      She’s goin’ way down south
      Way down where she can be free.

      1. Awesome.

  41. Immigrants would be few in number. Since they were coming to fill short-term gaps in the labor force, most would stay in Europe only temporarily.

  42. who’s paying for her anchor baby? You are…

  43. Like Orwell said, the only reason you people have a full stomach and a warm bed to go to, and can prattle away at your little keyboards while holding your little dicks, is because tough men like Sheriff Joe are willing to do the dirty work that keeps you safe.

    If anything, I disagree with the policy that the baby goes into state custody after 72 hours. It should be immediate. Allowing that child to be raised by an illegal alien with no respect for the law violates its rights as an American citizen. It needs to be raised with AMERICAN values, not the values of whatever shithole that woman crawled up out of.

  44. WOW~ DONA International will have a FIELD day with this.

    Disgusting, just disgusting!

    It doesn’t matter the state of he “legal-ship” the woman was in labor for crying out loud!

    I’m a DOULA and a MIDWIFE and this is disgusting. If she was in the country illegally, fine detainee her, escort her to the Birthing center or hospital, but you don’t leave a laboring woman chained to a bed!!

    Wow talk about barbarism!

    For shame!

    Disgusting pigs. :: Spitting to the floor::

    – Doc

  45. I would have called for Hospital security, escorted the deputies out ( they have NO power over the treatment of a patient) and CUT her shackles.

    ARGGG this is not just an attack on “latinos” its an attack and afront to women.

    Bastard. Oh may his ASS be infested with the fleas of a thousand camels and corpuslice!!

  46. I have no sympathy for Alma Minerva Chacon, she broke the laws of the land, she was wanted for shoplifting, and thats all that needs to be said to justify her loss of rights.

    Until the socialist laws/programs are removed from the system, I will fully as a true Libertarian support what Joe is doing. He is removing people trying to exploit the socialist system. You want open borders, so do I, you want zero drug laws so do I. At this time it is not possible, if drugs or the borders were opened for all it forces a tax on the rest of us to support them.

    Alma Minerva Chacon is not the victim, we the rest of society is the victims. Her shoplifting forces stores to increase prices to cover the loss due to her. She infringed on my rights, no no, she does not deserve any sympathy.

    1. Actually, people migrate here to try to exploit (what remains of) the capitalist system.

      If migration were free, then they could exploit it to their heart’s content and then go back home, where it is cheaper to live, like they predominately used to.

      1. On what planet do you live? The United States has not been “capitalist” in the last 100 years.

        If migration were free as you envision, with unregulated open borders, then all the worlds poor would overwhelm any country with a better standard of living, until it collapses. Then move to the next. Even the most primitive societys understood that.

        It is a shallow mindset that only thinks of the mexicans coming here. I know people who have won lotterys in nigiera and came here, I have friends from india who waited years to get here.

        1. The United States has not been “capitalist” in the last 100 years.

          It has still been capitalist enough that immigrants come to the US to work, not to live off the cornucopia of welfare they aren’t eligible for.

          Ironically, illegal immigrants are especially ineligible and so are especially in the US to work.

          Even the most primitive societys understood that.

          Like the primitive society the United States was for the first 300 years of its 400 year history?

          1. First off, you need to understand I welcome immigrants, as long as they come here legally.

            The illegal mexicans who do come here do use our socialist systems, such as schools and public services, transportation, and a whole host of things, including our jails and prisons. Which we are forced to pay for.

            I suggest you look at roofing or drywall companys and you will see they can not compete with illegals doing the work for half price when they have to pay huge taxes to send the illegals kids to school, or cover the $75,000 a year it takes to keep one in prison.

            The United States has existed for around 220 years, and if you think the last 100 years have been good, then your more ignorant than I assumed. The great wall of china is 2,500 years old, even then they were smarter by light years to our modern marxist murders.

            1. First off, you need to understand I welcome immigrants, as long as they come here legally.

              Then we have an easy path to agreement.

              Legalize all economic migrants.

  47. Better yet finish what Sam Houston started and give freedom from the marxist that run Mexico so it can prosper.

    Immigration has to be controlled to a degree, you can not open the borders to the 5.5 billion people on this planet that want to move here. Once again I question how ignorant you are…..

  48. There is absolutely zero justification for saying that 5.5 billion people would come to the US if the borders were open. The economy can absorb only so many new workers at a time, and it is far cheaper to be unemployed in most people’s home countries than in the US. Furthermore, these activities happen on the margin, and on the margin open borders draw those best able to take advantage of the opportunities the US has to offer.

    Meanwhile the preponderance of theory and empirical evidence is that immigration — both legal and illegal — offers increased average wages for natives due to increased opportunities for comparative advantage.

    For example, the most recent study I’ve seen notes…

    We find no evidence that immigrants crowded-out employment and hours worked by natives. At the same time we find robust evidence that they increased total factor productivity, on the one hand, while they decreased capital intensity and the skill-bias of production technologies, on the other… Our results suggest that immigrants promoted efficient task specialization, thus increasing TFP and, at the same time, promoted the adoption of unskilled-biased technology as the theory of directed technological change would predict. Combining these effects, an increase in employment in a US state of 1% due to immigrants produced an increase in income per worker of 0.5% in that state.

    There simply isn’t any just cause to deny prospective immigrants their inalienable rights to travel, reside, and work where they can find mutually agreeable terms.

    1. For years Cubans have been allowed into this country without having to fill out the paperwork. When they come here they do not sneak in and go find a undisclosed job, they are checked out before allowed into the population.…..alth.shtml
      What happens when common sense natural laws are ignored.…..eases.html

      The shear ignorance of saying open the borders is outstanding. Never has any group just been allowed in to mingle.

      Also what we are seeing is a militant invasion, in case you have never heard of laraza, I suggest you read up on them.

      And allowing them in is not addressing why they want to get out of Mexico in the first place, the marxist revolution in the early 1900’s.

      Your superficial and shallow understanding of history and the reality of immagration need adjustment. There is no shame in ignorance as long as you take measures to fix it. There is no justice, fairness in allowing any group to just enter this country. There is no examples of that ever being done in history. Figure out why the government in the USA has been propping up the marxist government of Mexico. And then ask if those so-called drug gangs killing the politicians are the bad guys. Mexico is just completing the normal cycle, next will be pure anarchy, and then a Libertarian Republic with natural laws. To allow unchecked immagration only prolongs the needed pains to freedom from the marxist.

  49. Open borders need not mean unchecked entry. Open borders means that visas are not limited by quota, duration, or work requirements. Most advocates of open borders believe the the state can prohibit entry of specific individuals for specific causes in the compelling public interest — causes such as disease, violent crimes, terrorism, or being foreign agents.

    Incidentally, I really don’t know what to make of your continuous harping on Mexico as Marxist in concert with your own belief in Hegelian determinism. I’ll just say that neither has much to do with whether free migration should be allowed or not.

  50. With many new announcement about the wizard of oz movies in the news, you might want to consider starting to obtain Wizard of Oz book series either as collectible or investment at

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.