Arpaio v. Baca

• Decision Date: 26 February 2008
• Docket Number: No. 1 CA-SA 07-0267.,1 CA-SA 07-0267.
• Citation: 177 P.3d 312,217 Ariz. 570
• Parties: Maricopa County Sheriff Joseph ARPAIO, Petitioner, v. The Honorable Anna M. BACA, Judge of the Superior Court of the State of Arizona, in and for the County of Maricopa, Respondent Judge, Ozie Washington, Dionicio Luquendo Vargas, Jose Martinez Cisneros, Robert Hernandez, Irma Garcia, in-custody Clients of the Maricopa County Public Defender's Office, Real Parties in Interest.
• Court: Arizona Court of Appeals

177 P.3d 312

217 Ariz. 570

Maricopa County Sheriff Joseph ARPAIO, Petitioner, v. The Honorable Anna M. BACA, Judge of the Superior Court of the State of Arizona, in and for the County of Maricopa, Respondent Judge Ozie Washington, Dionicio Luquendo Vargas, Jose Martinez Cisneros, Robert Hernandez, Irma Garcia, in-custody Clients of the Maricopa County Public Defender's Office, Real Parties in Interest.

No. 1 CA-SA 07-0267.

Court of Appeals of Arizona, Division 1, Department A.

February 26, 2008.

Iafrate & Associates By Michele M. Iafrate, Phoenix, Attorneys for Petitioner.

Law Office of the Public Defender By James P. Leonard, David J. Kephart, Phoenix, Attorneys for Real Parties in Interest.

OPINION

HALL, Judge.

¶ 1 During the first week of November 2007, the Maricopa County. Office of Management and Budget informed Maricopa County Sheriff Joseph Arpaio (the Sheriff) that the Maricopa County Sheriffs Office (MCSO) had exceeded its overtime budget for the fiscal year and that no contingency funds would be made available to cover overages as had been done in prior years. Accordingly, the Sheriff reallocated personnel within the MCSO to ensure that five of its jail facilities¹ would be adequately staffed without the need to have detention officers work overtime. As part of this reallocation, the MCSO announced plans to reduce privileged visitation hours² at the jail facilities, which it did effective November 14, 2007.

¶ 2 The Maricopa County Public Defender's Office moved to reinstate the previous privileged visitation schedule. After an extensive evidentiary hearing, the Honorable Anna M. Baca, the presiding criminal judge for the Maricopa County Superior Court, concluded that the new schedule for privileged visits violated in-custody defendants' constitutional rights to counsel and access to the courts and entered an interim order extending the hours of privileged visitation at all jail facilities. The superior court further ordered the parties to mediate a privileged visitation schedule that would not impinge on defendants' constitutional rights to counsel and access. The Sheriff seeks special action relief from the superior court's orders.

¶ 3 We previously issued an order accepting special action jurisdiction with a written decision to follow. We accepted jurisdiction because the questions presented raise issues of substantial public interest and importance regarding the doctrine of inherent powers and corresponding limitations on a court's authority to grant broad injunctive relief in criminal cases. Moreover, an appeal would not constitute an "equally plain, speedy and adequate remedy." Ariz. R.P. Spec. Act. 1.

¶ 4 We decide that the superior court was empowered to conduct a joint hearing regarding the common issue in the criminal cases: whether the Sheriffs revised privileged visitation schedule unreasonably burdened or substantially interfered with the Sixth Amendment rights of individual defendants. We conclude, however, that the court lacked authority in this criminal proceeding to grant injunctive relief applicable to all incarcerated defendants. We further conclude that any remedial relief must be narrowly tailored in a manner designed to remedy any constitutional violations without unnecessarily intruding on the Sheriffs authority to establish visitation hours. See Ariz.Rev.Stat. (A.R.S.) § 11-441(A)(5) (Supp. 2007) (requiring the sheriff to "Make charge of and keep the county jail ... and the prisoners in the county jail"). Finally, we determine that the superior court exceeded its authority by requiring the parties to submit to mediation. Therefore, we grant the Sheriffs request for relief in part and deny it in part.³

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶ 5 As of November 2007, the MCSO had approximately 150 detention officer vacancies. Until that time, the Sheriff provided adequate staffing at the jail, despite the shortage, through overtime scheduling. However, after being advised that the MCSO had exceeded its overtime budget, the Sheriff instituted several changes to curtail overtime scheduling. These changes included the closures of two outlying jail facilities and a "booking van" that transported city arrestees to county jail facilities, as well as the transfer of dozens of detention officers from the hiring, intelligence, and visitation departments to the housing units at the jails to ensure that a sufficient number of officers was available to monitor and secure the inmates.⁴

¶ 6 To compensate for the reduced work-force in the visitation department, the MCSO implemented a revised privileged visitation schedule. Pursuant to the revised schedule, privileged visits were permitted each day only from 6:30 a.m. to 2:30 p.m., with possible accommodation for special circumstances when "manpower" allowed it.

¶ 7 On November 13, 2007, two attorneys employed by the Office of the Public Defender, James P. Leonard and David J. Kephart, filed a "Request for Restoration of Privileged Visitation Schedule or in the Alternative Request for Emergency Injunctive Relief' in the case of State v. Ozie Washington, cause no. CR 2007-156830. In the motion, the attorneys argued that the new inmate privileged visitation schedule "directly violates incustody defendants' rights" under both the United States and Arizona Constitutions. As support for their argument, the attorneys claimed that "the new privileged visitation schedule does not allow enough time to effectively communicate with in-custody defendants, especially when these communications involve the investigation of cases, the negotiation and explanation of plea agreements, the preparation of evidentiary hearings and trials, and the preparation of sentencing and mitigation hearings."

¶ 8 On November 14, 2007, Judge Baca entered an order denying the motion. Judge Baca explained her ruling by noting that the defense attorneys essentially sought a declaratory judgment or injunctive relief in a criminal case, and also finding that the request was based on speculative future harm and therefore "fail[ed] to state a claim related to this defendant."

¶ 9 The following day, Leonard and Kephart filed a motion for reconsideration or, in the alternative, a request for emergency injunctive relief. This motion was filed in Washington and six other criminal cases. The attorneys asserted that, during the two days in which the new privileged visitation policy had been in effect, numerous defendants' right to counsel had "been directly violated." In addition to claiming the infringement on communication between attorneys and clients, the attorneys also argued that the new privileged visitation schedule "adversely impacts other parties, such as court interpreters." As support for their claims, the attorneys attached their affidavits, as well as affidavits of other, attorneys employed by the Office of the Public Defender, avowing that they were unable to meet with their clients because of the new visitation schedule at times they would have been able to meet under the previous schedule.

¶ 10 Judge Baca set a status conference regarding the motion for November 16, 2007. At that hearing, Judge Baca ordered the MCSO to respond to the defendants' motion by November 19 and set an evidentiary hearing to begin November 20, 2007.

¶ 11 The evidentiary hearing was conducted over eight days. Judge Baca heard testimony from numerous witnesses, including MCSO employees, probation officers, defense attorneys, court interpreters, and mental health personnel.⁵

¶ 12 After taking the matter under advisement, Judge Baca entered a detailed ruling (1) finding that the new, schedule for privileged visits at the MCSO facilities violates all in-custody defendants' constitutional right to counsel and access to the courts; (2) entering temporary orders requiring the MCSO to extend the hours of privileged visitation at the facilities;⁶ and (3) ordering the parties to participate in mediation. In relevant part, the superior court found:

1. Effective November 12, 2007, the MCSO changed its privileged visitation hours to 6:30 a.m. to 2:30 p.m.... Previous visiting hours for in-person visits by attorneys had been unrestricted but, as a practical matter, generally did not extend beyond 9:00 p.m. weekdays.

2. After this change in hours, a number of instances occurred in which defense attorneys attempted to visit their in-custody clients after 2:30 and were turned away at various jail locations. In other instances privileged visits were cut short around 2:30 p.m. before the visit could be completed. In other cases requests for video conferences were affected because of the reduced number of time slots available for defense counsel and APD [Arizona Probation Department] officers.

3. Defense attorneys are generally in court each morning for morning calendars until about 10:30 or 11:00 Thus, defense attorneys are usually unable to conduct in-person jail visitation during the morning hours. Attorneys who are in trial all day are unable to confer with their clients after trial each day under the new visitation hours.

4. All three indigent defense agencies share videoconferencing (remote access) time, along with the APD officers. The remote accessing hours were reduced to both defense counsel and APD officers with the November 12, 2007 changes....

5. Videoconferencing is impractical for non-English speaking defendants. Furthermore, remote videoconferencing cannot be used to review a plea agreement with a defendant. Therefore, remote videoconferencing is not a substitute for in-person visitation.

6. Defense attorneys utilize [Court Interpreters Translation Service] interpreters when conferring with non-English speaking defendants at the jails....

9. The MCSO reduced the visitation hours for budgetary reasons....

10, After. November 12, 2007, the MCSO has occasionally made "special accommodations" for after-hours visits (after 2:30 p.m.) under special circumstances and if there was...