Judge dismisses 51 counts against Maricopa official

Judge Kenneth Fields agreed with Stapley's lawyers, who argued that Stapley didn't violate financial disclosure laws because there were no laws to break.

Stapley, who was indicted in December, was charged with failing to list business and real estate interests on financial disclosure forms he is required to file as an elected official.

"There was no legal vehicle ever implemented by the county that would require the filing of financial disclosures," said Paul Charlton, one of Stapley's attorneys. "Absent that requirement, Mr. Stapley could have committed no crime."

Stapley, a Republican, represents much of the East Valley.

Prosecutor Melvin Bowers said a decision to appeal the ruling will be made after he consults with Yavapai County Attorney Sheila Polk, who took over the case several months ago from the Maricopa County Attorney's Office.

Stapley's other attorney, Tom Henze, argued that the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors improperly enacted a law in 1994 that Stapley is now accused of breaking. The board's improper procedure effectively voided the board's actions, Henze wrote.

Henze wrote in the motion that the Legislature passed a series of laws in 1974 requiring public officials to disclose certain financial information.

The law also required local governments "to adopt standards of financial disclosure" that were consistent with state law either through an ordinance, a rule, a resolution or a regulation.

The Board of Supervisors passed a resolution and properly put the law into effect in 1974 and properly amended it slightly in 1979.

But in amending it again in 1994, the board "merely acted by oral motion and voice vote to update the form without ever actually delineating any necessary standards," Henze wrote.

The indictment alleged that Stapley violated "Maricopa County Rule or Resolution adopted January 20, 1994," but Henze contended "there is no such rule or resolution."

"This court agrees with the defendant," Fields wrote in his ruling. "The county Board of Supervisors has only that legislative power given to it by the Arizona Legislature and must act in strict compliance with the delegated authority given it."

Fields added, "Here the Maricopa County board did not act pursuant to the mandate of (the statute) and therefore the defendant may not be held criminally liable for violations of financial disclosure standards never properly adopted."

Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas sharply criticized the ruling.

"It's unjust and improper for this criminal defendant to be able to claim that, as a member of the Board of Supervisors, he failed to properly pass or amend the very laws he's accused of violating," Thomas said in a statement.

"For him to be able to take advantage of improper performance of his own public duties is wrong by any measure. It's equally wrong that the people of Maricopa County have just been told they're the only citizens of Arizona whose elected county officials don't have to disclose their private business dealings to the voters."

Fields struck down a separate motion arguing that the case should be dismissed because the law is too vague and too confusing to be constitutional.

Sixty-six counts of perjury, forgery and false swearing remain.

Charlton said there are motions in the works to have the rest of the charges dismissed.