Home 
WASHINGTON?The US government has followed through with its warnings to a prominent Arizona sheriff, filing suit against him Thursday for not cooperating with an investigation into alleged discrimination against illegal immigrants.
The target of the federal action is Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County, whose zealous pursuit and severe treatment of illegal immigrants in Arizona has made him a hero to some and hated by others.
The US Department of Justice said it filed suit "after exhausting all cooperative measures" to gain access to the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office (MCSO) documents and facilities as part of its investigation. It accused Arpaio of being an "extreme outlier," the only sheriff to refuse such cooperation in 30 years.
"The actions of the sheriff's office are unprecedented," Thomas Perez, assistant attorney general for the civil rights division, said in a statement.
"It is unfortunate that the department was forced to resort to litigation to gain access to public documents and facilities."
The Justice Department warned Arpaio in an August 3 letter that it would not hesitate to sue if Maricopa County failed to cooperate.
Justice opened its investigation in March 2009 following allegations of discrimination against Hispanics by Arpaio. The 78-year-old sheriff has come under fire for tactics that include police sweeps in streets, factories and outside restaurants.
"MCSO has always fulfilled its responsibilities truthfully, honorably, and in full compliance with state and federal law," a spokesman for the sheriff's office, Asheesh Agarwal said last month.
The Justice Department is demanding that Arpaio turn over documents and fully open sheriff office facilities to its investigators.
Arizona ? one of four US states along the 2,000-mile (3,200-kilometer) border with Mexico ? is the scene of a bitter dispute between proponents of a hard line against illegal immigrants and those who defend their civil rights.
Arizona's governor approved a law that gives police broader powers to pursue illegal immigrants, but a federal judge temporarily blocked some of its more controversial provisions.
