Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 806 Filed 12/01/14 Page 1 of 5

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

IAFRATE & ASSOCIATES

649 North Second Avenue
Phoenix, Arizona 85003
(602) 234-9775
Michele M. Iafrate, #015115
miafrate@iafratelaw.com
WILLIAM G. MONTGOMERY
MARICOPA COUNTY ATTORNEY
By Thomas P. Liddy
State Bar No. 019384
Deputy County Attorney
MCAO Firm No. 00032000
liddyt@mcao.maricopa.gov
CIVIL SERVICES DIVISION
Security Center Building
222 North Central Avenue, Suite 1100
Phoenix, Arizona 85004
Telephone (602) 506-8541
Attorneys for Defendants Joseph M. Arpaio and
Maricopa County Sheriffs Office
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

13
14

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Manuel de Jesus Ortega Melendres, et al.

15
16
17
18
19
20

Plaintiffs,
vs.
Joseph M. Arpaio, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

NO. CV07-02513-PHX-GMS
DEFENDANT JOSEPH M.
ARPAIO AND MARICOPA
COUNTY SHERIFFS OFFICES
MOTION FOR DETERMINATION
OF COUNSEL

Pursuant to Rule 7(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Defendants Sheriff

21

Arpaio and the Maricopa County Sheriffs Office (Defendants), move for a

22

determination of counsel for the Court ordered December 4, 2014 hearing (Doc.

23

795) later revised by the Court (Doc. 797). Defendants support their Motion with the

24

attached Memorandum of Points and Authorities.

1

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 806 Filed 12/01/14 Page 2 of 5

1
2

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

I.

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

BACKGROUND
At the November 20, 2014 hearing, this Court indicated its willingness to

pursue civil and/or criminal contempt against Sheriff Arpaio, the Maricopa County
Sheriffs Office, and/or the MCSOs members in connection with implementing the
Courts Orders. The Court further scheduled the December 4, 2014 hearing to
investigate the matter. (Docs. 795 and 797).
II.

LAW AND ARGUMENT

A.

Scope of Representation

As a basis for the December 4, 2014 evidentiary hearing, the Court mentioned

12

both civil and criminal contempt at the November 20, 2014 hearing. The Court

13

issued its Order regarding the hearing (Doc. 795) and then modified the Order,

14

specifically requesting that a representative of the United States Attorneys Office

15

attend. (Doc. 797).

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

Should the Court pursue criminal contempt or a criminal investigation, Sheriff

Arpaio, the Maricopa County Sheriffs Office, and the MCSO members are entitled
to criminal defense counsel. Undersigned counsel was retained through the
Maricopa County Attorney, William Montgomery for civil representation only.
Arizona Revised Statutes define Mr. Montgomerys powers and duties. A.R.S
11-532. Mr. Montgomerys powers and duties include, inter alia, being the public
prosecutor for criminal proceedings and providing civil legal services to county
employees and agencies. (See A.R.S. 11-532 attached as Exhibit 1). Mr.

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 806 Filed 12/01/14 Page 3 of 5

Montgomery does not have the power to defend a criminal investigation or criminal

contempt. Because Mr. Montgomery does not have this authority, likewise

undersigned counsel does not have this power. Undersigned counsel was retained

4
5
6
7
8
9

as lead counsel in this matter on November 21, 2014. (See attached Exhibit 2).
The representation powers and duties are set forth in the agreement between
Maricopa County and Iafrate & Associates. (See attached Exhibit 3). These powers
and duties likewise do not include the ability to defend clients in criminal contempt
proceedings or criminal investigations.
If the Court intends to pursue criminal contempt proceedings or a criminal

10
11

investigation, the individuals should receive full constitutional protections. See Hicks

12

v. Feiock, 485 U.S. 624, 632 (1988). These protections include:

The right to be advised of the charges the right to a disinterested
prosecutor, the right to assistance of counsel, a presumption of
innocence, proof beyond a reasonable doubt, the privilege against
self-incrimination, the right to cross-examine witnesses, the
opportunity to present a defense and call witnesses, and the right to
a jury trial if the fine or sentence imposed will be serious.

13
14
15
16
17

F.J. Hanshaw Enterprises, Inc. v. Emerald River Dev., Inc., 244 F.3d 1128, 1139 (9th

18

Cir. 2001)(emphasis added). Because undersigned counsel cannot assist Sheriff

19

Arpaio, the Maricopa County Sheriffs Office, and the MCSO members, the Court

20

should make a determination as to counsel prior to the December 4, 2014 hearing.

21

///

22

///

23
24

///
///
3

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 806 Filed 12/01/14 Page 4 of 5

1
2
3
4
5

III.

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Sheriff Arpaio and the Maricopa County Sheriffs

Office respectfully request the Court to make a determination as to counsel prior to

the December 4, 2014 hearing.
DATED this 1st day of December, 2014

IAFRATE & ASSOCIATES

7
8

By:

9
10
11

s/Michele M. Iafrate
Michele M. Iafrate
Attorney for Defendants Joseph M.
Arpaio and Maricopa County Sheriffs
Office

MARICOPA COUNTY ATTORNEY

CIVIL SERVICES DIVISION

12
13
14

By:

15
16
17

s/Thomas P. Liddy (w/permission)

Thomas P. Liddy
Attorney for Defendants Joseph M.
Arpaio and Maricopa County Sheriffs
Office

18
19
20
21
22
23
24

ORIGINAL of the foregoing e-filed

this 1st day of December, with:
Clerk of the Court
United States District Court
Sandra Day O'Connor U.S. Courthouse
401 W. Washington Street, Suite 130, SPC 1
Phoenix, Arizona 85003
COPIES of the foregoing e-mailed/and or mailed
this 1st day of December, to:
4

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 806 Filed 12/01/14 Page 5 of 5

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

Honorable G. Murray Snow

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Sandra Day O'Connor U.S. Courthouse
401 W. Washington St., Ste. 622, SPC 80
Phoenix, Arizona 85003
Stanley Young
Covington & Burling
333 Twin Dolphin Road
Redwood Shores, California 94065
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Daniel J. Pochoda
ACLU Foundation of Arizona
3707 North 7th Street, Ste. 235
Phoenix, Arizona 85014
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Cecillia Wang
ACLU Immigrants Rights Project
39 Drumm Street
San Francisco, California 94111
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Andre Segura
ACLU Immigrants Rights Project
125 Broad Street, 18th Floor
New York, New York 10004
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Anne Lai
University of California
Irvine School of Law-Immigrant Rights Clinic
401 E. Peltason Drive, Ste. 3500
Irvine, California 92616
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Jorge M. Castillo
MALDEF
634 S. Spring Street, 11th Floor
Los Angeles, California 90014
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
By:

s/Jill Lafornara
5

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 806-1 Filed 12/01/14 Page 1 of 24

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 806-1 Filed 12/01/14 Page 2 of 24

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 806-1 Filed 12/01/14 Page 3 of 24

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 806-1 Filed 12/01/14 Page 4 of 24

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 806-1 Filed 12/01/14 Page 5 of 24

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 806-1 Filed 12/01/14 Page 6 of 24

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 806-1 Filed 12/01/14 Page 7 of 24

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 806-1 Filed 12/01/14 Page 8 of 24

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 806-1 Filed 12/01/14 Page 9 of 24

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 806-1 Filed 12/01/14 Page 10 of 24

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 806-1 Filed 12/01/14 Page 11 of 24

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 806-1 Filed 12/01/14 Page 12 of 24

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 806-1 Filed 12/01/14 Page 13 of 24

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 806-1 Filed 12/01/14 Page 14 of 24

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 806-1 Filed 12/01/14 Page 15 of 24

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 806-1 Filed 12/01/14 Page 16 of 24

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 806-1 Filed 12/01/14 Page 17 of 24

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 806-1 Filed 12/01/14 Page 18 of 24

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 806-1 Filed 12/01/14 Page 19 of 24

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 806-1 Filed 12/01/14 Page 20 of 24

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 806-1 Filed 12/01/14 Page 21 of 24

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 806-1 Filed 12/01/14 Page 22 of 24

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 806-1 Filed 12/01/14 Page 23 of 24

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 806-1 Filed 12/01/14 Page 24 of 24

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 806-2 Filed 12/01/14 Page 1 of 1

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Manuel de Jesus Ortega Melendres, et al.

Plaintiffs,

10

vs.

11

Joseph M. Arpaio, et al.,

12
13
14
15
16
17
18

Defendants.

) NO. CV07-02513-PHX-GMS
)
)
)
) ORDER
)
)
)
)

This Court having considered Defendants Joseph M. Arpaio and Maricopa

County Sheriffs Offices Motion for Determination of Counsel and good cause
appearing;
IT IS ORDERED granting Defendant Joseph M. Arpaio and Maricopa County
Sheriffs Offices Motion for Determination of Counsel.

19
20
21
22
23
24