Information Blockade

Former New Times staff writer John Dougherty first investigated Arpaio and dangerous jail conditions he's inspired in a November 1993 article. It was one of dozens of investigative articles that Dougherty wrote through the years about how sheriff runs his agency.

Dougherty eventually discovered that Arpaio may have purchased up to $2 million in real estate in recent years. But details of purchases have been kept secret. Arpaio had the records deleted at the County Recorder's Office using a law intended to keep the personal information of law enforcement officials out of public records for their safety. Oddly, Arpaio's home address hadn't been deleted from all the government records, as if the sheriff cared more about shielding his commercial investments from public scrutiny than keeping his home safe.

In a succeeding article, Dougherty published Arpaio's home address, and that information — as is the case with everything in the print editions of New Times — was reproduced on the paper's Web site.

New Times filed suit against the sheriff in July 2004, asking a judge to unseal the commercial property records. A month later, Superior Court Judge Colin Campbell turned down the request, and the records remain shrouded today.

The third lawsuit, filed in Superior Court on September 23, 2004, is still on appeal. It was brought to force Arpaio to respond to a dozen public records requests submitted during the 2004 election campaign, including on specific raids conducted by deputies, jail vending machine documents, and booking reports for the sheriff's Mesa substation, among other documents.

Dougherty wanted to find out whether jailed friends and relatives of high-dollar donors to Arpaio's political campaigns had been put up in the more upscale Mesa jail. Dougherty also wanted to investigate claims that money from the sale of food and toiletries at the jail was being misappropriated.

In a brief exchange outside the county's Fourth Avenue Jail in 2004, sheriff's spokeswoman Lisa Allen MacPherson told Dougherty the office would never turn over the records. When he reminded her of public records law, MacPherson replied: "So sue us!"

Only after the lawsuit was filed did the MCSO release some of the records requested. On August 3, 2005, Judge Michael D. Jones ruled against New Times, saying a three- to five-month delay in turning over public records wasn't arbitrary and New Times' allegation of bad faith by the sheriff was "unsupported by anything other than argument and histrionics." New Times appealed.

The Court of Appeals heard arguments on the case 15 months ago, but still hasn't made a decision.

New Times writers began being blocked from coming to the sheriff's headquarters inside the Wells Fargo Building downtown after an exchange between Dougherty and Arpaio at his victory rally following the 2004 election.

Dougherty walked up to the sheriff inside the ­Phoenix Civic Plaza with a tape recorder and asked when the records he had requested months before would be ready.

Arpaio responded by yelling for guards to "get rid of this guy!" Deputies tossed Dougherty outside, threatening him with arrest. A Channel 3 cameraman recorded Arpaio telling a member of his Selective Enforcement Unit, "We ought to write that up as a threat."

After that, New Times staffers were told they aren't welcome at MCSO press conferences and that Dougherty and other reporters must use "runners" to pick up information from the sheriff's downtown office.

And the sheriff enforced the ban in September 2006, when Chagolla told New Times reporter Sarah Fenske that she couldn't attend a press conference (to announce a 25-count indictment against county School Superintendent Sandra Dowling) at the downtown headquarters.

New Times columnist Stephen Lemons went to the same press conference and was ordered by Chagolla to leave.

Then, in October 2007, Arpaio's rage at New Times took an uglier turn.

Three years ago, Arpaio had tried to get County Attorney Andrew Thomas to charge New Times with a felony for publishing his home address on the Internet as part of Dougherty's investigation of his personal real estate.

The state statute on which the felony is based has a shaky foundation. It allows the publication of law officers' addresses everywhere but on the Internet. Even then, the law only prohibits Internet publication if the person posting the information knows it would cause an "imminent and serious threat" to the law officer.

New Times had gotten the information that wound up on its Web site from government Internet sites, including those of the County Recorder, the county Elections Department and the Arizona Corporation Commission.