In December I wrote about the apology a Maricopa County Sheriff’s Detention Officer was ordered to give after taking some papers from the defense attorney’s file in open court.  To refresh your recollection, the Detention Officer refused to apologize for conduct he thought was appropriate, so the Judge held him in contempt of court and ordered him to jail.  After 10 days in jail, the Sheriff’s Office appealed the contempt finding.  We left this story when things were headed to the Court of Appeals, and oral arguments were yesterday.

All I have to go off of is a brief press report, and it appears that the court wasn’t in the mood for any political grandstanding by the Sheriff’s Office:

 [Attorney for the Sheriff’s Office] Michele Iafrate told the panel: “We are here today because Officer Stoddard believed there was a security concern in a criminal courtroom.”  Judge Mo Portley stopped her, noting that “we’re beyond that at this point,” and that the legal sanctions imposed by Judge Donahoe seemed “classic.”

 As I opined at the time, I thought the trial judge made a mistake in ordering the apology and should have focused on rule of law issues by having the officer simply acknowledge that his conduct was improper.  The officer may not have done so, but the contempt issues would have been much cleaner.  As any lawyer would do, counsel for the officer is focusing on the fact that the judge put him in a dilemma for apologizing for conduct for which he was not sorry.  In other words, the judge ordered him to lie or go to jail.  

My prediction – the Court will give the judge some grief, but will uphold the judge’s contempt ruling.  And once that happens, up to the Arizona Supreme Court we go.  Why, you ask.  This is part of a highly politicized struggle between the Sheriff and the County Attorney on one side and the Superior Court on the other side.  More on that in a subsequent post.