In a rare move late Thursday, Maricopa County Sheriff’s deputies arrested two leaders of the largest alternative newspaper chain in the nation, Village Voice Media, because of a story published earlier in the day by the company-owned Phoenix New Times.

Read the New Times article

Michael Lacey and Jim Larkin, the executive editor and CEO, respectively, of Village Voice Media, were arrested at their homes on suspicion of violating grand jury secrecy, said sheriff’s spokesman Capt. Paul Chagolla.

Both were released from custody early this morning. Lacey posted a $500 bond, according to New Times.

The two, who together started New Times in 1970, were the authors of Thursday’s cover story revealing that a special prosecutor, retained by the county attorney’s office, had issued subpoenas to them and other staffers in a criminal case against the paper. The case stems from the paper publishing Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s home address more than three years ago.

Chagolla said the arrests came at the requests of the prosecutor.

In the story, titled “Breathtaking Abuse of the Constitution,” Lacey and Larkin wrote “the authorities” probably believe revealing the subpoenas is against the law, “but there are moments when civil disobedience is merely the last option.”

In an interview before his arrest, Lacey said the paper would fight to quash the subpoenas. “It is just without precedent,” Lacey said. “This isn’t us overreacting.”

Also on Thursday, the sheriff’s office gave a criminal citation to Ray Stern, a New Times reporter, for disorderly conduct, Stern told the Tribune.

The reporter said he was cited at his home after an argument earlier in the day over being able to take digital photos of public records from the sheriff’s office.

Former New Times reporter John Dougherty, whose original story about Arpaio’s address sparked the controversy, said in an interview: “We're not harboring state secrets, we’re not harboring terrorists, we’re just straight up reporting on issues they don’t want us to report on.”

Reached on his cell phone, Arpaio said he was not allowed to comment on the case, adding: “You do know that I’m a victim in this whole thing.”

The paper reported earlier in the day the county wants to use grand jury subpoenas to pry into the habits of visitors to the Web site of the New Times newspaper.

The Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, using a private attorney retained as a special prosecutor, also wants every story New Times has written about Sheriff Joe Arpaio since Jan. 1, 2004, and all the notes, tapes and records of the reporters.

Lacey said the decision to go public came after a judge revealed in a court proceeding that the special prosecutor, Dennis Wilenchik, tried to meet privately with the judge, which violates court and ethical rules. According to the story, Wilenchik had a “political operative” who is married to a deputy county attorney call the judge to arrange a meeting. In a closed-door hearing, the judge disclosed the phone call and told Wilenchik it was “absolutely inappropriate.” Lacey and Larkin said they believe the subpoenas are in response to a long history of friction between the paper and Arpaio.

“I’m not going to comment on New Times,” Arpaio told the Tribune Thursday. “You’ll have to talk to the prosecutor.”

Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas also declined to comment.

In 2004, New Times published Arpaio’s home address, available in public records on the county recorder and Arizona Corporation Commission Web sites, as part of a story that raised questions about Arpaio’s real estate investments. While there is no law against putting a law enforcement official’s address in the newspaper, state law does prohibit it from being published on the Internet and Arpaio’s office has been considering filing criminal charges against New Times, Lacey and Larkin wrote.

Especially disturbing, Lacey and Larkin wrote, is that one subpoena asks for online profiles of anyone who read four specific articles about Arpaio and profiles of anyone who visited the paper’s Web site since Jan. 1, 2004. The county officials also want to track what Web users did while on the site, the story says.