A federal judge delayed a ruling in the racial profiling case against Sheriff Joe Arpaio's office Friday as both sides remain at odds over key remedies to ensure the agency adheres to constitutional requirements.
U.S. District Judge Murray Snow found in May that the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office singled out Latinos and deputies unreasonably prolonged detentions, marking the first finding by a court that the agency covering Arizona's most populous county engages in racial profiling.
Snow delayed a ruling in the case in June after parties indicated they wanted more time to reach an agreement, though it was clear during Friday's hearing that neither side would cave to the other's demands.
"I presume that you're now leaving it up to me to take your outline and create an order, and that's what I intend to do," Snow told attorneys.
The judge gave the lawyers until Sept. 18 to file additional briefs in the case and said he would issue a final order soon thereafter.
One key proposal that attorneys for the Sheriff's Office vehemently objected to is for deputies to note to dispatchers why they have stopped a vehicle before they make contact with the driver.
Given that the case arose after a small group of Latinos sued the agency for violating their constitutional rights, saying they were detained simply because of their race, the plaintiffs' attorneys said such a requirement is crucial to discern the motivation of the stop.
Maricopa County Chief Deputy Jerry Sheridan told the judge it would be burdensome and risky since "traffic stops are one of the most dangerous things that deputies do."
"It takes less than a second to say, 'I'm pulling this car over because it was speeding,'" said Cecillia Wang, an American Civil Liberties Union lawyer who is representing the plaintiffs, adding that such a requirement is needed "given the record ... of racial profiling of Latinos in this county."
Another key point of contention is the appointment of a monitor to oversee the agency's adherence to the judge's eventual order.
Arpaio says allowing a monitor means every policy decision would have to be cleared through the observer and would nullify his authority.
"Obviously, my client opposes the appointment of any monitor," Tim Casey, one of Arpaio's lawyers, told the judge.
Casey said in addition to usurping the sheriff's authority, the agency is concerned about how much power the monitor would have, and how privy the observer would be to sensitive information, including ongoing investigations and search warrants.